Looking Ahead: A Critical Review of Global Education Projections

• In Event: Measurement and critique of sustainability

Proposal

1. Background and Purpose:
The objective of this paper is to examine the methodologies used for recent education projections, and to assess the strengths and limitations of these models. From 2000 to 2015, education projections became increasingly prominent to estimate progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Education for All (EFA) goals. Under the new agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the push to achieve SDG4, a new wave of more advanced education projections has emerged to estimate progress and outcomes as we near 2030 and beyond. This paper takes a critical and retrospective look at education projections from the Education Policy and Data Center (EPDC), the World Bank’s Education Statistics, and educational attainment projections from UNESCO’s 2016 Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report developed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (Barakat et al. 2016). By assessing the strengths and limitations of these models, this paper sheds light on the potential value or lack thereof of employing education projection models to forecast future outcomes.

2. Conceptual Framework:
This paper is grounded in a rigorous review of literature on the various methodologies and models used for projecting international development outcomes and population. Upon reviewing the broader landscape of projection models, this paper narrows in on research surrounding education projection models developed since 2000. In the previous decade, historical trend-based education projections were increasingly used for 1) education planning and policymaking, 2) estimating progress toward achieving international education goals, and 3) advocacy (Wils and Porta 2007). Numerous studies employed an assortment of models to project enrollment, attendance, completion, intake, gender parity indices, education financing, and other education indicators (EPDC 2007, EPDC 2008, Wils and Ingram 2011, GPE 2014, EPDC 2014). This paper examines the most recent education projections that improve upon prior methodologies and focus on progress toward achieving the SDGs.

3. Design:
a. First, this paper reviews EPDC’s High-level Interactive Projection for Education (HIPE) forecasting model, which was used to make 83 country-level projections from 2000 to 2025. Using five years of new data, we will recalculate EPDC’s initial projections from 2012 to estimate pupil volume, gross intake rates, dropout rates, transition rates, and completion rates. Comparing these updated projections with the previous ones allows us to assess the accuracy of the HIPE model by examining which yielded more accurate results from 2012-2017.
b. Next, this paper examines the projection methodologies employed by the World Bank and IIASA. The World Bank calculates a variety of projections for education indicators around completion. The IIASA projections used for the 2016 GEM report focus on primary and secondary attainment rates.
c. Lastly, this paper compares the results of these education projections, leading to a broader discussion of the validity, strengths, and limitations of education projection methodologies.

4. Data Sources:
To recalculate education projections, this paper uses gross enrollment rate and transition rate indicators made available by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). In addition, this paper uses household survey education data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) extracted by EPDC. Age-specific population data is used from the United Nations Population Division.

5. Results:
Although results are not yet available, this paper will provide insight into the accuracy of EPDC’s HIPE trends and projections from 2000 to 2025, demonstrating the strengths and limitations of the HIPE model. This paper will also provide a comparative analysis of the methods used by the education projection models mentioned above. This will result in a discussion on the strengths and limitations of different methodologies used for projecting education outcomes.

6. Significance to the field of international and comparative education:
As we near the 2030 target of the SDGs, it is important to remain vigilant of progress and trends toward these goals. Projections are an important tool for providing information on this progress and potential outcomes, which ultimately informs future planning, financing, and policymaking. However, it is important to reflect upon the value and use of committing resources to education projections if ineffective forecasting methods are used. Thus, this paper seeks to better understand the landscape of current education projections and methodologies in an effort to Inform the future of education projections. 

References

Chaluda, A. 2013. Is universal education within reach? Results from EPDC education projections. Education Policy and Data Center Policy Brief.

Chaluda, A. 2013. Modeling methodology and assumptions in HIPE-Trend based model. Education Policy and Data Center, Washington, D.C.

EPDC 2007. School Attendance and Enrolment – Global trends and projections. Background paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008.

EPDC 2008. Four Studies of Education Growth: Inequality by wealth, Age effects, Sub-national learning differentials, and Projections. Background paper commissioned for the Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report 2009.

EPDC 2014. The Nickels and Dimes of Education for All. Washington, D.C.

Global Partnership for Education (GPE) 2014. Estimates and Projections of Unmet Financial Needs: A Methodological Notes and Results.

International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity 2016. The Learning Generation: Investing in education for a changing world.

Barakat et al. 2016. Education & the Sustainable Development Goals. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Paper commissioned for the Global Education Monitoring Report 2016, Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all.

Porta, E. and A. Wils 2007. Review and Evaluation of Selected Education Projection Models in use in 2006. Working Paper WP-02-07. Education Policy and Data Center, Washington, D.C.

Wils, A. and G. Ingram 2011. Universal Basic Education: A Progress-based Path to 2025. Education Policy and Data Center, Washington, D.C.

Authors

• Carina Omoeva, FHI 360

• Sean Cremin, FHI 360