Make countries active and equal partners in progress towards SDG 4.

 

A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPCOMING THREE GEM REPORT CYCLES 

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was designed to be universal. It has brought people and the planet, poor and rich countries, together for the first time under an integrated framework, through an inclusive and participatory process. The global education goal, SDG 4, which takes an expansive view of education, is critical for the achievement of all the SDGs, humans’ relationship with the planet, and their collective well-being. Nevertheless, ever since global education-specific or general development agendas were introduced, none has managed to reach anywhere near its objectives. In the case of education, the 2015 EFA Global Monitoring Report presented a sobering assessment of what had been achieved since 2000. Despite notable progress towards gender parity, there was also a notable failure to achieve universal primary completion, while the first global datasets being compiled at the time demonstrated low levels of education achievement and high levels of inequality. At the mid-point of the 2030 agenda, the 2023 GEM Report and the 2024/5 GEM Report showed that none of the SDG 4 targets stood any chance of being reached, with COVID-19 pandemic only a small part of the explanation. Prominent statistics included the stagnation of the out-of-school population since 2015 and the realization that the percentage of students who achieve minimum proficiency in reading is not just stagnant globally but has been declining rapidly in middle- and high-income countries. The aspirational scope of international agendas should not detract from the fact that their added value should be assessed on more grounded objectives. First, the focus should shift from the achievement of unrealistic targets to evidence of acceleration towards such targets relative to past trends. Second, the focus should also shift from global targets, which spur disengagement at the national level, to national targets for agreed monitoring indicators. Third, more emphasis should be placed on whether countries adopt general policy principles, whose links with improved outcomes have been established, while avoiding specific policy prescriptions. Accountability needs to be at the core of an agenda that aims to fulfil social and economic rights, but the level of ambition also needs to be based on historical records, which suggest what targets are feasible to achieve. Countries need to set the level of that ambition. A key step in viewing the education agenda through this lens has been the national SDG 4 benchmarking process. Since 2019, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and the GEM Report have supported countries to fulfil a commitment they made in 2015 to set national targets. Four in five countries have set such targets for 2025 and 2030 for eight SDG 4 indicators. The purpose of the benchmarking exercise is to make countries active and equal partners in progress towards SDG 4 and avoid imposing targets outside their national policy, planning and budget processes. Since 2023, through the SDG 4 Scorecard progress report, the UIS and the GEM Report have been monitoring how likely it is that countries will achieve their national targets. In addition, the SDG 4 Scorecard also tries to show links between progress in a particular indicator (early childhood participation in 2023 and trained teachers in 2024) and specific policies. The new approach proposed for the next three editions of the GEM Report in 2026, 2027 and 2028/9 will build upon the broad logic of SDG 4 benchmarking. In particular, it will be based on: „ the identification of a sample of countries that have improved fast in terms of selected education indicators (and a smaller group of countries that have stagnated or regressed) over a long period of time, extending even before 2015; and „ an account of why these countries have performed so well (or poorly) that will look at both: ⎯ a broad range of explanatory factors, as they emerge from country case studies; and ⎯ a narrow range of policies that research has credited with having made a difference. These three editions will look at indicators grouped in broad categories. In particular: „ The first report (2026) will focus on access and equity indicators, data for which are much more abundant and relatively unambiguous as to the direction of countries’ progress. „ The second report (2027) will focus on quality and learning indicators, data for which are not only scarce but often come with a considerable amount of error. „ The third report (2028/9) will focus on indicators where education interacts with other development outcomes where progress is less well documented. These are indicators that tend to capture the relevance of education in a context of heightened global challenges, from inclusion to health, and from digital transformation to climate change. Separating access from quality or quality from relevance risks appearing short-sighted, as none of these issues can be examined in isolation. However, this separation is necessary for analytical purposes. The three reports will collectively provide a basis for international dialogue on where countries stand, how fast they have progressed, what are the main drivers of differences between countries, and what this record suggests on priorities to address post-2030. Links between the three reports will be built with each edition. 

INDICATOR SELECTION FOR THE 2026 GEM REPORT

 Four SDG 4 indicators will be used to focus the discussion. Early childhood participation (SDG global indicator 4.2.2): While the global indicator is the first choice of measure of access to early childhood education, alternative indicators will be examined in parallel for two reasons. First, the global indicator does not distinguish between enrolment in pre-primary and primary education and therefore its data need to be unpacked further. Second, the global indicator focuses on children one year before entry into primary school; richer countries have achieved universal enrolment in this age group but focus on progress at younger age groups, which also needs to be looked at. Out-of-school rate (SDG thematic indicator 4.1.4): Progress for all three age groups will be examined (children of primary school age, adolescents of lower secondary school age, and youth of upper secondary school age). The analysis will look at both administrative data and estimation model data but will also look at national data, as a way of triangulating the information. As in the case of the early childhood participation rate, a closer look may be taken at related indicators, such as the overage rate, as changes in late enrolment and repetition rates have been affecting the evolution of out-of-school rates. Completion rate (SDG global indicator 4.1.2): Progress for all three education levels will be examined (primary, lower secondary and upper secondary). This is one of the indicators with the highest level of data coverage and robust long-term trends based on household surveys whose data have informed an estimation model. However, as with the other indicators, data will be triangulated through administrative data and additional national household surveys, where possible. Tertiary education gross enrolment ratio (SDG thematic indicator 4.3.2): The gross enrolment ratio, which is based on administrative data, is the indicator with the greatest data coverage. Progress will distinguish between short-cycle and Bachelor’s or equivalent courses. Enrolment by age groups will also be given attention, as there are wide differences in enrolment patterns between countries. Additional sources of information on participation rates may also be examined for that reason. Finally, measures of tertiary attainment may also be explored, although these tend to be available for fewer countries. 

Equity measures will be examined as part of the country case studies based on the review of access, participation and completion indicators. In addition, some countries will also be selected directly based on analysis of progress in inequality measures. However, with the notable exception of gender disparity, monitoring of disparity is hampered by the lack of robust data, which prevents an assessment of whether countries are closing gaps over time. Therefore, the analysis of progress will be driven by data availability for individual characteristics: „ Gender: This is the characteristic with the widest and more robust data availability. The parity index (SDG global indicator 4.5.1) (or gap) for any of the above four indicators can be applied, with a preference for the gender gap in the secondary completion rate, which is also a benchmark indicator – and for which progress towards parity can be observed from a position of initial disadvantage for both boys and girls. „ Location and wealth: Estimating the parity index for these two characteristics relies on survey data. These are sensitive to various factors: sampling errors; differences in definitions between countries (e.g. how definition of urban areas, asset indexes to estimate wealth which are not equally sensitive in discerning poor from rich households in all countries); and lack of sufficient observations. Therefore, there is a higher risk of misclassifying a country as having made progress or as having stagnated. „ Disability: While standard measures of disability have been incorporated in surveys in recent years, most countries have only one observation, which makes it impossible to identify progress. Alternative sources of information will be used, whose scope may not be global

COUNTRY SELECTION

 The first critical step will be to select countries that stand out in terms of their fast progress (and stagnation) and validate that selection. What is defined as fast improvement? Annual progress rates since 2000 will be analysed for each of the four indicators. Countries will be clustered in five groups in terms of their baseline value and the top 25% of countries with the fastest annual progress rates will be calculated within each group. Five countries will be selected for each of the four indicators among those that have achieved progress rates in the top 25%. The selection will be made from different SDG regions and baseline groups to ensure a globally representative group. How will progress towards equity be examined? Each country selected for a case study will also look at disparity measures. In addition, up to seven case studies will examine progress in disparity in school participation and completion by individual characteristics. The most straightforward selection will be on gender disparity where the focus will be on secondary completion. Selecting countries that have made progress in reducing location (rural/urban) and wealth (poorest/richest) disparity is less clear cut but will be based on World Inequality Database on Education data. Finally, special datasets will be used to select a country that has made progress on disparity measures by characteristics such as disability or ethnicity. What is defined as stagnation or regression? While the objective of the 2026 GEM Report is to draw attention to positive examples of progress that can inspire dialogue and focus action, it is equally important not to forget cases of countries that have not progressed at all or have even moved backwards. In most cases, conflict and instability account for stagnation – but a few cases of stagnation will also be related to other factors. The selection will be based on the bottom 25% of countries with the slowest annual progress rates for each baseline group. What period will be examined? The analysis will look at progress over a long period of time, at least 8 to 10 years, which can stretch back to before 2015. COVID-19 may have interrupted fast rates of improvement (and even data collection processes) in some countries and should ideally not exclude countries that had made progress before if it constitutes an important experience to share. To summarize, for each one of the four focus indicators and for a broad set of equity measures, five countries of fast progress and two countries of stagnation will be analysed – a total of 35 countries – to provide a representative set of examples. This selection process makes clear that the aim is not to pick the ‘best’ performing countries in the world but a regionally balanced set of countries that moved fast, given their initial conditions and contexts. As the same approach will be followed for the following two editions, a related consideration will be to avoid selecting the same countries in successive editions, if possible. 

The GEM Report team will rely on the UIS database but, to the extent possible, it will also interrogate the evidence further, triangulating those data to ensure that the list of selected countries is cross-checked and validated by more than one just source of information, including national sources if available. COUNTRY CASE STUDY ELABORATION For each of these five indicators and 35 countries, the 2026 GEM Report will aim to explain the progress (or stagnation) observed in a succinct and comparable way. Through research and consultation, the aim will be to make plausible and informed arguments about observed progress or stagnation, rather than causal arguments, which are more difficult to defend. However, multiple sources will be used to analyse the factors that best help explain observed progress. Research evidence will be key, while recognizing that such studies tend to be published with a significant lag, well after progress has been achieved. Such studies will be complemented by grey literature, media reports and interviews with various stakeholders. Inputs of individual experts may be called upon to validate the core arguments put forward. The approach to these case studies will not be based on prior hypotheses. All potential explanations will be considered. 

POLICY FOCUS

The compilation of country case studies will yield a wide range of policy-related explanations that account for observed progress, which will differ by country, but which is also likely to bring up common elements. In addition, two pieces of evidence will be put together. First, three systematic reviews of research on effective policies within which have been credited with increasing participation in (i) early childhood education; (ii) primary and secondary education; and (iii) post-secondary education will be commissioned. Measures promoting participation and tackling early school leaving can be broadly grouped in the following categories: „ institutional, which provide legislative support and regulatory oversight; „ preventative, which tackle root problems that eventually result in early leaving; „ interventionist, which address emerging difficulties, providing targeted support; and „ compensatory, which provide second chance opportunities for those who left education. Second, in the framework of its PEER website, the GEM Report team will develop country profiles on one of these broad policy categories: extent to which education (and social) funding mechanisms reallocate resources to address disparity in education participation and between schools (which is SDG thematic indicator 4.5.3), including the existence, coverage and depth of these policies. The emphasis will be on primary and secondary education, but the analysis will also cover pre-primary and tertiary education, where possible. The work will build on earlier analysis the GEM Report had published on a sample of countries in 2021. The team will identify global patterns and changes over time in these policies. To the extent possible, it will assess whether the presence and implementation of a policy is associated with progress in an indicator. 

OUTLINE OF THE 2026 GEM REPORT AND KEY QUESTIONS 

In brief, based on the above methodology, the 2026 GEM Report, as the first in a three-part series of Countdown to 2030, will have the following structure: „ A brief overview of progress across all SDG 4 targets, which would represent a condensed version of what has been the monitoring part of the report. „ A framework for the selection of the access and equity focus indicators. „ Global trends in the focus indicators and a discussion of future monitoring. „ Country trends in the focus indicators and justification of focus country selection. „ Country case studies in the focus indicators. „ Policy analysis building on the case studies and three systematic reviews. „ An analysis of financing policies for education equity. „ Recommendations The 2026 GEM Report will aim to address the following questions: „ Among countries that started from similar levels of education development, which countries have improved much faster than others or stagnated in terms of early childhood education participation, out-of-school rates, completion rates and tertiary participation? Have they managed to reduce disparity? „ Among countries that have improved fast (or stagnated), what are the 2-3 key reasons that help explain the observed trends? „ What policies does research identify as having played a key role for improving education participation and reducing disparity in the long term – and how do they relate to factors put forward in country analyses? What is the role of financing policies to promote equity?

„ What are the implications of the statistical, country case study and policy analyses for a forward-looking education agenda? The recommendations would cover a range of issues, including: scope for improvement in approaches to monitoring participation at different education levels; lessons from past progress records on feasible but ambitious targets for an agenda post2030 and a reflection on the implication for the right to education; mechanisms for setting targets; policy principles that have served countries that have expanded faster; and scope for improvement in approaches to monitoring policies.

RELATED OUTPUTS OF THE 2026 GEM REPORT CYCLE

The Countdown to 2030 report series is closely linked to the national SDG 4 benchmarking process and the SDG 4 Scorecard, a new paradigm for monitoring progress in an international agenda supported by the GEM Report and the UIS. One of the core objectives is to strengthen the buy-in by countries, so that the approach becomes an essential part of the overall approach to a post-2030 education and overall development agenda. The 2026 GEM Report cycle will also attempt to strengthen links with other GEM Report outputs to strengthen coherence and reinforce the objectives of the Countdown to 2030 series.

Regional reports: A process of consolidating regional reports has begun with the 2024/5 GEM Report cycle which introduced three changes. First, regional reports no longer cover the entire scope of the theme but focus on a specific angle. Second, the length of the regional edition is drastically
reduced to resemble more a chapter of the report rather than a full-scale report. Third, the approach is based primarily on country case studies. This approach will be followed in the Countdown to 2030 series and adapted to its needs. It is envisaged that the regional editions of the 2026 GEM Report cycle will focus on:
„ Early childhood participation in the Arab States: Northern Africa and Western Asia is the world region with the lowest participation rates in pre-primary education. The regional edition will analyse the reasons and will draw attention to 3-4 countries that have made faster progress in recent years.
„ Gender disparity in secondary completion in the Caribbean:
Boys have been falling behind girls in secondary education in an increasing number of countries, but few parts of the world are affected as much as the Caribbean Island states. The regional edition will draw attention to 3-4 countries that have tried to buck this trend.
„ Overage enrolment in primary education in Africa: Part of the Spotlight series on universal basic completion and foundational learning in Africa, this edition will focus on the challenge of late enrolment and repetition, which is more acute in Africa than in any region in the world.

In all these cases, at least one of the country case studies will have been explored as part of the analysis for the global report. As part of the effort to showcase mor examples, partnerships with selected organizations will be explored, as with all regional reports so far.
PEER: Country profiles of laws and policies were introduced in 2020 to ensure equal coverage of all countries as part of the research for the thematic part of the report. Key results were summarized through a mapping exercise that offered insights into global patterns for selected laws and policies. From the 2026 GEM Report cycle onwards, the objective is to introduce a few changes to the PEER website, notably to focus on a smaller set of policy indicators and to try to update the database. The potential policy areas of focus were outlined in the section ‘Policy focus’.
SCOPE: The text of the website’s pages on access and equity, which are the focus of the 2026 GEM Report cycle, will be updated to fulfil the objective that the SCOPE website is an
online, interactive equivalent of the GEM Report.
WIDE: Although the structure of this inequality database is not expected to change, a potential area of methodological development may be to explore whether available data establish a clear case that some countries have lowered disparity or not.