educational development plan operationalization

Education as Transformation: An Aspiration in Need of Operationalization

As part of our mission to promote new approaches to student-centered teaching, Learning Innovation is publishing this series written by members of Duke’s  Transformative Learning Intellectual Community . The TLIC is a group of faculty in the humanities and social sciences whose primary goal is to identify transformative learning moments among Duke students. Through this blog series, they will share what they learn about this approach so that more Duke students can benefit from it.

By David Malone , Joan Clifford , and Deb Reisinger

Aspirational and operational – these are the two primary aspects of any curricular project or strategic educational initiative. Aspirational connotates a vision, desired outcomes, hopes and dreams. How will students be different as a result of the experiences we have designed for them? Operational includes the steps, actions and logic model that one will use to achieve this vision. How do we go about fostering the development of these outcomes? Both aspects – aspirational and operational — are essential to the actualization of any initiative – articulating “the why” and planning “the how.”

The 2017 strategic plan of Duke University – Together Duke – is a deeply thoughtful, aspirational statement of a vision for Duke – in large part focused on the student experience and our hopes for their personal growth and educational transformation.  The University’s plan only has four goals – so it says something important when one of those four is entirely focused on “providing a transformative educational experience for all students.” Written in a way that is often inspiring and stirring, Together Duke has much going for it – there is much to celebrate about a university that chooses to place the well-being, holistic development and educational transformation of its students at its very center.

But what exactly is educational transformation?  What areas of our students’ lives are we hoping to transform? Can transformative education be “provided”, and if so, is it accessible to all students? And through what means and intentional design is this transformation occurring? It is with these questions in mind that the Transformative Learning Intellectual Community (TLIC) was formed – a small group of Duke faculty and administrators who for the past year have explored research literature, conducted surveys, held campus conversations, co-sponsored conferences, met with college administrators, and hosted visiting scholars in order to gain a better understanding of what transformative learning is and how it occurs.

Together Duke is a wonderful statement of purpose but it is by no means a perfect document. It falls short in some areas – particularly in terms of outlining how the strategic plan for a transformational undergraduate education will be operationalized. While the aspirational side is clearly stated, the operational side at times lacks a clear articulation of the specific steps we need to take to attain our aspirational vision. In the area of curriculum development, operationalization is often thought of as the process of articulating desired learning outcomes, then creating strategies for assessing the attainment of those outcomes. The challenge is that our most desired learning outcomes (such as educational transformation) may need new measurement tools – their existence must be inferred through the examination of learning artifacts and student behaviors over time. So how do we go about doing this?

To examine more closely these challenges and the vision for educational transformation that is presented in Together Duke – and to more deeply understand the concept of transformative learning in general, the TLIC group used a critical reflection model known as What? So What? Now What? (Rolfe et al, 2001). In this blog we share with you the thoughts and insights which resulted from our TLIC reflections.

One of the primary goals of the TLIC is to collaboratively develop a common understanding of and a shared discourse at Duke around transformative learning. As we explore what transformative learning can look like in our specific disciplines, we are researching, critiquing, and developing instructional strategies and assessment tools (surveys, reflection prompts, rubrics) that can help facilitate transformative learning and assist us in capturing how student learning may be occurring within and across various majors and disciplines.

One curriculum design theory that has been helpful to the TLIC group in framing an analysis of transformative learning is a model known as “backward design” (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Backward design is a three-step process that begins at the end of the learning process. We start by first articulating the desired transformative learning outcomes we have for our students. How will our students be different at the end of four years and three summers as a result of the learning experiences we design for them? What new knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and ways of seeing and being in the world will our students develop as a result of Duke transformative undergraduate experience? The second step involves thinking through how we might be able to assess and evaluate the extent to which we are successfully achieving these desired learning outcomes? How do we go about determining the extent to which transformative learning is occurring? How do we best benchmark progress? What are the recognizable signs and visible indicators of educational transformation? Finally, we take on the third step – designing instructional activities and learning experiences that we believe will foster the development of the desired outcomes. What needs to happen inside and outside the classroom to bring about this transformation? How do academic, co-curricular, residential, and summer learning experiences come together to form a transformational education where the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts? These are the questions that drive the TLIC group as we examine the degree to which transformative learning is occurring at Duke.

So what’s the big deal about transformative learning and why begin by focusing on Duke’s use of transformative learning as the goal of undergraduate education? If so many good things are already happening here at Duke in terms of student learning – which they are – why the critique? Because perhaps we are not yet the best version of ourselves as a University. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a place where young people go to simply acquire knowledge and skills to prepare for a career and 10 being a college that truly changes lives – what ranking would you give us?

We raise this question to point out that there’s so much more we need to do – and can do – to better understand how transformative learning works, how we can be more intentional about creating opportunities for transformative learning, and how we can establish the enabling conditions and cultural norms which facilitate transformative learning. After all, bell hooks wrote that there is really is no true love without a critique – and all of us love Duke.

So what exactly does Together Duke mean when it asserts that a primary goal of the University is “providing a transformative educational experience for all students?” Some form of the word transformative appears at least 12 times in the Duke strategic plan. Yet despite the emphasis on “transformative education” nowhere in the document is the word transformative succinctly defined. As readers we are never told exactly what transformative learning is. There is little discussion of the impact transformative learning may have on students, because the document fails to fully answer the question “transformative learning towards what end?” The plan does not fully operationalize transformative learning in ways that clearly outline the desired outcomes of all this transformation. The principles and values undergirding transformation are not fully identified. Finally, the strategic plan fails to provide a complete explanation of how the process of transformative learning works. What are the enabling conditions, the campus cultural norms, the instructional strategies, the student life experiences – key things that produce transformative learning during students’ four years and three summers? What are the intentional actions we as an institution must take to engage students in activities, experiences, spaces, places and mindsets that foster transformation?

This is not to say that many folks both on and off campus are not working thoughtfully to engage Duke students in transformative ways. They are – deans, faculty, staff, student leaders, our co-educator community partners – all are facilitating opportunities for transformative learning. Moreover, this is not to say that the college doesn’t already have in place several curricular and co-curricular programs that are potentially transformative. The college does. The strategic plan does a good job of identifying existing high impact educational experiences and signature learning communities such as Bass Connections, Focus, Duke Immerse and Spring Breakthrough. Finally, this critique of the strategic plan’s lack of specificity isn’t meant to suggest that many of our undergraduates aren’t having transformative experiences. Many are. There are a significant number of Duke students who arrive on campus with unexamined assumptions and limited capacity for perspective-taking – yet they graduate with deeper and more nuanced ways of seeing the world and approaching social and intellectual problems. Transformation is occurring – at least in some of our students. But how can we strengthen our efforts?

What are the next steps for TLIC in its efforts to lift up within the Duke community the complexities, nuances and potential power of transformative learning? These steps come to mind:

1. Invite faculty, staff, community members, and especially our students to more clearly define transformative learning in the specific context of an undergraduate education at Duke.

2. Develop a set of benchmarks and assessments to determine the degree to which transformative learning is occurring– we need to elucidate what outcomes transformative learning is leading to.

3. Further explore and deepen our examination of the relationship of privilege and transformative learning – by filtering our conceptualization of transformative learning through lenses of critical theory and anti-racist pedagogies.

4. Build bridges between academic affairs and student affairs so that our efforts to promote transformative learning are more integrated and coordinated. It will take a whole village to deconstruct Duke’s bifurcation of academic life and student life.

5. Find ways to move our campus’s most transformative educational experiences from the margins to the center of the student experience. Make what may be happening for some – possible for all. Programs such as Duke Immerse, Bass Connections and Focus may indeed be transformative, but they aren’t normative for all of our students. The tenets of transformative learning should become the norm at Duke – all students should have opportunities to experience educational transformation. Best practices to engage in transformative learning should be baked into the everyday structures and systems of our undergraduate education.

We invite you to join TLIC on this journey. Watch for future talks and conversations on the Duke Event Calendar and join the Duke Service-Learning listserv to receive announcements. We look forward to partnering with you to operationalize programming in academic and student affairs that evolves students’ educational transformation.

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001).  Critical reflection for nursing and the helping professions: A user’s guide , Palgrave Basingstoke.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Backward Design. In  Understanding by Design  (pp. 13-34). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

• No category

DO s2020 025-

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

The BEDP 2030 (Basic Education Development Plan 2030) is Philippine’s long-term plan for formal education, from kindergarten to high school, as well as non-formal education. It was developed in an inclusive and participatory process, and is aligned with the SDGs.

The Basic Education Development Plan (BEDP) 2030 was officially launched on June 3, 2022. The launch was attended by key officials from the Department of Education and members of the Philippines Forum for Quality Basic Education, also known as the Education Forum, private education associations, members of Philippine Congress and other stakeholders.

The Department, together with the stakeholders, committed to uphold the goals set in the plan.

The BEDP 2030 is the Department’s long-term plan for basic education, covering all formal education from kindergarten, elementary, junior high school, to senior high school, as well as non-formal education through the Alternative Learning System.

This long-term plan shall serve as a blueprint for the country’s basic education, aligned with SDG 2030.

This shall provide the Department of Education with a more holistic and comprehensive approach to education planning, which goes beyond the usual operational practice of a government agency.

The plan was developed with funding support from Global Partnership for Education (GPE) under a grant managed by UNICEF (the grant agent) and coordinated by the Philippine Business for Education (PBEd) as the coordinating agency.

The BEDP development process commenced in 2017 with a scoping mission conducted by UNESCO and UNICEF that aimed to determine the scope of work and resources required in crafting the plan. A series of consultations with key officials and education development partners were undertaken to discuss expectations and collaboration points.

An inclusive and highly consultative process of sector analysis was also undertaken that led to identifying prevailing and emergent issues and challenges in basic education along with participation, completion, quality, and delivery concerns.

The Education Forum, a platform for consultation and collaboration among education stakeholders and partners, was utilized in engaging partners and stakeholders in the process. Through GPE’s support, the Basic Education Sector Analysis was finalized and the formulation of the BEDP could start.

A participatory process to build ownership of the plan

To set the long-term direction on basic education, a high-level visioning and direction setting workshop was conducted with Secretary Leonor Briones, the Executive Committee members, and the regional and central office directors. Separate sessions with children and youth were also conducted to elicit their views and aspirations on education.

By listening to the voices of youth (learners), we generated practical needs and priorities for the short and long term. Learners mentioned that they wanted more practice in reading, that they needed complete sets of learning materials, and wanted safe and bully-free schools.

Civil society partners, who are an integral part of the Education Forum, pushed to expand coverage of the alternative learning system, ensuring an inclusive and gender sensitive education system.

With this, the BEDP 2030 Results Framework was developed, outlining the priorities for the Department of Education in addressing the immediate and long-term challenges confronting basic education, particularly the impact of COVID-19.

The intermediate outcomes spell out what the agency aspires for the learners to acquire through its 4 pillars (access, equity, quality, resiliency and well-being), and governance as enabling mechanisms.

The strategies under each pillar shall serve as the springboard in formulating policies, systems, programs and projects. These shall address issues and challenges identified in the analysis.

A simulation model was developed to test the financial sustainability of policy options and come up with realistic estimates of basic education investment requirements.

This shall also provide guidance in the preparation of the costed operational plan of the BEDP 2030.

The BEDP was presented to and endorsed by the Education Forum and the Social Development Committee of National Economic and Development Authority Technical Board.

The plan was adopted through DepEd Order 24 s. 2022 and finally launched on June 3 in a large event attended by 180 in-person and more than 200 virtual participants.

Lessons learned in the plan development

• It is essential that the planning process is participatory to consider the views and priorities of all stakeholders in the basic education sector.
• It’s important to keep the focus on priority areas.
• It’s important to ensure that strategies and interventions are sufficient and necessary to achieve the stated vision, mission and objectives.

Ways forward

With the official adoption of the BEDP, all Department of Education offices shall align their policies and programs with the BEDP 2030. The plan will be implemented in two phases:

• Phase I (2022-2025) focuses on addressing the impacts of COVID-19 on learning delivery, issues on reading and numeracy skills, and the decentralization of programs, projects, and activities.
• Phase 2 (2026-2030) focuses on sustaining gains, the institutionalization of education future’s initiatives, and developing emerging education technology and innovations.

Related blogs

December 27, 2023 by GPE Secretariat Our top 5 education result stories of 2023 Read our top stories of change of 2023.

November 27, 2023 by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatia The role of education in combating cyberbullying in Indonesia Cyberbullying is a growing phenomenon in Indonesia that hurts students, affect their education, and requires immediate response. Schools can play an important role in fighting it and that’s why ChildFund is...

May 10, 2023 by Deepali Gupta | 3 comments Translating education commitments into action: Examples from Asia Six months after the Transforming Education Summit in 2022, countries from Asia and the Pacific gathered to share and learn from good practices and innovations they have initiated to transform their...

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.

• Global and entity tokens are replaced with their values. Browse available tokens.
• No HTML tags allowed.
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
• Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.

This site belongs to UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP Learning Portal

Search form

• issue briefs
• Plan for learning

Policy formulation and programme development

A plan for improving quality and learning outcomes should be based on the findings of an education sector analysis (esa), offer a vision for the future education system, set medium-term policy goals, and identify major strategies to achieve them., developing a relevant response to the learning challenges raised by the sector analysis.

The range of education quality challenges facing the education system, as identified by an ESA, will form the basis to develop policy priorities and strategies, that should focus on resolving their underlying factors.

Policy can be defined as ‘a broad statement that sets out the government’s main goals and priorities’, and which ‘defines a particular stance, aiming to explore solutions to an issue.’ (UNESCO, 2013a: 7). Through the creation and meticulous examination of an explicit causal chain, strategic planning teams can determine the most appropriate policy orientations to address learning issues. Public debates on the question also allow clarification of critical aspects. The resulting model, often diagrammed in the form of a problem tree, shows how particular learning problems are related to different, proximate and root, causes.

On the basis of the identified causes of learning problems, priorities are established by determining which issues represent key levers to achieve broad change; which are feasible to address, considering financial and human resource constraints; and which will receive political and public support. The priorities that are selected through this process are expressed as policy statements and translated into key strategies.

Policy formulation steps - Illustrated

1. problem analysis.

In developing a new education sector plan (ESP), a strategic planning team wishes to emphasize a select number of key medium-term policy priorities to improve learning. An examination of the education system’s internal and external efficiency highlights low literacy levels among primary school pupils as a key obstacle. Poor reading ability causes high early-grade repetition, contributes to dropout, and affects pupils’ preparedness for further education and the workplace. By reviewing the issues that impact learning, the planning team identifies several key causes that contribute to the issue in their context and develop the following problem-tree:  

2. Policy priority-setting and strategy determination

The strategic planning team determines that one of the sector’s medium-term policy priorities should be to Improve early-grade literacy skills among all pupils, particularly those from under-achieving primary schools. To determine the key strategies to achieve this policy goal, the team converts their problem-tree into an objective-tree by re-stating the problem’s causes as strategic solutions, and re-wording the strategies for clarification where required, producing the following result: 

3.    Strategy feasibility analysis

The strategic planning team then determines which of the strategic solutions might be particularly effective, as well as financially, politically, and organizationally feasible: While it is ultimately desirable to increase access to early childhood education (Strategy 4), resources are not currently available for widespread investment in this area; furthermore, focusing on teacher motivation and accountability (Strategy 5) may not be timely, as many teachers do not yet know how to effectively support literacy development, a prerequisite for this to be effective.  The team therefore decides to initially focus on Strategies 1, 2 and 3. Their decision is then tested during programme development and cost estimation. Following these steps, it may be necessary to review the chosen strategies, gradually working towards a plan that is both evidence-based and realistic.

How to translate strategies into action?

Learning policy priorities and key strategies must be translated into specific, actionable programmes. The same causal chain used to identify policies and strategies should be used to determine the programmes that will produce the desired change. Education sector plan (ESP) programmes specifically define how the chosen strategies will be carried out. More than one strategy can be pursued by a single programme, just as several programmes may be needed for a single strategy.

The elaboration of results or logical framework helps to structure and describe the theory of how change will be achieved through systemic transformation, linking programmes to sector-wide goals in a clear hierarchy. For each programme, key outcomes will be determined. Upstream, these should directly address the focal problem identified during policy elaboration, and contribute to achieve the set objective. Downstream, the framework will further specify the nature of the programme by laying out the major activities it implies, that will in turn be associated with measurable indicators and specific targets that help to define success.

The elaboration of a logical framework is also the opportunity for planners to discuss the conditions to be met at each stage to achieve improved learning outcomes for all, further appraising feasibility: Will the programmes resolve the main challenges identified in the sector diagnosis? Are the objectives, programmes and activities coherent? Are the required financial, human, technical, and time-related resources available?

It may be beneficial to adopt a participatory approach to such a feasibility study, involving a broad and representative spectrum of stakeholders, to both test the programme proposal from different perspectives, and improve chances of success through early ownership. The review may highlight the need to rethink the plan’s objectives, draft alternative strategies, and/or include a capacity-building programme.

Developing context-specific programmes - Illustrated

A strategic planning team is developing programmes to improve early-grade literacy, on the basis of selected strategies. They recognize that there are multiple approaches to translate each into action. To determine the best approach, available data are reviewed, international practice considered, and various options brainstormed. Each option is discussed in terms of its expected effectiveness and feasibility. A final set of programmes is reached by discarding some options and adapting others.

The determined programmes are context-sensitive. For instance: as teachers are trained by diverse public and private institutions, Strategy 1 will be best achieved by a change in teacher training accreditation requirements; as available research suggests that teaching practices are unlikely to change through coursework alone, Strategy 2 envisions working with district-level staff on the implementation of the model lesson approach to promote good practice.

GPE (Global Partnership for Education), IIEP-UNESCO (International Institute for Educational Planning). 2015. Guidelines for education sector plan preparation . Paris: IIEP.

UNESCO. 2013 a . UNESCO Handbook on education policy analysis and programming, Vol. I: Education policy analysis . Bangkok: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 2013 b . UNESCO Handbook on education policy analysis and programming, Vol. II: UNESCO programming . Bangkok: UNESCO.

Related information

• World Bank Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER)
• Educational policy

DepED, Division of Malaybalay City

Educational planning for quality education.

To ensure that all governance levels is prioritizing the needs of their clients; the learners, ladderized planning is done to identify key priority area of improvements in line with fulfillment of the sustainable development goals of education. The Central office of the department crafts the National Basic Education Plan (NBEP), the regional office with Regional Education Development Plan (REDP), the school’s division with Division Education Development Plan (DEDP) and schools with School Improvement Plan (SIP) all of this plan should congruently agree on the measures and priorities based on their local situation.

Education is a fundamental human right and is indispensable for the achievement of sustainable development. The department aims at empowering every Filipino child and commit to advance the educational goal thus, planning process does its crucial parts of identifying key priority areas of improvement. While education needs globally are immense, stakeholders such as companies and businesses can leverage their resources and core competencies to support the government in delivering the promise of education for all.

Since education is often a local issue, which will require all governance levels to work within contextualized plan to determine the best utilization of resources provided by the government along with the resources shared by the local stakeholders that engage responsibly in education and promotes sustainability to provide inclusive and equitable quality learning opportunities for all.

VICENTE G. SAN MIGUEL Senior Education Program Specialist Division of Malaybalay City

Official Website

• Transparency Seal
• Citizen's Charter
• PIDS Vision, Mission and Quality Policy
• Strategic Plan 2019-2025
• Organizational Structure
• Bid Announcements
• Site Statistics
• Privacy Notice

• Research Agenda
• Research Projects
• Research Paper Series
• Guidelines in Preparation of Articles
• Editorial Board
• List of All Issues
• Disclaimer and Permissions
• Inquiries and Submissions
• Subscription
• Economic Policy Monitor
• Discussion Paper Series
• Policy Notes
• Development Research News
• Economic Issue of the Day
• Annual Reports
• Special Publications

Working Papers

Monograph Series

Staff Papers

Economic Outlook Series

List of All Archived Publications

• Other Publications by PIDS Staff
• How to Order Publications
• Rate Our Publications
• Press Releases
• PIDS in the News
• PIDS Updates
• Legislative Inputs
• Database Updates
• GIS-based Philippine Socioeconomic Profile
• Socioeconomic Research Portal for the Philippines
• PIDS Library
• PIDS Corners
• Infographics
• Infographics - Fact Friday
• Infographics - Infobits

DepEd launches first-ever long-term plan to improve quality of basic education

GMA News Richa Noriega Article Link PN 2019-01

The Department of Education (DepEd) on Friday launched its Basic Education Development Plan (BEDP) 2030 to improve the delivery and quality of basic education and experience of students.

In her speech, DepEd Secretary Leonor Briones said the department had ventured into developing its first-ever long-term plan for basic education to strategically address the immediate impact of COVID-19 pandemic on learning and confront the challenge of quality education.

She said the BEDP 2030 was designed to address “the root cause of problems on quality, close the access gaps, sustain and enhance relevant programs, and introduce innovations in fostering resiliency and embedding the rights of children and the youth in education.”

“The co-creation of learning spaces will also help to cope with the fast-changing global education imperatives. We want our learners to be globally competitive, to be resilient and productive nation-loving citizens,” Briones said.

“We also want them to acquire the competencies defined in the plan for them to be able to achieve and apply in real-life situations,” she added.

According to DepEd Director of Planning Service Roger Masapol, the long-term plan will be implemented in two major phases.

Masapol said for the Phase 1 (2022 to 2025), it will be a response to immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning and participation and address issues on quality of basic education.

He said the Phase 2 (2026 to 2030), on the other hand, will focus on sustaining gains, introducing innovations, and evaluating policies and programs.

The long-term plan covers all formal education from kindergarten, elementary, junior high school to senior high school, as well as non-formal education through the Alternative Learning System.

The DepEd director also called for support on the long-term plan’s implementation phase to address the challenges and improve the basic education in the country.

Sought for comment, Liloan Mayor Christina Frasco, spokesperson of Vice President-elect Sara Duterte, said the plans of the current administration on the education system would all be taken into consideration. “All proposed plans of the current administration are noted and will be taken into consideration and rationalized, as necessary, to fit the vision of the incoming administration, with the view to improving the state of the Philippine education system and ensuring responsiveness to the evolving needs of learners and schools in the post-pandemic era,” Frasco said in a message to GMA News Online. Duterte was picked by the Marcos administration to lead the DepEd. She had accepted the offer.

Last February, the DepEd authorized all regional directors to begin the “ progressive expansion ” phase of face-to-face classes for both public and private schools in areas under Alert Level 2 and below.

With this, only vaccinated teachers may participate in the face-to-face classes, while vaccinated learners are preferred.

The pilot testing of face-to-face classes in the country started in November 2021 for both public and private schools subject to strict health protocols.

Salary hike, rationalize workload

Meanwhile, Senator Sherwin Gatchalian on Friday prodded the incoming administration of President-elect Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. to prioritize increasing the salaries of public school teachers and rationalizing their job functions to allocate more time for teaching.

The lawmaker, who is set to retain his chairmanship of the Senate basic education committee, made the statement as he vowed to continue seeking reforms in the education system in the country.

"[T]he incoming administration should prioritize raising teacher salaries and ensuring adequate health insurance for teachers," Gatchalian said in a statement.

"[T]he Department of Education (DepEd) should follow the recommendation of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) to conduct studies on teachers’ workload, which will rationalize the job function of public school teachers and allow them to allocate more time for teaching," he added.

For the senator, proper implementation of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers will uphold the welfare of the public school teachers.

Before the end of the 18th Congress, Gatchalian sponsored Committee Report No. 645 on the inquiry of the Senate basic education panel on the implementation of the Magna Carta, which the Senate adopted.

To address the "education crisis" in the country, Gatchalian said he will prioritize pushing for the full resumption of face-to-face classes, the review of the K to 12 system, among others.

Gatchalian cited anew the study of the National Economic Development Authority which showed that lack of face-to-face classes for a year will result in a projected P11-trillion loss in productivity over the next 40 years. 

In response, Frasco said the welfare of teachers is of utmost importance to Vice President-elect Duterte whose chairmanship of the Local School Board of Davao City have versed her well on the challenges that teachers face.

"Under VP-elect Sara Duterte’s leadership of the Department of Education, teachers can rest assured that the DepEd will be responsive to their needs," she said. —with reports from Hana Bordey and Anna Felicia Bajo/AOL, GMA News

• Labor and Education

Related Posts

Publications.

Video Highlights

• How to Order Publications?
• Opportunities

Operationalization of SDG4 and role of capacity development in education

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova hosted a Ministerial Breakfast meeting of the Capacity Development for Education (CapED) Programme on 2 November 2017 at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. The side-event of the 39 th Session of the General Conference brought together the Prime Minister of Madagascar and some 20 Education Ministers, including the Ministers of the three donor countries Finland, Norway and Sweden, to discuss the operationalization of SDG4 and the role of capacity development in education to make progress towards the Education 2030 Agenda.

The CapED Programme is a delivery platform, supporting Least Developed Countries to achieve key national priorities in the context of SDG4 , to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.  To this end, it focuses on three priority areas: education policies and plans, skills for life and work, and teachers. As Ministers took the floor, UNESCO’s work through CapED provided the guiding thread for common challenges and best practices to be shared.

Ms Bokova opened the meeting by describing CapED as a trusted programme that supports capacity development in 25 countries, responding to national needs and priorities, hailing it as “implementation in action”. The Prime Minister of Madagascar, H.E. Mahafaly Olivier Solonanadrasana, explained in his keynote speech how the CapED Programme has supported the development of a new Education Sector Plan with a stronger focus on SDG4 targets and corresponding monitoring tools with the technical assistance of UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics (UIS). He also discussed the Programme’s support in strengthening the Technical and Vocaitional Education and Training (TVET) system and programmes for out-of-school youth in rural areas. He spoke of concrete results arising from these developments, for instance, that 81% of young people found employment or launched their own businesses after taking part in the CapED-supported training programmes.

Strengthening capacity development

Through UNESCO’s CapED SDG4 Pilot Programme, capacity development has been strengthened in 10 countries to look at how policies, plans, legislation, data and monitoring systems can better embrace the Education 2030 Agenda . In this context, the Minister of Cambodia shared with participants how UNESCO has supported the development of an SDG4 roadmap, which will guide their next education strategic plan “to ensure that we are moving to reach those goals by 2030.”  While the Minister of Mozambique focused her intervention on how CapED is providing key elements to strengthen the right to education, in particular in relation to SDG4 targets 1, 4 and 5, as the country prepares a new education law.  Improving data collection and monitoring of progress towards national education priorities and SDG4 targets is another critical area that many countries seek capacity development. The Minister of Myanmar mentioned CapED’s support in developing data and announced that the country’s first-ever education statistical yearbook would be published in 2018.

Sustained domestic and international financing is needed to accomplish SDG4. CapED, through technical support from IIEP, has supported Senegal to finalize its National Education Accounts. The Minister of Senegal broached this topic, declaring that this work allowed Senegal to analyse the financing of Education and to make projections with an improved allocation of financial resources. Similarly, the Norwegian Minister also discussed funding, expressing his country’s belief that education is central to achieving all the SDGs and of the concerning decrease in donor support in education over the last 6 years. He explained that this was partly why the Norwegian government has placed education at the top of their development agenda.

The issue of gender equality was also discussed. The Minister of Niger shared some highlights from the CapED Programme in his country, which trains teachers to approach STEM subjects with gender-sensitivity, promoting girls to pursue these scientific subjects. While the Minister of Sweden presented good examples in gender equality in education and stated that, “CapED is a vital tool for strengthening the education systems in the countries where it is most needed and I know it makes a real difference on the ground.” Since two-thirds of all non-literate adults worldwide are women, Chad’s Minister discussed the question of literacy. He underscored the importance of partnerships if we are to make headway on target 4.6 and how Chad has used literacy materials produced with CapED support and funding from the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) to make 32,000 youth and adult learners literate. Alice Albright, the Chief Executive Officer of GPE was also present. She stated that we “look forward to continuing to work with all of you on furthering the goals of CapED and in general SDG4.”

Supporting teacher training

Teachers constitute one of the key means to implement SDG4 and one of CapED’s three priority areas . The Programme focuses on three intervention areas for this priority: teacher policy development, training and gender-sensitive approaches. Lao PDR discussed how CapED supported enhancing teacher capacities by training 2,000 primary school teachers across the country to teach basic literacy skills. Teachers are also invaluable when crises and emergencies become a major barrier to education. In Syria, CapED has supported teacher training through a ‘catch-up’ programme for children who missed 4 years of schooling and a second chance programme for children who did not pass final exams in primary to decrease repetition rates.

The SDG4-Education 2030 Agenda has given increased emphasis to skills for work and CapED has worked in this area for a number of years. Finland’s Minister emphasized the importance of TVET declaring that it should be viewed as an equal alternative to standard education. She also discussed the significance and development of TVET in Finland and outlined current Finnish TVET reform. Liberia is also undertaking a major reform of its TVET system. Its Minister noted the establishment of an Inter-ministerial Task Force for TVET and CapED’s support leading to major improvements in TVET governance in the country.  

The Assistant Director-General for Education, Mr Qian Tang reflected on his personal involvement in CapED and welcomed the Ministerial Meeting as a facilitator of a face-to-face dialogue between donor and beneficiary countries. Mr Tang also discussed CapED’s role as a delivery platform, pulling together many sources of funding and different entities such as headquarters, field offices and institutes around the globe to deliver as one.

More on this subject

Other recent news

Content Search

Chad + 1 more

Chad: Humanitarian Needs Analysis and Response Plan 2024 [EN/AR]

Attachments.

HNRP 2024 OVERVIEW

Chad continues to face a protracted and multidimensional humanitarian crisis, with 6 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, compared with 7.6 million in 2023. Inter- and intra-community conflicts, insecurity in certain neighboring countries and the effects of climate change (flooding and drought) are leading to forced population displacements, aggravating food and nutritional insecurity and generating health emergencies.

On 1 January 2024, nearly 2.9 million people in Chad were severely food insecure (Phase 3). Chad hosts nearly 1.4 million refugees impacted by the conflict in Sudan, making it one of the five countries with the highest number of refugees in the world. In addition, there are some 260,000 Chadians who have returned to the country.

The joint multi-sectoral needs analysis conducted in October 2023 showed that in 2024, of the 6 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, 4.6 million will be assisted in at least one of the priority sectors. The provinces of Ouaddaï, Lac, Wadi Fira, Salamat, Moyen-Chari, Ennedi Est, Ennedi Ouest and Barh-El-Gazel are in a severe phase of intersectoral vulnerability according to the JIAF 2.0 analysis framework.

To deliver adequate emergency assistance to the most vulnerable of the population, the humanitarian partners will need around 1.125 billion USD. The international community’s response at sectoral level will be coordinated by the Clusters and the Refugees Multi-Sectorial Response, at national and provincial levels, in support of the Government who remains the first responder to the humanitarian crisis.

Localization remains a priority for the humanitarian response in 2024.

The operationalization of the Humanitarian - Development - Peacebuilding Nexus approach will be strengthened through appropriate coordination with relevant partners.

Related Content

Tchad : aperçu de la situation humanitaire au tchad - 31 décembre 2023 (mars 2024), tchad : besoins humanitaires et plan de réponse (en un clin d’oeil) - mars 2024, tchad : besoins humanitaires et plan de réponse (mars 2024), situation soudanaise -tchad note d'information, janvier 2024.