Measuring What We Value, or Valuing What We Measure? Interrogating Educational Measurement Practices in the Global South 

The turn of the century saw a global shift in how education was measured across low- and middle-income countries – from numbers on schooling access to the question of learning quality. In India, the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) exemplified this shift. The citizen-led tool found that despite near universal enrollment, large numbers of children struggled with foundational literacy and numeracy, turning national attention from ‘every child in school’ to ‘what children are learning’ (Banerji, 2021). Designed to engage communities, ASER sought local ownership of the question of quality.

Yet alongside such efforts, international agencies prioritized standardized metrics for global comparability. These instruments were more oriented toward optimization, compliance, and donor accountability (Banerji, 2015; Fontdevilla, 2023). More recently, generative AI has extended measurement to an entirely new plane, reconstituting learning as a continuous, automated site of data generation, where the learner is tracked, predicted, and optimized in real time (Williamson, 2017).

Each instance reveals that measurement frameworks embed particular visions of what kind of knowledge counts in understanding education quality. Measurement then is not merely a technical tool but a deeply political set of choices. This piece examines how power operates through measurement, how certain forms of learning and knowing are rendered invisible in the process, and how measurement practices might better serve just and transformative educational futures in the Global South.

Imported Logics: Where Do Measurement Tools Come From?

Many contemporary assessment frameworks circulating across low- and middle-income countries are rooted in North American and Western European traditions of evaluation. Their global diffusion, often facilitated through international development assistance, occurred alongside a significant expansion of evaluation, even as parallel traditions evolved within other policy and research contexts. While framed as tools for accountability, in practice these have frequently been oriented toward donor reporting and system-level performance metrics (Carden, 2013).

Moreover, these evaluation frameworks have not always been attentive to local contexts (Cardin & Alkin, 2012). Their epistemic roots lie in specific Western traditions that equate statistical reasoning with scientific objectivity (Normand, 2020; Prada-Uribe, 2012; Rose, 1990), yet they now circulate globally as neutral and universal. Standardized metrics, ranging from test scores and curricular objectives to seemingly abstract notions of equity and inclusion, flatten diverse understandings of educational quality into singular, measurable indicators (Ball, 2015; Gorur, 2013; Normand, 2020), a tendency further entrenched through global discourses of evidence-based policy and international comparability.

This is evident in how global frameworks construct and constrain the meaning of educational quality. The World Bank’s guidance on national assessments equates quality with the capacity to produce standardized, comparable data (Greaney & Kellaghan, 2008), while SDG 4’s holistic vision of equitable and inclusive learning is operationalized through forty-six indicators that privilege literacy, numeracy, enrolment, and completion rates (UNESCO-UIS, 2025) These not only marginalize less measurable aspects of education such as critical thinking, socio-emotional capacities or cultural practices, but also provide little to no insight on systemic and relational shifts in educational transformation.

While donor institutions have begun acknowledging the imperfect nature of measurement frameworks, and participatory approaches are gaining ground (Carden, 2013; Fontdevila, 2023), authority over what counts as evidence largely remains concentrated, while the inclusion of alternative knowledge continues to be treated as a technical rather than political or epistemic exercise.

Furthermore, the dominance of statistical-computational epistemology now appears all but cemented through AI-driven datafication. Where earlier measurement regimes reduced educational quality to statistical proxies, predictive learning systems go further by making statistical-computational logic the very design of learning. What a child knows, needs, or is capable of is determined by algorithmic inference, such that pedagogy becomes an exercise in pattern recognition and optimization. This risks narrowing the role of learners from meaning-makers to data points, and of teachers from relational actors to data interpreters. In this automated landscape, the values and visions that should animate educational practice simply disappear into the machinery.

Making Educational Truth: The Power of ‘Common Sense’

The point is not to deny the usefulness of data, but to recognize the effects of power in the operation of seemingly objective data (Ball, 2015). The more pervasive form of power is in how measurement frameworks produce a ‘common sense’ around evaluation priorities, establishing regulatory regimes through which states and agencies design programs to achieve these naturalized goals (Prada-Uribe, 2012). Consider widely used evaluation categories such as effectiveness, efficiency, and impact. Effectiveness assumes linear causality, where interventions predictably generate outcomes, leaving little space for emergent change. Efficiency privileges speed and cost-cutting, masking social and ecological costs as well as the more gradual processes of systemic change. Impact is framed as universal and quantifiable, without asking: impact for whom, and defined by whom (Van der Puije & Satzinger, 2025).

Ultimately, power works not through coercion but through normalization, producing a culture of ‘performativity’ that turns education into a cycle of constant evaluation, where the aim shifts from genuine learning to appearing effective (Ball, 2003). Krishna Kumar (2025) documents how in Indian schools, teachers are increasingly expected to upload data, manage compliance records, and prepare students for MCQ tests that determine a school’s image, a burden that is driving some, including those who can ill afford to, out of the profession entirely. As teachers spend more time filling reports, aligning lessons to assessment rubrics, and showcasing results to meet targets, the calculative logic of measurement displaces the relational and pedagogic values at the heart of teaching.

Beyond Geography: Rethinking the North-South Binary

Acknowledging these processes of normalization requires moving beyond a straightforward North–South divide. The ‘North’ can be read not as a geography but as an analytic that denotes those epistemic and regulatory practices which reproduce colonial hierarchies of knowledge and authority (Quijano, 2007/1991).

If power operates through internalized logics, then Southern institutions are not exempt. When we write theories of change in the language of impact and scalability, design programs around log-frames, or measure our own success through metrics built for donor accountability rather than community transformation, we are reproducing the very common sense this piece has been examining. The invitation here, then, is for Southern organizations and practitioners to build the critical distance to imagine otherwise.

Reclaiming the Purpose of Measurement

What might it look like to measure what we actually value, rather than only valuing what we can already measure? Dream a Dream’s research on NEP 2020 classroom enactment across four Indian states (Ravindranath et al., 2026) offers one starting point. The study found that teachers’ emotional investments, especially in contexts of poverty, neglect, and vulnerability, often serve as preconditions for learning. By regularly checking in on children’s well-being, engaging with their home environments, and addressing social norms such as gendered expectations that limit girls’ participation, teachers cultivated trust and emotional safety. Though central to the process of learning, practices of care and emotional work largely remain invisible to dominant systems of measurement. The same study found that teachers themselves held expansive visions of student success, encompassing behavioural development and emotional maturity, although systemic pressures around ‘marks’ do not allow much scope for pedagogical experimentation in these domains. Together, these findings suggest that teachers already hold rich visions of education, but dominant measurement frameworks pull classrooms towards what can be quantified and reported. Measurement requires not merely refined indicators but a broader methodological repertoire, one that can hold the affective, contextual, and embodied dimensions of teaching and learning.

Chilisa et al. (2016) point toward what this might look like, articulating an epistemic alternative grounded in African indigenous and relational worldviews, where interdependence, collective responsibility, and lived experience form the basis of evaluative practice. Here, familiar tools such as theories of change, indicators and definitions of ‘success’ are reoriented around community knowledge and philosophy rather than donor accountability, demonstrating how communities can have genuine authority over what counts as educational evidence.

To decolonize measurement, then, is not to reject it, but to reclaim its potential as a tool for learning and transformation. When rooted in the lived realities of learners and communities, measurement can move beyond compliance to a means of reflection, dialogue, and collective sense-making. It can surface the subtle but critical dimensions of change, such as shifts in relationships, mindsets, or institutional ethos, that conventional indicators overlook. This requires shifting authority over what counts as educational evidence and expanding methodological frameworks to include relational and embodied forms of knowledge. In this way, measurement can move from being a mechanism of control to a resource for growth, enabling education systems to value and strengthen children’s and communities’ thriving.

References

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18(2), 215-228.

Ball, S. J. (2015). Education, governance and the tyranny of numbers. Journal of education policy, 30(3), 299-301.

Banerji, R. (2021). Learning for all: Lessons from ASER and Pratham in India on the role of citizens and communities in improving children’s learning. In Powering a Learning Society During an Age of Disruption (pp. 181-194). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Carden, F., & Alkin, M. C. (2012). Evaluation roots: An international perspective. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 102-118.

Carden, F. (2013). Evaluation, not development evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(4), 576-579.

Chilisa, B., Major, T. E., Gaotlhobogwe, M., & Mokgolodi, H. (2016). Decolonizing and indigenizing evaluation practice in Africa: Toward African relational evaluation approaches. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(3), 313-328.

Chilisa, B., & Bowman, N. (2023). Special issue editors’ introductory note: The why and how of the decolonization discourse. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 19(44), 2-10.

Chouinard, J. A., & Hopson, R. (2016). A critical exploration of culture in international development evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(3), 248-276.

Greaney, V., & Kellaghan, T. (Eds.). (2008). Assessing national achievement levels in education (Vol. 1). World Bank Publications.

Gorur, R. (2011a) ANT on the PISA Trail: following the statistical pursuit of certainty. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 43(5-6), 76-93.

Kumar, K. (2025, Oct 5). In India, why teachers are walking away from the classroom. The Indian Express. Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-teachers-walking-away-from-classroom-10286313/

Normand, R. (2020). The politics of metrics in education: A contribution to the history of the present. In Handbook of Education Policy Studies: Values, Governance, Globalization, and Methodology, Volume 1 (pp. 345-361). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Prada-Uribe, M. A. (2012). Development Through Data? A Case Study on the World Bank’s Performance Indicators and Their Impact on Development in the Global South. A Case Study on the World Bank’s Performance Indicators and Their Impact on Development in the Global South (October 19, 2012). IRPA Research Paper, (5).

Puije, N. V. D., & Satzinger, F. (2025). Decolonising international development evaluation: rethinking OECD DAC evaluation criteria from a decolonial perspective. Development in Practice, 1-15.

Quijano, A. (2007/1991) Coloniality and Modernity Rationality. Cultural Studies, 21, 2-3, 168-178.

Ravindranath, S., Rijo, J.T., Roychoudhury, S., Bhatnagar, A., Kumar, A.V., Dyl, R., Qargha, G.O. (2026). India’s National Education Policy 2020 in Classrooms: Teachers Shaping Practice and System Change. Center for Universal Education at Brookings and Dream a Dream. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/india-national-education-policy-2020-in-classrooms.pdf

Rose, N. (1990). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. Taylor & Frances/Routledge.

UNESCO-UIS (2025). Official List of SDG 4 Indicators. UNESCO.

Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Policy, 10, 39-51.

Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. Sage: London.

Author 

Ketaki Prabha is a researcher exploring education, skilling and socio-emotional learning. She currently supports research and impact evaluation at Dream a Dream.

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/ketaki-prabha-7b2973352 

Sreehari Ravindranath is a researcher from the Global Majority working at the intersection of wellbeing, education policy, and collaborative data ecosystems.

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sreehari-ravindranath/
• X (Twitter): https://x.com/SreehariRavind3?t=0R7jtA_OQVfvWsniVobe8g&s=09

Apoorva Bhatnagar is a policy analyst advancing research–policy partnerships across India to strengthen social and emotional learning and youth agency.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/apoorva-bhatnagar-544197101/

Joseph Thomas is a data and measurement specialist focused on strengthening ethical, contextually grounded evidence systems in education. He supports research implementation and learning at Dream a Dream, enabling data-informed pathways for youth wellbeing and equity.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-thomas-42511429/ 

Twitter: @josephthom45021

Amit V. Kumar is a development professional and researcher focused on strengthening teacher wellbeing, pedagogical mindsets, and education system transformation.

LinkedIn:- Amit V Kumar | LinkedIn

X:- Amit Kumar (@amitvkumar) / X