sustainable development and education

Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a call-to-action for people worldwide to address five critical areas of importance by 2030: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership.

Biology, Health, Conservation, Geography, Human Geography, Social Studies, Civics

Set forward by the United Nations (UN) in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are a collection of 17 global goals aimed at improving the planet and the quality of human life around the world by the year 2030.

Image courtesy of the United Nations

In 2015, the 193 countries that make up the United Nations (UN) agreed to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The historic agenda lays out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets for dignity, peace, and prosperity for the planet and humankind, to be completed by the year 2030. The agenda targets multiple areas for action, such as poverty and sanitation , and plans to build up local economies while addressing people's social needs.

In short, the 17 SDGs are:

Goal 1: No Poverty: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2: Zero Hunger: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Goal 4: Quality Education: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 5: Gender Equality : Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.

Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.

Goal 10: Reduced Inequality : Reduce in equality within and among countries.

Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Goal 13: Climate Action: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

Goal 14: Life Below Water: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

Goal 15: Life on Land: Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Goal 16: Peace,  Justice , and Strong Institutions: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Goal 17: Partnerships to Achieve the Goal: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

The SDGs build on over a decade of work by participating countries. In essence, the SDGs are a continuation of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which began in the year 2000 and ended in 2015. The MDGs helped to lift nearly one billion people out of extreme poverty, combat hunger, and allow more girls to attend school. The MDGs, specifically goal seven, helped to protect the planet by practically eliminating global consumption of ozone-depleting substances; planting trees to offset the loss of forests; and increasing the percent of total land and coastal marine areas worldwide. The SDGs carry on the momentum generated by the MDGs with an ambitious post-2015 development agenda that may cost over $4 trillion each year. The SDGs were a result of the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit, which demanded the creation of an open working group to develop a draft agenda for 2015 and onward.

Unlike the MDGs, which relied exclusively on funding from governments and nonprofit organizations, the SDGs also rely on the private business sector to make contributions that change impractical and unsustainable consumption and production patterns. Novozymes, a purported world leader in biological solutions, is just one example of a business that has aligned its goals with the SDGs. Novozymes has prioritized development of technology that reduces the amount of water required for waste treatment. However, the UN must find more ways to meaningfully engage the private sector to reach the goals, and more businesses need to step up to the plate to address these goals.

Overall, limited progress has been made with the SDGs. According to the UN, many people are living healthier lives now compared to the start of the millennium, representing one area of progress made by the MDGs and SDGs. For example, the UN reported that between 2012 and 2017, 80 percent of live births worldwide had assistance from a skilled health professional—an improvement from 62 percent between 2000 and 2005.

While some progress has been made, representatives who attended sustainable development meetings claimed that the SDGs are not being accomplished at the speed, or with the appropriate momentum, needed to meet the 2030 deadline. On some measures of poverty, only slight improvements have been made: The 2018 SDGs Report states that 9.2 percent of the world's workers who live with family members made less than $1.90 per person per day in 2017, representing less than a 1 percent improvement from 2015. Another issue is the recent rise in world hunger. Rates had been steadily declining, but the 2018 SDGs Report stated that over 800 million people were undernourished worldwide in 2016, which is up from 777 million people in 2015.

Another area of the SDGs that lacks progress is gender equality. Multiple news outlets have recently reported that no country is on track to achieve gender equality by 2030 based on the SDG gender index. On a scale of zero to 100, where a score of 100 means equality has been achieved, Denmark was the top performing country out of 129 countries with score slightly under 90. A score of 90 or above means a country is making excellent progress in achieving the goals, and 59 or less is considered poor headway. Countries were scored against SDGs targets that particularly affect women, such as access to safe water or the Internet. The majority of the top 20 countries with a good ranking were European countries, while sub-Saharan Africa had some of the lowest-ranking countries. The overall average score of all countries is a poor score of 65.7.

In fall of 2019, heads of state and government will convene at the United Nations Headquarters in New York to assess the progress in the 17 SDGs. The following year—2020—marks the deadline for 21 of the 169 SDG targets. At this time, UN member states will meet to make a decision to update these targets.

In addition to global efforts to achieve the SDGs, according to the UN, there are ways that an individual can contribute to progress: save on electricity while home by unplugging appliances when not in use; go online and opt in for paperless statements instead of having bills mailed to the house; and report bullying online when seen in a chat room or on social media.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Culture & Sustainable development
• Education for sustainable development
• Investigating Sustainable Development
• UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGp)
• Man and the biosphere programme (MAB)
• Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
• World Heritage and Sustainable Development
• Sustainable development and living heritage
• Global citizenship education
• Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS)
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
• News & Stories

Education for sustainable development (ESD) is UNESCO’s education sector response to the urgent and dramatic challenges the planet faces. The collective activities of human beings have altered the earth’s ecosystems so that our very survival seems in danger because of changes more difficult to reverse every day. To contain global warming before it reaches catastrophic levels means addressing environmental, social and economic issues in a holistic way. UNESCO’s ESD for 2030 education programme aims to bring about the personal and societal transformation that is necessary to change course. 

Acting as a global advocate and aiming to strengthen capacities of governments to provide quality Climate Change Education (CCE), UNESCO produces and shares knowledge, provides policy guidance and technical support to its Member States and implements projects on the ground. UNESCO encourages innovative approaches and enhances non-formal education programmes through media, networking and partnerships. 

What you need to know about education for sustainable development

Unesco's education for sustainable development newsletter.

Sign up to receive our latest news on events, awards and competitions, as well as resources, best practices and stories from around the world.

Creating synergy to support the implementation of education for sustainable development

Key figures

made no reference to climate change

of climate change but only 20% can explain well how to take action

from 161 countries adopted the Berlin Declaration on ESD

are preparing their country initiative on ESD for 2030

World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development 2021

Monitoring SDG 4: education for sustainable development

Resources from UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report.

Related items

• Artificial intelligence
• Sharing knowledge
• Environmental education
• See more add

Why education is the key to sustainable development

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Economic Progress is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, economic progress.

This year marks a turning point for the world, with the international community adopting a new global development strategy in September and negotiating a universal deal to combat climate change in December. To succeed, policymakers must recognize that today’s global imperatives – to eradicate poverty and improve wellbeing, while restoring the Earth’s balance – form a single agenda, and that the most effective means of achieving it is education.

The good news is that the proposed set of Sustainable Development Goals, which will underpin global efforts for the next 15 years, reflect this recognition. Likewise, Article 6 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulates that education, training, and public awareness on climate change must be pursued.

But, with negotiations on these global agreements far from complete, it is vital that policymakers’ emphasis on education continues to be reinforced. To this end, the world’s education ministers must take the opportunity offered by this month’s World Education Forum in Incheon, South Korea, to highlight the role that education can and should play in advancing sustainable development.

A strong education system broadens access to opportunities, improves health, and bolsters the resilience of communities – all while fueling economic growth in a way that can reinforce and accelerate these processes. Moreover, education provides the skills people need to thrive in the new sustainable economy, working in areas such as renewable energy, smart agriculture, forest rehabilitation, the design of resource-efficient cities, and sound management of healthy ecosystems.

Perhaps most important, education can bring about a fundamental shift in how we think, act, and discharge our responsibilities toward one another and the planet. After all, while financial incentives, targeted policies, and technological innovation are needed to catalyze new ways of producing and consuming, they cannot reshape people’s value systems so that they willingly uphold and advance the principles of sustainable development. Schools, however, can nurture a new generation of environmentally savvy citizens to support the transition to a prosperous and sustainable future.

Some schools are already becoming learning labs for sustainable development, where young students are being prepared to adapt to and help mitigate the consequences of climate change. Guided by the UNFCCC – as well as related initiatives like the UN Alliance on Climate Change Education, Training, and Public Awareness – governments are increasingly integrating education strategies, tools, and targets into national development policies. The UNESCO-led UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, which began in 2005, was explicitly intended to instill in every human being “the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to shape a sustainable future.”

Together, UNESCO and the UNFCCC are not only promoting climate-change education in schools; they are also giving teachers the tools and knowledge they need to provide that education through online courses. Already, more than 14 million students and 1.2 million teachers in 58 countries have been engaged in such learning, and 550 business schools have signed on to the Principles for Responsible Management Education, developed by the UN Global Compact.

This progress, though important, is just the beginning. What is needed now is a global movement, with every student in every country learning about sustainable development from well-trained teachers, equipped with the appropriate curricula and resources. An ambitious sustainable development agenda, together with a legally binding global climate deal, could go a long way toward catalyzing such a movement.

Of course, we cannot secure a sustainable future in a matter of months. But, with a well-designed set of commitments and targets, we can move onto the right path. And, with effective educational programs that instill in future generations the importance of restoring Earth’s balance and delivering a prosperous future for the many, rather than the few, we can stay on that path.

That is the message that education ministers must emphasize at their upcoming forum, and that policymakers should heed as they negotiate this year’s two critical global agreements.

This article is published in collaboration with  Project Syndicate.  Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

To keep up with the Agenda  subscribe to our weekly newsletter .

Author: Irina Bokova is Director-General of UNESCO. Christiana Figueres is Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Image: Coloured pencils are pictured in a wooden box at a nursery school. REUTERS/Michaela Rehle.

Share this:

• Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Economic Progress .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

The latest from the IMF on the global economy, and other economics stories to read

April 12, 2024

Eurozone inflation, Asian factory activity and other economics news to read

April 5, 2024

Top weekend reads on Agenda: Paris Olympics, Japan's negative interest rates, and more

Pooja Chhabria

March 28, 2024

What we learned about effective decision making from Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman

Kate Whiting

China's industrial profits grow, and other economics stories to read this week

Building trust amid uncertainty – 3 risk experts on the state of the world in 2024

Andrea Willige

March 27, 2024

UNICEF Data : Monitoring the situation of children and women

GOAL 4: QUALITY EDUCATION

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.  This goal supports the reduction of disparities and inequities in education, both in terms of access and quality. It recognizes the need to provide quality education for all, and most especially vulnerable populations, including poor children, children living in rural areas, persons with disabilities, indigenous people and refugee children.

This goal is of critical importance because of its transformative effects on the other SDGs. Sustainable development hinges on every child receiving a quality education. When children are offered the tools to develop to their full potential, they become productive adults ready to give back to their communities and break the cycle of poverty. Education enables upward socioeconomic mobility.

Significant progress was achieved during the last decade in increasing access to education and school enrolment rates at all levels, particularly for girls. Despite these gains, about 260 million children were out of school in 2018, nearly one fifth of the global population in that age group. Furthermore, more than half of all children and adolescents worldwide are failing to meet minimum proficiency standards in reading and mathematics.

UNICEF’s contribution towards reaching this goal centres on equity and inclusion to provide all children with quality learning opportunities and skills development programmes, from early childhood through adolescence. UNICEF works with governments worldwide to raise the quality and inclusiveness of schools.  

UNICEF is custodian for global monitoring of Indicator 4.2.1 Percentage of children (aged 24–59 months) developmentally on track in at least 3 of the 4 following domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, socio-emotional and learning.

Child-related SDG indicators

Target 4.1 by 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

Proportion of children and young people: (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex

• Indicator definition
• Computation method
• Comments & limitations

Explore the data

The indicator aims to measure the percentage of children and young people who have achieved the minimum learning outcomes in reading and mathematics during or at the end of the relevant stages of education.

The higher the figure, the higher the proportion of children and/or young people reaching at least minimum proficiency in the respective domain (reading or mathematic) with the limitations indicated under the “Comments and limitations” section.

The indicator is also a direct measure of the learning outcomes achieved in the two subject areas at the end of the relevant stages of education. The three measurement points will have their own established minimum standard. There is only one threshold that divides students into above and below minimum:

Below minimum refers to the proportion or percentage of students who do not achieve a minimum standard as set up by countries according to the globally-defined minimum competencies.

Above minimum refers to the proportion or percentage of students who have achieved the minimum standards. Due to heterogeneity of performance levels set by national and cross-national assessments, these performance levels will have to be mapped to the globally-defined minimum performance levels. Once the performance levels are mapped, the global education community will be able to identify for each country the proportion or percentage of children who achieved minimum standards.

(a) Minimum proficiency level (MPL) is the benchmark of basic knowledge in a domain (mathematics, reading, etc.) measured through learning assessments. In September 2018, an agreement was reached on a verbal definition of the global minimum proficiency level of reference for each of the areas and domains of Indicator 4.1.1 as described in the document entitled: Minimum Proficiency Levels (MPLs): Outcomes of the consensus building meeting ( http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/MPLs_revised_doc_20190204.docx ).

Minimum proficiency levels (MPLs) defined by each learning assessment to ensure comparability across learning assessments; a verbal definition of MPL for each domain and levels between cross-national assessments (CNAs) were established by conducting an analysis of the performance level descriptors, the descriptions of the performance levels to express the knowledge and skills required to achieve each performance level by domain, of cross-national, regional and community-led tests in reading and mathematics. The analysis was led and completed by the UIS and a consensus among experts on the proposed methodology was deemed adequate and pragmatic.

The global MPL definitions for the domains of reading and mathematics are presented here (insert link)

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading test has six proficiency levels, of which Level 2 is described as the minimum proficiency level. In Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), there are four proficiency levels: Low, Intermediate, High and Advanced. Students reaching the Intermediate benchmark are able to apply basic knowledge in a variety of situations, similar to the idea of minimum proficiency. Currently, there are no common standards validated by the international community or countries. The indicator shows data published by each of the agencies and organizations specialised in cross-national learning assessments.

(a) The number of children and/or young people at the relevant stage of education n in year t achieving at least the pre-defined proficiency level in subject s expressed as a percentage of the number of children and/or young people at stage of education n, in year t, in any proficiency level in subjects.

Harmonize various data sources To address the challenges posed by the limited capacity of some countries to implement cross- national, regional and national assessments, actions have been taken by the UIS and its partners. The strategies are used according to its level of precision and following a reporting protocol ( http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/GAML6-WD-2-Protocol-for-reporting-4.1.1_v1.pdf ) that includes the national assessments under specific circumstances.

Out-of-school children In 2016, 263 million children, adolescents and youth were out of school, representing nearly one-fifth of the global population of this age group. 63 million, or 24% of the total, are children of primary school age (typically 6 to 11 years old); 61 million, or 23% of the total, are adolescents of lower secondary school age (typically 12 to 14 years old); and 139 million, or 53% of the total, are youth of upper secondary school age (about 15 to 17 years old). Not all these kids will be permanently outside school, some will re-join the educational system and, eventually, complete late, while some of them will enter late. The quantity varies per country and region and demands some adjustment in the estimate of Indicator 4.1.1. There is currently a discussion on how to implement these adjustments to reflect all the population. In 2017, the UIS proposed to make adjustments using the out-of-school children and the completion rates.( http://uis.unesco.org/en/blog/helping-countries-improve-their-data-out-school-children ) and the completion rates.

Learning outcomes from cross-national learning assessment are directly comparable for all countries which participated in the same cross-national learning assessments. However, these outcomes are not comparable across different cross-national learning assessments or with national learning assessments. A level of comparability of learning outcomes across assessments could be achieved by using different methodologies, each with varying standard errors. The period of 2020-2021 will shed light on the standard errors’ size for these methodologies.

The comparability of learning outcomes over time has additional complications, which require, ideally, to design and implement a set of comparable items as anchors in advance. Methodological developments are underway to address comparability of assessments outcomes over time.

While data from many national assessments are available now, every country sets its own standards so the performance levels might not be comparable. One option is to link existing regional assessments based on a common framework. Furthermore, assessments are typically administered within school systems, the current indicators cover only those in school and the proportion of in-school target populations might vary from country to country due to varied out-of-school children populations. Assessing competencies of children and young people who are out of school would require household-based surveys. Assessing children in households is under consideration but may be very costly and difficult to administer and unlikely to be available on the scale needed within the next 3-5 years. Finally, the calculation of this indicator requires specific information on the ages of children participating in assessments to create globally-comparable data. The ages of children reported by the head of the household might not be consistent and reliable so the calculation of the indicator may be even more challenging. Due to the complication in assessing out-of-school children and the main focus on improving education system, the UIS is taking a stepping stone approach. It will concentrate on assessing children in school in the medium term, where much data are available, then develop more coherent implementation plan to assess out-of-school children in the longer term.

Click on the button below to explore the data behind this indicator.

Completion rate (primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education)

A completion rate of 100% indicates that all children and adolescents have completed a level of education by the time they are 3 to 5 years older than the official age of entry into the last grade of that level of education. A low completion rate indicates low or delayed entry into a given level of education, high drop-out, high repetition, late completion, or a combination of these factors.

Percentage of a cohort of children or young people aged 3-5 years above the intended age for the last grade of each level of education who have completed that grade.

The intended age for the last grade of each level of education is the age at which pupils would enter the grade if they had started school at the official primary entrance age, had studied full-time and had progressed without repeating or skipping a grade.

For example, if the official age of entry into primary education is 6 years, and if primary education has 6 grades, the intended age for the last grade of primary education is 11 years. In this case, 14-16 years (11 + 3 = 14 and 11 + 5 = 16) would be the reference age group for calculation of the primary completion rate.

The number of persons in the relevant age group who have completed the last grade of a given level of education is divided by the total population (in the survey sample) of the same age group.

The age group 3-5 years above the official age of entry into the last grade for a given level of education was selected for the calculation of the completion rate to allow for some delayed entry or repetition. In countries where entry can occur very late or where repetition is common, some children or adolescents in the age group examined may still attend school and the eventual rate of completion may therefore be underestimated.

The indicator is calculated from household survey data and is subject to time lag in the availability of data. When multiple surveys are available, they may provide conflicting information due to the possible presence of sampling and non-sampling errors in survey data. The Technical Cooperation Group on the Indicators for SDG 4 – Education 2030 (TCG) has requested a refinement of the methodology to model completion rate estimates, following an approach similar to that used for the estimation of child mortality rates. The model would ensure that common challenges with household survey data, such as timeliness and sampling or non-sampling errors are addressed to provide up-to-date and more robust data.

TARGET 4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education

Proportion of children aged 24-59 months of age who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being, by sex.

Early childhood development (ECD) sets the stage for life-long thriving. Investing in ECD is one of the most critical and cost-effective investments a country can make to improve adult health, education and productivity in order to build human capital and promote sustainable development. ECD is equity from the start and provides a good indication of national development. Efforts to improve ECD can bring about human, social and economic improvements for both individuals and societies.

The recommended measure for SDG 4.2.1 is the Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI2030) which is a 20-item instrument to measure developmental outcomes among children aged 24 to 59 months in population-based surveys. The indicator derived from the ECDI2030 is the proportion of children aged 24 to 59 months who have achieved the minimum number of milestones expected for their age group, defined as follows:

– Children age 24 to 29 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 7 milestones – Children age 30 to 35 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 9 milestones – Children age 36 to 41 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 11 milestones – Children age 42 to 47 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 13 milestones – Children age 48 to 59 months are classified as developmentally on-track if they have achieved at least 15 milestones

SDG indicator 4.2.1 is intended to capture the multidimensional and holistic nature of early childhood development. For this reason, the indicator is not intended to be disaggregated by domains since development in all areas (health, learning and psychosocial wellbeing) are interconnected and overlapping, particularly among young children. The indicator is intended to produce a single summary score to indicate the proportion of children considered to be developmentally on track.

The domains included in the indicator for SDG indicator 4.2.1 include the following concepts:

Health: gross motor development, fine motor development and self-care Learning: expressive language, literacy, numeracy, pre-writing, and executive functioning Psychosocial well-being: emotional skills, social skills, internalizing behavior, and externalizing behavior

The number of children aged 24 to 59 months who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being divided by the total number of children aged 24 to 59 months in the population multiplied by 100.

SDG 4.2.1 was initially classified as Tier 3 and was upgraded to Tier 2 in 2019; additionally, changes to the indicator were made during the 2020 comprehensive review. In light of this and given that the ECDI2030 was officially released in March 2020, it will take some time for country uptake and implementation of the new measure and for data to become available from a sufficiently large enough number of countries. Therefore, in the meantime, a proxy indicator (children aged 36-59 months who are developmentally ontrack in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional and learning) will be used to report on 4.2.1, when relevant. This proxy indicator has been used for global SDG reporting since 2015 but is not fully aligned with the definition and age group covered by the SDG indicator formulation. When the proxy indicator is used for SDG reporting on 4.2.1 for a country, it will be footnoted as such in the global SDG database.

Click on the button below to explore the data behind this indicator’s proxy; Children aged 36-59 months who are developmentally ontrack in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional and learning . For more information about this proxy indicator, please see “Comments and Limitations”

Adjusted net attendance rate, one year before the official primary entry age

The indicator measures children’s exposure to organized learning activities in the year prior to the official age to start of primary school as a representation of access to quality early childhood care and pre-primary education. One year prior to the start of primary school is selected for international comparison. A high value of the indicator shows a high degree of participation in organized learning immediately before the official entrance age to primary education.

The participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), by sex as defined as the percentage of children in the given age range who participate in one or more organized learning programme, including programmes which offer a combination of education and care. Participation in early childhood and in primary education are both included. The age range will vary by country depending on the official age for entry to primary education.

An organized learning programme is one which consists of a coherent set or sequence of educational activities designed with the intention of achieving pre-determined learning outcomes or the accomplishment of a specific set of educational tasks. Early childhood and primary education programmes are examples of organized learning programmes.

Early childhood and primary education are defined in the 2011 revision of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011). Early childhood education is typically designed with a holistic approach to support children’s early cognitive, physical, social and emotional development and to introduce young children to organized instruction outside the family context. Primary education offers learning and educational activities designed to provide students with fundamental skills in reading, writing and mathematics and establish a solid foundation for learning and understanding core areas of knowledge and personal development. It focuses on learning at a basic level of complexity with little, if any, specialisation.

The official primary entry age is the age at which children are obliged to start primary education according to national legislation or policies. Where more than one age is specified, for example, in different parts of a country, the most common official entry age (i.e. the age at which most children in the country are expected to start primary) is used for the calculation of this indicator at the global level.

The number of children in the relevant age group who participate in an organized learning programme is expressed as a percentage of the total population in the same age range. From household surveys, both enrolments and population are collected at the same time.

Participation in learning programmes in the early years is not full time for many children, meaning that exposure to learning environments outside of the home will vary in intensity. The indicator measures the percentage of children who are exposed to organized learning but not the intensity of the programme, which limits the ability to draw conclusions on the extent to which this target is being achieved. More work is needed to ensure that the definition of learning programmes is consistent across various surveys and defined in a manner that is easily understood by survey respondents, ideally with complementary information collected on the amount of time children spend in learning programmes.

TARGET 4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service.

This indicator measures the presence of basic services and facilities in school that are necessary to ensure a safe and effective learning environment for all students. A high value indicates that schools have good access to the relevant services and facilities. Ideally each school should have access to all these services and facilities.

The percentage of schools by level of education (primary education) with access to the given facility or service

Electricity: Regularly and readily available sources of power (e.g. grid/mains connection, wind, water, solar and fuel-powered generator, etc.) that enable the adequate and sustainable use of ICT infrastructure for educational purposes.

Internet for pedagogical purposes: Internet that is available for enhancing teaching and learning and is accessible by pupils. Internet is defined as a worldwide interconnected computer network, which provides pupils access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (i.e. not assumed to be only via a computer) and thus can also be accessed by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA, games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed narrowband, fixed broadband, or via mobile network.

Computers for pedagogical use: Use of computers to support course delivery or independent teaching and learning needs. This may include activities using computers or the Internet to meet information needs for research purposes; develop presentations; perform hands-on exercises and experiments; share information; and participate in online discussion forums for educational purposes. A computer is a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve and process data, as well as share information in a highly-structured manner. It performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations according to a set of instructions or algorithms.

Computers include the following types: -A desktop computer usually remains fixed in one place; normally the user is placed in front of it, behind the keyboard; – A laptop computer is small enough to carry and usually enables the same tasks as a desktop computer; it includes notebooks and netbooks but does not include tablets and similar handheld devices; and – A tablet (or similar handheld computer) is a computer that is integrated into a flat touch screen, operated by touching the screen rather than using a physical keyboard.

Adapted infrastructure is defined as any built environment related to education facilities that are accessible to all users, including those with different types of disability, to be able to gain access to use and exit from them. Accessibility includes ease of independent approach, entry, evacuation and/or use of a building and its services and facilities (such as water and sanitation), by all of the building’s potential users with an assurance of individual health, safety and welfare during the course of those activities.

Adapted materials include learning materials and assistive products that enable students and teachers with disabilities/functioning limitations to access learning and to participate fully in the school environment.

Accessible learning materials include textbooks, instructional materials, assessments and other materials that are available and provided in appropriate formats such as audio, braille, sign language and simplified formats that can be used by students and teachers with disabilities/functioning limitations.

Basic drinking water is defined as a functional drinking water source (MDG ‘improved’ categories) on or near the premises and water points accessible to all users during school hours.

Basic sanitation facilities are defined as functional sanitation facilities (MDG ‘improved’ categories) separated for males and females on or near the premises.

Basic handwashing facilities are defined as functional handwashing facilities, with soap and water available to all girls and boys.

The number of schools in a given level of education with access to the relevant facilities is expressed as a percentage of all schools at that level of education.

The indicator measures the existence in schools of the given service or facility but not its quality or operational state.

For every child to learn, UNICEF has eight key asks of governments:

• A demonstration of how the SDG 4 global ambitions are being nationalized into plans, policies, budgets, data collection efforts and reports.
• A renewed commitment to education to recover learning losses and manage impacts of COVID-19.
• The implementation and scaling of digital learning solutions and innovations to reimagine education.
• Attention to skills development should be a core component to education.
• Focus to provide quality education to the most vulnerable – including girls, children affected by conflict and crisis, children with disabilities, refugees and displaced children.
• A continued commitment to improving access to pre-primary, primary and secondary education for all, including for children from minority groups and those with disabilities.
• A renewed focus on learning outcomes and their enablers, including learning in safe and adequate environments, support by well-trained teachers and structured content.
• The implementation of SDG-focused learning throughout schools to raise awareness and inspire positive action.

Learn more about  UNICEF’s key asks for implementing Goal 4

See more Sustainable Development Goals

ZERO HUNGER

GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

QUALITY EDUCATION

GENDER EQUALITY

CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION

AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY

DECENT WORK AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

REDUCED INEQUALITIES

CLIMATE ACTION

PEACE, JUSTICE AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS

PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS

The World Bank Group is the largest financier of education in the developing world, working in 90 countries and committed to helping them reach SDG4: access to inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all by 2030.

Education is a human right, a powerful driver of development, and one of the strongest instruments for reducing poverty and improving health, gender equality, peace, and stability. It delivers large, consistent returns in terms of income, and is the most important factor to ensure equity and inclusion.

For individuals, education promotes employment, earnings, health, and poverty reduction. Globally, there is a  9% increase in hourly earnings for every extra year of schooling . For societies, it drives long-term economic growth, spurs innovation, strengthens institutions, and fosters social cohesion.  Education is further a powerful catalyst to climate action through widespread behavior change and skilling for green transitions.

Developing countries have made tremendous progress in getting children into the classroom and more children worldwide are now in school. But learning is not guaranteed, as the  2018 World Development Report  (WDR) stressed.

Making smart and effective investments in people’s education is critical for developing the human capital that will end extreme poverty. At the core of this strategy is the need to tackle the learning crisis, put an end to  Learning Poverty , and help youth acquire the advanced cognitive, socioemotional, technical and digital skills they need to succeed in today’s world. 

In low- and middle-income countries, the share of children living in  Learning Poverty  (that is, the proportion of 10-year-old children that are unable to read and understand a short age-appropriate text) increased from 57% before the pandemic to an estimated  70%  in 2022.

However, learning is in crisis. More than 70 million more people were pushed into poverty during the COVID pandemic, a billion children lost a year of school , and three years later the learning losses suffered have not been recouped .  If a child cannot read with comprehension by age 10, they are unlikely to become fluent readers. They will fail to thrive later in school and will be unable to power their careers and economies once they leave school.

The effects of the pandemic are expected to be long-lasting. Analysis has already revealed deep losses, with international reading scores declining from 2016 to 2021 by more than a year of schooling.  These losses may translate to a 0.68 percentage point in global GDP growth.  The staggering effects of school closures reach beyond learning. This generation of children could lose a combined total of  US$21 trillion in lifetime earnings  in present value or the equivalent of 17% of today’s global GDP – a sharp rise from the 2021 estimate of a US$17 trillion loss. 

Action is urgently needed now – business as usual will not suffice to heal the scars of the pandemic and will not accelerate progress enough to meet the ambitions of SDG 4. We are urging governments to implement ambitious and aggressive Learning Acceleration Programs to get children back to school, recover lost learning, and advance progress by building better, more equitable and resilient education systems.

Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024

The World Bank’s global education strategy is centered on ensuring learning happens – for everyone, everywhere. Our vision is to ensure that everyone can achieve her or his full potential with access to a quality education and lifelong learning. To reach this, we are helping countries build foundational skills like literacy, numeracy, and socioemotional skills – the building blocks for all other learning. From early childhood to tertiary education and beyond – we help children and youth acquire the skills they need to thrive in school, the labor market and throughout their lives.

Investing in the world’s most precious resource – people – is paramount to ending poverty on a livable planet.  Our experience across more than 100 countries bears out this robust connection between human capital, quality of life, and economic growth: when countries strategically invest in people and the systems designed to protect and build human capital at scale, they unlock the wealth of nations and the potential of everyone.

Building on this, the World Bank supports resilient, equitable, and inclusive education systems that ensure learning happens for everyone. We do this by generating and disseminating evidence, ensuring alignment with policymaking processes, and bridging the gap between research and practice.

The World Bank is the largest source of external financing for education in developing countries, with a portfolio of about $26 billion in 94 countries including IBRD, IDA and Recipient-Executed Trust Funds. IDA operations comprise 62% of the education portfolio.

The investment in FCV settings has increased dramatically and now accounts for 26% of our portfolio.

World Bank projects reach at least 425 million students -one-third of students in low- and middle-income countries.

The World Bank’s Approach to Education

Five interrelated pillars of a well-functioning education system underpin the World Bank’s education policy approach:

• Learners are prepared and motivated to learn;
• Teachers are prepared, skilled, and motivated to facilitate learning and skills acquisition;
• Learning resources (including education technology) are available, relevant, and used to improve teaching and learning;
• Schools are safe and inclusive; and
• Education Systems are well-managed, with good implementation capacity and adequate financing.

The Bank is already helping governments design and implement cost-effective programs and tools to build these pillars.

Our Principles:

• We pursue systemic reform supported by political commitment to learning for all children. 
• We focus on equity and inclusion through a progressive path toward achieving universal access to quality education, including children and young adults in fragile or conflict affected areas , those in marginalized and rural communities,  girls and women , displaced populations,  students with disabilities , and other vulnerable groups.
• We focus on results and use evidence to keep improving policy by using metrics to guide improvements.   
• We want to ensure financial commitment commensurate with what is needed to provide basic services to all. 
• We invest wisely in technology so that education systems embrace and learn to harness technology to support their learning objectives.   

Laying the groundwork for the future

Country challenges vary, but there is a menu of options to build forward better, more resilient, and equitable education systems.

Countries are facing an education crisis that requires a two-pronged approach: first, supporting actions to recover lost time through remedial and accelerated learning; and, second, building on these investments for a more equitable, resilient, and effective system.

Recovering from the learning crisis must be a political priority, backed with adequate financing and the resolve to implement needed reforms.  Domestic financing for education over the last two years has not kept pace with the need to recover and accelerate learning. Across low- and lower-middle-income countries, the  average share of education in government budgets fell during the pandemic , and in 2022 it remained below 2019 levels.

The best chance for a better future is to invest in education and make sure each dollar is put toward improving learning.  In a time of fiscal pressure, protecting spending that yields long-run gains – like spending on education – will maximize impact.  We still need more and better funding for education.  Closing the learning gap will require increasing the level, efficiency, and equity of education spending—spending smarter is an imperative.

• Education technology  can be a powerful tool to implement these actions by supporting teachers, children, principals, and parents; expanding accessible digital learning platforms, including radio/ TV / Online learning resources; and using data to identify and help at-risk children, personalize learning, and improve service delivery.

Looking ahead

We must seize this opportunity  to reimagine education in bold ways. Together, we can build forward better more equitable, effective, and resilient education systems for the world’s children and youth.

Accelerating Improvements

Supporting countries in establishing time-bound learning targets and a focused education investment plan, outlining actions and investments geared to achieve these goals.

Launched in 2020, the  Accelerator Program  works with a set of countries to channel investments in education and to learn from each other. The program coordinates efforts across partners to ensure that the countries in the program show improvements in foundational skills at scale over the next three to five years. These investment plans build on the collective work of multiple partners, and leverage the latest evidence on what works, and how best to plan for implementation.  Countries such as Brazil (the state of Ceará) and Kenya have achieved dramatic reductions in learning poverty over the past decade at scale, providing useful lessons, even as they seek to build on their successes and address remaining and new challenges.  

Universalizing Foundational Literacy

Readying children for the future by supporting acquisition of foundational skills – which are the gateway to other skills and subjects.

The  Literacy Policy Package (LPP)   consists of interventions focused specifically on promoting acquisition of reading proficiency in primary school. These include assuring political and technical commitment to making all children literate; ensuring effective literacy instruction by supporting teachers; providing quality, age-appropriate books; teaching children first in the language they speak and understand best; and fostering children’s oral language abilities and love of books and reading.

Advancing skills through TVET and Tertiary

Ensuring that individuals have access to quality education and training opportunities and supporting links to employment.

Tertiary education and skills systems are a driver of major development agendas, including human capital, climate change, youth and women’s empowerment, and jobs and economic transformation. A comprehensive skill set to succeed in the 21st century labor market consists of foundational and higher order skills, socio-emotional skills, specialized skills, and digital skills. Yet most countries continue to struggle in delivering on the promise of skills development. 

The World Bank is supporting countries through efforts that address key challenges including improving access and completion, adaptability, quality, relevance, and efficiency of skills development programs. Our approach is via multiple channels including projects, global goods, as well as the Tertiary Education and Skills Program . Our recent reports including Building Better Formal TVET Systems and STEERing Tertiary Education provide a way forward for how to improve these critical systems.

Addressing Climate Change

Mainstreaming climate education and investing in green skills, research and innovation, and green infrastructure to spur climate action and foster better preparedness and resilience to climate shocks.

Our approach recognizes that education is critical for achieving effective, sustained climate action. At the same time, climate change is adversely impacting education outcomes. Investments in education can play a huge role in building climate resilience and advancing climate mitigation and adaptation. Climate change education gives young people greater awareness of climate risks and more access to tools and solutions for addressing these risks and managing related shocks. Technical and vocational education and training can also accelerate a green economic transformation by fostering green skills and innovation. Greening education infrastructure can help mitigate the impact of heat, pollution, and extreme weather on learning, while helping address climate change. 

Examples of this work are projects in Nigeria (life skills training for adolescent girls), Vietnam (fostering relevant scientific research) , and Bangladesh (constructing and retrofitting schools to serve as cyclone shelters).

Strengthening Measurement Systems

Enabling countries to gather and evaluate information on learning and its drivers more efficiently and effectively.

The World Bank supports initiatives to help countries effectively build and strengthen their measurement systems to facilitate evidence-based decision-making. Examples of this work include:

(1) The  Global Education Policy Dashboard (GEPD) : This tool offers a strong basis for identifying priorities for investment and policy reforms that are suited to each country context by focusing on the three dimensions of practices, policies, and politics.

• Highlights gaps between what the evidence suggests is effective in promoting learning and what is happening in practice in each system; and
• Allows governments to track progress as they act to close the gaps.

The GEPD has been implemented in 13 education systems already – Peru, Rwanda, Jordan, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Islamabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sierra Leone, Niger, Gabon, Jordan and Chad – with more expected by the end of 2024.

(2)  Learning Assessment Platform (LeAP) : LeAP is a one-stop shop for knowledge, capacity-building tools, support for policy dialogue, and technical staff expertise to support student achievement measurement and national assessments for better learning.

Supporting Successful Teachers

Helping systems develop the right selection, incentives, and support to the professional development of teachers.

Currently, the World Bank Education Global Practice has over 160 active projects supporting over 18 million teachers worldwide, about a third of the teacher population in low- and middle-income countries. In 12 countries alone, these projects cover 16 million teachers, including all primary school teachers in Ethiopia and Turkey, and over 80% in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Vietnam.

A World Bank-developed classroom observation tool, Teach, was designed to capture the quality of teaching in low- and middle-income countries. It is now 3.6 million students.

While Teach helps identify patterns in teacher performance, Coach leverages these insights to support teachers to improve their teaching practice through hands-on in-service teacher professional development (TPD).

Our recent report on Making Teacher Policy Work proposes a practical framework to uncover the black box of effective teacher policy and discusses the factors that enable their scalability and sustainability.

 Supporting Education Finance Systems

Strengthening country financing systems to mobilize resources for education and make better use of their investments in education.

Our approach is to bring together multi-sectoral expertise to engage with ministries of education and finance and other stakeholders to develop and implement effective and efficient public financial management systems; build capacity to monitor and evaluate education spending, identify financing bottlenecks, and develop interventions to strengthen financing systems; build the evidence base on global spending patterns and the magnitude and causes of spending inefficiencies; and develop diagnostic tools as public goods to support country efforts.

Working in Fragile, Conflict, and Violent (FCV) Contexts

The massive and growing global challenge of having so many children living in conflict and violent situations requires a response at the same scale and scope. Our education engagement in the Fragility, Conflict and Violence (FCV) context, which stands at US$5.35 billion, has grown rapidly in recent years, reflecting the ever-increasing importance of the FCV agenda in education. Indeed, these projects now account for more than 25% of the World Bank education portfolio.

Education is crucial to minimizing the effects of fragility and displacement on the welfare of youth and children in the short-term and preventing the emergence of violent conflict in the long-term. 

Support to Countries Throughout the Education Cycle

Our support to countries covers the entire learning cycle, to help shape resilient, equitable, and inclusive education systems that ensure learning happens for everyone. 

The ongoing  Supporting  Egypt  Education Reform project , 2018-2025, supports transformational reforms of the Egyptian education system, by improving teaching and learning conditions in public schools. The World Bank has invested $500 million in the project focused on increasing access to quality kindergarten, enhancing the capacity of teachers and education leaders, developing a reliable student assessment system, and introducing the use of modern technology for teaching and learning. Specifically, the share of Egyptian 10-year-old students, who could read and comprehend at the global minimum proficiency level, increased to 45 percent in 2021.

In  Nigeria , the $75 million  Edo  Basic Education Sector and Skills Transformation (EdoBESST)  project, running from 2020-2024, is focused on improving teaching and learning in basic education. Under the project, which covers 97 percent of schools in the state, there is a strong focus on incorporating digital technologies for teachers. They were equipped with handheld tablets with structured lesson plans for their classes. Their coaches use classroom observation tools to provide individualized feedback. Teacher absence has reduced drastically because of the initiative. Over 16,000 teachers were trained through the project, and the introduction of technology has also benefited students.

Through the $235 million  School Sector Development Program  in  Nepal  (2017-2022), the number of children staying in school until Grade 12 nearly tripled, and the number of out-of-school children fell by almost seven percent. During the pandemic, innovative approaches were needed to continue education. Mobile phone penetration is high in the country. More than four in five households in Nepal have mobile phones. The project supported an educational service that made it possible for children with phones to connect to local radio that broadcast learning programs.

From 2017-2023, the $50 million  Strengthening of State Universities  in  Chile  project has made strides to improve quality and equity at state universities. The project helped reduce dropout: the third-year dropout rate fell by almost 10 percent from 2018-2022, keeping more students in school.

The World Bank’s first  Program-for-Results financing in education  was through a $202 million project in  Tanzania , that ran from 2013-2021. The project linked funding to results and aimed to improve education quality. It helped build capacity, and enhanced effectiveness and efficiency in the education sector. Through the project, learning outcomes significantly improved alongside an unprecedented expansion of access to education for children in Tanzania. From 2013-2019, an additional 1.8 million students enrolled in primary schools. In 2019, the average reading speed for Grade 2 students rose to 22.3 words per minute, up from 17.3 in 2017. The project laid the foundation for the ongoing $500 million  BOOST project , which supports over 12 million children to enroll early, develop strong foundational skills, and complete a quality education.

The $40 million  Cambodia  Secondary Education Improvement project , which ran from 2017-2022, focused on strengthening school-based management, upgrading teacher qualifications, and building classrooms in Cambodia, to improve learning outcomes, and reduce student dropout at the secondary school level. The project has directly benefited almost 70,000 students in 100 target schools, and approximately 2,000 teachers and 600 school administrators received training.

The World Bank is co-financing the $152.80 million  Yemen  Restoring Education and Learning Emergency project , running from 2020-2024, which is implemented through UNICEF, WFP, and Save the Children. It is helping to maintain access to basic education for many students, improve learning conditions in schools, and is working to strengthen overall education sector capacity. In the time of crisis, the project is supporting teacher payments and teacher training, school meals, school infrastructure development, and the distribution of learning materials and school supplies. To date, almost 600,000 students have benefited from these interventions.

The $87 million  Providing an Education of Quality in  Haiti  project supported approximately 380 schools in the Southern region of Haiti from 2016-2023. Despite a highly challenging context of political instability and recurrent natural disasters, the project successfully supported access to education for students. The project provided textbooks, fresh meals, and teacher training support to 70,000 students, 3,000 teachers, and 300 school directors. It gave tuition waivers to 35,000 students in 118 non-public schools. The project also repaired 19 national schools damaged by the 2021 earthquake, which gave 5,500 students safe access to their schools again.

In 2013, just 5% of the poorest households in  Uzbekistan  had children enrolled in preschools. Thanks to the  Improving Pre-Primary and General Secondary Education Project , by July 2019, around 100,000 children will have benefitted from the half-day program in 2,420 rural kindergartens, comprising around 49% of all preschool educational institutions, or over 90% of rural kindergartens in the country.

In addition to working closely with governments in our client countries, the World Bank also works at the global, regional, and local levels with a range of technical partners, including foundations, non-profit organizations, bilaterals, and other multilateral organizations. Some examples of our most recent global partnerships include:

UNICEF, UNESCO, FCDO, USAID, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:  Coalition for Foundational Learning

The World Bank is working closely with UNICEF, UNESCO, FCDO, USAID, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as the  Coalition for Foundational Learning  to advocate and provide technical support to ensure foundational learning.  The World Bank works with these partners to promote and endorse the  Commitment to Action on Foundational Learning , a global network of countries committed to halving the global share of children unable to read and understand a simple text by age 10 by 2030.

Australian Aid, Bernard van Leer Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Canada, Echida Giving, FCDO, German Cooperation, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, Conrad Hilton Foundation, LEGO Foundation, Porticus, USAID: Early Learning Partnership

The Early Learning Partnership (ELP) is a multi-donor trust fund, housed at the World Bank.  ELP leverages World Bank strengths—a global presence, access to policymakers and strong technical analysis—to improve early learning opportunities and outcomes for young children around the world.

We help World Bank teams and countries get the information they need to make the case to invest in Early Childhood Development (ECD), design effective policies and deliver impactful programs. At the country level, ELP grants provide teams with resources for early seed investments that can generate large financial commitments through World Bank finance and government resources. At the global level, ELP research and special initiatives work to fill knowledge gaps, build capacity and generate public goods.

UNESCO, UNICEF:  Learning Data Compact

UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank have joined forces to close the learning data gaps that still exist and that preclude many countries from monitoring the quality of their education systems and assessing if their students are learning. The three organizations have agreed to a  Learning Data Compact , a commitment to ensure that all countries, especially low-income countries, have at least one quality measure of learning by 2025, supporting coordinated efforts to strengthen national assessment systems.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS):   Learning Poverty Indicator

Aimed at measuring and urging attention to foundational literacy as a prerequisite to achieve SDG4, this partnership was launched in 2019 to help countries strengthen their learning assessment systems, better monitor what students are learning in internationally comparable ways and improve the breadth and quality of global data on education.

FCDO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:  EdTech Hub

Supported by the UK government’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the EdTech Hub is aimed at improving the quality of ed-tech investments. The Hub launched a rapid response Helpdesk service to provide just-in-time advisory support to 70 low- and middle-income countries planning education technology and remote learning initiatives.

MasterCard Foundation

Our Tertiary Education and Skills  global program, launched with support from the Mastercard Foundation, aims to prepare youth and adults for the future of work and society by improving access to relevant, quality, equitable reskilling and post-secondary education opportunities.  It is designed to reframe, reform, and rebuild tertiary education and skills systems for the digital and green transformation.

The “how to” of inclusive education policy design

Including refugees in national education systems

How generative AI can enrich teaching and learning

Areas of focus.

Digital Technologies

Early Childhood Development

Education Data & Measurement

Education Finance

Education in Fragile, Conflict & Violence Contexts

Girls’ Education

Higher Education

Inclusive Education

Initiatives

• Show More +
• Tertiary Education and Skills Program
• Service Delivery Indicators
• Evoke: Transforming education to empower youth
• Global Education Policy Dashboard
• Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel
• Show Less -

Collapse and Recovery: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Eroded Human Capital and What to Do About It

BROCHURES & FACT SHEETS

Publication: Realizing Education's Promise: A World Bank Retrospective – August 2023

Education and Climate Change flyer - November 2022

Learning Losses Brochure - October 2022

World Bank Group Education Fact Sheet - September 2022

STAY CONNECTED

Human Development Topics

Around the bank group.

Find out what the Bank Group's branches are doing in education

Global Education Newsletter - March 2024

What's happening in the World Bank Education Global Practice? Read to learn more.

Human Capital Project

The Human Capital Project is a global effort to accelerate more and better investments in people for greater equity and economic growth.

Impact Evaluations

Research that measures the impact of education policies to improve education in low and middle income countries.

Education Videos

Watch our latest videos featuring our projects across the world

Additional Resources

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

What is Education for Sustainable Development?

Enabling every human being to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to shape a sustainable future..

Sustainability Education is often referred to as Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), which has been defined as:

UNESCO, 2014

"Education for Sustainable Development allows every human being to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to shape a sustainable future. Education for Sustainable Development means including key sustainable development issues into teaching and learning; for example, climate change, disaster risk reduction, biodiversity, poverty reduction, and sustainable consumption. It also requires participatory teaching and learning methods that motivate and empower learners to change their behaviour and take action for sustainable development. Education for Sustainable Development consequently promotes competencies like critical thinking, imagining future scenarios and making decisions in a collaborative way. Education for Sustainable Development requires far-reaching changes in the way education is often practised today."

Council of the European Union, 2010

"ESD is essential for the achievement of a sustainable society and is therefore desirable at all levels of formal education and training, as well as in non-formal and informal learning." 

Sustainable Development Education Panel Report, 1998

"ESD is about the learning needed to maintain and improve our quality of life and the quality of life of generations to come ... ESD enables people to develop the knowledge, values and skills to participate in decisions about the way we do things individually and collectively, both locally and globally, that will improve the quality of life now without damaging the planet for the future."

Sustainability in the curriculum

At Plymouth, we take the approach that there is no definitive knowledge content that should be included in a curriculum addressing sustainability or sustainable development. Rather, following Tilbury & Wortman (2004), we point to indicative curricular themes that may be more or less relevant to each disciplinary area and which might be used and adapted as ‘entry points’ to develop sustainability education further. 

Pedagogical approaches in ESD

There is no ‘correct’ pedagogy for sustainability education, but there is a broad consensus that it requires a shift towards active, participative, and experiential learning methods that engage the learner and make a real difference to their understanding, thinking and ability to act.

We've identified five pedagogic elements that cover a host of pedagogical approaches or methods that staff at Plymouth might use to bring these elements into the learning environment. 

1. Critical reflection – including the more traditional lecture, but also newer approaches such as reflexive accounts, learning journals, and discussion groups.

2. Systemic thinking and analysis – the use of real-world case studies and critical incidents, project-based learning, stimulus activities, and the use of the campus as a learning resource.

3. Participatory learning – with emphasis on group or peer learning, developing dialogue, experiential learning, action research/learning to act, and developing case studies with local community groups and business

4. Thinking creatively for future scenarios – by using role play, real-world inquiry, futures visioning, problem-based learning, and providing space for emergence.

5. Collaborative learning – including contributions from guest speakers, work-based learning, interdisciplinary/ multidisciplinary working, and collaborative learning and co-inquiry.

Sustainable Development Goal 4

Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning.

Sustainable Development Goal 4 is to “provide quality education for all”, according to the United Nations .

The visualizations and data below present the global perspective on where the world stands today and how it has changed over time.

Further information on education and learning can be found across several Our World in Data topic pages on Education , Teachers and Schools , Education Spending , and Literacy .

The UN has defined 10 Targets and 11 Indicators for SDG 4. Targets specify the goals and indicators represent the metrics by which the world aims to track whether these targets are achieved. Below we quote the original text of all targets and show the data on the agreed indicators.

Target 4.1 Free primary and secondary education

Sdg indicator 4.1.1 achieving proficiency in reading and mathematics.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.1.1 is the “proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex” in the UN SDG framework .

In the interactive visualizations, this is shown as the share of students in each country at each stage of education who reach at least the minimum reading and mathematics proficiency level.

Target: By 2030 “ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.”

More research: Further data and research on primary and secondary education can be found at the Our World in Data topic pages on Education and Literacy .

SDG Indicator 4.1.2 Ensuring children complete their education

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.2.1 is the “completion rate (primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education)” in the UN SDG framework .

This indicator is defined as the share of a cohort of children or young adults aged 3-5 years older than the intended age of the last grade of each educational level who have completed that grade.

Shown here in the interactive visualizations is data for this indicator on the national average completion rate for primary education (first chart), lower secondary education (second chart), and upper secondary education (third chart).

Target: By 2030, “ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.”

More research: Further data and research can be found at Our World in Data topic pages on Education .

Target 4.2 Equal access to quality pre-primary education

Sdg indicator 4.2.1 ensuring children are developmentally on track.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.2.1 is the “proportion of children aged 24–59 months (2-5 years) who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being, by sex” in the UN SDG framework .

Since internationally comparable data for this indicator is not currently available, this is measured by the United Nations through a proxy indicator defined as the proportion of children aged 36-59 months in each country who are developmentally on-track in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, socio-emotional and learning.

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualization.

Target: By 2030, “ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.”

More research: Further data and research can be found at Our World in Data topic page on Education .

SDG Indicator 4.2.2 Participation in pre-primary education

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.2.2 is the “participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), by sex” in the UN SDG framework .

The participation rate in organized learning is the share of children participating in one or more organized learning programs (including programs that incorporate both education and care) in the year prior to a country’s official entry age.

Target: By 2030 “ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.”

More research: Further data and research can be found at the Our World in Data topic page on Education .

Target 4.3 Equal access to affordable technical, vocational and higher education

Sdg indicator 4.3.1 equal access to further education.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.3.1 is the “participation rate of youth and adults in formal and non-formal education and training in the previous 12 months, by sex” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualization. We also show the enrollment in tertiary education.

Target: By 2030 “ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.”

Target 4.4 Increase the number of people with relevant skills for financial success

Sdg indicator 4.4.1 information and communications technology (ict) skills.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.4.1 is the “proportion of youth and adults with information and communications technology (ICT) skills, by type of skill” in the UN SDG framework .

Having a skill in this context refers to having undertaken a certain ICT-related activity in the past three months. This indicator includes multiple ICT skills, including using basic arithmetic formulas in a spreadsheet and verifying the reliability of information found online.

Data for one component of the indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations. The first chart shows the share of youth and adults (aged 15-24 years old) in each country with skills in creating electronic presentations with presentation software. The second chart shows this measure by sex.

Target: By 2030 “substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.”

Target 4.5 Eliminate all discrimination in education

Sdg indicator 4.5.1 disparities in educational access.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.5.1 is “parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples and conflict-affected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list that can be disaggregated” in the UN SDG framework .

Parity indices measure the ratio of the value of a measure for one group to the value for another, with the likely more disadvantaged group placed in the numerator.

In the interactive visualizations, data for this indicator is shown for gender parity in primary school completion (first chart), lower secondary school completion (second chart), and upper secondary school completion (third chart).

Target: By 2030 “eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for all.” 1

Additional charts

• Primary-school-age children who are out of school by world region

Target 4.6 Universal literacy and numeracy

Sdg indicator 4.6.1 universal literacy and numeracy.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.6.1 is the “proportion of population in a given age group achieving at least a fixed level of proficiency in functional (a) literacy and (b) numeracy skills, by sex” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations for young people (first chart), the literacy of adult men and women (second and third chart), and their numeracy (fourth and fifth chart).

Target: By 2030 “ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy.”

More research: Further data and research can be found at the Our World in Data topic page on Literacy .

• Literate and illiterate world population
• Literacy rates of younger vs. older population

Target 4.7 Education for sustainable development and global citizenship

Sdg indicator 4.7.1 education on sustainable development and global citizenship.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.7.1 is the “extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development are mainstreamed in (a) national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment” in the UN SDG framework .

These measures reflect characteristics of country education systems, as reported by government officials, and measure what governments intend rather than what is implemented in practice. For each component, a score is calculated by combining a number of criteria to give a single score of one to zero.

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations for the components related to teacher education (first chart), curricula (second chart), student assessment (third chart), and national education policies (fourth chart).

Target: By 2030 “ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development.” 2

Target 4.a Build and upgrade inclusive and safe schools

Sdg indicator 4.a.1 inclusive and safe schools.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.a.1 is the “proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service” in the UN SDG framework .

Data for this indicator is shown for a variety of basic services, including access to electricity, handwashing facilities, and access to drinking water.

Target: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.”

More research: Further data and research can be found at the Our World in Data topic page on Teachers and Schools .

Target 4.b Expand higher education scholarships for developing countries

Sdg indicator 4.b.1 scholarships for developing countries.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.b.1 is the “volume of official development assistance flows for scholarships by sector and type of study” in the UN SDG framework .

This indicator is disbursements of official development assistance (ODA) for scholarships, defined as financial aid awards for individual students and contributions to trainees, where students and trainees are nationals of recipient countries.

Official development assistance refers to flows to countries and territories on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and to multilateral institutions which meet a set of criteria related to the source of the funding, the purpose of the transaction, and the concessional nature of the funding.

Target: By 2020 “substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries.” 3

Unlike most SDG targets which are set to be achieved by 2030, this indicator has a target year of 2020.

More research: Further data and research can be found at Our World in Data topic page on Financing Education .

Target 4.c Increase the supply of qualified teachers in developing countries

Sdg indicator 4.c.1 supply of qualified teachers.

Definition of the SDG indicator: Indicator 4.c.1 is the “proportion of teachers with the minimum required qualifications, by education level” in the UN SDG framework .

This indicator is measured as the share of pre-primary, primary, lower secondary and upper secondary teachers who have received the minimum organized pedagogical teacher training required for teaching at the relevant level in a given country.

Data for this indicator is shown in the interactive visualizations for pre-primary education (first chart), primary education (second chart), lower secondary education (third chart), and upper secondary education (fourth chart).

Target: By 2030 “substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers.” 4

More research: Further data and research can be found at Our World in Data topic page on Teachers and Schools .

• Pupil-teacher ratio in primary education

Full text: “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.”

Full text: “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.”

Full text: “By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries.”

Full text: ”By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States.”

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Search the United Nations

• Sustainable Development
• Peace and Security
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Action
• Climate Action
• Women And Girls
• Current Exhibits
• For Visitors
• For Exhibitors

Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World​

• Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and improve the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere.

The Goals were adopted by all United Nations Member States in September 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which sets out a 15-year plan to achieve the Goals and their related targets. Never before had world leaders pledged common action across such a broad and universal policy agenda.

The 17 Goals are interconnected, apply to all countries, and need to be carried out by all stakeholders – governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations system and others – in a collaborative partnership.

This year marks the midpoint of SDG implementation. However, on its current course, the world may miss many Sustainable Development Goals targets by 2030. For the first time in decades, development progress has stalled and even reversed under the combined weight of climate disasters, conflict, economic downturn and the lingering aftermath of COVID-19. The SDG Summit, held on 18 to 19 September 2023 at the UN Headquarters in New York is a unique opportunity for the world to pivot from crisis to development and deliver the breakthroughs needed to achieve the Goals.

This exhibit illustrates the Sustainable Development Goals through photos from around the world, bringing to life what the 17 Goals mean for people on the planet.

This exhibit was produced by the UN Department of Global Communications.

End poverty in all its forms everywhere

In 2020, the number of people living in extreme poverty  (living on less than USD 2.15 a day) rose to 724 million. Those living in extreme poverty struggle to fulfill the most basic needs (health, education, access to water and sanitation).

Recovery from the pandemic has been slow and uneven, with extreme poverty dropping from 9.3 per cent in 2020 to 8.8 per cent in 2021. The conflict in Ukraine has disrupted global trade, leading to increased living costs that are disproportionately impacting the poor. Furthermore, climate change poses substantial threats to poverty reduction. 

By the end of 2022, nowcasting suggests that 8.4 per cent of the world’s population, or as many as 670 million people, could still be living in extreme poverty.

Poverty affects developed countries as well. Right now, 30 million children are growing up poor in the world's richest countries.

Eradicating poverty in all its forms remains one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. While the number of people living in extreme poverty dropped by more than half between 1990 and 2015 – from 1.9 billion to 731 million – too many are still struggling for the most basic human needs.

A surge in action and investment to enhance economic opportunities, improve education and extend social protection to all, particularly the most excluded, is crucial to delivering on the central commitment to end poverty and leave no one behind.

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

In 2022, about 9.2 per cent of the world population was facing chronic hunger, equivalent to about 735 million people - 122 million more than in 2019. Hunger and malnutrition are barriers to sustainable development because hungry people are less productive, more prone to disease, and less able to improve their livelihoods.

To nourish today’s 735 million hungry people and the additional 2 billion people expected by 2050, a profound change of the global food and agriculture system is needed.

To achieve zero hunger by 2030, urgent coordinated action and policy solutions are imperative to address entrenched inequalities, transform food systems, invest in sustainable agricultural practices, and reduce and mitigate the impact of conflict and the pandemic on global nutrition and food security.

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Great strides have been made in improving people’s health in recent years. 146 out of 200 countries or areas have already met or are on track to meet the SDG target on under-5 mortality. Effective HIV treatment has cut global AIDS-related deaths by 52 per cent since 2010 and at least one neglected tropical disease has been eliminated in 47 countries.

However, inequalities in health care access still persist. The COVID-19 pandemic and other ongoing crises have impeded progress towards Goal 3. Childhood vaccinations have experienced the largest decline in three decades, and tuberculosis and malaria deaths have increased compared with pre-pandemic levels.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make a bold commitment to end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other communicable diseases by 2030. The aim is to achieve universal health coverage, and provide access to safe and affordable medicines and vaccines for all.

To overcome these setbacks and address long-standing health care shortcomings, increased investment in health systems is needed to support countries in their recovery and build resilience against future health threats.

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Progress towards quality education was already slower than required before the pandemic, but COVID-19 has had devastating impacts on education, causing learning losses in four out of five of the 104 countries studied.

Without additional measures, an estimated 84 million children and young people will stay out of school and approximately 300 million students will lack the basic numeracy and literacy skills necessary for success in life.

In addition to free primary and secondary schooling for all boys and girls by 2030, the aim is to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to quality higher education.

Education is the key that will allow many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved. When people are able to get quality education they can break from the cycle of poverty.

Education helps to reduce inequalities and to reach gender equality. It also empowers people everywhere to live more healthy and sustainable lives. Education is also crucial to fostering tolerance between people and contributes to more peaceful societies.

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and therefore also half of its potential. But gender inequality persists everywhere and stagnates social progress.

On average, women in the labor market still earn 23 percent less than men globally. On average, women spend about three times as many hours in unpaid domestic and care work as men.

Sexual violence and exploitation, the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work, and discrimination in public office, all remain huge barriers. All these areas of inequality have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic: there has been a surge in reports of sexual violence, women have taken on more care work due to school closures, and 70% of health and social workers globally are women.

At the current rate, it will take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and 47 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments.

Political leadership, investments and comprehensive policy reforms are needed to dismantle systemic barriers to achieving Goal 5. Gender equality is a cross-cutting objective and must be a key focus of national policies, budgets and institutions.

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world.

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Access to water, sanitation and hygiene is a human right. Yet billions are still faced with daily challenges accessing even the most basic of services.

Water scarcity is projected to increase with the rise of global temperatures as a result of climate change. In 2020, 2.4 billion people lived in water-stressed countries.

In 2022, 2.2 billion people still lacked safely managed drinking water, including 703 million without a basic water service; 3.5 billion people lacked safely managed sanitation, including 1.5 billion without basic sanitation services; and 2 billion lacked a basic handwashing facility, including 653 million with no handwashing facility at all.

There has been positive progress. Between 2015 and 2022, the proportion of the world's population with access to safely managed drinking water increased from 69 per cent to 73 per cent.

Investments in infrastructure and sanitation facilities; protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems; and hygiene education are among the steps necessary to ensure universal access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030.

But we are still not on track to reach Goal 6 by 2030. To get back on track, key strategies include increasing sector-wide investment and capacity-building, promoting innovation and evidence-based action, enhancing cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders, and adopting a more integrated and holistic approach to water management.

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Our everyday life depends on reliable and affordable energy. And yet the consumption of energy is the dominant contributor to climate change, accounting for around 60 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions.

From 2015 to 2021, the proportion of the global population with access to electricity has increased from 87 per cent to 91 per cent. In 2021, developing countries installed a record-breaking 268 watts per capita of renewable energy-generating capacity. And yet, in 2021 there were still 675 million people around the world with no access to electricity.

Ensuring universal access to affordable electricity by 2030 means investing in clean energy sources such as solar, wind and thermal. Expanding infrastructure and upgrading technology to provide clean energy in all developing countries is a crucial goal that can both encourage growth and help the environment.

To ensure access to energy for all by 2030, we must accelerate electrification, increase investments in renewable energy, improve energy efficiency and develop enabling policies and regulatory frameworks.

Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Multiple crises are placing the global economy under serious threat. Global real GDP per capita growth is forecast to slow down in 2023 and with ever increasing challenging economic conditions, more workers are turning to informal employment.

Globally, labour productivity has increased and the unemployment rate has decreased. However, more progress is needed to increase employment opportunities, especially for young people, reduce informal employment and labour market inequality (particularly in terms of the gender pay gap), promote safe and secure working environments, and improve access to financial services to ensure sustained and inclusive economic growth.

The global unemployment rate declined significantly in 2022, falling to 5.4 per cent from a peak of 6.6 per cent in 2020 as economies began recovering from the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic. This rate was lower than the pre-pandemic level of 5.5 per cent in 2019.

A persistent lack of decent work opportunities, insufficient investments and under-consumption contribute to the erosion of the basic social contract: that all must share in progress. The creation of quality jobs remain a major challenge for almost all economies.

Achieving Goal 8 will require a wholesale reform of the financial system to tackle rising debts, economic uncertainty and trade tensions, while promoting equitable pay and decent work for young people.

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

The manufacturing industry's recovery from COVID-19 is incomplete and uneven. Global manufacturing growth slowed down to 3.3 per cent in 2022, from 7.4 per cent in 2021.

The share of manufacturing in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) remains low, posing a serious challenge to the target of doubling industry’s share of GDP by 2030. However, medium-high and high-technology industries demonstrated robust growth rates.

As of 2022, 95 per cent of the world’s population was within reach of a mobile broadband network, but some areas remain underserved.

Investments in infrastructure – transport, irrigation, energy and information and communication technology – are crucial to achieving sustainable development and empowering communities in many countries.

To achieve Goal 9 by 2030, it is also essential to support LDCs, invest in advanced technologies, lower carbon emissions and increase mobile broadband access.

Reduce inequality within and among countries

Inequality threatens long-term social and economic development, harms poverty reduction and destroys people’s sense of fulfillment and self-worth.

The incomes of the poorest 40 per cent of the population had been growing faster than the national average in most countries. But emerging yet inconclusive evidence suggests that COVID-19 may have put a dent in this positive trend of falling within-country inequality.

The pandemic has caused the largest rise in between-country inequality in three decades.

Reducing both within- and between-country inequality requires equitable resource distribution, investing in education and skills development, implementing social protection measures, combating discrimination, supporting marginalized groups and fostering international cooperation for fair trade and financial systems.

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Half of the world’s population live in cities. This is projected to reach 70 per cent by 2050.

In the developing world, the rapid growth of cities, along with the increasing rural to urban migration, has led to a boom in mega-cities. In 1990, there were ten mega-cities with 10 million inhabitants or more. In 2014, there are 28 mega-cities, home to a total of 453 million people.

This rapid urbanization outpaces the development of housing, infrastructure and services, which led to a rise in slums or slum-like conditions.  In 2020, an estimated 1.1 billion urban residents lived in slums or slum-like conditions. Over the next 30 years, an additional 2 billion people are expected to live in such settlements.

Sustainable development cannot be achieved without significantly transforming the way urban spaces are built and managed.

Making cities safe and sustainable means ensuring access to safe and affordable housing, upgrading slum settlements, investing in public transport, creating green spaces, and improving urban planning and management in a way that is both participatory and inclusive.

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

If the global population reaches 9.8 billion by 2050, the equivalent of almost three planets will be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.

Global crises triggered a resurgence in fossil fuel subsidies, nearly doubling from 2020 to 2021.

In 2021, governments spent an estimated $732 billion on subsidies for coal, oil and gas, nearly doubling the $375 billion spent in 2020.

In 2021, although 828 million people were facing hunger, 13.2 per cent of the world's food was lost after harvest along the supply chain from farm to consumer.

The trend towards sustainability reporting is on the rise, with around 70 per cent of monitored companies publishing sustainability reports in 2021.

In 2022, 67 national governments reported to the United Nations Environment Programme on the implementation of sustainable public procurement policies and action plans, a 50 per cent increase from 2020.

Support should be provided to developing countries to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption by 2030.

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Climate change affects every country on every continent. It is caused by human activities and threatens the future of our planet. With rising greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is occurring at rates much faster than anticipated and its effects are clearly felt world-wide.

The impacts include changing weather patterns, rising sea level, and more extreme weather events. If left unchecked, climate change will undo a lot of the progress made over the past years in development. It will also provoke mass migrations that will lead to instability and wars.

Between 2010 and 2020, highly vulnerable regions, home to approximately 3.3–3.6 billion people, experienced 15 times higher human mortality rates from floods, droughts and storms compared to regions with very low vulnerability.

Sea levels continued to rise in 2022, reaching a new record since satellite measurements in 1993.

Affordable, scalable solutions are now available to enable countries to leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient, and low-carbon economies.

Climate change is a global challenge that requires coordinated international cooperation.

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Oceans cover three-quarters of the Earth’s surface, contain 97 percent of the Earth’s water, and represent 99 percent of the living space on the planet by volume.

The world’s oceans provide key natural resources including food, medicines, biofuels and other products; help with the breakdown and removal of waste and pollution; and their coastal ecosystems act as buffers to reduce damage from storms.

However, marine pollution is reaching alarming levels, with over 17 million metric tons clogging the ocean in 2021, a figure set to double or triple by 2040.

Currently, the ocean’s average pH is 8.1, about 30 per cent more acidic than in pre-industrial times. Ocean acidification threatens the survival of marine life, disrupts the food web, and undermines vital services provided by the ocean and our own food security.

Careful management of this essential global resource is a key feature of a sustainable future. This includes increasing funding for ocean science, intensifying conservation efforts, and urgently turning the tide on climate change to safeguard the planet's largest ecosystem.

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss

Terrestrial ecosystems are vital for sustaining human life, contributing to over half of global GDP and encompassing diverse cultural, spiritual, and economic values.

Global forest coverage decreased from 31.9 per cent in 2000 (4.2 billion hectares) to 31.2 per cent (4.1 billion hectares) in 2020.

In 2021, Official Development Assistance (ODA) in support of biodiversity increased by 26.2 per cent from $7.7 billion  in 2020 to $9.8 billion.

In 2022,  21 per cent of reptile species are threatened.

Between 2015 and 2019, at least 100 million hectares of healthy and productive land were degraded every year, impacting the lives of 1.3 billion people.

Halting deforestation and restoring the use of terrestrial ecosystems is necessary to reduce the loss of natural habitats and biodiversity which are part of our common heritage.

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

People everywhere should be free of fear from all forms of violence and feel safe as they go about their lives whatever their ethnicity, faith or sexual orientation.

Civilian deaths directly related to 12 of the world’s deadliest conflicts increased by 53 per cent between 2021 and 2022, marking the first rise since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda in 2015.  The year 2022 witnessed a more than 50 per cent increase in conflict-related civilian deaths.

High levels of armed violence and insecurity have a destructive impact on a country’s development.

Sexual violence, crime, exploitation and torture are prevalent where there is conflict or no rule of law, and countries must take measures to protect those who are most at risk.

As of the end of 2022, 108.4 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide – an increase of 19 million compared with the end of 2021 and two and a half times the number of a decade ago.

In 2021, there were approximately 458,000 intentional homicides – the highest number in the past two decades.

Governments, civil society and communities need to work together to find lasting solutions to conflict and insecurity. Strengthening the rule of law and promoting human rights is key to this process, as is reducing the flow of illicit arms, combating corruption, and ensuring inclusive participation at all times.

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is universal and calls for action by all countries – developed and developing – to ensure no one is left behind. It requires partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil society.

The Sustainable Development Goals can only be realized with a strong commitment to global partnership and cooperation.

The total external debt of low- and middle-income countries reached $9 trillion in 2021, recording a 5.6 per cent increase from 2020.

In 2022, global exports increased sharply by 12.3 per cent, and global trade reached a record $32 trillion.

In 2022, net ODA flows by member countries of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) reached $206 billion.

To be successful, everyone will need to mobilize both existing and additional resources, and developed countries will need to fulfill their official development assistance commitments.

Now is the time for change. A confluence of multiple global crises have upended our lives. The way we work, the way we interact, the way we move about. This can be a turning point. Let's seize the moment and change course - toward more sustainable lifestyles. Small changes in your daily life can save you money, improve your health and help cut harmful pollution.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As such, the Agenda's Sustainable Development Goals aim not only to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – but also to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies, realizing the human rights of all.

They offer a blueprint for tackling the defining issues of our time, such as climate change, which requires urgent and transformative action that leaves no one behind.

The United Nations and its agencies, funds and programmes are working with Member States, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders to accelerate progress toward the Goals, in a spirit of global solidarity, focused in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.

• Sustainable Development Goals
• ActNow Campaign
• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• Infographics

This exhibit was launched in September 2020 and updated in August 2023

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 17 April 2024

How popularising higher education affects economic growth and poverty alleviation: empirical evidence from 38 countries

• Jian Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3228-8163 1   na1 ,
• Eryong Xue   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7079-5027 2   na1 ,
• Yukai Wei   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5202-7307 2 &
• Yunshu He   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4814-9835 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  520 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The popularisation of higher education supports UNESCO’s aim of developing inclusive and equitable quality education to achieve the fourth Sustainable Development Goal. However, the effect of popularising higher education on economic growth and poverty alleviation remains unexplored. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of higher education and adult education within populations (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (gross domestic product; GDP) and the poverty line using panel data from 38 countries. OLS and quantile regression were performed using data for the period 1995–2021 extracted from the OECD and World Bank databases. The results showed that the population segments with higher education had a significantly positive impact on GDP growth. Moreover, an increased proportion of the population with higher education, of working age, was found to be a contributing factor to GDP growth. Popularising higher education also played a positive role during the initial stage of social and economic development. This study also highlighted that popularising higher education play a key role to influence a country’s educational development and scientific and technological innovation drives the deepening of a country’s economy. It suggested that both national and local governments worldwide should pay much attention to the popularisation degree of higher education to greatly improve the innovative ability of talents and scientific and technological innovation in higher education for both the economic growth and poverty alleviation.

Similar content being viewed by others

The effect of intergenerational mobility on family education investment: evidence from China

Nan Zhao, Wanqing Liao, … Zizhe Zhang

Dynamics of returns to vocational education in China: 2010–2017

Jie Chen & Francesco Pastore

Measuring and forecasting progress in education: what about early childhood?

Linda M. Richter, Jere R. Behrman, … Hirokazu Yoshikawa

Introduction

The popularisation of higher education critically contributes to UNESCO’s efforts to realise the fourth Sustainable Development Goal of inclusive and equitable quality education (Ainscow, 2020 ; Bamberger and Kim, 2022 ).Popularisation of higher education expands the scale of higher education and its high growth rate introduces considerable challenges to the management structure of higher education, triggering a series of theoretical and practical concerns relating to the nature and function of higher education (Balestra and Ruiz, 2015 ; Brand, 2021 ). Given that education and social and economic development are mutually reinforcing, the expansion of higher education leads to an ascending spiral of development for individuals and/or economies. By contrast, a lack of education or early withdrawal from education leads to a downward spiral for them (Camilla, 2023 ). This relationship between education and development undergirds the model of poverty alleviation based on the return on education (Decancq, 2017 ). The previous studies emphasise the importance of the return on education as a multidimensional anti-poverty mechanism and thus a key factor in poverty alleviation (Fang et al., 2022 ; Chelli et al., 2022 ; Garritzmann, 2016 ). For example, return on education is the key factor enabling a transition from poverty alleviation through education to poverty alleviation through education (Gillian et al., 2021 ; Gong and Hong, 2021 ). Poverty alleviation is realised through an interlinking of these two processes and the promotion of the latter (Granata, 2022 ; Habibi and Zabardast, 2020 ). The educational resources can meet the needs of the poor mainly through the return on education at the levels of survival and life quality. In addition, the previous studies highlighted that, with a continuous expansion in the scale of higher education, its economic effect gradually appears to become marginal (Hoeller et al., 2014 ). The density of colleges and universities worldwide has increased considerably in recent years, but it is still inadequate to meet increasing demands resulting from the ongoing popularisation of higher education (Jericho, 2016 ). The increase in the number of colleges and universities has a positive effect in promoting economic development but with marginal benefits. (Julian, 2018 ).

Through reviewed the current relevant studies, it is found that there have limited studies that have simultaneously explored the effects of popularising higher education on economic growth and poverty alleviation. The previous research revealed that most studies have focused on the relations between popularisation of higher education and economic growth. However, a few empirical investigations have examined the effect of population segments with higher education and adult education (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (GDP) and poverty reduction. Considering the scope and limitations of previous studies, it aimed to address the above research gap by investigating the effect of a population segment with high levels of higher education and adult education (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (GDP) and the poverty line at a wide scale using panel data from 38 countries. The main research questions addressed in this study are as follows.

Q1: What is the effect of a population segment with higher education on GDP growth?

Q2: What is the effect of adult education on GDP growth?

Q3: What impact does a population segment with higher education have on reducing the proportion of those experiencing poverty?

Q4: What is the relation between an increased level of adult education and the proportion of the population experiencing poverty?

All these questions are relevant to an exploration of the effect of the population segment with higher education and adult education (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (GDP) and the poverty line. This study is divided into several sections: the first section concentrates on examining the effect of popularising higher education on economic growth and the poverty line, the relationship between popularisation of higher education and poverty alleviation, and the relationship between popularisation of higher education and poverty alleviation. In the second section of method, to address this research gap, this study performed OLS and quantile regressions using data extracted from the OECD and World Bank databases for the period 1995–2021. An OLS regression model and a panel quantile model were used to analyse the effect of a population segment with higher education and adult education (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (GDP) and the poverty line within 38 OECD countries. The impact of the proportion of people aged 24–64 years and 25–34 years who had completed higher education in relation to their peers on GDP and the proportion of people living in poverty in 38 OECD countries have been measured and analysed. The results and discussion have been provided at the last.

Literature review

The effect of popularising higher education on economic growth.

The population segment with higher education is regarded as an important contributor to economic growth, generating scientific knowledge and providing labour, which in turn increases human capital and productivity (Jungblut, 2017 ; Kalamova, 2020 ; Liu, 2017 ). As the scale of higher education expands, the emergence of knowledge power as a large-scale global phenomenon reflects the important role of an expanded educated labour force in the advancement of science and technology and the economy. For example, the relationship between higher education and economic development in European Union countries between 1997 and 2016 was analysed. Their findings revealed a statistically significant correlation between expanding higher education and economic growth in the selected countries. The one-way cause-and-effect relationship between education and economic development in these countries suggests that an increase in the proportion of the population enroled in higher education boosts economic performance. In addition, using a survey sample of 35 households, a retrospective study in Brazil, examined the role of educational expansion in reducing income inequality and poverty. Its findings suggest that it would take decades to reduce inequality and poverty in this country and that this outcome could only be achieved through a major expansion of the higher education sector. The growth needed to achieve this outcome would be considerable (Lamichhane et al., 2021 ). This reduction in inequality and poverty could only be achieved if optimistic assumptions about growth, matching job skills and the return on education do not fall short. In brief, education is not a panacea for reducing poverty and inequality. How three major stages of education contributed to the growth in labour productivity in 125 countries during the period 1999–2014 was also explored. They found that human capital is consistent with the educational returns of an average number of years of formal education at the levels of primary, secondary, and higher education. Their analysis showed that higher education had the greatest impact on labour productivity in the economies under study (Ledger et al., 2019 ). In addition, popularising higher education plays an important role in promoting economic growth, as the scale of higher education can guarantee the scale of human resources development by improving the quality of human resources and cultivating and distributing innovative scientific and technological talents. The scale of higher education guarantees the spread of science and technology and the popularisation of scientific and technological achievements (Mathias, 2023 ; Megyesiova and Lieskovska, 2018 ). The expanded scale of higher education worldwide has a spatial spillover effect on economic growth, which is strengthened through international cooperation in the fields of science and technology.

Popularising higher education also plays a direct role in cultivating and transporting scientific and technological talents to promote international scientific and technological cooperation (Mitic, 2018 ; Özdoğan Özbal, 2021 ; OECD, 2022 ; Pinheiro and Pillay, 2016 ). The scale of postgraduate education inhibited the total number of scientific and technological innovation achievements, indicating that there may be a trade-off between ‘quantity expansion’ and ‘quality upgrading’ of scientific and technological innovation achievements. Nevertheless, the positive effect on the number of high-tech innovation outcomes is significant, indicating that the supporting effect of graduate education on scientific and technological innovation is mainly concentrated in the high-tech fields (Pinheiro and Pillay, 2016 ; Rowe, 2019 ; Sahnoun and Abdennadher, 2022 ). The ‘talent increment’ of regional expansion and the ‘resource stock’ of graduate education have a combined promoting effect on high-tech innovation. There are differences in the effect of graduate education supporting high-tech innovation among provinces with different characteristics relating to the development of graduate education. The incremental expansion of high-quality talent is essential for enhancing the efficiency of material capital and stabilising the advantage of resource stocks. Using education statistics from OECD countries, Russia, and several other countries that participate in OECD education research, comparative and correlational analysis methods were applied to analyse how the scale of growth in young people’s participation in higher education is reflected in changes in their employment and economic activity. The results of their analysis showed that the growth in economic activity involving young graduates with a master’s degree exceeded that of college graduates after the 2009 financial crisis, and graduates fared better in the 2020 crisis, which was triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The effect of popularisation of higher education on poverty alleviation

Popularisation of higher education is regarded as an essential factor contributing to poverty alleviation (Samo, 2022 ; Adams, 2013 ; Zapp, 2022 ). The higher education’s role in promoting economic growth can only be fully realised through the cultivation of talents suitable for the actual development situation of the country. Countries with food shortages, for example in Africa, also need to procure and train the right agricultural talent. Key drivers of sustainable agricultural production include access to improved technologies, sustainable growth of human, biological and natural resource capital, improvements in institutional performance and a favourable economic policy environment. Higher education graduates with the necessary ‘soft skills and business skills constitute an important pillar. Chakeredza ( 2008 ), who explored the effect of popularising higher education on poverty alleviation, suggested that the number of hungry people in Africa will continue to increase. Higher education in agriculture must be transformed, and efforts must focus on retaining faculty and on reviewing and redesigning institutional management systems, curriculum content and education delivery.

There are many reasons for poverty, with a lack of education being an important one. Insufficient quality education leads to educational poverty. Using PISA data, Agasisti et al. ( 2021 ) investigated the extent of educational poverty in European countries, considering its incidence, breadth, depth and severity. For this study, they adopted an additive multidimensional poverty measure proposed by Alkirew and Foster. Their findings indicated that between 2006 and 2015, the depth and severity of poverty decreased in most of the countries under study. Moreover, the incidence of educational poverty in many European countries was related mainly to student characteristics and school factors. The expansion of higher education has a positive effect on economic development and poverty reduction by improving work skills within the labour force. Increased enrolment in higher education encourages individuals born in families with low education levels to avail of higher education opportunities. Evidently, the expanded scale of higher education in the process of promoting economic growth has enhanced the equity effect of intergenerational social mobility. The expansion of higher education improves total factor productivity, thus promoting economic transformation and advancement globally (Samo, 2022 ; Adams, 2013 ; Zapp, 2022 ). Furthermore, the previous studies have shown that the structure of higher education talent training has a significant impact on economic development. Therefore, government departments need to make constant efforts to improve relevant systems and promote the optimisation and upgrading of the structure of higher education talent training to meet the needs of future economic development.

Theoretical underpinnings

The relationship between education and economic growth is a classic issue in the study of educational economics. For example, in Solow’s view, the growth of per capita output comes from per capita capital stock and technological progress, but capital investment has the problem of diminishing marginal returns, and the long-term sustainable development of the economy depends on technological progress (Solow, 1957 ). The emphasis on technological progress is a very important point in Solow’s growth theory. It was Schultz who systematically analyzed the contribution of education to economic growth. Influenced by the progress of economic growth theory and national accounting methods, Schulz proposed human capital theory in the process of explaining Solow residuals (Schultz, 1961 ). believes that once human capital is included in economic growth, it will solve the paradoxes and puzzles faced in economic growth research. Starting with the difference in income of different types of workers in the labour market, he found that education and health factors are the main reasons for the income difference, and further clarified that the reason for the income difference is the difference in labor productivity (Schultz, 1961 ). Schultz ( 1961 ) believes that human resources include the quantity and quality of labor, and he mainly focuses on the skills and knowledge of people who can improve labor productivity. As for how to measure human capital investment, Schulz believes that the cost of human capital can be measured in the same way as physical capital. Lucas ( 1988 ) focuses on the mechanism of human capital accumulation and why human capital does not show diminishing marginal returns like physical capital. Lucas divides the effect of human capital into internal effect and external effect. Romer ( 1990 ) internalised technological progress, revealed the relationship between human capital and technological progress, and proposed that the stock of human capital determines the economic growth rate, and it is human capital rather than population that determines economic growth. Romer starts with three hypotheses: first, technological progress is central to long-term economic growth; Second, technological progress is formed by people’s response to market incentives, and market incentives determine technological progress. Third, technology is a special kind of product, and once the cost of the initial input is produced, the technology can be reproduced indefinitely at no cost or very low cost.

In other words, higher education is more about improving students’ ability and productivity, thereby increasing students’ income, and promoting economic growth. Higher education mainly affects economic growth through two aspects: one is the same as Schulz’s improvement of individual ability, and the internal effect of human capital, which directly affects the production process (Schultz, 1961 ). Second, Lucas emphasised the external effect of human capital, and the comprehensive effect of human capital on the whole society, which has the characteristics of increasing marginal benefit (Lucas, 1988 ). It emphasises that the human capital invested in technological innovation and the existing knowledge and technology stock of the whole society jointly determine technological innovation.

Research hypotheses and analytical model

In this study, an OLS regression model and a panel quantile model were used to analyse the effect of a population segment with higher education and adult education (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (GDP) and the poverty line within 38 OECD countries. The study’s hypotheses were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: The effect of a population segment with higher education has a positive impact on GDP growth.

Hypothesis 2: Some level of adult education has a positive impact on GDP growth.

Hypothesis 3: A population segment with higher education has a positive impact by reducing the proportion of the population experiencing poverty.

Hypothesis 4: An increase in the level of adult education has a positive impact by reducing the proportion of the population experiencing poverty.

The widely used Mankiw-Romer-Weil model was applied in this study. The overall level of development of higher education and the popularisation of higher education were considered core elements that independently promote economic development and alleviate poverty. The following model was constructed by incorporating the variable of quality higher education into the Solow model:

where Y it refers to the output of i country in t year. The independent variables Qit and P it respectively represent the scale of development and the degree of popularisation of higher education in i country in t year. The following specific model was constructed:

The independent variables were the proportion of people aged 25–64 years with higher education (A) and the proportion of people aged 25–34 years with higher education within the same age group (B). The first variable reflects the population segment that has completed higher education and can work in the corresponding age group. The second reflects the degree of popularisation of higher education. The proportion of those who have completed higher education in relation to their peers is in the normal state, which can reflect the enrolment rate for the previous process of higher education, thus indicating the degree of popularisation of higher education.

The dependent variables were GDP and the poverty line (D). GDP is a measure the overall level of a country’s economic and social development. The poverty line refers to the proportion of people living on less than US$1.25 a day as a percentage of the country’s total population or the proportion of people living in poverty. Thus, it reflects the level of equity in social development. The figure of US$2.15 is used in the World Bank’s index and is based on the purchasing power parity in 2017 (see Table 1 ).

Data sources and selection of variables

This study measured the impact of the proportion of people aged 24–64 years and 25–34 years who had completed higher education in relation to their peers on GDP and the proportion of people living in poverty in 28 OECD countries. Specifically, this study assessed the impact of the overall level of development of higher education and the degree of its popularisation (the breadth of development of higher education) on GDP (the height of development of economic and social development) and the poverty line (the breadth of development of economic and social development). Data were sourced from the OECD database and the World Bank website covering the period 1995–2021. This study selected 38 OECD countries for this study: the United States, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Japan, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, South Korea, Slovakia, Chile, Slovenia, Estonia, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania Colombia and Costa Rica. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 38 OECD countries. Of these countries, 20 were founding members of the OECD when it was established in 1961, while the remaining 18 subsequently became members. After 1994, OECD membership expanded rapidly. Five new members were added within three years. OECD then entered a period of accelerated development, and its operations and advancement reached an optimal stage. Therefore, this study selected data from the OECD database and the World Bank website covering the period 1995–2021 to explore the relationship between higher education and economic and social development in OECD member countries.

It expresses the geographical relations of the Atlantic region and simplifies the latitude and longitude lines and country symbols, highlighting the geographical distribution by highlighting OECD countries in color and other countries in apricot color.

The impact of the population segment with higher education on GDP growth

This study explored the impact of the population segment with higher education on GDP, taking the proportion of people aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education (B) and the proportion of people aged 25–64 years who had completed higher education (A) as the independent variables for the OLS regression. The square value of model R was 0.097, indicating that the two independent variables could explain 9.73% of the change in GDP. The model passed an F test ( F  = 46.137, p  = 0.000 < 0.05), indicating that at least one of the two independent variables impacted the GDP regression coefficient (C). The following formula was used:

The final analysis revealed that the regression coefficient value of A was 1.553 and the significance level was 0.01 ( t  = 7.141, p  = 0.000 < 0.01). Therefore, A had a significantly positive influence on C. Accordingly, the proportion of the population aged 25–64 years who had completed higher education, that is, the overall level of development of higher education was found to have a positive impact on GDP. The influence coefficient value was 1.533, indicating that an increase in the proportion of the population with completed higher education led to an increase in GDP.

The regression coefficient value of B was −0.813 at a 0.01 level of significance ( t  = −4.300, p  = 0.000 < 0.01), indicating that B had a significantly negative influence on C. The proportion of the population aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education, that is, the degree of popularisation of higher education had a negative effect on GDP, and the influence coefficient value was −0.813.

The negative impact on economic and social development caused by an increase in the popularity of higher education and the proportion of young people’s higher education experience may be attributed to the excess capacity of higher education. The development of higher education should be adapted to the national context. An excess of higher education and a lack of investment lead to a rise in the social cost of education and a decline in social outputs, which hinder social and economic development. At the same time, young people aged between 25 and 34 years occupy the position of’ export’ in the education process. With the increasing popularity of higher education, the supply of talents in the labour market generated through the recruitment of former higher education exceeds the demand for graduates with higher education within recruiting organisations. Consequently, issues such as wasted educational resources and knowledge, unemployment, excessive education, excess talents, an imbalance in the structure of higher education, excessive expansion and decreasing compatibility undermine economic operations and hinder GDP growth.

In this study, the variance decomposition and Pearson coefficient based on covariance calculation were analyzed. The variable of the number of 25–34-year-old who have completed higher education as a percentage of their peers explains 50.74% of the change in GDP. The variable of the proportion of 25–64-year-old who have completed higher education explains 49.26% of the change in GDP. The variable of 25- to 34-year-olds who completed higher education as a percentage of their peers explained 45.88% of the change in poverty line. The variable of the proportion of people aged 25–64 who have completed higher education explains 54.12% of the change in GDP (See Table 2 ).

The proportion of people aged 25–34 who have completed higher education in their peers and the proportion of people aged 25–64 who have completed higher education in their peers, GDP and poverty line showed significant correlation coefficients. The correlation between the proportion of people who have completed higher education at the age of 25–34 and the proportion of people who have completed higher education at the age of 25–64 is 0.931, and shows a significance of 0.01, which indicates that there is a significant positive correlation between the proportion of people who have completed higher education at the age of 25–34 and the proportion of people who have completed higher education at the age of 25–64. The correlation between the proportion of the number of people who have completed higher education at the age of 25–34 and the GDP is 0.209, and the significance is 0.01, which indicates that there is a significant positive correlation between the number of people who have completed higher education at the age of 25–34 and the GDP. The correlation between the number of people who have completed higher education and the poverty line at the age of 25–34 is −0.365, with a significance of 0.01, indicating a significant negative correlation between the number of people who have completed higher education and the poverty line at the age of 25–34 (See Table 2 ).

White test and BP test were used in this study. The test null hypothesis is that the model has no heteroscedasticity. The table above shows that both tests reject the null hypothesis ( p  < 0.05), indicating that the model does have heteroscedasticity. When there is a heteroscedasticity problem, Robust and robust standard false regression is used (See Table 3 ).

The impact of a population segment with higher education on the poverty line

This study also explored the impact of a population segment with higher education on the poverty line. Specifically, this study performed an OLS regression in which the proportion of people aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education (B) and the proportion of those aged 25–64 years who had completed higher education (A) were the independent variables. As Table 2 shows, the R squared value was 0.134. This means that variables A and B could explain 13.37% of the change in the poverty line (D). The model passed the F test ( F  = 48.771, p  = 0.000 < 0.05), which means that at least one variable (A or B) had an impact on the poverty line. The formula for the change in the poverty line was expressed as follows:

The final analysis revealed that the regression coefficient value of the proportion of people aged 25–64 years who had completed higher education (A) was 0.005 but with no significance ( t  = 0.428, p  = 0.669 > 0.05), indicating that the population segment with higher education did not have an impact on the poverty line.

The regression coefficient value of the proportion of people aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education (B) was −0.048 at a significance level of 0.01 ( t  = −4.305, p  = 0.000 < 0.01), which means that in relation to their peers, the proportion of people aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education had a significantly negative impact on the proportion of poor people. A higher proportion of people aged 25–34-years who had completed higher education corresponded to a higher penetration rate of higher education and a lower proportion of those living in poverty. This phenomenon can be attributed to OECD’s support for the development of higher education in various countries. When the development of higher education reaches a certain level, the reduction of the proportion of the population segment experiencing poverty will no longer be affected by a simple expansion of the scale of extended higher education and the superposition of the total number of highly educated human resources. It will be influenced more by the reasonable distribution of educational resources and educational equity within higher education and its popularisation, that is, the increase in the proportion of the school-aged population aged 25–34 years based on the increase of the previous enrolment rate (see Table 4 ).

The effect of adult education on GDP growth

For quantile regression analysis, a total of nine models (with decimal points ranging from 0.10 to 0.90 and at intervals of 0.10) were estimated in this analysis, which aimed to explore the impact of the independent variables A and B on the dependent variable, GDP (C). When the quantile value was between 0.1 and 0.3, the proportion of the population aged 25–64 years who had completed higher education (A) had no significant positive impact on GDP growth, indicating that the development of higher education did not significantly affect economic and social development in poorer OECD countries. When the quantile value was between 0.4 and 0.6, the level of development of higher education had a significantly negative impact on economic and social development. Thus, for a country that had developed over a period, the advancement of higher education required multiple inputs, such as capital, material, and human resources.

During the early stage of the development of higher education, such inputs may, however, have a negative and weakening impact on social and economic development. The added cost of education and the lag between the output of educational achievements and the input of talents puts increased pressure on economic and social development during a certain period. When the quantile value was 0.7 or higher, the improvement of the overall level of higher education had a significantly positive impact on GDP growth, indicating the realisation of the talent training outcomes of higher education. Teaching and research outcomes were thus transformed into socially productive resources and power, with talents with higher education contributing to economic and social development.

When the quantile value was 0.1, the proportion of people aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education in relation to their peers (variable B), indicating the popularisation of higher education, had no significant impact on GDP growth. Thus, in extremely backward countries, the popularisation of higher education had little effect on economic and social development. When the quantile value ranged between 0.2 and 0.6, the popularisation of higher education had a significantly positive effect on GDP growth, indicating its contribution to economic growth.

When the quantile value was 0.7, the influence of variable B on variable C was no longer significant, indicating that social development would soon face the problem of overcapacity in higher education. When it exceeded 0.7, the ratio of eligible people aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education in relation to their peers had a significantly negative impact on GDP growth, revealing that with the development of the economy, society and education, higher education had become overexpanded. Thus, the cost of investing in education exceeded the social benefits, leading to overcapacity whereby the supply of higher education talents exceeded the demand. This situation led to wasted educational resources and excessive competition of talents, hindering economic growth (See Table 5 ).

The increased level of adult education and the proportion of the population experiencing poverty

Using the same model, this study explored the influence of the independent variables, A and B, on the poverty line (dependent variable D). The proportion of the population aged 25–64 years who had completed higher education (independent variable A) had no significant influence on the proportion of the population living in poverty, indicating that popularisation of education and economic and social development have been achieved to a certain extent in OECD countries, and improvements targeting the population experiencing poverty could no longer be achieved simply by increasing the volume and quantity of higher education. When the quantile value was 0.1, the proportion of people aged 25–34 years who had completed higher education in relation to their peers (independent variable B) had no significant effect on the proportion of the population experiencing poverty (dependent variable D). Therefore, the strategy of increasing higher education enrolment and the ratio of the eligible population through the fair allocation of educational resources, and thus the popularisation of education, would not be effective for a small population segment experiencing poverty. In other words, the population segment experiencing poverty in highly developed countries is less receptive to the popularisation of higher education. When the quantile value was 0.2, the independent variable, B, had a significantly positive impact on the dependent variable D, that is, an increase in the popularity of higher education led to an increase in the population segment experiencing poverty. This phenomenon can be interpreted as reflecting the inherent disadvantages of the welfare state in the field of education. A rise in the number of eligible young people aged 25–34 years who have completed higher education reflects the development trend of higher education towards fairness and popularisation following the redistribution of higher education resources.

The fair distribution of higher education resources leads to a lack of competition in the areas of teaching and career development. To a certain extent, reducing students’ willingness and enthusiasm to work may lead to poverty caused by the failure to achieve teaching results. When the quantile value was between 0.3 and 0.4, the independent variable, B, had no significant influence on the dependent variable D. In relatively poor countries, the popularisation of higher education contributes little to reducing the degree of poverty, so it may be necessary to explore ways of alleviating poverty from the perspective of improving the overall level and expanding the scale of basic higher education. When the quantile value was 0.5 or above, the independent variable B had a significantly negative impact on the dependent variable D, indicating that for countries with a relatively high proportion of their population experiencing poverty, the following strategy would be more effective.

Considering the quantile data, this study deemed that the degree of sensitivity of countries at different stages of economic development to the level of development and popularisation of higher education could be more intuitively evaluated using a radar map (see Fig. 2 ). Countries with sub-points 0.1–0.9 were defined along a spectrum as extremely backward, backward, moderately backward, slightly backward, moderate, preliminarily developed, moderately developed, developed, and highly developed. From the perspective of economic development, increasing the proportion of young people who complete higher education and popularising higher education had an obvious positive effect in backward and medium-developed countries, whereas the effect in highly developed countries was not obvious. Overall, the sensitivity of OECD countries to the high level of education penetration was found to be higher than the level of development of higher education. From the perspective of equitable economic development, the overall level of development of higher education had no significant impact on the poverty link in OECD countries, whereas OECD countries with differing economic development backgrounds and at varying stages of development evidenced relatively significant and stable sensitivity to the proportion of young and middle-aged people who completed higher education and the popularisation of higher education.

The dashed line represents the proportion of people aged 25–34 years who have completed higher education. The solid line represents the proportion of people aged 25–64 years who have completed higher education, the impact of the overall level of higher education.

Our findings indicated that population segments with higher education had a significantly positive impact on GDP growth in 38 OECD countries. An increase in the proportion of the population segment of working age who completed higher education was found to contribute to GDP growth. Moreover, an improvement in the popularity of higher education played a positive role during the initial stage of economic and social development.

At the same time, oversupply and overcapacity may result from a continuous improvement of higher education. A very large number of young people who have completed higher education can lead to excessive competition and wasted academic qualifications (Mathias, 2023 ; Megyesiova and Lieskovska, 2018 ). In turn, higher education knowledge unemployment, overinvestment, a structural imbalance, disorderly expansion and wasted resources can occur, which have detrimental impacts on economic operations.

Some studies have shown that strengthening the quality of higher education helps to improve cognitive abilities within the labour force, thereby enhancing the growth of the knowledge economy (Ainscow, 2020 ; Bamberger and Kim, 2022 ). Other studies have reported regional heterogeneity relating to the marginal effect of improving the quality of higher education on economic growth. Some scholars have analysed the influence of the quality of higher education on economic development from the perspective of human capital investment theory. Their findings indicate that the quality of higher education determines the composition and growth trend of social human capital. Because of differences in the degrees of development of different economies, the quality of higher education has a phased influence on economic growth (Balestra and Ruiz, 2015 ; Brand, 2021 ). Case studies of African developing countries by international scholars have revealed that quality factors are key to realising the economic development function of higher education. From the perspectives of both efficient financial investments by states in education poverty alleviation and the effects of economic, time and emotional investments of poor families and individuals in education poverty alleviation, it is necessary to take the return on education into consideration. Moreover, it is important to respond to reasonable concerns regarding the return on education for poor people and to strengthen their cognitive capacities to rationalise as well as their expectations regarding returns on education (Li et al., 2023 ). In this way, the intention to participate and behaviour of anti-poverty education will be generated, and the strategic upgrading of poverty alleviation combined with the promotion of aspirations and cognitive capacities will be emphasised.

Implications

Our use of panel data from 38 countries to deepen understanding of the effect of popularising higher education on economic growth and poverty reduction also has practical implications. The economic, social, and higher education undertakings in OECD countries evidence a certain level of development. The population segment with higher education has no significant impact on reducing the proportion of the population segment experiencing poverty. Simply increasing the proportion of people who complete higher education and expanding the scale of higher education will not effectively reduce poverty (Li and Xue, 2021 ). Providing more educational opportunities to poor people through the slanting of educational resources can help to reduce the proportion of poor people (Ainscow, 2020 ; Bamberger and Kim, 2022 ). For example, popularising higher education plays a key role to influence a country’s development level and scientific and technological innovation drives the deepening of a country’s economy (Bamberger and Kim, 2022 ). Technological progress is the core of economic growth, scientific and technological innovation brings technological change and development in all aspects, human capital promotes economic growth, and higher education trains talents and improves the capital attribute of human (Camilla, 2023 ). For endogenous economic growth theory, the economy does not rely on external forces to achieve sustained growth, and endogenous technological progress determines sustained economic growth. Popularising higher education worldwide brings the accumulation of human capital, improves the quality of workers, and scientific and technological innovation makes technological progress and high-quality economic development, practically. Human capital accumulation is also the process of continuous input of labour force, which covers the accumulation of human capital by labour force factors in formal education, training, and other learning processes. From the perspective of human capital, popularising higher education is the most direct and efficient way to promote the accumulation of human capital and improve the quality of labour force (Balestra and Ruiz, 2015 ; Brand, 2021 ). The popularisation degree of higher education is one of the important indicators to measure the development level of a country’s economic, and it is also the common trend of the development of higher education in all countries after World War II. In this transitional era, how to continue the achievements of higher education in the popular era and solve the existing problems as soon as possible is the heavy responsibility of our times. Therefore, at the initial stage of popularisation of higher education, it is necessary to re-examine the process of higher education popularisation globally and explore the internal logics between the popularisation of higher education and Sustainable Development Goal of inclusive and equitable quality education (Ainscow, 2020 ; Bamberger and Kim, 2022 ).

For policy suggestions, this study suggests that both national and local governments worldwide should pay much attention to the popularisation degree of higher education to greatly improve the innovative ability of talents and scientific and technological innovation in higher education. For example, they could promote scientific and technological innovation in an organised manner to serve national and regional economic and social development. Faced with the current situation in which global higher education has entered a stage of popularisation and new challenges and problems in serving regional economic and social development, national governments should continue to optimise the distribution and structure of higher education resources to support different regions, focusing on the major strategy of enhancing national competitiveness, serving economic and social development, and promoting common prosperity.

Contributions

This study novelty contributes on examining how popularising higher education affects economic growth and poverty alleviation, conceptually, methodologically, and practically. For instance, this study focuses on epitomising the conceptual and analytical model to explore the effects of higher education and adult education within populations (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (gross domestic product; GDP) and the poverty line. In addition, this study novelty combines both Mankiw-Romer-Weil model Solow model to investigate the effects of higher education and adult education within populations on economic growth and the poverty through OLS regression model and quantile model. For the practical aspect, this study practically uncovers the implicit significance of the popularisation of higher education for advocating UNESCO’s aim of developing inclusive and equitable quality education to achieve the fourth Sustainable Development Goal.

Limitations

This study had some limitations. Data could have been collected from a larger sample of OECD countries to explore the effect of population segments with higher education and adult education (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (GDP) and the poverty line. In addition, a qualitative component could be included in future studies to uncover the cultural and historical contexts of the effect of popularising higher education on economic growth and poverty reduction at the local level. Future studies should also investigate the causal relationship between the popularisation of higher education and economic growth. Additional empirical data and advanced research methods can be used to enable a shift from correlation to causality.

In conclusion, this study examined the effect of the population segment with higher education and adult education (popularisation of higher education) on economic growth (GDP) and the poverty line using panel data from 38 countries. The population segment with higher education was found to have a significant positive impact on promoting GDP growth. An increase in the proportion of the working-age population segment that had completed higher education was evidently conducive to GDP growth. Popularisation of higher education was also found to play a positive role in the initial stage of economic and social development.

Data availability

The data of OECD country GDP is retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=1W , The data of OECD country poverty line is retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY?locations=1W&start=1984&view=chart , The data of OECD country Population with tertiary education 25–34-year-old is retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm#indicator-chart , The data of OECD country Percentage of 25–64-year old’s who have completed higher education (%) is retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/adult-education-level.htm#indicator-chart , The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in Harvard Dataverse https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TP43QS .

Adams, R (2013). Education: poverty and inequality blamed as UK sinks in adult literacy league: OECD survey flags up big problems for England: Post-16 education blamed for failure to address issue. The Guardian . (2013, October 9). London, England

Agasisti T, Longobardi S, Prete V, Russo F (2021) The relevance of educational poverty in europe: determinants and remedies. J Policy Model 43(3):692–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.03.015

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow M (2020) Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nord J Stud Educ Policy 6(1):7–16

Balestra C, Ruiz N (2015) Scale-invariant measurement of inequality and welfare in ordinal achievements: an application to subjective well-being and education in OECD Countries. Soc Indic Res 123(2):479–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0751-2

Bamberger, A, & Kim, MJ (2022) The OECD’s influence on national higher education policies: internationalisation in Israel and South Korea. Comp Educ 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2022.2147635

Brand M (2021) The OECD poverty rate: lessons from the russian case. Glob Soc Policy 21(1):144–147

Camilla S. (2023) The design of upper secondary education across OECD countries: Managing choice, coherence and specialisation. OECD Education Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/158101f0-en

Chakeredza S, Temu A, Saka J, Munthali D, Muir-Leresche K, Akinnifesi F, Ajayi O, Sileshi G (2008) Tailoring Tertiary Agricultural Education for Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities and Challenges. J Sci Res Essay 3(8):326–332

Google Scholar  

Chelli F, Ciommi M, Mariani F, Polinesi G, Recchioni MC, Lamonica GR, Salvati L (2022) A story of strengths and weaknesses in tertiary education: evaluating “Mobility” and “Opportunities” in OECD countries with composite indicators. Sustainability 14(24):16463. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416463

Decancq, K (2017) Measuring multidimensional inequality in the OECD member countries with a distribution-sensitive better life index. Soc Indic Res 131(3):1057–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1289-2

Fang W, Farooq U, Liu Z, Lan J, Iram R (2022) Measuring energy efficiency financing: a way forward for reducing energy poverty through financial inclusion in OECD. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(47):71923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20139-8

Garritzmann, JL (2016) The political economy of higher education finance: the politics of tuition fees and subsidies in OECD Countries, 1945–2015. Garritzmann. Germany, Berlin: Springer International Publishing

Gillian G, Lisa T, & Thomas W (2021) How are higher education systems in OECD countries resourced?: Evidence from an OECD Policy Survey.OCDE. https://doi.org/10.1787/0ac1fbad-en

Gong HJ, Hong JE (2021) Does postsecondary education attainment matter in community service engagement? Evidence from Across 18 OECD Countries. Educ Sci 11(3):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030096

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Granata, M (2022) The OECD and technical education in post-war Mediterranean Europe. Labor History. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2022.2057459

Habibi, F & Zabardast, MA (2020) Digitalization, education and economic growth: a comparative analysis of Middle East and OECD countries. Technol Soc 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101370

Hoeller P, Joumard I, Koske I (2014) Reducing income inequality while boosting economic growth: can it be done? Evidence from OECD Countries. Singap Econ Rev 59(1):1–22

Jericho, G (2016) Australia didn’t have a ‘great recession’? Tell that to young people; an OECD report has found a rise in youth not in employment, education or training (Neets) since 2008. While historically the rate isn’t high, benefits are so low that youth are now more likely to be living in poverty. Guardian. London, England. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A463552813/AONE?u=unimelb&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=701996a9

Julian LG (2018) The political economy of higher education finance. the politics of tuition fees and subsidies in OECD Countries, 1945–2015. Czech Sociol Rev 54(3):479–482

Jungblut J (2017) The political economy of higher education finance. The politics of tuition fees and subsidies in OECD countries, 1945–2015. Eur J High Educ 7(1):96–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1265789

Kalamova, M (2020) Resourcing higher education: challenges, choices and consequences. Higher Education Policy Team. Paris: OECD Publishing

Lamichhane, S, Egilmez, G, Gedik, R, Bhutta, MKS, & Erenay, B (2021) Benchmarking OECD countries’ sustainable development performance: a goal-specific principal component analysis approach. J Clea Prod 287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125040

Ledger, S, Thier, M, Bailey, L, & Pitts, C (2019) OECD’s approach to measuring global competency: powerful voices shaping education. Teachers College Record, 121(8):1–40

Li, J & Xue. E (2021) Returnee faculty responses to internationalizing “Academic Ecology” for Creating World-class Universities in China’ Elite Universities. Higher Education. 81(5), 1063–1078

Li, J, & Xue. E, Liu, C, Li, X (2023) Integrated macro and micro analyses of student burden reduction policies in China: call for a collaborative “family–school–society” model. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications. 10, 184 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01695-x

Liu, L (2017) Exploring the relationship between education economy and individual civic attitudes: a cross-national analysis in England, Spain, Sweden, Poland and Chinese Taipei

Lucas R (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J. Monetary Econ 22(1):342

Mathias B (2023). The assessment of students’ creative and critical thinking skills in higher education across OECD countries: a review of policies and related practices. OECD Education Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/35dbd439-en

Megyesiova, S, & Lieskovska, V (2018) Analysis of the sustainable development indicators in the OECD Countries. Sustainability 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124554

Mitic RR (2018) The political economy of higher education finance: the politics of tuition fees and subsidies in OECD Countries, 1945-2015. Rev High Educ 41(3):484–487

OECD (2022) Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en

Özdoğan Özbal E (2021) Dynamic effects of higher education expenditures on human capital and economic growth: an evaluation of OECD countries. Policy Rev High Educ 5(2):174–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2021.1893125

Pinheiro R, Pillay P (2016) Higher education and economic development in the OECD: policy lessons for other countries and regions. J High Educ Policy Manag 38(2):150

Romer M (1990) Endogenous technological change. J Political Econ 98(5):S71–S102

Rowe E (2019) Capitalism without capital: the intangible economy of education reform. Discourse 40(2):271

Sahnoun M, Abdennadher C (2022) Returns to investment in education in the OECD Countries: does governance quality matter? J Knowldege Econ 13(3):1819–1842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00783-0

Samo V. (2022). A snapshot of equity and inclusion in OECD education systems: findings from the Strength through Diversity Policy Survey. OECD Eduction Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/801dd29b-en

Schultz (1961) Investment in human capital. Am Econ Rev 51(1):1–17

Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320

Zapp M (2022) Revisiting the global knowledge economy: the worldwide expansion of research and development personnel, 1980–2015. Minerva 60(2):181–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09455-4

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by 2021 National Social Science Foundation of Higher Education Ideological and Political Course research (Key project) Ideological and Political Education System Construction System Mechanism Research in New Era (No.: 21VSZ004).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Jian Li, Eryong Xue.

Authors and Affiliations

Institute of International and Comparative Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China

China Institute of Education Policy, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China

Eryong Xue, Yukai Wei & Yunshu He

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work: Jian Li and Eryong Xue; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: Jian Li and Eryong Xue; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: Eryong Xue, Jian Li, Yukai Wei, and Yunshu He; final approval of the version to be published: Eryong Xue and Jian Li.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jian Li or Eryong Xue .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants. It was not required as this article used published data.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, J., Xue, E., Wei, Y. et al. How popularising higher education affects economic growth and poverty alleviation: empirical evidence from 38 countries. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 520 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03013-5

Download citation

Received : 29 June 2023

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03013-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Paving the way for a sustainable future: A conversation with UN General Assembly President Dennis Francis

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Dennis Francis, the current President of the UN General Assembly, recently launched a signature initiative to propel sustainable practices and address pressing development challenges confronting people and the planet.

The upcoming Sustainability Week , which spotlights five key sectors from 15 to 19 April, and the #ChooseSustainability campaign, calling on Member States, UN entities, civil society as well as the wider public to pledge actions that make a difference towards a better future.

Mr. Francis sat down with Melissa Fleming, UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communication, and outlined his plans for the Week as well as his own personal pledge for the #ChooseSustainability campaign.

“Sustainability is important because it has everything to do with the success of our existence on this planet,” he said in the exclusive interview.

Sustainability Week focuses the themes of debt sustainability and socioeconomic equality (15 April), tourism (16 April), transport (17 April), global resilience and infrastructure development (18 April), and sustainable energy (19 April).

The conversation highlights the importance of sustainability and the role each of us can play in creating a sustainable future. It serves as a reminder that sustainability is not just about the environment, but also about economic development and social equity.  

As Mr. Francis said, “there is no conflict. Between achieving economic success and achieving sustainability. there’s absolutely no conflict. It’s been done in some places. It requires commitment. And it requires vision and I think we have both. We have both.”

• Interview video

Melissa Fleming: Let’s talk first about the ambitious agenda of the UN GA Sustainability Week. From what I am reading, it will include five sector-specific conversations in the space of five days. What is the one common thread among these events – and what is the key message you would like to deliver?

Dennis Francis: Well, Melissa, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with you.

In fact, you mentioned the common thread and the common thread is indeed, sustainability.

Sustainability is important because it has everything to do with the success of our existence on this planet. But in terms of the five sectors that you mentioned, these are key sectors of most economies, [and] if we get them right, we will in fact be achieving the goal of stimulating sustainable development.

And sustainability has to do with the gap between those who are wealthy and those who are perhaps disadvantaged, and that gap has been increasing.

Sustainable development ... when achieved will help to close that gap, bring more people into the system and ensure in negotiations, that no one is left behind.

Sustainable development ... when achieved will help to close that gap, bring more people into the system and ensure in negotiations, that no one is left behind

So, this is sustainability for all people everywhere on this planet. That is the agenda of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals ; to lift people up to give them hope, to empower them to achieve their individual goals through sustainability.

So, for example, we are discussing...sustainable debt ... on 15 April. Many countries in the Global South have got an overhang of large debts that must be repaid. But in repaying that debt, not much is left by way of resources to finance things like education, health, national security.

And so those countries find themselves trapped in a cycle of debt from which they cannot emerge. This creates a development crisis.

That is one of the reasons why [today] in the Global South ...approximately 860 million people are hungry; and why approximately the same number of those [listening to this interview in the Global South] are living in abject poverty.

We need to lift these people up to give them hope and the promise of a better standard of living and welfare so that they can look after their children and feel empowered, to dream and to achieve to work towards achieving whatever they want to achieve.

So, the key aspect of this would be to lift and remove that debt or make it more affordable. [Making it] more affordable is the critical component; reviewing the terms and conditions under which those loans are secured. The interest rates tend to be punitively high. And that, of course, creates a burden on these very vulnerable countries, [or those] we refer to as countries in special situations, the least developed countries, the landlocked developing countries, and the small island developing states.

And so, they are trapped because they have got to repay the debt. There is no question of not repaying the debt: No bank will lend you money unless you have a record of maintaining your scheduled debt payments.

So, they've got to repay the debt but in doing so, there isn't enough money left over to finance things like education and public health. And of course, that creates additional poverty.

Ms. Fleming: The second area of focus during Sustainability Week is infrastructure. Again, that is critical to build sustainable societies and transition to clean energy. Talk a little bit about what you expect from that focus area.

Mr. Francis: Infrastructure is crucial to development. We tend to take it for granted. But consider for example, the impact of [the cargo ship that crashed into and collapsed the Francis Scott Key Bridge near Baltimore Harbour in Maryland] not just on Baltimore, or on the state of Maryland, but on the entire economy of the United States. That port [handles] a lot of exports and imports into and out of the United States.

And so, the potential ripple effect will be across the American economy. That is why infrastructure – one bridge – can make an enormous difference.

Now, this is a huge, powerful economy so the effect might not be very dramatic. But if it was a small country dependent on a single port for all its trade, you would immediately see how cataclysmic that event would be. It would mean that the country will not be able to maintain its links with the global value chains.

And so, infrastructure is extremely important for sustainable development. It's a game changer.

Infrastructure connects people and it's important to connect people because that's how economies operate. Markets don't exist on their own. They're only markets if people can access them and exchange products or services of value for money.

Infrastructure connects people and it's important to connect people because that's how economies operate

And so, building sustainable infrastructure – infrastructure that has the capacity to withstand external shocks, such as hurricanes [tornadoes] and the stresses of extreme climate events – means that the economy bounces back much more quickly.

In the future when such events take place ... the cost of reconstruction will be significantly lower, and perhaps even marginal, because those structures can withstand extreme shocks and stresses.

And so that's why sustainable infrastructure is important.

We [received news just this morning of the earthquake] in Taiwan, where you saw an image of a building almost standing on its side. That's the sort of event where sustainable infrastructure becomes important.

Ms. Fleming: Absolutely. And we can't speak about climate shocks without speaking about transition to energy that is sustainable as well. Is there something you'd like to add about this, especially developing countries as they move to develop their economies and our push as the UN and as the President of the General Assembly, to have that energy source be sustainable [or] renewable energy?

Mr. Francis: Yes, and in fact, energy is one of the five sectors that will be featured during Sustainability Week.

As you know, we have an SDG 7 that deals specifically with the need for people to have access to clean, affordable energy.

And so that transition is extremely important for climate change reasons. We know that decarbonization is necessary. You notice I'm wearing a pin here that says ‘1.5 degrees’. This is the threshold [to limit warming] that the entire international community endorsed [the Paris climate conference] in 2015.

In fact, we ... have already started to see some places in the Pacific where sea level rise is threatening to inundate some of the low-lying atolls

This [goal was endorsed based on the consideration that] if global temperatures rise above the 1.5 threshold by 2050, the consequences would be catastrophic for vulnerable countries, including small island developing states and least developed countries.

In fact, we ... have already started to see some places in the Pacific where sea level rise is threatening to inundate some of the low-lying atolls. Therefore this 1.5-degree threshold is important.

Ms. Fleming: I understand also during this Sustainability Week, there is going to be a big focus on another aspect of infrastructure – sustainable transport. What are you going to talk about in this realm?

Mr. Francis: It’s everything because transport spans the gamut of the combustion engine, rail transport, maritime transport, air transport ... We're looking at the transport sector holistically because it is so critical for development.

Transport integrates markets, it moves people around the world.

Tourism is a sector we are looking at.

And so, in the transition to green energy, [electric vehicles are important in that equation]. But it's more about transportation sectors being available to people at affordable rates, which is why green energy is important because in the conversion to green energy that is required.

You will not have the downside of contamination of the atmosphere at levels that heretofore didn’t exist. Green energy will get rid of carbon that pollutes and contaminates the atmosphere and creates [unprecedented] climatic events.

So, sustainability therefore redounds to the benefit of the society as a whole; with less carbon in the atmosphere and fewer unprecedented climate events, we will have the ability to connect people and markets more efficiently at lower cost and therefore to drive down the cost of economic activity. This is good for the economy, and it’s good for people.

So, all these sectors you mentioned are linked by sustainability considerations. [And] let’s not forget – this is an extremely important point – when we're talking sustainable development, we're not just talking about sustainable development in our lifetime. We're talking about sustainable development that will fuel and support civilization 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 generations [in the future]. So long-term sustainability for life on this planet, as we understand it, becomes the goal.

Ms. Fleming: Your Sustainability Week is happening in the months leading up to the Summit of the Future, which will be happening [at UN Headquarters in New York]. So, we're thinking a lot about the future that you just described, and yet policies seem to be so short sighted.

You come from Trinidad and Tobago, perhaps an island nation at the frontlines of a lot of these issues. But can you imagine a future for Trinidad and Tobago ... if all these infrastructure factors were put in place? What would it look like?

Mr. Francis: It would be heaven. Quite literally. You know, every time I am there, and I drive my car around the city if you know the city of Port of Spain, you will know that it's rimmed by mountains. And there's nothing more stunningly beautiful [than to] watch the sunlight coming over the mountains. It would be the perfect place.

Now, there are other issues that we have as a country that would need to be dealt with. But if all those elements were in place, it would really be a good place to raise families and to raise children to give them the hope and the sense of security, that as human beings we deserve and can live dignified lives, in harmony with the environment and with all natural ecosystems, and yet be successful, professionally and in business.

We must live more responsibly. We have to optimize the use of those resources to ensure that there will be a supply for our great great great and even greater grandchildren

So, the message is really that there is no conflict between achieving economic success and achieving sustainability. Absolutely no conflict. It’s been done in some places. It requires commitment. And it requires vision and I think we have both. We have both.

So, I would expect, therefore, that all countries would make a deep dive and come and recommit to sustainability. That's why we decided to launch the sustainability campaign. Choose Sustainability.

Because if each of us made some basic changes to the way we do things. For example, many of us without thinking about it brush our teeth in the morning with the tap running. How about turning the tap off while you brush your teeth? You may save three or four gallons of water that the people in the southwest United States and in parts of California wish they had in their taps.

Water is a scarce resource. We need to rethink how we use resources. Because [they] are finite; there is no bottomless pit...That’s why we must live more responsibly. We have to optimize the use of those resources to ensure that there will be a supply for our great great great and even greater grandchildren.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• General Assembly

These languages are provided via eTranslation, the European Commission's machine translation service.

• slovenščina
• Azerbaijani

Sustainable Development Goals - Good Practices in Tenerife

Tenerife is one of the eight Canary Islands, considered EU peripheral region. Discover with us in a practical way, how Tenerife is adapting to the United Nations SDG, the fragile environment, challenges, innovation and projects in this remote region of the Atlantic Ocean.

Description

Learning objectives.

• To establish long term cooperation with hosting companies and institutions for the future mobilities and projects of participants.To disseminate the result of the learning outcome as a teaching material for the students and to engage new students into sustainability actions.
• To learn about Canary Islands implementation of the SDGs and specifically Tenerife as a sustainable destination.
• Develop a sense of social responsibility towards environmental issues and take action to create a change in society.
• Acquire knowledge of environmental management and develop skills to manage sustainable environmental projects.
• Acquire knowledge about outdoor education, nature-based learning.

Methodology & assessment

Certification details, pricing, packages and other information.

• Price: 550 Euro
• Package contents: Course

Additional information

• Language: English
• Target audience ISCED: Primary education (ISCED 1) Upper secondary education (ISCED 3) Post-secondary non-tertiary education (ISCED 4)
• Target audience type: Teacher Company staff Higher education institution staff
• Learning time: 15-20 hours

Upcoming sessions

Vocational subjects

Key competences, more courses by this organiser.

Selfcare & Holistic practices training course in Tenerife

Next upcoming session  22.04.2024 - 25.04.2024

Tenerife, Back to Nature & Mental Welfare training course

Next upcoming session  29.04.2024 - 02.05.2024

5-Days English course in Tenerife

Next upcoming session  06.05.2024 - 10.05.2024

• Submit News
• 501-666-6726
• [email protected]

Belize represented at 6th Global Ministerial Summit on Patient Safety 2024

Fellowships support student research on compostable cutlery, sustainable solutions, and shorebird conservation

Undergraduate fellowships in the College of Natural Resources and Environment allow students to design and pursue their own research projects.

• David Fleming

10 Apr 2024

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Copy address link to clipboard

For Brian Tea, research starts at the back of Dining Services' Southgate Center. Lifting the lid of a container of food waste already starting to spoil, Tea scoops out enough to feed the composting tumblers that he is using to conduct his project, supported by an Undergraduate Research Fellowship from the College of Natural Resource and Environment (CNRE).

“My research is on compostable cutlery,” said Tea, a junior majoring in sustainable biomaterials in the Department of Sustainable Biomaterials . “I’m interested in understanding the life cycle of single-use materials and how sustainable options can provide a circular solution to waste.”

Tea tested the ability to compost cutlery made from three materials: the biodegradable polymer cellulose diacetate; polylactic acid, which is a renewable bioplastic; and the commonplace polystyrene plastics readily available at fast food restaurants.

Working under the guidance of Associate Professor Maren Roman , Tea measured the degradation processes of the various materials using an at-home composter that grinded and heated the composted materials to determine how efficiently the cutlery was able to break down.

Tea was one of eight recipients of a CNRE fellowship this past academic year. The program aims to give undergraduates both the financial resources and instructional support to conduct hands-on research.

“The CNRE Undergraduate Research Fellowship program provides students with an incredible opportunity to work side by side with our faculty to address local, state, national, and global challenges,” said Associate Dean Keith Goyne , who supervises the program. “Our undergraduate research fellows are tackling a wide range of topics in social and natural sciences, and they truly are using the fellowships to understand and improve the world.”

Applicants are eligible to receive up to $2,500 to support a research project of their own design with the sponsorship of a faculty mentor. Funding for fellowships comes in part from the generous gifts of donors to the college, whose contributions allow students the opportunity to take their education in their own hands. These grants are part of Virginia Tech Advantage , the university’s commitment to providing transformational educational opportunities to all students, regardless of income.

From materials science to making a difference

The Department of Sustainable Biomaterials focuses on training students to take on careers utilizing natural and synthetic materials to better the world.

For junior Justin Brandt, that challenge meant using one of the oldest building materials – bamboo – to enhance the use of cross-laminated timber (CLT), an engineered wood product that has become an increasingly popular material for the construction of homes and buildings.

“I think CLT is a genius building idea. It’s feasible and easy to implement, and it really blows my mind that it still isn’t used very often,” said Brandt, who switched majors on the recommendation of his roommate , junior Sage Smith. “One of the major problems is that since it is such a solid material, it’s difficult to hide wiring or piping inside of it.”

Brandt’s solution is to incorporate hollow lengths of bamboo in the solid wood timbers to provide builders with a handy, strong, and environmentally sustainable solution for hiding the plumbing and wiring that designers would prefer to have out of sight.

Brandt, who likes the challenge of tackling projects on his own, said he’s grateful to have had the chance to conduct his own research.

“I reached out to Daniel Hindman and told him my idea, and we sat down and talked about it,” Brandt said of connecting with the associate professor. “The whole experience made me feel very heard, and having the chance to express my passions in such an experiential and scientific way has been a great opportunity for me.”

Junior Rosa Williams’s dive into the subject of materials science will focus on everyday items: the small plastic bottles that hold medicine and the safety caps that keep children – and sometimes the elderly – from accessing the medicines inside.

Williams, who did a summer internship learning how plastic closure design can impact day-to-day-lives, said  her curiosity about how we determine standards for products started much earlier.

“As a kid growing up, I was always super curious about who the specific person was who could open every peanut butter jar,” said Williams, who is majoring in packaging systems and design. “Those kinds of questions led to me thinking about how we make decisions to standardize certain things.”

Williams – a recipient of the Geza Ifju Scholarship and a scholarship from the Virginia Forestry Educational Foundation – will be conducting research on how to better understand packaging challenges as they relate to children and the elderly so that designers can make choices that allow for more user-friendly packaging options.

“There are testing requirements for child-resistant packages to be elderly-friendly, but those requirements exclude people with certain disabilities, including arthritis, which is extremely common for people over the age of 60,” said Williams, who is minoring in disability studies. “I want to do an exploratory study that considers the experiences of children and seniors to better understand the physical capabilities of both groups.”

Using a hand dynamometer, which measures grip strength, and a torquemeter, to measure wrist twisting capabilities, Williams will compare the grip strengths of volunteer children and seniors against existing data to better understand the specific capacities of these two populations underrepresented in safety and accessibility measures for plastic bottles.

“My long-term career goal is to design packaging with an understanding of disabilities,” said Williams. “Improvements to plastic closures, with their vast uses across the food, beverage, and pharmaceutical industries, can make the world a more user-friendly place.”

Conservationists of a feather conference together

When Desraeli McBride showed up to present at the Wildlife Society’s annual conference in Louisville, Ketucky, this past fall, she could count on at least one familiar face: She and Max Nootbaar, both seniors majoring in wildlife conservation in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation , were on hand to present research posters at the conference.

“The poster session was only two hours,” said McBride, who presented on her work with oystercatchers, a threatened bird species found along the barrier islands of Virginia. “But getting to stand there and feel like an expert with so many people coming by to ask about the research I was doing was honestly so much fun.”

McBride, a first-generation college student who graduated in December with degrees in wildlife conservation and biology, received a CNRE research fellowship to conduct her study on oystercatchers under the guidance of Professor Sarah Karpanty .

“I conducted research on Fisherman Island, which is one of the 14 barrier islands we have in Virginia,” said McBride. “I worked with American oystercatchers, which I think are the best birds in the world. For my project, I helped monitor nests and broods to determine the survival of chicks and investigate the overall habitat and cover selections of these birds.”

McBride, who aspires to be a wildlife field biologist, was the recipient of the Camp-Younts Foundation Scholarship in Wildlife. Funded by the Atkinson family, this scholarship supports the education of students studying animal conservation.

“I’ve been very supported in my time at the college, from the scholarships I’ve received, to the advising that is amazing here, to the general support from professors and students,” said McBride. “All of that has definitely made this place feel like home.”

For Nootbaar, an interest in piping plovers – those small shorebirds that race along ebbing waves hunting for food – started when he noted a small, numbered band on a bird he was watching.

“I wrote down the band number and reported the sighting, and I received a response that this individual hatched in Round Bay, Nova Scotia, in 2017,” said Nootbaar, a Charlottesville native who is graduating this spring. “I was thrilled by my small contribution to the research of this threatened species.”

That experience – and the encouragement of Logan Anderson ’22 – led Nootbaar to the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, where he received an Undergraduate Student Research Fellowship to use breeding data to assess the demographic rates and population shifts of plovers, as part of a broader effort to model the species population dynamics along the Atlantic coast.

“I’m working with a data set from a banding study that was conducted on the Virginia barrier islands in 2018 and 2019,” said Nootbaar, who is also sponsored by Karpanty. “The program banded 111 adult and chicks, and several conservation organizations and wildlife agencies have been monitoring where those birds have ended up breeding over the past several years. I’m using that data to see how the Virginia population is connected to other populations in the mid-Atlantic region.”

Nootbaar, who was recently selected as the recipient of the college's David William Smith Leadership Award, also received a Dean’s International Study Abroad scholarship to travel to the Galápagos Islands for the spring semester study abroad course  Darwin’s Galápagos: Evolution in the Anthropocene .   He said his experiences in the college have motivated him to pursue a career in conservation research.

“My involvement in the Virginia Tech Shorebird Program has exposed me to the plight of shorebirds affected by climate change, habitat loss, and other anthropogenic drivers,” said Nootbaar. “Learning about these threats has strengthened my desire to conduct research relevant to the conservation and management of threatened species.”

From hands-on learners to future scientists

From improving everyday materials such as disposable cutlery and plastic pill bottles, to conserving species or designing new ways to imagine the future of housing, research fellowships are providing undergraduate students in the college with the chance to take the lead in directing their educational journeys.

“The experiential learning gained by our undergraduate research fellows is invaluable for their development as scientists,” said Goyne. “The opportunity to choose and craft their projects under the mentorship of globally-recognized experts provides students with great motivation to engage in the research and to complete the research with precision and accuracy.”

The application window for CNRE Undergraduate Research Fellowships for the 2024-25 academic year is open, and interested students in the college can learn more about the program and how to apply by visiting the undergraduate student research page . The deadline for applications is May 1.

Krista Timney

540-231-6157

• Blacksburg, Va.
• Career Development
• Climate Change
• Coastal Research
• College of Natural Resources and Environment
• Complex Problems
• Economical and Sustainable Materials
• Environment
• Experiential Learning
• Fellowships
• First Generation Students
• Fish and Wildlife Conservation
• Global Education
• Internships
• Outreach and International Affairs
• Philanthropy
• Research Participation
• Sustainability
• Threatened and Endangered Species
• Undergraduate Education
• Undergraduate Research
• Virginia Tech Advantage
• Young Alumni

Related Content

What you need to know about Leading SDG4 - Education 2030

Where do we stand with the education 2030 agenda .

The Education 2030 agenda was adopted in 2015 to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ by 2030 with a series of targets set out to realize this. Before COVID-19, the world was already off-track to meet the targets and because of the pandemic some of the gains already made in education were lost. Education was severely disrupted worldwide with the most vulnerable learners affected worst. However, the crisis also saw global partnerships strengthened or newly forged in order to rethink the way forward for education and realize the Education 2030 goals. 

What does it mean that UNESCO is the lead agent for SDG4 – Education 2030? 

While governments shoulder the main responsibility for ensuring quality education, the 2030 Agenda is a universal and collective commitment. Within this structure, UNESCO heads the Secretariats of the Global Education Cooperation Mechanism (GCM) and the Transforming Education Summit to be held in September 2022. Both draw on the expertise of key UN entities and partners to strengthen and coordinate work towards SDG 4. The fact that the Secretariats gather many agencies together ensures that everyone owns the work that is undertaken and that it becomes a solid launching pad for sustained progress towards the 2030 Agenda. 

How does the Global Education Cooperation Mechanism work? 

The GCM was inaugurated in November 2021 at the Global Education Meeting for SDG 4 which gathered experts to reimagine and realign their work towards the education targets in the goal. It aims for collective action and joint accountability and builds on the 2015 Incheon Declaration and Education 2030 Framework for Action . It is governed by the SDG 4 Education 2030 High-Level Steering Committee (HLSC) which is made up of decision-makers from across the globe.  

What does the High-Level Steering Committee do? 

Chaired by H.E. Julius Maada Bio, the President of Sierra Leone and Audrey Azoulay, UNESCO’s Director General, HLSC aims to speed country-level progress towards SDG 4. It consists of a Leadership Group composed of 28 members of which 18 represent the 6 regions of the world, with two countries and one inter-governmental regional organization per region, who meet once a year to provide leadership on the global education agenda. A second Sherpa Group consults with their constituencies ahead of SDG 4 Education 2030 High-Level Steering Committee meetings and provides feedback afterwards.  

The HLSC promotes evidence-based policy formulation and implementation, monitors progress and improves the availability and use of data and helps mobilize financing. Other key members of the global education community represented include civil society organizations, teachers, banks, foundations and the private sector and youth and students. 

The HLSC will be responsible for the follow-up of the Transforming Education Summit, including contributing to the education dimension of the Summit of the Future in 2023. It will continue to monitor progress, promote and facilitate knowledge and practice exchange, engage youth, and champion cross-sector and multilateral cooperation.

​​​​​​​What part do youth activists and NGOs play in realizing the targets? 

Youth and NGOs have one seat each on both the HLSC Leaders group and the Sherpa Group. The SDG 4 Youth Network brings young voices to the table in conversations shaping global education policies. A youth representative has a seat on the HLSC Leaders group and the network itself brings young people together around the world .   

UNESCO considers NGOs or civil society associations as key partners in fulfilling its education mandate and the Education 2030 Agenda is clear on their role in translating SDG 4 commitments into practice at local, national regional and global levels. The Collective Consultation of NGOs on Education 2030 is a UNESCO mechanism for dialogue, reflection and partnership with civil society associations and of particular importance in reaching the marginalized.  

Related items

• Educational coordination
• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

This article is related to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals .