UNICEF calls on countries in CEECIS not to reduce funding for education in the face of the economic crisis
GENEVA, Switzerland - December 1, 2008 A UNICEF Education Specialist today warned that the economic crisis could impact badly on efforts to improve quality education in the CEECIS Region. Philippe Testot-Ferry said the combination of the collapse of oil prices, combined with the credit crunch was forcing many countries to reexamine their budgets. “Investment in education is a long term investment in the economic and social development of a country, “he said. “To reduce the budget in this sector in the face of the economic situation would adversely impact on the future prospects of a country.” A UNICEF report “Education for Some, More than Others” outlines the situation in the education sector throughout the region. It paints a picture of growing disparities, patchy standards and worries about access. There were an estimated 2.4 million ‘missing children’ of primary school age, who should be in school but were not and almost 12 million missing out-of-school children of (lower and upper) secondary school. “All together more than 14 million children enter adult life every year without any kind of formal education or school diploma,” Testot-Ferry stated. Reforms of education systems have been initiated but have not penetrated into the classroom, thus affecting the overall quality of education, especially in poor and rural areas. Demand for education is falling due to the poor quality of services provided, lack of relevance of curricula to the labor market, low transition to the upper-secondary education and insufficient perceived benefits from education. The report concludes that it will not be possible to achieve ‘Education for All’ and thus achieve the Millennium Development goals in the region if ‘Education for some, more than others’ continues to prevail. The report recommends “breaking the vicious circle that involves lack of access to quality schooling for children with various disadvantages”; and to “move from a distribution of public expenditure that reinforces inequality to one that counteracts inequality”.
|
