Introduction: Context & purpose
The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an unprecedented global education crisis and increased the demand to help students catch up through accelerated learning. Furthermore, pandemic-related learning losses are projected to result in US$1.6 trillion in global GDP losses by 2040, when most students affected by COVID-19 school closures will have reached the workforce.
The world economy could recover more than US$1 trillion a year in future GDP lost to the pandemic, if countries use proven ‘accelerated education’ approaches to help children catch up on lost learning - allowing governments to recover US$42 trillion over the lifetime of the young people affected.
School closures forced by COVID-19 resulted in about 1.5 billion children and youth out of school in spring 2020, from pre-primary to tertiary age. The pandemic exacerbated the already very high numbers of out-of-school children and youth (OOSCY) and drastically impacted student learning, with research estimating more than a year of learning loss after only a three-month school closure.
Sirens are ringing loudly, especially on behalf of the most vulnerable. Even though it is a bleak picture, there is hope: If we act now and take new evidence-informed approaches with proven impact for accelerated education, we can make a difference!
As governments face mounting pressure to tackle this urgent challenge with constrained budgets, understanding how other education leaders navigate these same challenges can help. The moral imperative to reach the most marginalised makes the sharing and use of this knowledge even more compelling and can contribute to strengthening education system resilience. As decision-makers consider whether to embark on accelerated education programs (AEPs), strengthen the impact of existing AEPs, or exercise greater oversight over AEPs, our evidence synthesis offers five lessons to help guide policy and implementation.
Figure 1. Five lessons for education leaders to strengthen accelerated learning policies and guidelines
This guidance is based on a global literature review, analyses of national policies, and a novel approach to rapidly crowdsource published and unpublished evidence about AEPs. One hundred and thirty-six relevant sources were identified, 76% of which are grey literature. Of those explored, eight countries in Sub-Saharan Africa were selected for deeper exploration: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Uganda.
This paper is intended to share lessons learned from each of these countries’ journeys, and not to promote AEPs or review the technical programming aspects of AEPs. Its lessons can be applied globally, and the data and research needs identified can help prioritise funding and research.
Lesson #1
Review the most important AEP features as a basis for improving policies
Government AEP policies are best informed by understanding what makes AEPs most effective. While successful programmes share common features, only a few features are critical for impact.
Several actors, especially the Accelerated Education Working Group (AEWG), have already demonstrated this point. The best available evidence reveals that effective accelerated education efforts share key features across design and implementation. Furthermore, sharing these experiences and knowledge can inform COVID-19 learning recovery. For example, it is critical to make special efforts for the hardest-to-reach learners, such as girls, refugees, and learners with disabilities or learning differences. While accelerated education attempts to reach learners who have either fallen out of or have never enrolled in the formal system, evidence shows that programmes often unintentionally reproduce barriers to learning, while government policies to ensure enrolment and completion are rare.
Figure 2. Features of effective accelerated education programmes are an important basis for policy actions
Lesson #2
Conduct a national assessment for strengthening AEP alignment with your national education system
Historically, AEPs have existed often separately from government systems and thus have had varying levels of success in integrating students in formal school or producing sustainable access to education.
However, the AEWG 10 Principles for Effective Practice advise that AEPs should be “aligned with the national education system and relevant humanitarian architecture. Such alignment with national ministries of education (MoEs) is recommended to ensure successful student transition from AEPs to formal schools, help improve quality and effectiveness, scale AEPs to reach more children, and help increase the long-term sustainability of AEPs. Often within MoEs, AEPs fall under non-formal education (NFE) or alternative education and have varying levels of oversight or recognition.
What is alignment and why is it important for education leaders?
AEP alignment with government refers to how closely AEPs are aligned to the national education system, and existing goals, policies, and plans. At the lowest extreme, AEPs operate with few to no links to national policies, and with minimal guidance or oversight. At the highest extreme, AEPs are fully integrated into the national system, and may be directly implemented by governments on a national scale. Neither extreme is necessarily desirable, many countries typically fall somewhere in between.
This new AEP Alignment Action Matrix can help to guide national assessment and act as a basis for planning actions. To conduct this assessment, it may be helpful to form a task force to investigate the country experience to date with AEPs, their effectiveness, and scale. The possible role of AEPs needs to consider and projected OOSCY numbers, gender differences, policy frameworks needed, and other nationally relevant factors. That review and planning process may elevate a country’s readiness, or it may help it determine that AEP alignment is not appropriate at this time.
Figure 3. Getting started with the AEP alignment action matrix: Assessing urgency and readiness are important preparatory steps
Lesson #3
Define a staged approach for strengthening alignment with your national system
Before developing national action plans for improving AEPs, it can be helpful to better understand low, medium, and high positions on the alignment spectrum. Based on a comprehensive review of country experiences with AEPs, descriptions of low and high alignment along nine dimensions are provided below. Furthermore, the table below also shows how varying levels of alignment can help to support and strengthen AEPs.
Nine dimensions of alignment can guide government actions:
LOW ALIGNMENT | HIGH ALIGNMENT | |
AEP GOALS | Each AEP determines goals; no consistency across AEPs or with national education system. No reference to AEPs as OOSCY strategy in national education sector plan or strategy. | Goals of AEPs broadly standardised to be consistent with national priorities for OOSCY. Specific groups identified for targeting through AEPs. Pathways recognised and linkage of NFE to formal education made. |
EQUITY & INCLUSION | No equity and inclusion strategy and low awareness of existing AEPs and their focus. | Ministry recognises AEPs as part of overall government strategy to reach marginalised groups. Government proactively supports AEPs. Government supports specific efforts to address and remove barriers, for example: pregnancy, transport, financial hardship, lack of school materials. |
CURRICULUM & CALENDAR | Determined by programme, pace may be set by donors. Might not use government learning indicators to help identify level. | AEP curriculum is consistent with national basic education curriculum, government priorities, e.g. gender transformation, and linked with formal system. Strong focus on literacy and numeracy with socio-emotional learning are common. Degree of acceleration and pace agreed with ministry. Close links to national learning indicators for each grade. |
ASSESSMENT & CERTIFICATION | Determined by programme; not linked to country assessment systems, benchmarking standards, or grade-level equivalencies. No learner certification by government. Promotion not linked to government standards. Perhaps no monitoring of achievement of AEP. | Approaches are consistent with ministry’s standards and benchmarks. Summative and formative assessments conducted. Certification and promotion requirements are formalised to allow for completion certificates and transition to formal system or other post-completion education options. |
MONITORING, EVALUATION & DATA COLLECTION (M&E & EMIS) | M&E determined by programme and/or donors, tied to donor reporting needs and indicators, not linked to EMIS. Key data often missing. Little or no consultation with ministry or EMIS staff. | M&E design, priorities, and results feed into EMIS, other government systems, and OOSCY monitoring. Data on standard indicators such as enrolment, dropout, and learning outcomes are gender disaggregated and measured using EMIS definitions. Strong collaboration with government on learning agenda. Reflected in sector plans and reviews with AEP milestones part of overall national education plans. |
TEACHER SOURCING & DEVELOPMENT | Teachers are volunteers from the community, with little to no prior experience, trained by AEP programme. | Teachers may be nationally certified teachers or community members. Ministry has guidelines for training facilitators or teachers, which may differ from formal schools. |
PEDAGOGY | Home language. Learner-centred pedagogy and active learning techniques. | Instruction is in home language with plan to transition to national language to allow transition back to formal system. Lessons from learner-centred, gender-transformative pedagogy and active. |
TEACHER COMPENSATION | Teachers are paid by the implementing or funding organisation based on implementer or donor guidelines. | Teachers may be at least partly paid by government. Efforts to define path to becoming certified are established or under consideration. |
FUNDING & BUDGETING | Funded by donors and implementing organisations without ongoing commitment. | Clear plans for project continuation exist, along with donor commitment or government assumption of costs, and roles of implementing partners. |
High alignment across all dimensions is not necessarily the goal for all contexts. Experiences indicate that the highest priorities for AEP alignment with national systems are programme goals, equity and inclusion policies, curriculum and calendar, and assessment and certification. These areas are critical to helping OOSCY learn and transition to formal schools or other pathways.
A second set of alignment policies helps to ensure AEP effectiveness and quality as related to monitoring and teaching. A third set of options, while also important, is related less directly to transition outcomes and can be more difficult to achieve. Consequently, they could be pursued in working towards longer-term sustainability when AEPs are not guided solely by donor or external funding cycles.
Figure 5. A policy action pathway follows alignment priorities
Country experiences show that alignment is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Such an approach risks leaving out more children and youth unintentionally by exacerbating existing barriers. While achieving stronger alignment of AEPs with national education objectives can seem like a significant challenge, evidence shows that countries with demonstrable progress in accelerated education have taken a staged approach based on tactical prioritisation. For example, Ethiopia and South Sudan increased the alignment of AEPs with government over two decades, as this figure illustrates.
When Ethiopia’s Speed School programme was introduced, clear links to the public education system were made, using national curriculum and 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 in the sector plan and the MoE’s institutional structure occurred more recently.
In South Sudan, alternative education was a deliberate response to the needs of demobilised soldiers and out-of-school children. Following independence, the government moved quickly in 2012 to recognise alternative education in its first Education Act. Practical guidance, policy and plans then followed. Recently, South Sudan started offering accelerated education at the secondary level.
Figure 6. National context drives government aep improvements: examples from Ethiopia and South Sudan
Lesson #4
Design and rollout policy actions to strengthen alignment in stages
Specific policy actions can be taken for each of the nine areas of alignment, starting with the top priority areas.
Figure 7. Alignment priorities and country examples guide policy actions to strengthen AEPs
Lesson #5
Involve a broad range of actors to accelerate your goals throughout the process
Figure 8. Governments are not alone: partner contributions and collaborations take many forms and are essential for success