Five recommendations for education leaders to close the learning gap in times of crisis

Introduction

In the last decade, the number of people displaced due to conflict, violence, climate disasters and public health emergencies has been climbing steadily ¹. Global estimates of the average duration of contemporary displacement range from 10 to 26 years and, as a direct result, an estimated 222 million children and adolescents need urgent education support ¹. Around one-third of these learners, or nearly 80 million, are out of school, and most of the 120 million in school fall short of meeting minimum proficiency objectives ².

This growing crisis in educational provision for the world’s children and young people was gravely exacerbated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, with experts estimating that a three-month school closure potentially caused a year or more of learning loss ³. This deficit, in turn, crushes future earnings, with pandemic-related losses alone projected to reduce global GDP by US$1.6 trillion by 2040, when most students affected by COVID-19 school closures will have reached the workforce.

Accelerated Education Programmes (AEPs) have emerged as an important alternative route to access education and improve learning recovery for out-of-school children and youth (OOSCY) who have not been reached effectively by their country’s formal systems. New or revised government AEP policy actions can improve access and learning, both in emergencies and more broadly, for OOSCY. But Education.org’s analysis revealed that many national education policymakers are struggling to make critical choices regarding AEPs because of a limited evidence base on which to ground their decision making. They must choose whether, and how, to initiate new AEPs, strengthen or expand existing programmes, and how to enhance oversight over AEPs – particularly considering significant variations in programmes run by different organisations.

Understanding how other education leaders tackle these challenges can provide valuable insights. The moral and economic imperative to reach the most marginalised children and young people underscores the importance of sharing and applying this knowledge.

This High-Level Policy Guidance aims to provide evidence-informed, contextually relevant and actionable recommendations, supported by concrete policy examples and case studies, for those shaping policies and guidelines for AEPs.

Education.org hopes that this Guidance will help prioritise government policies and policy implementation related to learning recovery, improve funding for AEPs and other learning recovery programmes and prioritise future AEP research and data collection.

Education.org’s analysis shows that successful AEPs have a set of features that can be enhanced by government action ⁴. These features complement, but differ from, the ‘Ten Principles for Effective Practice’ established by the AEWGAEWG ⁵.

To maximise the impact of AEPs in their countries, therefore, governments will play a pivotal role in supporting critical features known to enhance their effectiveness–often encompassing distinct responsibilities common to Ministries of Education and other government bodies.

The best evidence reveals that these features address three critical dimensions of AEPs:

• Ensuring access to programmes for the children and young people who need them;
• Improving the quality of the teaching and services the AEPs provide; and
• Providing for the sustainability of AEPs in the long term.

In the past, AEPs have often operated independently of government systems, resulting in varying degrees of success in integrating students into formal schools or providing sustainable access to education. The ’s ten principles for effective practice emphasise that AEPs should be ‘closely aligned with the national education system and relevant humanitarian architecture’ ⁵. Education.org’s evidence synthesis confirms the importance of alignment with national MoEMoEs for several reasons: it allows the expansion of AEPs to reach more children; enhances education quality and effectiveness; facilitates smooth student transitions from AEPs to formal schools and contributes to the long-term sustainability of these programmes.

Within MoEMoE, AEPs are often categorised as NFENFEor ‘alternative education’, and their oversight and recognition levels can vary. But what exactly does alignment mean, and why is it crucial for education leaders?

Alignment of AEPs with government systems entails a close connection to, and reflection of, the standards set by the national education system, as well as alignment with existing goals, policies and plans. At one end of the spectrum, some AEPs operate independently with minimal links to national policies and limited guidance or oversight. At the other extreme, AEPs are fully integrated into the national system and may be directly administered by governments on a national scale. However, neither extreme is necessarily ideal as complete alignment may inadvertently recreate barriers that contributed to the initial situation. Many countries typically find themselves somewhere in between.

Education.org recommends that governments conduct an assessment to inform their actions to strengthen AEP alignment with their national education system.

To navigate this complexity, Education.org has created a new ‘AEP Alignment Action Matrix’ that can serve as a valuable tool for guiding national assessments and forming the basis for action plans. Conducting this assessment may involve the establishment of a task force to examine the country’s experience with AEPs, their effectiveness, areas for improvement and strategies for scaling. Factors such as OOSCY numbers, gender disparities, required policy frameworks and other nationally relevant factors should also be considered. This assessment will help determine a country’s readiness for AEP alignment, or whether it is more appropriate to defer alignment efforts for some key features until a later date.

Examples of how government policy actions can strengthen alignment between the national education system and AEPs are as follows:

1. Programme goals

AEPs are often provided by private actors, rarely regulated at the national level, and therefore hold varying intentions for who can access these programmes and for their educational objectives. National leaders can refer to AEPs within plans or policies for national education sectors and/or strategies for improving access and learning for OOSCY, unifying standards across AEPs for learning objectives (for example, school levels, proficiency standards), and strengthening flexible pathways from non-formal to formal education.

2. Equity & inclusion

Without specific provisions to ensure that AEPs reach the most marginalised children and young people, AEPs can unintentionally replicate, or even exacerbate, barriers that keep some of the hardest-to-reach out of school. Embedding AEPs within an overall government strategy can provide a policy scaffold for mitigating barriers to learning, for example: adolescent pregnancy and or marriage, lack of transportation or other means requiring financial resources, or those requiring pedagogical support for learning differences and special needs.

3. Curriculum & calendar

Because AEPs offer condensed learning in a shorter period than formal education, conventional curricula typically cannot be transposed directly into AEPs. However, evidence shows that outcomes are improved when AEP curricula are linked to (but not identical with) national basic education curricula. Linkage also allows reflection of government priorities such as gender equity and gender transformation (which seeks to transform harmful gender norms, roles and relations, while working towards redistributing power, resources and services more equally). A strong focus on literacy and numeracy, and holistic well-being, are common in AEPs. However, the degree of acceleration and overall pace of AEP curricula should be agreed with the relevant Ministry, with close links to national learning indicators for each grade, and the timing of programme completion aligned to registration and enrolment timetables for further education or training.

4. Assessment & certification

Completion of an AEP is often not enough to ensure progression to further education, training or work. Without a certificate of completion, based on an accepted assessment system linked to government standards, post-completion options for children from AEPs can be severely limited. Therefore, government actions can greatly improve post-completion options by issuing guidance to AEP providers and funders to formalise assessment and certification approaches in alignment with the MoE’s standards and benchmarks.

5. Monitoring, evaluation & data colelction

Evidence and raw data from the providers of AEPs is often lacking. When it does exist, reporting parameters have often been shaped by donor needs and rarely linked to national EMISEMIS. Indicators consistent with a national EMISEMISfor AEPs should be expected from AEP providers to support monitoring and evaluation of national education plans. New reporting mandates for AEPs may be established with standard indicators such as enrolment, dropout and learning outcomes; and disaggregating for sub-populations such as girls, refugees, special needs and those children with learning differences.

6. Teacher sourcing & development

AEPs are typically offered in very low-resource situations and contexts where teacher shortages are already pronounced and prolonged. Features commonly seen in effective AEPs are the identification and development of community volunteers, with little to no prior experience. In recognition of the importance, yet inexperience, of such volunteers, Ministries are encouraged to implement guidelines for the training of facilitators or qualified teachers, acknowledging the adaptations from formal schools that may be needed in this setting.

7. Pedagogy

Reflecting variation in AEPs offered by private providers, pedagogical approaches can be numerous and varied. Evidence from programme outcomes shows that important pedagogical pillars include active, learner-centred pedagogy, foundational skill development, and home language instruction with a plan to transition to the national language to allow successful integration into the formal education system. Ministries can encourage these programme features within their Guidelines and Policies for AEP providers.

8. Teacher remuneration

Teachers, or facilitators, are often paid by the implementing or funding organisation based on implementer or donor guidelines. In countries showing increased alignment of AEPs with national education systems, teachers may be at least partly paid by government. Efforts to define a path to becoming certified should be established or under consideration.

9. Funding & budgeting

Historically, AEPs are predominantly funded through private provision and programme-based funding, with few long-term or ongoing financing commitments, threatening the long-term viability of many AEPs. In strengthening the alignment of AEPs with national systems, financial sustainability is therefore of high concern, while avoiding the creation of a system that competes for financial resources from the formal education system. National education policymakers should expect clear plans for AEP continuation to exist with long-term future donor commitments or plans for governmental assumption of costs, and carefully considered contributions from implementing partners.

Understanding the Impact of Alignment

Before crafting national action plans to enhance the effectiveness of and relationship with national education systems, it is important for governments to grasp both the potential benefits and dangers of aligning AEPs more closely with those systems. While alignment with national systems can enhance learning access, educational quality provision, and long-term sustainability, it is essential to maintain flexibility to cater to the unique needs of the most marginalised children and youth. Education.org recommends that national governments define a phased approach for strengthening AEP alignment with their national systems.

Achieving strong alignment between basic education systems and each of the nine AEP features is not necessarily the primary goal in every national context. Education.org’s analysis of AEP alignment processes in eight different countries in sub-Saharan Africa provides evidence that alignment is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution. Some of these features can be effectively supported by programme implementers themselves. Implementing nationwide policies or aligning AEP features too rapidly may inadvertently exclude more children and youth by replicating or exacerbating existing barriers to access and learning.

National context drives the speed and nature of alignment: examples from Ethiopia and South Sudan

While achieving stronger alignment of AEPs with national education objectives may appear daunting, Education.org’s evidence from its country assessments and case studies reveals that countries making demonstrable progress in accelerated education have adopted a phased approach based on tactical prioritisation. Ethiopia and South Sudan, for instance, significantly increased AEP alignment with government efforts over two decades.

• Ethiopia’s Speed School Programme: This established clear links with the public education system, utilising national curriculum, textbooks, school facilities and district examinations. After six years, several regional governments began providing funding and teacher education colleges collaborated with implementing partners to train facilitators. The formal integration of the programme into the sector plan and the MoE’s institutional structure occurred more recently.
• South Sudan’s Alternative Education: As a response to the needs of demobilised soldiers and out-of-school children, South Sudan recognised alternative education in its first Education Act shortly after gaining independence in 2012. Practical guidance, policies and plans followed. More recently, South Sudan started offering accelerated education at the secondary level.

For more case studies on innovative AEP programmes in Nigeria, Kenya and Liberia, click here.

Evidence-informed policy initiatives to strengthen AEPs

First phase

1. Programme goals – Example: South Sudan

• Work with programme implementers to agree on the AEP’s fundamental goals, including the target groups (such as refugees, host communities, or other OOSCY females) and the expected transition pathways into the national education system, training, or employment.
• Agree on who holds AEPs accountable within formal or non-formal government education departments and where accountability is reflected in national policies.
• Develop AEP framework and implementation guidelines.

2. Equity & inclusion – Examples: South Sudan, Uganda, Sierra Leone

• Review current policies affecting OOSCY, including gender transformative policies.
• Develop/refine equity and inclusion policies with a clear role for alternative education, including AEPs, and removing barriers to ensure equitable access, such as provisions for nutrition, sanitation, health, and water.
• Ensure OOSCY policy is included in the national education strategic plan, with milestones for progress and data disaggregated by categories of marginalisation: gender, age, economic status, displacement, disability, or learning differences.

3. Curriculum & calendar – Examples: South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda

• Design clear national learning competencies for each level/cycle in formal and non-formal education.
• Work with AEP providers to align with national curriculum and learning competencies focusing on literacy, numeracy, and socio-emotional learning.
• Optimise alignment by ensuring the curriculum reflects AEP best practices in pedagogy and language of instruction.
• Work with AEP providers to align the curriculum with attention to the national calendar, so that AEP students can sit for national examinations. The pace is typically two years covered in one year.

4. Assessment & certification – Examples: Liberia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, South Sudan

• Form a technical working group to review AEP assessment practices alongside national assessment systems, standards, benchmarks, and tools.
• Work with AEP providers to develop and implement a system for learners to gain qualifications and certifications.
• Embed in formal and non-formal education policy and practice, including a concrete, functional path and responsibilities for implementation.
• Develop guidance for learner transition from AEPs to other learning opportunities and employment.

Second phase

5. Monitoring, evaluation & data collection - Examples: South Sudan, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Uganda

• Convene a technical working group to familiarise both AEPs and EMIS with respective current measurement approaches.
• Plan for alignment and data architecture to support the inclusion of AEP data in EMIS; then implement the plan.
• Continue to work together to develop a learning agenda, including evaluation that can track progress on equity and report in a disaggregated way for priority subgroups.
• Ensure education sector analysis includes a situation assessment to identify OOSCY and AEP needs.

6. Teacher sourcing & development – Examples: Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone

• With AEP implementers and funders, determine minimum qualifications for AEP teachers, considering the needs and capacities in various contexts, especially when teachers are recruited from the community.
• Develop guidelines for training and mentoring AEP teachers, considering adaptations needed for teachers in non-formal education.
• Work with AEP implementers to develop pre-service and in-service training manuals and programmes for AEP teachers and facilitators.
• Work with AEP implementers on parameters for teacher qualifications and teacher career development pathways and certification.

7. Pedagogy – Examples: Nigeria, Liberia

• Align AEP curricula to best practices in pedagogy, ensuring they are student-centred, active, gender-transformative, and taught in the home language, at least in the initial stages.
• Develop guidelines on student-to-teacher ratios.
• Ensure teacher training policies encourage teachers to learn student-centred pedagogy.

Third phase

8. Teacher remuneration – Examples: South Sudan, Sierra Leone

• Develop guidelines on fair and adequate pay for AEP teachers, based on skill, workload and context.
• Consider paths toward the financial feasibility of government funding of AEP teachers.

9. Funding & budgeting – Examples: Ethiopia, Sierra Leone

• Form a technical working group to establish a process for funding AEPs for the life of a given project and beyond. Include local partners and all donors funding AEPs in these plans.
• Consider a memorandum of understanding to specify roles and responsibilities.
• Integrate the funding arrangement in national budgeting and planning exercises.

Involvement of diverse stakeholders

To expedite progress throughout the process, it is crucial to engage a diverse range of stakeholders. Governments do not work in isolation; partner contributions and collaborations are vital for achieving success.