Raj: Thanks for your comment. While it is logical to argue that you need to get the children into school before they can learn, I would argue that a focus on enrolment can actually detract from quality. There are two reasons. First, it is much easier to get children enrolled than to ensure that they learn. So if the government sets enrolment as a target, everybody focuses on it, and achieves it. You rarely see governments setting learning targets. In fact, I can never get an answer to the question: "Who in government is accountable for quality?" Secondly, in some countries, enrolment targets are embraced by public school teachers--because it means more jobs for them (again, because governments are pretty good at getting kids into achool). But efforts at introducing learning outcomes as indicators are often resisted by the same people. In Latin America, there have been protests in the streets when governments have proposed these indicators (see Merilee Grindle's book, "Against the Odds..."). The reason may be that learning targets can be threatening to public sector teachers. Private schools are often more efficient at achieving learning outcomes, and if the target is learning (say 90 percent of the children must be reading at a given level), then there might be more demand for private schools. In short, if governments had only a learning target, we might make progress on both enrolments and learning (rather than only one, which is the case today). We also may be able to identify the person who is accountable for learning goals.