1. Purpose of the Meeting

The Dakar Framework for Action called for a Monitoring Report to inform the deliberations of the High-Level Group as part of their role in 'holding the global community to account for commitments made in Dakar.' A first, and preliminary, Monitoring Report was submitted to the first meeting of the High-Level Group in October 2001. This Group recommended in their Communiqué that

'an authoritative, analytical, annual EFA Monitoring Report should be produced  drawing upon national data - quantitative and qualitative - and assessing the extent to which both countries and the international community are meeting their Dakar commitments. As a matter of urgency, UNESCO should convene key partners to discuss how the report can best be prepared, managed and resourced. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics has an important role in the development of the report.'

Thus UNESCO convened an Editorial Board, bringing together key stakeholders from the international community (ADEA, UNDP, UNICEF, World Bank), NGOs, representatives of bilateral donors with UNESCO institute directors and staff from headquarters. The list of participants is attached.

2. Programme

Following a welcome dinner hosted by Sir John Daniel, UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Education, the one-and-a-half day meeting followed a pattern of brief introductions to each topic followed by extensive discussions. Mr Anil Bordia of India chaired the meeting.

The outcomes of the meeting are presented first, indicating the consensus achieved on the nature of The report and the process of producing it. Notes on the presentations and discussions are presented later, for reference.

3. Outcomes of the Meeting

a) What Kind of Monitoring Report

Collective Ownership: The report must be owned not by a single institution but by all involved in EFA and ultimately by the world community.

Independence: The report will not be a UNESCO report, but an independent report on EFA facilitated by UNESCO. This implies that UIS will make judgements as to the suitability of data and may use data from sources other than government.

Audiences: The report is aimed at political and professional audiences. Among the political audience are the High Level Group, national government ministers and heads of state, and the international community. The professional audience consists of all those engaged or interested in EFA at whatever level.

Purposes: The report should aim to create awareness, induce change and alert the world to the critical issues, bottlenecks and problems in EFA progress. It will serve as an advocacy tool, based on a rigorous analytical approach.

Tone of The report: It should convey both urgency and hope.

Type of Report: In the longer term (from 2003) it should be a major international report with the necessary infrastructure to produce it and resources to support it, both in Paris (DFU) and Montreal (UIS). In 2002 the High Level Group is expecting a report of this kind, but it will be a slightly scaled-down version owing to time limits. Nevertheless the expectations for 2002 are high and must be met.

Periodicity of Report: It should appear annually. In addition, UIS is working on putting statistical data online at more regular intervals.

Wider Context: The report should set EFA in the wider context of sustainable development.

Themes: The report must include progress on all six Dakar goals in each edition. In 2002 it should in addition report on progress in the preparation of national EFA plans, and an attempt should be made to assess the nature and extent of political commitment to EFA. The 2002 report must be cast in the framework of assessing how far we have come in the two years since Dakar.

Gender Theme: The 2005 deadline looms large and so the report should focus on gender, probably just before that deadline. Significant data on gender is available this year, so should be the topic of one section of The report.

Rights-based Approach: Two aspects will need to be covered:  1) how far is the human right of access to education being fulfilled, and 2) how far are human rights being taught through the values presented in educational processes and systems?

Outcomes and Process: The report should include data on the outcomes of EFA, but also some data on the process – how international agencies are doing in their support of EFA, what kinds of partnerships have been developed, etc. The 2002 Report should assess the international process since Dakar and include progress on the Comprehensive Strategy (including the Global Initiative) and through the G8 Task Force on Education.

Statistical and Non-statistical Aspects: UIS will work on statistical aspects and the analysis and interpretation of these data. DFU will work on non-statistical aspects, such as progress on EFA plan development, policy issues and levels of political commitment.

No Surprises Principle: No country should be surprised by the data presented in The report – they will have prior knowledge of what will appear.

b) Process and Production of the Monitoring Report

Collaborative process: The report will result from the collaboration and input of a range of institutions and agencies, such as civil society/NGOs, multilateral and bilateral agencies. Information will be sought from the sources best able to provide it. As well as UIS, the other  UNESCO institutes - particularly UIE, IBE and IIEP - will play an important role in collecting and analysing information.

Overall Responsibility: UNESCO's Education Sector will take overall responsibility for the report and will appoint personnel, in close consultation with UIS. The Editorial Board will sign off on The report.

Editor: A full-time editor-in-chief/leader of the project must be appointed with the utmost urgency. This person should both be knowledgeable about educational issues and able to connect them with wider development concerns. Either in this person or in his/her team, there is also a need for strong managerial and networking skills (since The report will require the assembling of data from a wide range of sources). As outlined in the draft donor proposal and discussed in the meeting, a team will need to be recruited.

Capacity-Building for Future Reports: In recruiting a team and setting systems up for the 2002 report, care must be taken to ensure that capacity is adequately built for future reports.

Collection of Information: Information and data will be collected from as wide a variety of sources as possible, with effective coordination of this process. Examples of sources: evaluation report by a donor group on performance in selected countries; voices from the grassroots (anecdotal examples); innovations by donors, civil society, etc; ECCD information from Children's Summit Report.

Resources: The production of a Report of the kind expected will require significant additional resources in Paris and Montreal. DFID declared themselves ready to contribute resources, as long as there is a resource commitment by UNESCO and other funding partners can be found. A proposal will be sent to potential donors almost immediately. In terms of expertise and skills the production of The report will be based on a pooling and sharing or resources.

Flexible Data Collection: There should be room for collecting up-to-the-minute data on particularly topical issues, alongside the regular process of collecting data on core indicators.

Indicator Development: There was agreement on the three categories of indicators presented by UIS and the need for investing in work on two of the three. The three categories are:

Results of this Meeting: The decisions and outcomes of this meeting should be disseminated quickly and widely in order to keep all stakeholders informed and build acceptance for The report.

4. Presentations and Discussion

A brief summary of each presentation is followed by a synopsis of points made in discussion (shaded areas).

Opening Remarks: John Daniel, Assistant Director-General for Education

The ADG/ED recalled that the UNESCO constitution made the first reference to 'education for all' and that it called for the 'unrestricted pursuit of objective truth.' He set the EFA Monitoring Report in this context, with emphasis on five aspects:

Role of Editorial Board and Theme for 2002 Monitoring Report:  Anil Bordia, Chairperson

The Chair underlined the importance of highlighting the main outcomes and critical issues of EFA in The report and asked the Board to decide upon the monitoring process, the structure of The report and its dissemination. He suggested that what we want out of the report is to stimulate recommitment on the part of all stakeholders to EFA and overcome smugness and scepticism. He asked if the leisurely style of decision-making by donors should be allowed to continue. Although the eighteen indicators used in the EFA 2000 Assessment may continue to be used for monitoring, there will be a need for more for the purposes of the annual Monitoring Report - on the progress of national plans, flagships, political commitment, the role of donors and so on. He stressed that a rights-based approach needs full attention.

Purposes: The report must provide policy-relevant data and thus serve national governments (ministers of education and finance, and heads of state), opinion-makers and key decision-makers by pointing to necessary reforms, promoting a participatory approach and a sharing of resources between sectors. It will serve the international community by showing them how best to support EFA. The report must be technically authoritative, designed for multiple audiences, draw analytical conclusions from data, be politically influential with a number of groups, accessible to civil society and a wide range of communities and challenging in tone. The report must find its own niche in relation to other world reports, the Human Development Report, the World Development Report, etc.

Focus: The report will need to address both process and result/outcome indicators. Will the report be primarily analytical or advocacy-focused? descriptive or prescriptive? focused or comprehensive? Responses emphasised the need for the report to focus on policy implications, analysing how far commitments are being met. The report may have a focused theme, but should nevertheless report on all six Dakar goals.

Use and Dissemination: Timely and full distribution of The report will be crucial - otherwise the world community will thwarted in its pursuit of EFA goals for lack of information. It should be the kind of report which needs labelling with a 'Do not remove' sticker.

Basic Principles Regarding the Usage of Data Provided by Countries:  Denise Lievesley, Director, UIS

Using a Powerpoint presentation (attached), the UIS Director noted that the role of UIS will not only be to collect and collate data, but also to analyse and interpret them - a prescriptive, not merely descriptive role. In terms of data quality, a critical issue is the trade-off between reliability and timeliness. It will be advantageous to use readily available data – picking low-hanging apples first. The report should act as an early warning system in order to identify potential points of challenge and difficulty in EFA and enable preventative action to be taken. In some areas UIS will draw statistics from other sources, such as population data; UIS will not work in non-statistical areas, such as assessing policies or political commitment. The Monitoring Report should be peer-reviewed, but that would need to be balanced by a relatively speedy process.

Status of the Report: Authentic, independent, authoritative - these qualities should characterise The report which will be facilitated by UNESCO, not a UNESCO report as such. This implies that UIS will use data from sources other than government and sometimes give precedence to such data. The professional and institutional autonomy of The report is an important feature if it is to play its role.

Kinds of Data: As well as collecting core data on a regular basis, there should be some flexibility in collecting data on key issues or interesting hot topics. Data analysis should show the urgency of EFA, but also its feasibility and achievability.

Promoting the Monitoring Report: Some Basic Principles: Michel Barton, Director, Office of Public Information, UNESCO

Reminding the Board that he is charged with changing UNESCO's media policy in order to connect better with the media and the public, Mr Barton defined the purpose of public information as enriching public debate by addressing critical issues. Quantified analysis is the key to media exposure: is EFA getting better or worse, since when, where…? Some issues will be more attractive than others to the public. He suggested that education and human rights and education and democracy may not be of strong interest to the media, whereas gender equality issues and educational quality may be. He stated that there is no dichotomy between analysis and advocacy - a rigorously analytical report will provide the data upon which stories for the media are based.

Public Face of the Report: There may be tension between an analytical document and one which sends a simple and media-friendly message. The message must indicate priorities, even though in theory everything is important. The report should aim to induce change in government policies and practices.

Dissemination: The report should be distributed through all UN agencies and via civil society and NGO networks.

Roles and Responsibility of all Partners: Provision and Analysis of Data and General Information: Steve Packer, DFID

Partners in the Monitoring Report need to develop a sharp and collective understanding of what is required and develop a timetable of cooperation. The report will draw expertise from many sources, not just UNESCO. Some work will need to be commissioned on particular themes, and will therefore need funding. At a practical level DFID could be more helpful on the ground, such as by facilitating the collection of data. DFID is ready to commit resources to the production of a high-quality annual report.

Provision of Data: For 2002 the report will need to use existing data. Civil society, including teacher organisations, could be partners in data provision.

Analysis: UIS will major on the report assigning staff full-time to its preparation. In terms of an analytical framework, should human rights be the organising principle?

Methodology of Developing the Monitoring Report, Including Costing and Staffing Implications as Well as the Authoring of the Report: Jan Vandemoortele, UNDP

Mr. Vandemoortele gave examples of three levels of report:

Nature of Report: It will replace the World Education Report and must be annual. The 2002 Report, even though time is short, should be as well-developed as possible. In the light of the High-Level Group expectations further talk of a 'modest' or 'interim' report is misplaced. Nevertheless, a pragmatic approach will have to be taken, contingent on availability of time, resources and skills at short notice.

Report Team: A team needs to be built and capacity strengthened to meet expectations. Recruitment of personnel must start immediately. It is particularly important to identify and recruit the right person very soon for the editor-in-chief/project leader role - the profile of such a person was discussed: knowledgeable about education issues as well as broader development issues, skilled in networking and management, flair for writing. Names will be forwarded to UNESCO/DFU.

Timetable for 2002 Monitoring Report and Division of Labour for its Production : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh

A proposed timetable was presented to ensure that The report is produced in time for the High Level Group meeting in November 2002. A draft will be presented to the EFA Working Group on 22 - 24 July 2002, with the Editorial Board meeting to process the input on 25 July. The proposed division of labour will leave overall supervision, shaping and coordination with DFU in Paris, including overseeing the production process, while statistical analysis and interpretation will be the responsibility of UIS. These are the core data, while other more flexible (non-statistical) data will be collected and analysed by DFU.

Work Timetable: The urgency of starting the 2002 Report processed led the Board to shorten some of the deadlines on the proposed timetable (new version attached).

Human Resources: Secondment of personnel from multilateral or bilateral agencies must be considered as a way of building the team.

Note - the following areas were flagged but not discussed fully:

Coverage of North and South: What kind of relative coverage will be given to EFA in the industrialised countries and the developing countries?

Flagship Programmes: How/how much should they figure in the report?

Relations With the Private Sector: Where do they fit in the report, and in the report process?