This is a draft version currently undergoing peer review.
The STEP Framework: what actions to take, when to take them, and who should lead
Millions of are returning to learning through - flexible, ageappropriate pathways designed for those who missed out on school due to conflict, poverty, or displacement. But too many are lost in the transition to formal school.
The Supporting Transitions through Evidence-based Planning (STEP) Framework (see Figure 1) enables governments and programme leaders to target interventions, prioritise high-risk stages dependant on context, and deliver sustained support—especially for the most marginalised learners: girls, boys, and youth from low-income and rural households, refugees, and children or adolescents with disabilities.
The result: fewer learners lost, higher return on investment, and stronger, more equitable education systems.
Please note that this content is subject to change.
Figure 1: The STEP Framework can support effective transitions
Table 1. STEP Framework: Targeted strategies to strengthen transitions from accelerated to formal education
Foundation 1. Strong leadership and multisectoral collaboration |
|
Foundation 2. Robust data and monitoring |
|
Foundation 3. Learner-centred and equity-focused |
|
Step 1. |
|
Step 2. AEP completion and certification | |
Step 3. Availability of and access to formal school |
|
Step 4. Enrolment in formal school |
|
Step 5. Retention and completion of formal school |
|
One size doesn’t fit all: prioritising the right support
AEP models look vastly different, and even the same model can function very differently within a country, depending on the local context, and the relationship between the AEP, local authorities, and formal school providers. It’s important to know what actions to prioritise depending on the context.
Our 2023 study, Accelerated Education Programmes: An Evidence Synthesis for Policy Leaders, pointed to the importance of government alignment in delivering effective AEPs. AEP alignment with government refers to the extent to which AEPs operate within an existing policy framework or guidelines, which supports larger national priorities. Alignment exists along a continuum, whereby at the lowest extreme, AEPs operate without any policy guidance or oversight, and – at the highest – AEPs are directly implemented by government on a national scale.
Evidence from our 2025 synthesis indicates that the level of connection and collaboration between AEPs, formal schools, and communities shapes the types – and severity – of transition challenges faced by learners. Again, this exists along a continuum. But in all cases, where the interaction between school, community, and local government is strongest, and all actors within the AEP ecosystem are integrated and engage cohesively, the conditions are more conducive to learning and to learners transitioning from AEPs to formal schools.iii
By combining the STEP Framework with an understanding of the AEP model and its context, decision-makers can prioritise actions that support learners to successfully transition from AEPs to formal schools. This allows ministries and implementing partners to:
- Develop risk management strategies based on the AEP context and transition pathway
- Target funding and technical support to the highest-impact areas
- Design step-appropriate solutions that reflect the implementation contexts of each AEP model
- Embed structured transition support strategies into ESPs, policies, budgets, and monitoring frameworks
Table 2. Use the STEP Planning Tool below to prioritise actions based on context
Questions to assess alignment and government oversight | Yes (2pts) | Partially (1pt) | No (0 points) |
Is the AEP embedded in (sub)national education policy? |
|
|
|
Is there an AEP curriculum or guidelines aligned to the national education system? Do the curriculum and guidelines align with the AEWG principles and promote flexibility in programme design and delivery? |
|
|
|
Does the government play an active role in supervising/overseeing the AEP? Are there assigned governance structures (e.g., Ministerial Unit or Technical Task team) with adequate human or financial resources to oversee the programme? |
|
|
|
Does the education management information system (EMIS) track AEP learner data, such as learning outcomes, progression, completion, and transition to formal schools? |
|
|
|
Does the EMIS track school-level data, such as the availability of infrastructure, teaching and learning materials, and teaching staff? |
|
|
|
Total score Note: 0-3 points = limited alignment, 4-7 points = emergent alignment, 8-10 points = strong alignment |
Questions to assess AEP relationship with formal school | Yes (2pts) | Partially (1pt) | No (0 points) |
Is the AEP hosted and delivered in formal schools? If not, are AEPs clearly linked to a ‘hub’ school |
|
|
|
Do school governance structures–such as school leaders, Parent-Teacher Associations, School Management Committees, and local authorities–contribute to overseeing the AEP and AEP student learning, progression, and/or transition? |
|
|
|
Do school and AEP stakeholders make shared decisions about AEP graduates’ placement and post-enrolment support? |
|
|
|
Do AEP facilitators and formal school teachers have opportunities to collaborate or work together? |
|
|
|
Do AEP learners and formal school students have opportunities to learn or play together? |
|
|
|
Total score Note: 0-3 points = fragmented relationship, 4-7 points = emergent relationship, 8-10 points = cohesive relationship |
|
Table 3: Transition support strategies to prioritise based on context
Description | Critical stages | Why the opportunity / potential impact? | Priorities |
Strong government alignment and oversight (8-10 points), with an emergent or cohesive relationship (4-10 points) | Steps 4 and 5: Formal school enrolment, retention, and completion | School enrolment may be more easily achieved, but many AEP graduates drop out after transitioning and encountering limited learning support. |
|
Emergent government alignment (4-7 points) with either emergent or cohesive relationship between AEPs and formal schools (4-10 points); challenges stem from poor linkages across government, AEP providers, and formal school communities | Steps 1 and 2: AEP learning, progression, completion, and certification | Weak oversight jeopardises the quality of AEP delivery, increasing risks of AEP learners not progressing or completing the programme |
|
Fragmented relationship between AEPs and formal schools or school communities (0-3 points), with varying levels of government alignment and oversight (4-10 points) | Steps 3 and 4: Availability of and access to formal school, and enrolment in formal school | A certificate of completion does not guarantee entry to formal schools, where AEP graduates are stigmatized or do not have access to a school nearby. |
|
Limited alignment and government oversight (0-3 points), with a limited to emergent relationship between AEPs and formal schools or communities (0-7 points) | Steps 2 and 3: AEP certification and availability of and access to formal schools | Limited alignment may mean that an AEP certificate does not offer entry to formal school, and in fragile or remote contexts, there may be no functional school to transition to. |
|
Insights grounded in local, practice-informed evidence
- 385 academic and non-academic sources reviewed covering 72 countries
- Programmatic evidence from 165 active AEPs
- 60 national and subnational education sector plans (ESPs) from 47 countries with active AEPs assessed
Each source was appraised for quality and relevance using Education.org’s LIFTED approach, which widens the evidence base to ensure guidance is relevant and actionable.
Countries represented in the evidence