Abstract
Among the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the fourth one is about ensuring “inclusive and equitable quality education” and promoting “lifelong learning opportunities for all”. This goal (SDG 4) is subdivided into 10 targets, the sixth of which concerns youth and adult literacy and numeracy. This article examines the current discursive landscape around SDG target 4.6, to determine the extent to which it reflects the lifelong learning perspective guiding the Education 2030 Framework for Action. SDG target 4.6 envisages a minimum proficiency level in literacy and numeracy which is equivalent to the level achieved upon successful completion of basic education. The author’s analysis unpacks “lifelong literacy”, and discerns three closely interrelated dimensions, namely (1) literacy as a lifelong learning process; (2) literacy as a life-wide process; and (3) literacy as part of sector-wide reforms towards lifelong learning systems. Although available documentary evidence is still limited, the author identifies a number of broad trends, many of which do not give cause for optimism. She argues that an expanded vision of literacy has not yet taken hold. There is still a long way to go before literacy (and numeracy) are tackled from a lifelong learning perspective, which would potentially have a transformative effect on the achievement of the SDGs.
Résumé
Examiner l’application du principe d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie à l’objectif d’alphabétisation inclus dans l’Objectif de développement durable 4 (ODD 4) – Parmi les 17 Objectifs de développement durable adoptés par les Nations Unies, le quatrième consiste à « assurer l’accès de tous à une éducation de qualité, sur un pied d’égalité, et promouvoir les possibilités d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie ». Cet Objectif (ODD 4) se subdivise en dix cibles, dont la sixième concerne l’alphabétisation des jeunes et des adultes. Cet article analyse le paysage discursif actuel concernant la cible 4.6, en vue de déterminer dans quelle mesure il reflète la perspective d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie, principe directeur du Cadre d’action Éducation 2030. L’ODD 4.6 envisage un niveau de maîtrise minimale en lecture, écriture et calcul, équivalent à celui atteint après achèvement concluant de l’éducation de base. L’analyse de l’auteure décortique le concept « alphabétisation tout au long de la vie » et discerne trois dimensions étroitement liées, à savoir : (1) l’alphabétisation, processus d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie, (2) l’alphabétisation touchant tous les domaines de la vie, et (3) l’alphabétisation intégrée dans des réformes sectorielles favorisant des systèmes d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie. Malgré les données documentaires à disposition encore limitées, l’auteure identifie plusieurs tendances générales dont une grande partie ne laisse guère de place à l’optimisme. Elle constate qu’une conception élargie de l’alphabétisation ne s’est pas encore établie. La route est encore longue avant que l’alphabétisation (y compris la numératie) soit abordée sous l’angle de l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie. Il est possible que ce dernier ait un effet transformateur sur l’atteinte des Objectifs de développement durable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
While acknowledging that literacy and numeracy involve different processes, in this article the use of the term “literacy” on its own refers to literacy in the broader sense including numeracy (and often other skills).
“In 1978, UNESCO’s General Conference adopted a definition of functional literacy – still in use today – which states ‘A person is functionally literate who can engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of his [or her] group and community and also for enabling him [or her] to continue to use reading, writing and calculation for his [or her] own and the community’s development’” (UNESCO 2005, p. 154). However, there is no need for such a qualifier “functional”, as people only develop literacy skills if they practise and use them, hence their skills are always functional.
EFA Goal 4 aimed to “[a]chiev[e] a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults” (WEF 2000, p. 16).
In order to monitor UN Member States’ progress in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) developed a global indicator framework, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 6 July 2017. The IAEG-SDGs is also responsible for the refinement and occasional revision of these global indicators. The official indicator list includes 232 global indicators, of which. 11 are global indicators for SDG 4. A Technical Cooperation Group for SDG 4–Education 2030 Indicators (TCG) was also set up, which is supported through the methodological work of the Global Alliance to Monitor Learning (GAML) and makes recommendations to the SDG-Education 2030 Steering Committee (SC) and the IAEG-SDGs. As an additional monitoring level to the 11 global indicators for SDG 4, the TCG has developed 32 thematic indicators. While global indicators are “a small set of globally comparable indicators” (WEF 2016, p. 65, item 75), thematic indicators are a broader set of indicators to “track progress on a cross-nationally comparable basis, with a more in-depth view of sectoral priorities” (UIS 2018b, p. 9). Countries may choose those thematic indicators from the list which are most relevant for their policy needs. Indicator 4.6.1 is one of the 11 global indicators for SDG 4 which UNESCO Member States are expected to report on from 2017 onwards. For a full list of all 43 SDG 4 global and thematic indicators, see UIS (2018b, pp. 41–43).
While SDG thematic indicator 4.6.2 will probably be phased out in the future and covered by SDG global indicator 4.6.1, there are still some issues to be addressed with regard to SDG thematic indicator 4.6.3. For example, existing measures on participation rates do not capture skills of the population with low literacy levels.
For more information, visit http://tcg.uis.unesco.org/about-us/ and http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/ [both accessed 5 February 2019].
For example, computer literacy, media literacy, health literacy, financial literacy, academic literacy, etc.
The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) is a “reference classification for organizing education programmes and related qualifications by education levels and fields … Initially developed by UNESCO in the 1970s, and first revised in 1997, the ISCED classification serves as an instrument to compile and present education statistics both nationally and internationally. The framework is occasionally updated in order to better capture new developments in education systems worldwide. ISCED 2011 includes improved definitions for types of education and clarifies their application to ISCED” (UIS 2012, p. vi).
“General education“ refers to “education programmes that are designed to develop learners’ general knowledge, skills and competencies, as well as literacy and numeracy skills, often to prepare students for more advanced education programmes at the same or higher ISCED levels and to lay the foundation for lifelong learning” (UIS 2012, p. 80).
For example, in Europe this is the case in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Estonia.
The “Effective Literacy and Numeracy Practices Database” (LitBase), an online resource compiled by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL), is at http://litbase.uil.unesco.org/ [accessed 11 February 2019].
“By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations” (WEF 2016, p. 44).
For example, UAE, Vietnam, Jordan, India, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, among others.
The complexities in producing cross-nationally comparable learning indicators are well documented (Guadalupe and Cardoso 2011; Kim 2018; UIL 2013; UNESCO 2016). It is important to note the limitations in the comparability of these data. In principle, test results can only be compared across countries participating in the same assessment (e.g. PIAAC 2012; see OECD 2013b).
“Proportion of children and young people (a) in Grade 2 or 3; (b) at the end of primary education; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex” (WEF 2016, p. 72).
International data are collected for comparative purposes in PISA = the Programme for International Student Assessment (conducted by the OECD); PIRLS = the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA); and TIMSS = the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (IEA). Regional data are collected in TERCE = the Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education, LLECE); PASEC = the Programme for the Analysis of Education Systems of CONFEMEN (Conference of Education Ministers of Francophone Countries across the World); and SAQMEC = the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality.
It is generally understood that a competency implies a combination of knowledge, values, skills, know-how and attitudes that learners can mobilise independently, creatively and responsibly to address challenges, solve problems and carry out a complex activity or task in a certain context (Rychen et al. 2003).
The results from the assessment are reported on a 500-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater proficiency of literacy and numeracy. For interpreting the scores, the scale is divided into proficiency levels. Literacy and numeracy have six such levels, from below level 1 – the lowest – to Level 5 – the highest. For detailed descriptions of the levels, see OECD (2013b, p. 64).
Two examples of such programmes are the “Supporting Maternal and Child Health Improvement and Building Literate Environment” (SMILE) programme in Cambodia, a model integrating literacy and maternal and child health education, and Brazil’s Alfabetizando com Saúde (Learning to Read and Write in Good Health) programme implemented by Curitiba City Council, which provides adult literacy programmes that simultaneously help prevent outbreaks of disease, increase environmental awareness and promote healthy lifestyles (Hanemann 2015b; UIL LitBase [link provided in footnote 11]).
Depending on national circumstances, an upper secondary qualification or equivalent corresponds to level 3 or 4 in the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). For descriptors of these levels, see https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/en/content/descriptors-page [accessed 15 February 2019].
Over USD 2 billion were pledged by donors for the GPE’s core fund, and over USD 30 billion were pledged by Presidents/ Ministers as domestic funding.
In 2017, GPE invested in adult literacy and training activities in five countries that were eligible for education sector programme implementation grants (ESPIGs), namely Eritrea, Guinea, South Sudan, Togo and Yemen (GPE 2017).
These figures are mainly based on estimates (e.g. school attainment, household surveys, population censuses, etc.). Test-based data show that close to 70 million Europeans are affected by this situation (EC 2016).
References
Archer, D. (2018). What next for the Global Partnership for Education after a transformative replenishment? World Education Blog [blogpost 9 February]. Retrieved 14 February 2018 from https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/what-next-for-the-global-partnership-for-education-after-a-transformative-replenishment/.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Barton, D., et al. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge.
Benavot, A. (2015). Literacy in the 21st century: Towards a dynamic nexus of social relations. International Review of Education, 61(3), 273–294.
Croso, C. (2018). After Dakar, where to from here? The Global Campaign for Education’s (GCE) reflections from the GPE Financing Conference and thoughts on the future of education financing. Global Partnership for Education [blogpost 15 February]. Retrieved 25 February 2019 from https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/after-dakar-where-here.
Easton, P. (2014). Developing literate environments: Fleshing out the demand side of Education for All. International Journal of Educational Development, 34(1), 3–10.
EC (European Commission). (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. (2006/962/EC). Official Journal of the European Union, L394, 10–18 (30 Dec 2006). Retrieved 18 May 2018 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32006H0962.
EC. (2012). EU High-level group of experts on literacy. Final report. September 2012. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 19 February 2018 from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/school/doc/literacy-report_en.pdf.
EC. (2016). Upskilling pathways: New opportunities for adults [dedicated webpage]. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1224.
Frank-Oputu, E.A. & Oghenekohwo, J.E. (2017). Literacy education and sustainable development in developing societies. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 5(2), 126–131. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1149291.pdf.
Fredriksen, B. (2016). Will the SDG4 post-basic ambition delay universal basic education in sub-Saharan Africa? In NORRAG News 54. Education, training and agenda 2030: What impact one year on? (pp. 27–29). Retrieved 25 January 2018 from http://www.alqasimifoundation.com/admin/Content/File-1172017214615.pdf.
Gee, J. P. (1991). Social linguistics: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.
GPE (Global Partnership for Education) (2016). GPE 2020 Improving learning and equity through stronger education systems. Strategic plan 2016–2020. Washington, DC: Global Partnership for Education. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/gpe-2020-strategic-plan.
GPE. (2017). Portfolio review 2017. GPE Annual portfolio review 2017. Washington, DC: Global Partnership for Education (GPE). Retrieved 31 January 2018 from https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/2017-gpe-portfolio-review.
GPE. (2018). What happened at the GPE financing conference in Dakar? [blogpost 9 February]. Retrieved 15 February 2019 from https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/what-happened-gpe-financing-conference-dakar?utm_source=Global%20Partnership%20For%20Education&utm_campaign=b3a8c8f655-English%20Campaign%20-%202018-02-09-07-11-27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_90856a3035-b3a8c8f655-173918293.
Guadalupe, C., & Cardoso, M. (2011). Measuring the continuum of literacy skills among adults: Educational testing and the LAMP experience. International Review of Education, 57(1–2), 199–217.
Hamilton, M., & Hillier, Y. (2006). The changing face of adult literacy, language and numeracy 1970–2000: A critical history. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Hanemann, U. (2005). Addressing challenges to literacy and livelihoods. In Commonwealth f Learning (Ed.), Literacy & livelihoods: Learning for life in a changing world (pp. 101–107). Collected papers from the international experts’ meeting held 15–17 November 2004. Vancouver, BC: Commonwealth of Learning (COL). Retrieved 4 February 2018 from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/139/Literacy-Livelihoods_2004.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Hanemann, U. (Ed.) (2015a). Transforming our world: Literacy for sustainable development. Selected case studies from UNESCO’s Effective literacy and numeracy practices database (LitBase). Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 6 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002342/234253e.pdf.
Hanemann, U. (2015b). Lifelong literacy: Some trends and issues in conceptualising and operationalising literacy from a lifelong learning perspective. International Review of Education, 61(3), 295–326.
Hanemann, U. (2015c). Learning families: Intergenerational approaches to literacy teaching and learning. Selected case studies from UNESCO’s Effective literacy and numeracy practices database (LitBase). Hamburg. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Retrieved 16 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002342/234252e.pdf.
Hanemann, U., & Krolak, L. (2017). Fostering a culture of reading and writing. Examples of dynamic literate environments. Selected case studies from UNESCO’s Effective literacy and numeracy practices database (LitBase). Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Retrieved 4 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002579/257933e.pdf.
ICFGEO (International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity). (2016). The learning generation: Investing in education for a changing world. A report by the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. New York, NY: International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://report.educationcommission.org/downloads/.
ICFGEO. (2017). Delivering the learning generation. Progress Report 2016–2017. Education Commission. New York, NY: International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://educationcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Commission-2017-Progress-Report.pdf.
Kim, S. (2018). Literacy skills gaps: A cross-level analysis on international and intergenerational variations. International Review of Education, 64(1), 85–110.
Lind, A. (2008). Literacy for all: Making a difference. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (UNESCO-IIEP). Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001597/159785e.pdf.
LMTF (Learning Metrics Task Force). (2013). Toward universal learning: Recommendations from the Learning Metrics Task Force. Montreal/Washington, DC: UNESCO Institute for Statistics/Center for Universal Education at Brookings. Retrieved 14 May 2018 from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LTMF-RecommendationsReportfinalweb.pdf.
NORRAG (Network for international policies and cooperation in education and training). (2016). Education, training and agenda 2030: What impact one year on? NORRAG News 54 (special issue). Retrieved 25 January 2018 from http://www.alqasimifoundation.com/admin/Content/File-1172017214615.pdf.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2012). Literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments: Framework for the OECD Survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved 23 January 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264128859-en.
OECD. (2013a). Literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments: Framework for the OECD Survey of adult skills: Corrigenda. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved 23 January 2019 from http://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/Corrigendum_literacy-numeracy-and-problem-solving-in-technology-rich-environments.pdf.
OECD. (2013b). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 15 February 2019 from http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Skills%20volume%201%20(eng)–full%20v12–eBook%20(04%2011%202013).pdf.
OECD (2014) Competency framework. Talent.oecd. Learn, perform, succeed. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 18 May 2018 from https://www.oecd.org/careers/competency_framework_en.pdf.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21). Retrieved 14 May 2018 from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0816.pdf.
Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H.A. (2002). Returns to investment in education: A further update. Policy Research Working Paper 2881. Washington,DC: World Bank, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, Education Sector Unit. Retrieved 18 May 2018 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079934475/547667-1135281504040/Returns_Investment_Edu.pdf.
Robinson-Pant, A. (2014). Literacy and education for sustainable development and women’s empowerment. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 4 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002301/230162E.pdf.
Rogers, A., & Hunter, J. (2007). Adult learning and literacy learning for livelihoods: Some international perspectives. Development in Practice, 17(1), 137–146.
Rychen, D.S., Salganik, L.H., & McLaughlin, M.E. (Eds). (2003). Definition and selection of key competencies. Contributions to the Second DeSeCo Symposium. Geneva, Switzerland, 11–13 February 2002. Neuchâtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office. Retrieved 19 February 2018 from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/41529505.pdf.
Singh, M. (2015). Global perspectives on recognising non-formal and informal learning: Why recognition matters. Technical and Vocational Education and Training; Issues, Concerns and Prospects series, vol. 21. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved 23 January 2019 from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-15278-3.pdf.
Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. London: Longman.
Street, B. (2003). What’s new in new literacy studies? Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91.
Street, B. (2005). Understanding and defining literacy. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006. 2006/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/92. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146186e.pdf.
Torres, R.M. (2003). Lifelong learning. A new momentum and a new opportunity for Adult Basic Learning and Education (ABLE) in the South. A study commissioned by Sida’s Education Division. New Education Division Documents No. 14. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Retrieved 23 January 2019 from https://www.sida.se/contentassets/b7055b5b12804dcaaf943224dbb716f0/lifelong-learning_616.pdf.
Torres, R.M. (2009). Literacy and lifelong learning: The linkages. In ADEA (Ed.), More and better education. What makes effective learning in African literacy programs? Lessons learned from the ADEA 2006 Biennale on Education in Africa (Libreville, Gabon, 27–31 March 2006) on the characteristics, conditions and factors underlying effective schools and literacy and early childhood development programs (pp. 493–504). Tunis Belvédère: Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA). Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://www.adeanet.org/adea/downloadcenter/CD/biennale2006_Paper_eng.pdf.
UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning). (2010). Belém framework for action: Harnessing the power and potential of adult learning and education for a viable future. Hamburg: UIL.
UIL. (2012). UNESCO Guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 4 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002163/216360e.pdf.
UIL. (2013). Rethinking literacy. Second Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE 2). Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 29 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002224/222407E.pdf.
UIL. (2014). Technical note: Lifelong learning. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 29 January 2018 from http://uil.unesco.org/fileadmin/keydocuments/LifelongLearning/en/UNESCOTechNotesLLL.pdf.
UIL. (2016). The impact of adult learning and education on health and well-being; employment and the labour market; and social, civic and community life. Third Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE 3). Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 25 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002459/245913e.pdf.
UIL. (2017a). Literacy and numeracy from a lifelong learning perspective. UIL Policy Brief 7. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 25 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002470/247094E.pdf.
UIL. (2017b). Engaging families in literacy and learning. UIL Policy Brief 9. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 16 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002494/249463e.pdf.
UIL. (2018). Recognition, validation and accreditation of youth and adult basic education as a foundation of lifelong learning. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 25 February 2019 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000263619.pdf.
UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics). (n.d.). Basic education: Definition. In Glossary [online resource]. Retrieved 11 February 2019 from http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/basic-education.
UIS. (2009). Review of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 97): Basic Education and the review of the ISCED. Proposal for initial discussion in the ISCED regional expert meetings. Draft version October 2009. Retrieved 11 February 2019 from https://web.archive.org/web/20170426055912/http:/www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/ISCED_RM_Basic_Ed_proposal_EN.pdf.
UIS. (2012). International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011. Montreal: UIS. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf.
UIS. (2017). Report of the Director on the activities of the Institute in 2017. UIS Governing Board. Nineteenth Ordinary Session 4 December 2017. Montreal, November 2017. Montreal: UIS. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/report-of-director-on-activities-of-the-institute-2017.pdf.
UIS. (2018a). 11 Global Indicators for SDG 4 [1-page overview]. Montreal: UIS. Retrieved 25 February 2019 from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/11-global-indicators-sdg4-cheat-sheet-2018-en.pdf.
UIS. (2018b). Quick guide to education indicators for SDG 4. Montreal: UIS. Retrieved 5 February 2019 from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/quick-guide-education-indicators-sdg4-2018-en.pdf.
UIS & GEMR (Global Education Monitoring Report). (2017). Reducing global poverty through universal primary and secondary education. Policy paper 32/Fact Sheet 44, June 2017, Montreal/Paris: UIS/UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/reducing-global-poverty-through-universal-primary-secondary-education.pdf.
UN (United Nations). (2012). The future we want. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. A/RES/66/288. New York: United Nations. Retrieved 11 February 2019 from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E.
UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. New York: UN. Retrieved 23 January 2019 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (1990). World declaration on Education for all. Paris/New York: UNESCO/Secretariat of the International Consultative Forum on Education for All. Retrieved 11 February 2019 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127583.
UNESCO. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programmes. UNESCO Education Sector Position Paper. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136246e.pdf.
UNESCO (2005). Literacy for life. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141639e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2007). Experts’ consultation on the operational definition of basic education. ED/BAS/RVE/2009/PI/1. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 5 February 2019 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180253_eng/PDF/180253eng.pdf.multi.
UNESCO. (2011). Education counts: Towards the Millennium Development Goals. New updated edition. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 14 May 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001902/190214e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2012a). International literacy day, 8 September 2012: Literacy and peace [online note]. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 18 May 2018 from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/NotesLiteracy-Peace.pdf.
UNESCO. (2012b). Youth and skills. Putting education to work. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2012. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 19 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002180/218003e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2013). Education transforms lives. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 18 May 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002231/223115E.pdf.
UNESCO. (2014). Sustainable development begins with education. How education can contribute to the proposed post-2015 goals. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230508e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2015). Education for all 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232205e.pdf.
UNESCO (2016). Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Global Education Monitoring Report 2016. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002457/245752e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2017a). Reading the past, writing the future. Fifty years of promoting literacy. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002475/247563e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2017b). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 07 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf.
UNESCO. (2017c). Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/18. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002593/259338e.pdf.
Vandermoortele, J. & Delamonica, E. (2002). The “education vaccine” against HIV. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 3(1), 6–13. Retrieved 14 May 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238088220_The_education_vaccine_against_HIV.
WEF (World Education Forum). (2000). The Dakar framework for action. Education for all: Meeting our collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 31 January 2018 from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf.
WEF (World Education Forum) (2016). Incheon declaration and Framework for action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all. Education 2030. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 29 January 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656e.pdf.
Yang, J. (2015) Recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning in UNESCO Member States. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 15 January 2018 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232656.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hanemann, U. Examining the application of the lifelong learning principle to the literacy target in the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 4). Int Rev Educ 65, 251–275 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09771-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09771-8