1. SDG 4.1.1: Education proficiency

This chapter examines challenges and opportunities relating to alignment, measurement and use of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 4.1.1 (education proficiency levels) in development co-operation from a global perspective and from the perspective of two case study countries: Ethiopia and Myanmar.

While data availability for the SDG indicator is growing, its inclusion in country- and sector-level results frameworks is still weak. Instead, most frameworks still emphasise schooling access as the key measure of performance with learning outcomes progressively gaining attention as education policies are updated.

The chapter also shows that development co-operation providers are lagging behind in aligning their corporate and country-level results frameworks to SDG 4.1.1.

To address these challenges, this chapter recommends that development co-operation providers join forces to support partner country efforts in implementing the cross-national assessments necessary to produce internationally comparable data for SDG 4.1.1.

    

Introduction

This chapter generates comparative evidence, analysis and good practice examples of how development co-operation providers and partners can concretely use the SDG framework as an entry point for co-ordinating around, investing in and using country-led results frameworks and data, which are aligned to the SDGs from both a technical/methodological and an organisational/political perspective.1

Specifically, this chapter examines challenges and opportunities relating to the alignment, measurement and use of SDG 4.1.1 on proficiency levels at primary and lower secondary education, from a global perspective and from the perspective of two case study countries: Ethiopia and Myanmar. The chapter starts with a presentation of the global profile of Indicator 4.1.1, setting out the current global context for measurement of SDG 4.1.1, then provides a detailed analysis of the extent to which development co-operation providers have aligned to this indicator in their corporate results frameworks. Section 1.3 provides an analysis of the challenges and opportunities related to alignment, measurement and data use in relation to SDG 4.1.1 in Ethiopia and Myanmar. Two annexes present the country contexts and an assessment of results indicators.

Recommendations

Providers could consider the following:

At partner country level:

• Providers could pool forces to support partner country efforts in implementing the cross-national assessments necessary to produce internationally comparable data for Indicator 4.1.1.

• Providers should consider ensuring that indicators monitoring student proficiency measure achievement at the same educational levels as Indicator 4.1.1 and/or the partner country’s national development plan/education sector strategy.

At corporate level:

• Providers should consider including indicators to measure student learning and proficiency in corporate and country-level results frameworks whenever possible – speeding up the transition from the MDG to the SDG agenda in the education sector.

• However, providers should ensure that a national or cross-national learning assessment is in place and able to produce robust data for the subject and grade level of interest, before including a learning/proficiency indicator in their country-level results framework.

• As a rule to prevent proliferation of indicators, and where this aligns to the partner country approach, providers should consider using and harmonising around the thematic/complementary indicators for SDG Target 4.1 in both corporate and country-level results frameworks.

SDG Indicator 4.1.1 – Global profile

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.

• Minimum proficiency in mathematics, by education level and sex (%).

• Minimum proficiency in reading, by education level and sex (%).

Global SDG measurement and reporting

Motivated by the significant achievements in expanding access to education since 2000 against the education-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the international community placed greater emphasis on learning outcomes and lifelong learning in the 2015 Incheon Declaration (WEF, 2015[1]). This evolution was reflected in the new SDG on education and, to a greater extent,2 guided the priority results monitored under SDG 4. SDG Indicator 4.1.1 places the focus on learning outcomes (quality) along three points in time across the educational cycle: 1) early grades; 2) end of primary education; 3) end of lower secondary education.3

The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute of Statistics (UIS) (UNESCO, 2018[2]) is the custodian agency for most of the SDG 4 global indicators, including 4.1.1, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a partner agency.4 The UIS is co-ordinating efforts to establish common reading and mathematics scales for all three points of Indicator 4.1.1, building on the existing cross-national assessments. These cross-national assessments are used to assess student proficiency for early grades (4.1.1a), end of primary (4.1.1b) and end of lower secondary (4.1.1c). Currently, most of the available data against Indicator 4.1.1 come from the following cross-national assessments:

• Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading test

• Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

• Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

• Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ)

• Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (TERCE).5

As of 2019, 137 countries had reported complete or partial data for Indicator 4.1.1: 94 countries report data for 4.1.1a; 69 countries report data for 4.1.1b; and 100 countries report data for 4.1.1c.

Figure 1.1. Global availability of SDG Indicator 4.1.1 data

Number of countries, by indicator component and type of assessment

Source: UNESCO UIS (2019[3]), Data for the Sustainable Development Goals, http://uis.unesco.org.

Many countries administer their own national learning assessments. However, it is not possible currently to derive internationally comparable data for Indicator 4.1.1 from most national assessments, as countries set their own standards (UN Statistical Commission, 2016[4]). The UIS is currently preparing a Global Framework for reading and mathematics and developing approaches for equating or linking the data from certain national assessments to this framework. However, it is unlikely that measurements from these equating/linking exercises will be available to inform reporting on Indicator 4.1.1 for all countries for several years. Parallel to these efforts, there is increasing demand from countries to participate in cross-national assessments, and this is indeed the quickest route to expanding global coverage of the indicators in the medium and long term.

At present, data gaps for 4.1.1a, 4.1.1b or 4.1.1c concentrate in particular regions, are more pronounced in lower middle and low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Out of the three sub-indicators, Indicator 4.1.1a presents the most significant limitations in data availability.6 UNESCO-UIS is leading an ongoing data-collection process, at the time of writing with a data release due in February 2019 (UN Statistical Commission, 2018[5]).7

Additional thematic indicators complement current measurement of SDG 4.1.1 to cover the full extent of the SDG target, and to build on available alternative data (see Box 1.1).

Box 1.1. Other thematic indicators complement SDG 4.1.1 measurement

The Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 2016[6]) introduced six additional thematic indicators related to Target 4.1. These indicators should be viewed as complementary to Indicator 4.1.1 and are necessary to reflect the entirety of the concepts included in Target 4.1. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics maintains a data repository for these additional indicators (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2018[7]). Data for these thematic indicators re generally available, although availability varies greatly among these thematic indicators (UNESCO UIS, 2019[3]).The percentage of data that is available globally against each indicator is given in parenthesis:

• 4.1.2: Administration of a nationally representative learning assessment in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics (47.1%)

• 4.1.3: Gross intake ratio to the last grade (19.3%)

• 4.1.4: Completion rate (4.7%)

• 4.1.5: Out-of-school rate (0.5%)

• 4.1.6: Percentage of children over-age for grade (13.2%)

• 4.1.7: Number of years of (a) free and (b) compulsory primary and secondary education guaranteed in legal frameworks (61.3%).

Alignment of the corporate results frameworks of development co-operation providers to SDG 4.1.1

In general, very few of the 14 assessed providers include corporate or country-level indicators measuring student proficiency.8 At the corporate level, only two providers (New Zealand and the United States) use standard indicators that measure student proficiency (Tier I),9 albeit only at one single education level each as opposed to the three different levels included in Indicator 4.1.1. The European Union (EU) has a standard corporate indicator for youth literacy. Most corporate indicators are sex-disaggregated.

Most donors favour indicators related to education access, such as enrolment, completion and retention at the outcome level, while the most common output (Tier 2) corporate-level indicator measures the number of students supported by the provider. This approach reflects a prioritisation of concerns about expanding access to education over quality concerns, reflecting legacy effects of the related MDG target.10

Table 1.1. Summary of indicator analysis: Extent of alignment of development co-operation provider indicators to SDG Indicator 4.1.1
Providers: Corporate results frameworks	Number of indicators
Total no. of provider indicators at corporate level linked or aligned to SDG 4.1.1	34
No. of corporate outcome indicators	18 (53%)
No. of corporate outcome indicators that are a direct match with one of the sub-indicators of SDG Indicator 4.1.1	2 (11%)
No. of indicators referring to enrolment	6 (33%)
No. of indicators referring to completion	5 (28%)
No. of corporate outcome indicators that apply sex disaggregation	9 (50%)
No. of corporate output indicators	16 (47%)
No. of corporate output indicators that are a direct match with one of the sub-indicators of SDG Indicator 4.1.1 (measuring numbers rather than proportion)	0 (0%)
No. of corporate output indicators that refer to enrolment numbers	3 (19%)
No. of corporate output indicators that refer to completion numbers	2 (12%)
No. of corporate output indicators that apply sex disaggregation	11 (69%)
Note: Number of assessed providers: 14.
Source: See in Annex 1.B for source data and detailed performance per provider.

Country-level analysis: Alignment, measurement and use by partners and providers

This section analyses challenges and opportunities related to alignment, measurement and data use in relation to SDG 4.1.1 in Ethiopia and Myanmar. Analysis is based on fieldwork and desk-based research and looks at the partner country government and development co-operation contexts. For background on the overall situation with regards to SDG implementation and the institutional set-up, refer to Annex 1.A.

Alignment to SDG 4.1.1 in Ethiopia and Myanmar

Country alignment to SDG 4.1.1 is still weak in both countries

In Ethiopia, national development is managed by a series of growth and transformation plans (GTPs). The current GTP II (2015/16-2019/20) (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2016[8]), which was prepared concurrently to the negotiation of the global SDG framework and includes several thematic indicators related to SDG 4, is not aligned to SDG 4.1.1, as it misses any indicators to measure student proficiency. It instead focuses on enrolment, completion, dropout and repetition rates at several educational levels (see Annex 1.B).

Ethiopia’s Education Sector Development Program (ESDP) V (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2016[9]) (2015/16/-2019/20) is better aligned to Indicator 4.1.1, with increased focus in the education sector on equity and quality – though metrics still largely focus on access. In addition to measuring enrolment, completion, survival, dropout and repetition rates, the ESDP also includes indicators to measure school quality and student proficiency in both reading and mathematics (Annex Table 1.A.2). However, proficiency is determined through national learning assessments rather than cross-national assessments, precluding international reporting against Indicator 4.1.1. The government is planning to increase alignment with the SDGs in the next iteration of the sector programme.

Ethiopia’s Education Management Information System (EMIS) relies on extensive data collection at school and woreda (district) levels. Quality and reliability of the data collected remains a challenge and the government is committed to increase data quality through investing in the EMIS.

In Myanmar, the national development plan (Myanmar’s Sustainable Development Plan, MSDP) is not yet available for analysis, but will be aligned to the SDGs. The new MSDP, under Goal 4 (human resources and social development for a 21st century society), Strategy 4.1 (improve equitable access to high-quality lifelong educational opportunities) includes 10 action plans, among which 4.1.3 aims to “expand access to infrastructures necessary to enable access to education, ensuring gender and disability-sensitive services”. For this action plan, the MSDP identifies SDGs 4.a11 and 4.1 as directly relevant. Yet, Indicator 4.1.1 is not yet measurable in Myanmar (Myanmar Central Statistical Organization and UNDP, 2018[10]).

Myanmar’s National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) 2016-21 (Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2016[11]) sets outcome goals for 2021, but does not include any indicators to measure these outcomes and none of the delineated outcomes mention student proficiency.

Efforts are being made to increase alignment in the coming years. A National Strategy for the Development of Education Statistics (NSDES 2019-2023) is being developed by the Ministry of Education with the support of the UIS to align the national and sector plans with SDG 4. It reports SDG 4.1.1 as national indicator. The NSDES also provides a medium-term vision for a robust education data system and data management platform in the country: the National Education Statistics System (NESS). The NESS is to include four main data sources: 1) learning outcomes data; 2) administrative data; 3) survey data; and 4) finance data.

The Ministry of Education is also in the process of developing a National Education Indicator Framework (NIF) to provide data against the NESP and SDG 4. The NIF will include a comprehensive list of indicators, which monitor the national education situation, and produce regionally and internationally comparable indicators as required for SDG 4. The NIF is further meant to identify data gaps and to provide guidance on data generation. Myanmar has identified 49 indicators for the NIF, 11 of which are global indicators and 29 of which are thematic. The rest are additional indicators needed to monitor the education sector in the country. In relation to 4.1.1, the NIF includes the following two indicators:

• percentage of children/young people in grade 2/3, at the end of primary and at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in reading and mathematics

• existence of a nationally representative learning assessment in the early grades of primary (2/3), at the end of primary and at the end of lower secondary.

Table 1.2. SDG 4.1.1 partner country alignment
	Ethiopia	Myanmar
National plan aligned to SDG 4.1.1?	No. National plan (GTP II) does not include any indicators to measure student proficiency.	Partially. National plan (MSDP) identifies SDGs 4.a and 4.1 as directly relevant. Yet, Indicator 4.1.1 is not yet measurable.
Education sector plan aligned to SDG 4.1.1?	Yes. Sector plan (ESDP V) includes indicators to measure student proficiency in both reading and mathematics.	Not yet. Sector plan (NESP 2016-21) does not include indicators to measure student proficiency, but steps are being taken to better align future plans.
Existence of sector-level results/M&E framework?	Yes. The EMIS relies on extensive data collection at school/district (woreda) level but quality/reliability are a challenge.	Not yet. The new plan (NSDES) and National Indicator Framework are being developed.
SDG 4.1.1 data availability	Limited. Proficiency is determined through national learning assessments only.	No. Only sample-based assessments are planned.
Source: Authors’ analysis. See Annex 1.B.

Development co-operation providers have yet to align their country results frameworks to SDG 4.1.1

In addition to the above standard corporate-level indicators, development co-operation providers have developed additional results framework indicators for their country-level strategies for Ethiopia and Myanmar or sectoral strategies for education. Yet, alignment of their country-level results frameworks to SDG 4.1.1 has not yet taken place.

In Ethiopia, none of the 59 outcome/output-level indicators that providers use in the results frameworks of their country assistance strategies is fully aligned to 4.1.1. Five providers out of 11 (45%) include indicators that measure student proficiency or competency, but they diverge with 4.1.1 in the grade level at which proficiency is being measured, the assessed competency or the targeted institutions. Four of these five providers specify that proficiency/competency is measured by national learning assessments.12 Many providers use additional indicators that are less aligned to SDG 4.1.1 and relate to enrolment, completion, dropout, survival and/or repletion rates, and the number of children enrolled in school or out of school. Alignment with national indicators is uneven: less than a third of the providers’ outcome indicators are a direct match with national or sector plans (15 out of 51 indicators). A five-donor pooled fund managed by the World Bank is particularly well aligned to government results indicators. Finally, a majority of indicators are disaggregated by gender, yet this is not systematic.

In Myanmar, only the Asian Development Bank has an indicator in its country assistance strategy that measures student proficiency, though it is not aligned with 4.1.1. Finland and the World Bank each have an indicator for the administration of an education assessment in primary school. Most outcome indicators refer to enrolment and completion. At the output level, four providers measure the number of students benefiting from their educational intervention(s). All outcome (Tier I) indicators are disaggregated by gender and some output (Tier II) indicators are as well.

Table 1.3. Summary of indicator analysis: Extent of country assistance strategy alignment to government and SDG indicators for educational attainment
Providers: Country Assistance Strategies*	Ethiopia	Myanmar
Total no. of provider indicators at country level linked or aligned to SDG 4.1.1	59	16
No. of country-level outcome indicators	51	8
No. of country-level outcome indicators that are a direct match with one or more of the sub-indicators of SDG Indicator 4.1.1	0	0
No. of country-level outcome indicators that are a direct match with national or sector plan strategy indicators	National: 7 Sector: 8	National: 4
No. of country-level output indicators	25	8
No. of corporate output indicators that are a direct match with one or more of the sub-indicators of SDG Indicator 4.1.1 (measuring numbers rather than proportion)	0	0
No. of country-level output indicators that are a direct match with national or sector plan strategy indicators	N/A	N/A
No. of providers	11**	10***
See Annex 1.B for source data.
** Including Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea with no defined indicator at country level.
*** Including Denmark, the EU, Germany, Japan and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework with no defined indicators at country level.

Measurement and use of SDG 4.1.1 data in Ethiopia and Myanmar

Measurement of learning outcomes in both countries has yet to be aligned with international standards

Neither Ethiopia nor Myanmar currently administer any of the cross-national assessments necessary to report against Indicator 4.1.1.13 Learning outcome data for these two countries are therefore not internationally comparable. The OECD’s PISA for Development initiative aims to increase the use of PISA assessments in middle- and low-income countries to monitor educational outcomes, including for monitoring progress on Indicator 4.1.1 (OECD, 2018[12]). Ethiopia and Myanmar currently do not participate, although both have expressed interest in joining future cycles of PISA.

In Ethiopia, country-specific measurement of learning outcomes is well established, but the coverage and use of the resulting data could be boosted

In Ethiopia, the government’s current focus is on expanding to also include and assess education quality, but progress is needed to catch up with the evolution in priorities, and to monitor and measure learning outcomes better. At present, two types of national assessments are conducted: 1) the National Learning Assessment (NLA) (twice yearly – alternating grades); and 2) the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) (twice yearly - administered by the Ministry of Education, previously by USAID).

The effectiveness of these national assessments on education in Ethiopia can be improved. In particular, issues related to coverage (e.g. language diversity) and quality still need to be addressed. Similarly, and within the context of the “leave no one behind” agenda, more focus is needed to ensure disaggregated data from learning assessments (NLA and EGRA) are available in various locally relevant disaggregation levels and used to strengthen equity. This requires more sophisticated and integrated (system-level) instruments capable of providing disaggregated results data and of comprehensively mapping the distribution of learning outcomes across the country.

To increase use, more also needs to be done to strengthen the feedback loop between the federal and the subnational levels regarding education policy planning and budgeting, implementation (subnational), and results measurement and analysis (both). Supporting the analysis of data produced through the EMIS will enable subnational staff at school and woreda (district) levels to use the results data they collect more effectively, for both planning and decision making. It is also essential that data are analysed and used to improve Ethiopia’s education system as a whole, as part of national policy dialogue and decision making.

Most providers working in the education sector in Ethiopia co-ordinate their support relying on an education sector working group, which provides a strong platform for evidence-based dialogue with the government. The main mechanism of development co-operation support is based on a large, multi-donor programmatic approach, the General Education Quality Improvement Programme for Equity, managed by the World Bank and supported by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, Finland and UNICEF, among others. The programme covers both access and quality concerns, and alignment to national and sector results is at outcome level, while relying on joint monitoring and measurement approaches for the programme.

Nevertheless, beyond that specific programmatic approach, there is a certain proliferation of heterogeneous output- and outcome-level indicators included in the country-level results frameworks of the 11 providers working in the education sector. In most cases, the indicators do not find a match with partner country’s targeted results, and require parallel monitoring arrangements to gather the necessary results data related to the supported intervention(s) (see Table 1.3). None of the 11 providers had included the SDG indicator in their country-level results frameworks as of December 2018, although some cover certain aspects of 4.1.1 as part of their sets of indicators.

Facilitated by well co-ordinated provider support, Myanmar’s current reforms aim to address gaps in availability and use of results data – and to align to the SDG indicator in the medium term

In Myanmar, the government is also increasing the focus on learning outcomes, after much progress in improving access.14 Gross enrolment rates have grown in recent years, with very high gross enrolment for primary education, and enrolment in secondary education increasing from 45.5% to 64.1% since 2005; with equal male-female enrolment rates for all grades, and higher enrolment rates of women in universities (19% female students vs. 13% male students) (UNESCO UIS, 2019[3]). While progress in expanding access to education was encouraging, inclusion across the territory, dropout rates before end of middle school and learning outcomes are still an issue (World Bank, 2018[13]). Concerns about quality and effectiveness of education provision were reflected in the parliamentary approval of the National Education Law in 2014, and its subsequent amendments (MoE, 2016[14]).

To improve the measurement of learning outcomes, Myanmar is reforming student assessments and examinations as one of the main focus areas of the NESP 2016-21. The strategic plan includes increasing developing classroom and school monitoring mechanisms, supported by enhanced staff capacities and underlying information systems (MoE, 2016[14]): 37).15 The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) and the Early Grade Math Assessment (EGMA) will be rolled out nationally, with the support of the Global Partnership for Education. This will allow the Ministry of Education to centrally track achievements regarding grade 5, grade 9 and end-of-high school completion exams, and to perform national sample-based assessments. Such assessments are expected to provide useful evidence about the level of student achievement nationally. Yet, it is not clear whether data from sample-based assessments will provide internationally comparable data that can be used to track 4.1.1. Other concerns include the risk of fragmentation of proficiency measures16 as well as linguistic limitations that can affect the EGRA and EGMA in a country with around 90 minority languages.

The ten providers supporting Myanmar’s education sector are articulated by sector-wide co-ordination mechanisms, relying on programme-based approaches that help promote a certain degree of harmonisation in measurement practices.17 The UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator manages the Myanmar Information Management Unit (MIMU), which maintains a common database with various indicators from different sources (MIMU, n.d.[15])_]. The MIMU database includes data on: literacy rate; proportion of the population with access to a primary/secondary school; primary/middle/high/secondary school enrolment ratio; primary school completion rate; proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5; and number of primary/middle/high school students. The most recent data available range from 2010 to 2016. However, as the assessment of learning outcomes in Myanmar is a work in progress, as of 2019 the provider-supported MIMU database does not yet contain indicators related to learning.

Myanmar is creating positive conditions for an increased use of harmonised measurement of results around learning outcomes, supported by the government’s ongoing reforms, its sector and statistical strategies in the education sector, and the co-ordinated behaviour of providers operating in the sector. Nevertheless, reliance on an international SDG-based comparable indicator is still a (far) end goal, and development co-operation investments in building sustainable statistical capacity in the education sector are very limited.18

Visualising the results chain for 4.1.1 in Ethiopia and Myanmar

This section presents the available data against development and development co-operation indicators in each case study country and summarises provider corporate results reporting practices. Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 use the OECD-DAC Results Community’s three-tiered results framework to present available results data that the research team was able to source19 for SDG and SDG-similar indicators in Ethiopia and Myanmar that are linked to Indicator 4.1.1.20 Indicators from the above tables for which results data from 2015 or more recent years were available were included on the figures.

With the exception of some enrolment rates, results data were not available for most national development and sector plan indicators in Ethiopia. In Myanmar, the national development plan was not available for analysis and the education sector plan does not include indicators, thus no results data were reported by Myanmar beyond the MIMU data mentioned above.

In addition to the country-level results data illustrated below, the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, EU, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and the World Bank Group publish aggregate global results at the corporate level in annual reports or online results databases for at least one indicator linked to SDG 4.1.1.

Figure 1.2. Ethiopia: Development co-operation in education

Figure 1.3. Myanmar: Development co-operation in education

Conclusions

The negotiations and definition of SDG 4 placed greater emphasis on educational quality given the progress achieved up to 2015 in increasing access to primary education worldwide. The global measurement of SDG 4.1.1 builds on existing international assessments of proficiency and learning outcomes and seeks to incorporate national assessments, where appropriate, on a global scale aligned to the international assessments. A complex SDG indicator was required to adequately assess and compare internationally progress on reading and maths skills for boys and girls over the educational cycle. This is done at three different points in time (early grades, end of primary school, end of secondary school), and the SDG indicator requires six different sub-measures to be fully estimated. Currently, 137 countries are able to report against SDG 4.1.1.

While international assessments and standards to measure learning outcomes exist, adoption of the related SDG indicator is still weak at country level. While Ethiopia and Myanmar are setting processes to be able to align to and monitor SDG 4.1.1, both countries have yet to adapt their national and sector results frameworks, or to overcome the limitations of their monitoring and statistical systems. Current key results indicators still place greater emphasis on schooling access and continuity – an MDG legacy – but sector reforms and planned activities in both countries seem to emphasise greater focus on learning outcomes in the medium term.

This chapter also showed that development co-operation providers are lagging behind in aligning to SDG 4.1.1, at both corporate and country-level frameworks. In working on education sector results, providers are currently using a variety of indicators that are not adequately aligned to the SDG indicator, and only partially aligned to the two partner countries’ national results frameworks (at outcome level) and its monitoring/statistical systems. Sector co-ordination mechanisms and dialogue platforms with both partner governments are well established, and some cases of programmatic approaches are helping to align and use partner countries’ results indicators; yet, providers’ specific sector priorities and results-based management practices have resulted in heterogeneous measurement approaches, which could benefit from greater harmonisation around SDG 4.1.1.

Data availability, coverage and quality are issues for all partners in both country cases, making it difficult to use the results data for policy making and resource allocation. Availability of disaggregated data is particularly critical in large multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic countries with difficult geographical features – particularly for service delivery administered at local and subnational levels. Yet, partner governments may have political disincentives to expand data coverage or produce disaggregated data that could lead to societal grievances. And many of the assessed providers, despite their significant investments in the education sector, have not prioritised investments in building statistical capacity in the education sector beyond the boundaries of their interventions, contributing to fragmentation and inefficiencies in results measurement and use.

Current efforts by partner country governments and providers to prioritise education quality dimensions at strategic level, coupled with the pending transition from MDG to SDG indicators, can serve to motivate sector-wide dialogue around results. It can also foster joined-up measurement approaches that generate the level of data disaggregation on learning outcomes, which is particularly required in countries with rich ethnic and linguistic diversity, and with significant regional disparities.

References

[18] Engberg-Pedersen, P. and R. Zwart (2018), “The 2030 Agenda and Development Co-operation Results”, OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 9, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2f391534-en.

[17] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2017), The 2017 Voluntary National Reviews on SDGs of Ethiopia: Government Commitments, National Ownership and Performance Trends, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/16437Ethiopia.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2018).

[9] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2016), Education Sector Plan 2016-2020: Ethiopia, Federal Ministry of Education, Adis Ababa, https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/education-sector-plan-2016-2020-ethiopia (accessed on 10 October 2018).

[8] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2016), Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II), National Planning Commission, Addis Ababa, https://ethiopia.un.org/en/15231-growth-and-transformation-plan-ii (accessed on 12 July 2018).

[11] Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (2016), National Education Strategic Plan 2016-21, Ministry of Education, Nay Pyi Taw, http://themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/Core_Doc_National_Education_Strategic_Plan_2016-21.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2018).

[15] MIMU (n.d.), Myanmar Information Management Unit: Education Sector, http://themimu.info/sector/education (accessed on 6 March 2019).

[14] MoE (2016), National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) 2016-21, Ministry of Education (Myanmar), Naypyidaw, http://www.moe-st.gov.mm/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NESP_20Summary_20-_20English_20-_20Final_20-_20Feb_2023.pdf.

[10] Myanmar Central Statistical Organization and UNDP (2018), Development of an Indicator Framework for Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan (MSDP) - Report on the Mapping of Existing Indicators.

[12] OECD (2018), PISA for Development, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-for-development (accessed on 7 December 2018).

[16] UN DESA (2016), Metadata Indicator 4.1.1, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-04-01-01.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2018).

[5] UN Statistical Commission (2018), SDG 4.1.1 (subindicator a) - Metadata, United Nations, New York, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-04-01-01A.pdf.

[4] UN Statistical Commission (2016), SDG 4.1.1 (subindicators b and c), United Nations, New York, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-04-01-01BC.pdf.

[2] UNESCO (2018), UNESCO UIS, http://uis.unesco.org/ (accessed on 7 December 2018).

[6] UNESCO (2016), Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656e.pdf (accessed on 7 December 2018).

[7] UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2018), Sustainable Development Goal 4, http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/sustainable-development-goal-4?page=1 (accessed on 7 December 2018).

[3] UNESCO UIS (2019), Data for the Sustainable Development Goals, http://uis.unesco.org (accessed on 6 March 2019).

[1] WEF (2015), Incheon Declaration: Education 2030 – Towards Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Lifelong Learning for All, World Education Forum, Incheon, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233137.

[13] World Bank (2018), Myanmar: Decentralizing Funding to Schools, World Bank, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/767591550129655680/pdf/PAD1782-PJPR-PUBLIC-Project-paper-Myanmar-AF-DFSP-P157231-12-04-2018-for-printing.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2019).

Annex 1.A. Country profiles for SDG 4: Education proficiency

The tables presented in this annex are based on detailed “indicator inventory” spreadsheets which have been compiled for each case study SDG (tracking indicators and any data against them). The spreadsheets are based on extensive web-based research and consultation with development co-operation providers and partners, as well as verification in the field. The objective was to identify SDG-aligned or SDG-like indicators used by partners and/or providers, and any data against these. A detailed set of criteria or rules were used for identifying indicators which were considered SDG-aligned or SDG-like.

At corporate level, all Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member and multilateral development bank providers which are known to have adopted standard indicator sets,21 and have indicators in the relevant sectors, are included. At country level, the following providers are included:

• The United Nations via United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) indicators; UN agencies were included in aggregate rather than each individual UN agency being considered separately – except for Myanmar, where there is no current UNDAF. Instead United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicators and results were included. UNICEF is an active provider in the education sector.

• The World Bank Group and relevant regional multilateral development finance institution (i.e. African Development Bank or Asian Development Bank as applicable).

• The case study donor focal point.

• The top three DAC providers of aggregate bilateral official development assistance (ODA) disbursements to the partner country in that sector in 2016.

• The top three DAC providers of aggregate bilateral ODA disbursements to the partner country in that sub-sector in 2016, if different from above (e.g. for Indicator 4.1.1, the top three providers of bilateral ODA in the primary and secondary education subsector in Ethiopia in 2016).

• Additional DAC bilateral providers are included for analysis even if they are not one of the top three providers of bilateral ODA to the partner country in that sector/sub-sector if the provider has prioritised that sector in their development co-operation strategy for that partner country. For example, although Norway is not one of the top three providers of bilateral education ODA in Ethiopia, it is included for analysis, because Norway has prioritised the education sector in its development co-operation strategy for Ethiopia. This approach allows for inclusion of smaller providers who are relatively active in a particular sector and partner country, despite their lower ODA outflows.

Annex Figure 1.A.1. Ethiopia country profile for SDG 4

Annex Figure 1.A.2. Ethiopia country profile for SDG 4 (continued)

Annex Figure 1.A.3. Myanmar country profile for SDG 4

Annex Figure 1.A.4. Myanmar country profile for SDG 4 (continued)

Indicator tables for SDG 4: Education proficiency

The tables presented in this annex are based on detailed “indicator inventory” spreadsheets which have been compiled for each case study SDG (tracking indicators and any data against them). The spreadsheets are based on extensive web-based research and consultation with development co-operation providers and partners, as well as verification in the field. The objective was to identify SDG-aligned or SDG-like indicators used by partners and/or providers, and any data against these. A detailed set of criteria or rules were used for identifying indicators which were considered SDG-aligned or SDG-like. The spreadsheets are considered a working document, but there is potential to make the inventories publicly available. The OECD Secretariat is therefore grateful for validation of and feedback on the data presented here. Links are provided to the source of the indicator in the left-hand column.

At corporate level, all Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member and multilateral development bank providers which are known to have adopted standard indicator sets,22 and have indicators in the relevant sectors, are included. At country level, the following providers are included:

• The United Nations via United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) indicators; UN agencies were included in aggregate rather than each individual UN agency being considered separately – except for Myanmar, where there is no current UNDAF. Instead United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicators and results were included. UNICEF is an active provider in the education sector.

• The World Bank Group and relevant regional multilateral development finance institution (i.e. African Development Bank or Asian Development Bank as applicable).

• The case study donor focal point.

• The top three DAC providers of aggregate bilateral official development assistance (ODA) disbursements to the partner country in that sector in 2016.

• The top three DAC providers of aggregate bilateral ODA disbursements to the partner country in that sub-sector in 2016, if different from above (e.g. for Indicator 4.1.1, the top three providers of bilateral ODA in the primary and secondary education subsector in Ethiopia in 2016).

• Additional DAC bilateral providers are included for analysis even if they are not one of the top three providers of bilateral ODA to the partner country in that sector/sub-sector if the provider has prioritised that sector in their development co-operation strategy for that partner country. For example, although Norway is not one of the top three providers of bilateral education ODA in Ethiopia, it is included for analysis, because Norway has prioritised the education sector in its development co-operation strategy for Ethiopia. This approach allows for inclusion of smaller providers who are relatively active in a particular sector and partner country, despite their lower ODA outflows.

Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.

Annex Table 1.A.1. SDG 4.1.1 provider corporate SDG-aligned and SDG-similar indicators
Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex
Provider	Corporate outcome indicators (Tier I)	Corporate output indicators (Tier II)
Australia#	N/A	Number of additional girls and boys enrolled in school
Canada	Number of boys and girls that complete their primary and secondary education	N/A
European Commission+	Completion Primary education completion rate (M/F) Lower secondary education completion rate (M/F) Proficiency Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds (M/F)	Number of children enrolled in primary education with EU support (M/F) Number of children enrolled in secondary education with EU support (M/F)
France	Number of children enrolled in primary and secondary school (primary/secondary)	Number of children completing primary school through programmes financed by the French Development Agency (AFD)
Germany#+	N/A	The number of children and young people who have received a better quality education as a result of GIZ’s contribution
Japan#+(unpublished)	N/A	The number of children benefiting from support for education improvement
Korea#	N/A	Number of students who completed the education programme (girls, disabilities, out-of-school children)
New Zealand	Enrolment Net enrolment ratio in primary education (M/F) Net enrolment ratio in secondary education (M/F) Proficiency Children meeting regional test levels at grade 6 for literacy (No., %, M/F) Children meeting regional test levels at grade 6 for numeracy (No., %, M/F) Proportion of children and young people, in the Pacific: at the end of primary education achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in reading and mathematics (new indicator as of 2018)	N/A
Switzerland – SDC	N/A	yy children (<15 years) gained access to quality basic education (M/F) xx persons (>15 years) gained access to quality basic education (M/F) Out of these, zy children (9-15 years) received basic education combined with vocational skills development (M/F) Out of these, zx persons (>15 years) received basic education combined with vocational skills development (M/F) Out of these, zx persons (>15 years) received basic education combined with vocational skills development (M/F)
United Kingdom#	N/A	Number of children supported to gain a basic education (M/F; pre-primary/primary/secondary)
United States#	Enrolment Learners enrolled in primary schools and/or equivalent non-school based settings Learners enrolled in secondary schools and/or equivalent non-school based settings Retention Students progressed to secondary school Proficiency Children in primary grades with improved reading skills as assessed through tools such as the Annual Status of Education Reports, EGRA, etc.	Primary or secondary school learners from underserved and/or disadvantaged groups benefited from education assistance
African Development Bank#	Enrolment in education (%, F)	People benefiting from better access to education (F)
Asian Development Bank+	Gross lower secondary education graduation rate (%, M/F)	Students educated and trained under improved quality assurance systems (No., M/F)
World Bank#	Primary school completion (%, ages 15-19, bottom 40%) Primary school completion gap to average (ages 15-19)	Students reached (female)

Ethiopia

Annex Table 1.A.2. SDG 4.1.1 government of Ethiopia SDG-aligned and SDG-similar indicators
Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.
Partner	National development plan outcome indicators	National development plan output indicators
Ethiopia	Enrolment Kindergarten enrolment rate (M/F) Grade 1 gross enrolment rate (M/F) Grade 1 gross/net enrolment rate (M/F) Primary school first cycle (1-4) gross enrolment rate including AEB (M/F) Primary school first cycle (1-4) net enrolment rate (M/F) Primary school second cycle (5-8) gross/net enrolment rate (M/F) Primary school (1-8) gross enrolment rate including AEB (M/F) Primary school (1-8) net enrolment rate (M/F) Primary school (1-8) gross enrolment rate for underserved regions (Afar, Somali) Gross enrolment rate for grades 9-10 (M/F) Gross enrolment rate for grades 11-12 (M/F) Total number of students admitted to preparatory school (11-12) (ratio of girls) Completion Primary school 1st cycle 4th grade completion rate (M/F) Primary school 2nd cycle 8th grade completion rate (M/F) Primary school (1-8) completion rate (M/F) Retention Grade 1 dropout rate (M/F) Repetition Grade 8 repetition rate (M/F) Primary school 1st cycle (1-4) repetition rate (M/F) Primary school 2nd cycle (5-8) repetition rate (M/F)	Not available
Partner	Education sector plan outcome indicators	Education sector plan output indicators
Ethiopia	Enrolment Grade 1 net enrolment rate Grade 1-4, including ABE, gross enrolment rate Grade 1-4, including ABE, net enrolment rate Grade 5-8 gross enrolment rate Grade 5-8 net enrolment rate Grade 9-10 gross enrolment rate Grade 9-10 net enrolment rate Completion Completion rate to grade 8 Retention Grade 1 dropout rate Grade 1-8 dropout rate Survival rate to grade 5 Repetition Grade 1-8 repetition rate Quality Primary schools at Level 3 or above classification (%) Secondary schools at Level 3 or above classification (%) Proficiency % of grade 2 students reaching “below basic” or above proficiency in reading and comprehension by language (Afaan Oromo, Af-Somali, Amharic, Hadiyyisa, Sidaamu Afoo, Tigrinya, Wolayttatto) % of grade 2 students reaching “basic” or above proficiency in reading and comprehension by language (Afaan Oromo, Af-Somali, Amharic, Hadiyyisa, Sidaamu Afoo, Tigrinya, Wolayttatto) % of students assessed reaching basic or above proficiency in the early grade mathematics Assessment % of grade 4 students who achieve 50% and above (composite score) in the National Learning Assessment (NLA) % of grade 8 students who achieve 50% and above (composite score) in the NLA % of grade 10 students who achieve 50% and above (composite score) in the NLA % of grade 12 students who achieve 50% and above (composite score) in the NLA % of grade 10 students that score 2.0 or above (pass mark) in Ethiopian General Secondary Education Certificate % of grade 12 students that score 350 or above (pass mark) in Ethiopia Higher Education Entrance Certificate Percentage of students attaining basic competence in grade 4 reading in English Percentage of students attaining basic competence in grade 4 mathematics Percentage of students attaining basic competence in grade 8 English Percentage of students attaining basic competence in grade 8 mathematics	Not available
African Union	Outcome indicators	Output indicators
Agenda 2063	Enrolment Enrolment rate for childhood education Secondary school education enrolment rate Percentage of population receiving quality education at all levels Proficiency Literacy rate	Not available

Annex Table 1.A.3. SDG 4.1.1 provider country assistance strategy indicators SDG-aligned and SDG-similar indicators, Ethiopia
Provider	Country-level outcome indicators (Tier I)	Country-level output indicators (Tier II)
Finland	Enrolment Net enrolment rate in primary grades (5-8) (M/F) % of girls among students at first grade of secondary education (9th grade) Net enrolment rate in grades 5-8 in Afar region (M/F) Retention Grade 1 dropout rate (M/F) Survival rate to grade 5 (M/F) Quality Increased number of schools meeting inspection standards and upgraded from low performing (Level 1) (Level 1/Level2/Level 3 or 4) Teaching effectiveness index (Level 1/Level 2 schools) Proficiency % of students attaining basic or above competency in national learning assessments in grade 4 (reading) (M/F) % of students attaining basic or above competency in national learning assessments in grade 8 (English) (M/F) % of students attaining basic or above competency in national learning assessments in grade 10 (English) % of students attaining basic or above competency in national learning assessments in grade 12 (English)	Not available
Norway	Completion % of students in supported educational institutions who complete primary (M/F) % of students in supported educational institutions who complete lower secondary (M/F) No. of students in supported educational institutions who complete primary (M/F) No. of students in supported educational institutions who complete lower secondary (M/F) Retention % of students enrolled in supported learning institutions that remain in the learning institution the following year (M/F) No. of students enrolled in supported learning institutions that remain in the learning institution the following year (M/F) Proficiency % of students in target educational institutions achieving minimum proficiency level in reading in grade x (M/F) No. of students in target educational institutions achieving minimum proficiency level in reading in grade x (M/F) % of students in target educational institutions achieving minimum proficiency level in mathematics in grade x (M/F) No. of students in target educational institutions achieving minimum proficiency level in mathematics in grade x (M/F)	No. of students enrolled in target educational institutions
United Kingdom	Not available	No. of children supported to gain a decent education
UNDAF	Enrolment Gross enrolment rate at pre-primary (M/F) Primary education completion rate (M/F) Net enrolment rate at primary and secondary education by gender (M/F, primary/secondary) Proficiency % of grade 4 students who score 50% or above the composite scores in the NLA (M/F) % of grade 8 students who score 50% or above the composite scores in the NLA (M/F) % of grade 10 students who score 50% or above the composite scores in the NLA (M/F)	Standardised competency-based continuous assessment system for general education in place Number of clusters implementing competency-based continuous assessment system in their catchment schools/areas Number of out-of-school children accessing primary and secondary education Proportion of emergency affected children supported to continue their education
United States	Completion Grade 8 graduation rate (M/F) Retention Percentage of students who drop out of school Dropout rates at each grade (M/F) Survival rates to grade 5 Survival rates to grade 8 Proficiency Performance on the NLA exams Nationwide literacy rates at the end of grade 2 Nationwide literacy rates at the end of grade 3 Nationwide literacy rates at the end of grade 4 Regional achievements in literacy in grade 2 Regional achievements in literacy in grade 3 Regional achievements in literacy in grade 4 Proportion of students reading English with fluency and comprehension after x years of English language instruction Percentage of learners demonstrating reading fluency and comprehension of grade level text at the end of grade 2	Learners received primary level reading interventions (M/F) Standardised learning assessments supported
African Development Bank	Enrolment Primary net enrolment rate Female primary completion rate Completion Rural primary completion rate (grade 8)	Not available
World Bank	Enrolment Primary net enrolment rate Gross enrolment rate for secondary school (grades 9-10) Completion Increased primary completion rate Proficiency % of students attaining basic competence in grade 4 reading in English % of students attaining basic competence in grade 4 mathematics % of students attaining basic competence in grade 8 English % of students attaining basic competence in grade 8 mathematics (aligns to national data)	Not available
Notes: For the United States see: https://results.usaid.gov/results/country/ethiopia and https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/CDCS_Ethiopia_December_2018r1.pdf. For the World Bank see: www.worldbank.org/en/country/ethiopia/overview#3 and http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/202771504883944180/pdf/119576-revised-Ethiopia-Country-Partnership-Web.pdf.

Myanmar

Annex Table 1.A.4. SDG 4.1.1 government of Myanmar SDG-aligned and SDG-similar indicators: National indicators
Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex
Partner country	National development plan outcome indicators	National development plan output indicators
Myanmar	All children have access to, progress through and successfully complete a quality basic education (strategic outcome 4.1.3)	Not available
Partner	Education sector plan outcome indicators	Education sector plan output indicators
Myanmar	All children, boys and girls, access primary, middle and high schools Students complete primary, middle and high school level Dropout students are supported to re-enrol and stay in school Significant improvements experienced by students in their school and classroom learning environment Improved student learning achievement through implementation of the revised basic education curriculum	Not available
Note: Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan – National Indicator Framework to be completed in 2019.

Annex Table 1.A.5. SDG 4.1.1 provider country-level assistance strategy indicators SDG-aligned and SDG-similar indicators, Myanmar
Provider	Country-level outcome indicators (Tier I)	Country-level output indicators (Tier II)
Australia	Not available	Number of students receiving stipends (% girls)
Finland	Enrolment Gross enrolment rate of students entering lower secondary school (M/F, state/region with the highest and lowest rate) Net enrolment rate of students entering lower secondary school (M/F, state/region with the highest and lowest rate) Completion Primary school completion rate (M/F, state/region with the highest and lowest rate)	Number of regions where measuring and reporting on early grade learning achievement takes place Number of students receiving payment through the Ministry of Education-led stipends programme
Asian Development Bank	Completion Share of youth aged 16-18 in poor households having completed at least lower secondary education (M/F) Share of workers aged 18-22 having completed at least lower secondary education (M/F) Proficiency Proportion of final-year upper secondary education students passing the matriculation exam (M/F)	Students benefiting from a USD 100 million loan to reform secondary education (girls).
World Bank	Not available	Students who have received stipend payments (% female) Nationally representative assessment for early grade reading performance (ERGA) in primary schools.
UNICEF	Completion Primary completion rate (by disaggregated data) Lower secondary completion rate (by disaggregated data)	Increased capacity to actively support inclusive quality education to keep children in school, helping them transit and complete quality and inclusive primary and lower secondary education. Increased capacity to provide out-of-school children aged 10-18 with alternative education at primary and lower secondary levels, and continuous learning to children in emergencies.
Notes: For Australia, from draft Performance Assessment Framework. For Finland, unpublished document.

Notes

← 1. The research for this chapter was conducted by the OECD-DAC Results team with the support of Finland and Australia as donor focal points in Ethiopia and Myanmar, respectively. A steering group and technical experts helped to design the concept and methodological approach and reviewed documents.

← 2. Together with the Framework for Action adopted by UNESCO member states in November 2015.

← 3. The UN Statistical Commission is the official repository of UN-approved metadata for SDG Indicator 4.1.1, and can be found here: 4.1.1a: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-04-01-01A.pdf, and 4.1.1b and 4.1.1c: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-04-01-01BC.pdf.

← 4. The United Nations Children’s fund (UNICEF) is the custodian agency for Indicator 4.2.1 (proportion of children under 5 years of age who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being, by sex) and the OECD for 4.b.1 (volume of official development assistance flows for scholarships by sector and type of study). The OECD is a partner agency for all the SDG 4 global indicators with the exception of 4.b.1, for which it is the custodian agency.

← 5. It should be noted that these cross-national assessments are administered in schools and thus only cover in-school children, with the exception of PISA for Development. Household surveys would be required to assess the proficiency levels of out-of-school children, which represent a significant proportion of the school-aged population in some countries. Such household surveys would be very costly and difficult to administer, and present additional methodological challenges, making the availability of proficiency data for out-of-school children unlikely in the next three to five years. The UIS is focusing on improving the assessment of proficiency for children in school in the medium term with an eye to expanding assessments to out-of-school children in the long term (UN DESA, 2016[16]).

← 6. At the time of writing, this indicator was categorised as a Tier III SDG indicator by the United Nations, meaning that it lacks a well-established methodology and sufficient data; a work plan to establish a final methodology was in place.

← 7. See UNESCO UIS Technical Cooperation Group on SDG 4 at: http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/investment-case-sdg4-data.pdf.

← 8. See Annex 2.B for a detailed description of the assessed providers.

← 9. The DCD Results Team uses a three-tier model of results framework in which Tier III is understood as performance information, Tier II is understood as development co-operation results, and Tier I is understood as development results. For more information on this model, see Endberg-Pedersen and Zwart (2018[18]).

← 10. MDG 2 (“Achieving universal primary education”) had a single target, to ensure that children universally – including both boys and girls – will be able to complete a full course of primary education by 2015. To a great extent, providers’ current monitoring practices at corporate level still reflect that results measurement focus at corporate level, which is also easier to communicate and for accountability purposes.

← 11. SDG 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

← 12. Finland also includes indicators to assess school quality and teaching effectiveness. The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) includes an indicator for the implementation of education assessments (aligned to thematic Indicator 4.1.2).

← 13. Ethiopia only reported data on enrolment rates in the country’s 2017 voluntary national review (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2017[17]). For both Ethiopia and Myanmar, data are available for five of the six additional thematic indicators (4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7 in the case of Ethiopia, and 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7 in Myanmar).

← 14. Responsibilities for all education stages are concentrated in Myanmar’s Ministry of Education, with shared responsibilities with other ministries for early childhood care, and for technical and vocational training (MIMU, n.d.[15]). Specifically, the Ministry of Education oversees over 47 000 schools in basic education, enrolling 9.3 million students.

← 15. The end outcomes of these reforms (by 2021) include enhanced capacity of teachers and managers to successfully implement the National Assessment Policy and procedures, and strengthened co-ordination, management and monitoring by education personnel involved in assessments and examinations.

← 16. At the moment, there are multiple learning outcome measurements being used or in consideration, including: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (ASLO), EGRA/EGRA, Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Secondary School Subsector (SES) assessment system.

← 17. Updated information on the sector co-ordination arrangements, division of labour, joined-up approaches to sector diagnostics and monitoring, can be found at the integrated monitoring platform: www.themimu.info/sector/education.

← 18. The extensive portfolio of recent education projects reviewed for this report shows limited presence of activities or funding to build national capacity to gather and analyse education statistics, particularly those related to learning outcomes. Instead, most interventions focus on measuring the outputs and outcomes that can be attributable to the intervention (e.g. “number of children that have been schooled as a result of the project”). In general, Myanmar has received limited official development assistance for national statistical capacities, which have remained within the USD 250 000-900 000 range per year since 2008, save for a one-off surge in support of the 2014 census. Germany represents a notable exception in the right direction, in approving a USD 2.3 million grant in 2017 to support statistical capacity to strengthen SDG measurement in Myanmar.

← 19. Based on extensive web research and follow-up with individual providers.

← 20. Additional draft results data were provided to the research team by Finland, but as these data are not yet finalised or publicly available, they have not been included in this report.

← 21. Defined as a standardised set of indicators used by development co-operation providers to monitor results. They are typically used for three tiers of results frameworks: 1) development results; 2) development co-operation results; 3) performance information. Standard indicators at Tier II typically aggregate project-level results in a way which enables communication of results achieved across multiple projects, countries and regions (Engberg-Pedersen and Zwart, 2018[18]).

← 22. Defined as a standardised set of indicators used by development co-operation providers to monitor results. They are typically used for three tiers of results frameworks: 1) development results; 2) development co-operation results; 3) performance information. Standard indicators at Tier II typically aggregate project-level results in a way which enables communication of results achieved across multiple projects, countries and regions (Engberg-Pedersen and Zwart, 2018[18]).