The politics of educational opportunity for out-of-school children and youth: The case of accelerated education programmes (AEPs)

• In Event: Designing and Implementing EiE Research for Uptake and Use: Emerging outputs from the E-Cubed Research Fund

Proposal

In the Education in Emergencies (EiE) community, there is increasing demand for interventions which are “evidence-based” and research which explores “what works, for whom, and under what circumstances” (Burde et. al, 2015). Much of this is shaped by a positivist paradigm, seeking to isolate a problem and identify solutions which can effectively resolve the situation. The challenge, however, is that the nature of conflict and crises themselves, as well as the factors leading to learners in such contexts not entering schooling, learning very little while in it, or dropping out early, are complex and multidimensional (Flemming et. al, 2021). Therefore, there is significant need for research which takes a wider perspective to the educational dilemmas faced in the EiE community and which takes analysis outside the auspices of the practice of education, and rather, in the wider social, political and economic contexts within which education sits (Novelli & Lopes Cardozo, 2008).

The ACCESS (Accelerating Change for Children’s and Youths’ Education through Systems Strengthening) research project—a collaboration between the University of Auckland and the Accelerated Education Working Group (AEWG), funded under Dubai Cares’ E-Cubed portfolio—starts with the premise that we cannot address educational challenges until we first understand the wider context they exist in and in which they are perpetuated. In the first phase of ACCESS, a critical cultural political economy of education approach (Robertson & Dale, 2015) was used to understand why only a small number of the global out-of-school children and youth (OOSCY) participate in Accelerated Education Programmes (AEP), despite evidence which shows that they are relatively successful at helping learners acquire literacy and numeracy, complete primary education, and transition back into formal education (Shah & Choo, 2020).

Research under ACCESS was carried out in five case study countries—Nigeria, Colombia, Jordan, Pakistan, and Uganda—where populations of OOSCY are sizable and the need for alternative/accelerated education programmes is great. Research was carried out iteratively, starting with a profiling of different groups of OOSCY based on existing data and analysis. The aim was to identify why these groups of learners are out of school, considering factors within and outside the education system. Successive waves of data collection “zoomed in” on the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability of AEPs in these countries (Tomsevski, 2003). This involved looking at who AEPs target and how well AEPs sufficiently recognise the needs of distinct groups of OOSCY, given existing regimes of funding, regulation, governance, and provision of AEPs in each context. Interviews with donors, government officials and implementers of such programmes were carried out, alongside an extensive analysis of existing data, programme/policy documentation and academic literature. In this presentation we share some of the key issues and themes which emerged across the five countries. We also highlight insights and reflections from the research team—all of whom are experienced EiE practitioners in their context—on the added benefits and challenges posed of this specific methodological approach.

Author

• Ritesh Shah, University of Auckland