Author: Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

Page 3 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 … 9

Covid-19: Where’s the discussion on distance learning training for teachers?

Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

Informe GEM Report

A lot of the discussion, and rightly so, has been about the effect of school closures on students. Education, as they know it, stopped from one day to the next. But what about teachers? Just as students are new to distance learning, most teachers are also novices in being distance coaches. We look at the pressure placed on teachers, the absence of training on distance learning in the past for teachers, the sorts of skills needed, the new tools and ways of coping teachers are now being plied with – but, first of all, the need to support the teaching workforce during these times of uncertainty.

Teachers need support during this crisis

Teachers have gone from fearing for their health, as schools continued during the pandemic, to fearing for their jobs in some contexts. Many in the United States fear that their pay rises are in jeopardy, for instance. It was also recently reported that Kenya teachers on the payroll of Bridge Academies, which currently works in around 2000 schools in five countries, will only be paid 10% of their salaries for two months of compulsory leave as a result of the pandemic – a period that risks being extended. Given that they don’t receive much more than USD$100 per month, this leaves them with little to survive on.

Teachers need training on distance learning

Screenshot 2020-04-01 at 11.16.52With schools now closed in 185 countries, teachers are having to suddenly take a crash course in how to keep lessons going online, adapting what and how they were teaching before to an entirely different teaching situation.

But many teachers are not up to scratch on ICT skills. The figure from the 2019 GEM Report, while not teacher specific, which gives some idea of how education systems may be overestimating the chances of distance learning working successfully. Only 40% of adults in upper middle-income countries are able to send an email with an attachment – a seemingly vital skill for any teacher hoping to send around classwork.

The infrastructure for distance learning is also not always available in schools. The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) shows that only 53% of teachers let their students frequently or always use ICT for projects or classwork. But the share of teachers using ICT in countries such as Finland, Israel and Romania had more than doubled over the five years preceding the survey.

In the United Arab Emirates, 42,000 teachers took part last week in a ‘Be an online tutor in 24 hours’ course provided by the Ministry of Education. A ‘Design an online course in 24 hours’ is being rolled out next week. This training was fast-forwarded in the face of the virus but comes supported by an Arabic and English e-learning platform, Madrasa, launched in 2018.

But such preparation is an exception. Just as parents are complaining that sending them a link and assuming their child will learn is not fair, countries handing out laptops or other devices assuming teachers will get with the times might be in for a surprise. In Singapore, which plans to give a digital device to all secondary school students by 2024, the devices were initially given to 8 schools as a test. “We learned many things from this pilot project” said Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung in March this year.  “Number one, teachers cannot teach the traditional way using e-learning. They need new pedagogies – e-pedagogies.”

In Kenya, the evaluation of a programme introducing ICT into schools in four schools and funded by VVOB also found that teachers faced challenges once the pilot had finished: not only lack of electricity, infrastructure and connectivity, but also a continuous need for training. It concluded that teachers need constant reiterations of learning about emerging technologies and how to use them. A fancy solution, like those many are getting now in the face of the pandemic, will therefore not suffice.

Some interesting initiatives are emerging to assess just how big the ed-tech gap is in schools and among teachers. In South Africa, for instance, an app, the e-ready ICT maturity assessment tool, supported by the Department for Education, asks schools to answer questions that can be completed in offline mode. The app then accords one of five e-readiness levels to that school, including teacher ICT readiness and teacher development and support. An external evaluation is also conducted and the overall results are then used by the Department to see where to focus its effort.

What skills do teachers need for distance learning?

Many skills have been touted as necessary to make the shift. It might seem that all that is required is ICT skills, including assisting students who face access issues. But the real difference that can be made from a shift to distance learning is how a teacher then uses e-pedagogies to keep students engaged.

One education consulting firm, Education Elements, believes that flexibility is the key skill required. The controlled structure of a school is lost outside of school walls. Teachers are not going to know exactly who is learning what and how quickly. They need to stick to simple lesson plans and maintain frequent and clear communications with students. Newsletters, video messages, virtual classrooms, emails, phone calls, text messages, and posts on social media could all be useful to remain in touch.

What solutions are out there to help?

Aside from countries taking up the task themselves, a host of organizations have also stepped into the fray to help teachers with this crash-course. Google, for instance, has just announced a new resource for teachers called ‘Teach from home’, a hub of information , tips and training and a $10 million Distance Learning Fund. The first $1-million grant from this Fund is going to the Khan Academy to provide remote learning opportunities including resources in more than 15 languages, aiming to reach over 18 million learners a month from communities around the globe.

The culture for distance learning is not yet here (and we are witnessing the growing pains of being late to that party) but it may well be by the time this pandemic has past. As we look to design solutions for the long-term on this issue, teachers must be consulted to learn from their experiences. They will be vital partners in policy development for distance learning in the future.

Fuente: https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2020/04/01/covid-19-wheres-the-discussion-on-distance-learning-training-for-teachers/

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

How are countries addressing the Covid-19 challenges in education? A snapshot of policy measures

Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

Gem Report/ By Gwang-Chol Chang and Satoko Yano, UNESCO’s Section of Education Policy

Close to 80% of the world’s student population – 1.3 billion children and youth – is affected by school closures in 138 countries. Taken as a measure to contain the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, some of these closures are recent, in others they have already been in place for months. In all cases, closures are placing unprecedented challenges on governments to ensure learning continuity, and on teachers, students, caregivers and parents.

Image: Ivan Flores

UNESCO has been monitoring school closures since early March and documenting national responses, including through virtual ministerial meetings and webinars bringing together a community of practice.

This blog provides a snapshot of some of the measures taken by countries to address their immediate challenges. The information is based on various sources, including government announcements, official documents, decrees, circulars and guidelines available online, as well as media reports. As education is decentralized in many of the countries reviewed, the examples presented below may be implemented locally and not nation-wide – they are by no means exhaustive.

Countries have focused on ensuring continuation of learning

For all countries, avoiding the disruption of learning to the extent possible is the first priority. All countries are introducing or scaling up existing distance education modalities based on different mixes of technology. Most countries are using the internet, providing online platforms for continued learning (e.g., Argentina, Croatia, China, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and United States).

In almost all countries, teachers and school administrators are encouraged to use applications to support communication with learners and parents as well as deliver live lesson or record massive open online course (MOOC) styled lessons. Learning content is also delivered through TV and other media (e.g., Argentina, Croatia, China, Costa Rica, France, Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Peru, Thailand, and Viet Nam). Existing apps are being employed to maintain communication between teachers and learners (e.g., Costa Rica, Islamic Republic of Iran and Thailand).

To communicate the plan of distance learning programmes and mobilize all stakeholders, government agencies are launching awareness campaigns or communication strategies on distance education for all targeted groups, including parents, students, teachers and administrators (e.g., United Arab Emirates). Saudi Arabia uses its official Twitter account to regularly disseminate the information on online learning.

Equity in access to ICT-based learning is a major concern, as learners from under-privileged backgrounds tend to have less access to computers and other devices outside the schools. In some cases, they live in areas with no electricity and poor or no internet connectivity.  Various actions are taken to address this challenge. For instance, China is providing computers to students from low-income families and offering mobile data packages and telecommunication subsidies for students. In France, efforts are being made to lend devices and provide printed assignments to the 5% of learners who do not have access to the internet or computers. To ease the disruption, the United Arab Emirates created a hotline for teachers and students to seek technical support if they face any difficulties. In Washington State, United States, the schools are not encouraged to provide online learning services unless equitable access is ensured. In Portugal, to tackle the fact that not all students may have access to internet at home, the government suggested a partnership with the post office services to deliver working sheets to be done at home.

Adjusting the school and exam calendar is a priority

Prolonged school closures are significantly affecting the school calendar in certain countries, in several cases coinciding with the period of university entrance exams. Several have rescheduled examinations and assessments for all levels of schooling, including universities (e.g., Chile, China, France, Japan, Spain and Viet Nam). China also provided some exams online. When exam dates cannot be changed, special arrangements (e.g., limited number of students who can take the exam at one time) have been introduced to ensure the safety of the exam-takers (e.g., Japan and Thailand). The school calendar is also being adjusted to accommodate lost days of learning (e.g., Spain, Republic of Korea and Viet Nam). In some cases in the United States all state testing has been cancelled for the 2019-2020 school year (e.g. Florida and Washington).

The school closure is also affecting the schedule for teacher training and teacher licensing. China has made some teacher training courses available online. In Japan, temporary teacher licenses are being issued, on a case-by-case basis, for teachers who could not participate in the license renewal training. In China, teacher qualification exams have been postponed. Administrative and teaching staff in the United Arab Emirates started receiving continuous specialized training remotely, using a new technological system for the first time. Chile has also adopted this initiative, sharing good practices with teaching staff and organizing webinars on teaching and administration online to those who most require digital skills training.

Ensuring access to nutritious meals is a major concern

Many children and youth, especially those coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, rely on free or discounted school meals for healthy nutrition. In Japan, families are receiving a refund for school fees while closures are underway and school lunches are being delivered to families in several school districts. Argentina and Washington State (United States) have also taken measures to continue school meal programmes despite closures.  California (United States) has allowed schools to provide meals on a “pick-up and go” basis, and some districts are allowing families to pick up meals in bulk so they don’t have to return daily. In China, measures are taken to guarantee continued food supply for students staying or under isolation at school. The Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain) is ensuring nutritious meals for vulnerable children by issuing redeemable credit cards for any commercial food establishment.

Alleviating the burden on parents and caregivers has emerged as a challenge

Distance and home learning invariably places a heavy burden on parents and caregivers. Many are struggling to support children in their new learning environment, often juggling between supervision, their own work and house chores. In China, online pedagogical support is provided to parents/caregivers. Italy is also offering them online courses on how to manage the relationship with learners during confinement. Similarly, in Spain diverse communication platforms and apps are available (e.g. Edugestio) through which teachers and parents/caregivers share and co-build the learning process. Some countries, like Guatemala, are providing teaching guidelines and learning materials to parents/caregivers to ensure the continuation of learning offline.

Countries are keeping a small number of schools open to accommodate children who cannot be cared for at home (e.g., France, Japan, and Republic of Korea). In countries where citizens are not put under home-based confinement, regular visits by teachers to families are also organized to monitor the progress and well-being of students and to advise parents/caregivers (e.g., Japan and Thailand).

Social isolation of children needs to be addressed

Schools are hubs of social activity and human interaction. When schools close, many children and youth miss out on social contact that is essential to learning and development. Online communication apps (e.g., WhatsApp) are used to ensure communication between teachers and students as well as among students in many countries (e.g., Thailand). Interactive online classes also provide opportunities for social interaction. In many countries, such as China, Japan, Spain and the United States, psychological assistance is provided for those in need, including a 24h hotline and monitoring calls to avoid the isolation feeling.

What’s next?

With the situation evolving day by day, countries are employing a multiplicity of approaches to minimize the impact of the pandemic on learning. As this snapshot illustrates, policies go beyond rolling out distance learning modalities. They encompass measures to address the social dimensions of this crisis, which is affecting the lives of children in a myriad of ways. Due to prolonged confinement, children are being separated from their peers and teachers and deprived of socializing activities, including sports.

As the confinement continues, it is critical to protect their well-being and mental health, and to increase support to families, teachers and caregivers. UNESCO will continue collecting, analyzing, and sharing policy measures being taken by countries but also encouraging and advising others who are less prepared for this exceptional period. Such cooperation will support Member States in making critical decisions to ensure learning continuity, guided by principles of equity and inclusion.

Fuente: https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/how-are-countries-addressing-the-covid-19-challenges-in-education-a-snapshot-of-policy-measures/

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Coronavirus: could education systems have been better prepared?

Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

GEM REPORT

The world was caught by surprise with the global pandemic emergency. But was it entirely unexpected? Pandemics have always been a likelihood. A pandemic has occurred every 10-50 years for the past centuries. In any given year, a 1% probability exists of an influenza pandemic that causes nearly 6 million pneumonia and influenza deaths or more globally. This translates into a 25% likelihood of such a pandemic over 30 years, and that’s just influenza.

It’s not ‘if’ a pandemic occurs, therefore, but ‘when’. ‘In order to mitigate human and financial losses as a result of future global pandemics, we must plan now’ was the call of experts in 2016 in the immediate aftermath of the Ebola virus epidemic in western Africa and the international organizations’ admission of the response having been slow. In this latest major and unfolding crisis, the emphasis has been on different health systems’ responses. But could education systems have been better prepared?

Pandemics needs to be factored into education planning, as much as in other sectors. Closing schools during disease outbreaks should not be taken lightly. As the 2020 GEM Report will tell us, schools are often the location not just for education but also for school meals or health interventions. But, according to the World Health Organisation, ‘under ideal conditions, school closure can reduce the demand for health care by an estimated 30-50% at the peak of the pandemic’.  Clearly, then, with the risk of a pandemic striking, education planners need to be prepared for a stint of interrupted education.

Faced with the coronavirus, as UNESCO reports on a daily basis, as of today, 113 countries have sent children home from school, 102 of which have closed schools nationwide, with an estimated 849 million children and youth out of school. There are three periods to consider for school preparedness: in normal times, during the crisis, and after the crisis.

Screenshot 2020-03-18 at 14.19.37

It is now clear that more time needs to be used to prepare teachers and systems. At the most basic level, teachers need to be prepared to deliver clear information to parents and educate children, especially the youngest ones, about hygiene management. These lessons are not only for times of crisis. Curricula based on the guidelines of the World Health Organisation’s Global School Health Initiative help students understand a potential health problem, its consequences and the types of actions required to address and prevent it. Analysis of 78 national curricula for the 2016 GEM Report, for instance, showed that between 2005 and 2015 barely one in ten countries addressed the links between global and local thinking. How long, then, until teaching also includes imparting vital lessons about disease prevention and mitigation?

Training for teachers currently assumes that lessons will be delivered in classrooms. In Quebec and elsewhere, questions are asked why ministries of education had no plan in place for the eventuality of distance teaching. If today’s events teach us one thing, it is that investment in online teaching infrastructure and teacher training to use such facilities are fundamental.

Being better prepared would also help teachers cope mentally – and help their students too. It is testament to teachers’ huge dedication to their profession that many are still risking their own health by continuing to teach the children of vital health-workers in many countries in Europe at present.

When schools close, school preparedness entails maximising the potential of online learning. Aside from schools, universities are closing too, of course, calling on professors to switch to online teaching. Just like their students, many educators are not excited by the prospect.

Reluctant some may be, but teaching is going to have to adapt to alternative scenarios. More emphasis may have to be placed on students having the tools to learn on their own and being curious to continue learning. Skype classes with 30 students even in the best resourced classrooms are challenging. New ways of working will need to be found. The longer this pandemic continues, the more likely innovative solutions may arise to meet the needs.

UNESCO organised a videoconference with ministers and their representatives from over 70 countries on 10 March about this issue, creating a crisis group from amongst them to support each other. It also pulled together a list of educational applications and platforms to help distance learning, most of which are free, and several of which support multiple languages. These include digital learning management systems like Google Classroom, which connects classes remotely, self-directed learning content, such as Byju’s, which has large repositories of educational content tailored for different grades and levels, mobile reading applications, and platforms that support live-video communication. Other online hubs for university education, such as this remarkable list of online resources in the United States, are rapidly being assembled to support educators deal with the change.

But the biggest concern is the availability of technology. Inequalities in access can further inflame inequalities in education. For so many families, device and internet availability are not options. Most education systems and schools lack knowledge on which students face such obstacles. Better preparation would entail knowing who has what access from home, and tailored responses for each. Argentina’s programme, Seguimos Educando, has been set up to respond to Covid-19. It is a multimedia education platform, providing education content and advice, which, thanks to partnerships with telephone companies, guarantees online access without cost, and with no data consumption so that all children can benefit, no matter their background. We can also learn a lot from countries that have experience of educating students in remote areas. In Western Australia, parents can home-school their children with the support of the Schools of Isolated and Distance Education, established to educate children in remote areas.

So far school closures have affected richer countries where at least using the internet for education is a real possibility. In poorer countries, which lack access to electricity altogether, low-technology approaches, whose use had weakened over the years, will need to be revisited. Kenya, for instance, runs lessons for primary and secondary school by radio. In Sierra Leone, during the Ebola outbreak, education programmes were broadcast over the radio five days a week in 30-minute sessions, with listeners able to call in with questions at the end of each session. This approach helped maintain learning despite complications by regional accents and dialects, poor radio signal coverage, and a shortage of radios and batteries.

Finally, there is the question whether available online resources reflect the curriculum and ensure teaching and learning continues smoothly when schools open again. Lists can be drawn up and sent to parents and students, but learning acquired during this period may not be reflected in assessments. What happens if students have to repeat a year? What are the future implications on their education after this much interrupted learning? There are no answers to these questions, yet.

Adjusting education systems to factor in disaster preparedness is not new. It is already seen in many countries facing earthquakes, tsunamis or cyclones, for instance, but also in the context of climate change. In short, while we do not want to admit it to ourselves, a pandemic is a likelihood we should all have been expecting more than we did. Education systems, like many other sectors right now, are turning in circles to adapt to the crisis. Their responsiveness in many cases is admirable but will need to be more effective in the future, based on a pre-existing, thought-through and evidence-based plan.

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Rethinking non-state engagement in education

Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

prachiBy Dr. Prachi Srivastava, Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario, author of the Think Piece prepared for the 2021 GEM Report on non-state actors in education.

As previous recent blogs on this site have illustrated, non-state actors have long operated in education. They have gained attention with intensity in global and domestic policy circles and with researchers, civil society, and individual citizens implicated in local education systems. The increasing prominence of related issues is also visible in the GEM Report series and its predecessor, the Education For All Global Monitoring Report. The 2009 Global Monitoring Report was the first in the series to include explicit analysis of non-state engagement with a dedicated section on low-fee private schooling. Various issues relating to non-state actors and non-state engagement have since been addressed in subsequent reports. That the theme of the 2021 GEM Report is on Non-state Actors in Education, further attests to the relevance of these actors in education globally, and of associated issues. This blog post summarizes key points of a conceptual framework I developed in a Think Piece to feed into the GEM Report team’s research as they work on the 2021 Report.

Why the fuss?

Despite growing interest in the field, conceptual framing on how to think about non-state engagement in education is nascent. The range of non-state engagement is broad, and the actors, diverse. Typological issues have not been resolved. Earlier research is mainly descriptive and exploratory. To a fair extent it still is, given the uneven geographic and sectoral concentrations of the body of evidence. A number of existing questions have thin evidence bases, leaving us with a range of unanswered questions.

Questions are heightened in the following circumstances. Firstly, there are concerns regarding non-state engagement at compulsory or basic levels of education, primarily because there are recognized international and domestic obligations on the State in view of education as a human right. Secondly, most existing research shows there are equity implications for persistently marginalized groups, most often girls and women and economically disadvantaged groups, regarding sustained access and learning outcomes in privatized contexts. Finally, there are concerns regarding the engagement of non-state actors with commercial or profit-oriented statuses or motives.

Four general features of non-state engagement

Non-state engagement in education has typically been thought of in terms of the provision or delivery of education or education services. However, it is much broader than this. The framework in the Think Piece is built on the following general features:

  1. Non-state engagement is identified with reference to four domains of operation: provision, financing, regulation, and management. These domains highlight the different roles that state and non-state actors may have in education, i.e. as providers, financers, regulators, or managers, and their interactions. Actors may simultaneously engage within and across multiple domains of operation. While more typical analysis is on formal education, it can be extended to non-formal education.
  2. Non-state actors may engage in core education and/or ancillary education services relatively independently or in various formal or informal arrangements with state/public, other non-state, and international actors within and across these domains. These arrangements and their enforcement mechanisms structure the relationships of non-state actors with other actors.
  3. Arrangements can span from loose interactions to formalized agreements. The conceptualization considers three kinds of arrangements: contracting, partnerships, and networks. These arrangements are not mutually exclusive. While contracting and partnerships have been more typically discussed in the literature on formal governance mechanisms and structures in education, the role of informal and formal networks may help to uncover relationships between actors and their influence in education governance.
  4. Non-state engagement within and across the domains is likely structured by and may occur simultaneously across different levels of governance, that is, globally, regionally, domestically, locally, and in micro-education ecosystems. Formal education systems are also internally structured according to different, usually interconnected, levels or education sub-sectors. These different levels of governance and education sub-sectors will have different implications for non-state engagement.

Existing and emerging questions for analysis

There is, now, a more developed evidence base on non-state engagement. However, research is limited even on topics or geographies that may seem to be addressed by a comparably larger body of work. There are also a number of emerging questions across the four domains of operation which may provide new points of entry to extend analysis. A more expanded range of existing and emerging questions is presented in the Think Piece (Section 3). I summarize some key points here.

The majority of existing research is on the provision of formal (basic) elementary and secondary education. This may be due to the focus on alleviating gaps in compulsory education globally. Private schooling, in its various forms, has claimed much of the attention with a conglomeration of work on independent non-state provision. There is a smaller literature on the diversification ancillary services. Questions on equity and inclusion, experiential factors, sustained access, and differential learning outcomes; systems-level effects (e.g. competition); trade-offs in expanding non-state provision; and the motivations and influence of non-state actors, including those with commercial motives, and their relationships with state actors, are emerging.

Education finance is attracting more attention in view of domestic and global resource gaps, and due to interest in ‘innovative financing’. Focus on the full range of non-state actors investing in education and their investment strategies is emerging. A range of questions such as: Are non-state actors contributing supplementary financial resources to education, how much, how, where, and what for? What does innovative financing really mean, and what place do non-state actors have in the new global architecture for global education finance? There is also a need to investigate what other mechanisms can implicate non-state actors in domestic contexts to increase revenues for education, and how their funds can be used more effectively. Greater clarity on the role of private remittances is also required.

The existing focus on regulation has largely been on how states regulate non-state providers. Questions on the way non-state actors and engagement are framed in global frameworks and the 2030 SDG Agenda; donor and domestic government policies on engaging with non-state actors; and legal frameworks and other accountability mechanisms; and the formal and informal processes and arrangements all need greater clarity.

Finally, there are multiple questions in the domain of management. Some recent initiatives of contracted out public school to non-state operators are prompting questions on relative effectiveness, trade-offs, and processes. There are a host of other questions regarding the private schooling, such as: What is the role of private school coalitions and networks on organizing the work of private schools, and on the management and governance of private schools? What is the effect independent management on organizing teacher work? How does that affect teachers’ experiences of work? Is there a difference in effectiveness between government schools where administrators and teachers are mandated with government responsibilities outside of education and independent providers, and where they are not? How would they fare if such constraints were removed?

Concluding remarks

Distinctions between the domains of operation, types of actors, and multiple levels may be blurred, and systems are increasingly hybridized. The specifics of the nature of non-state engagement, its extent, the actors involved, and governance processes and structures, will depend on the broader context of the education system. There may be tensions in the compulsions of various structures, frameworks, and processes which can raise questions, for example, on how or whether particular non-state actors should engage and how the State should provide oversight, or when it should intervene. I hope the Think Piece and the range of questions I identify will help to generate more comprehensive analyses of non-state engagement in education across a range of contexts. I look forward to seeing what the 2021 GEM Report uncovers as it takes on the task.

Fuente https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2020/03/13/rethinking-non-state-engagement-in-education/

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

What you told us in the online consultation for the 2021 GEM Report on non-state actors

Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

Gem Report

The 2021 GEM Report will focus on the many ways in which non-state actors are involved in education systems. It will discuss the state role in the process (regulatory frameworks, accountability mechanisms) and reflect on the most recent developments in the non-state actors’ landscape (the role of global corporations or philanthropic foundations and new public-private arrangements).

This blog summarises some of your inputs during the online consultation we launched in December on the concept note for our Report. Over 1300 people have visited the consultation website, many of which left comments. We also received 47 personalised emails. While we have not been able to cover all of your suggestions in this blog, all are being examined by the team. Thank you for your contributions. They are invaluable as we get to work scoping out the research we will carry out over the coming year.

Justification for the report

It was advised that the Report establish a stronger rationale for covering the role of non-state actors in 2021 and that this should extend beyond the expansion in private education. For example, you called for looking at the risk to equality posed by new forms of non-state action in education in the form of online courses.

Framework, areas of focus and positioning

People were happy to see that the Report’s concept note moves beyond ideological debates to a focus on the evidence behind non-state provision.

Some urged for greater clarification on the different types of non-state actors, including those that are for profit and those that are not. And you called for greater emphasis to be placed on civil society organizations (CSOs) in achieving SDG 4.  Multiple suggestions of case studies that could help show the contribution that non-state actors make to providing a quality education were sent through, particularly in emergency settings. It was advised that analysis should continue the focus of the 2020 GEM Report  on inclusion due out on 8 April with respect to the individuals most at risk of marginalization, such as those with disabilities, etc… in relation to non-state actors. A call for putting a gender lens on the research was also made.

You called for the Report to look at the way that governments are investing in research, data collection and corresponding administrative systems to understand and map the extent of private school provision, and how they are balancing the need for public oversight with the need to enable markets to function effectively and to work for the poor.

One comment cautioned about pursuing a narrative that offers a choice between either private or public, and said the Report should be open to the idea that the non-state sector can complement and support government provision of basic education — when invited to do so.

The Report will look at early-childhood education right the way up to higher and adult education. The latter of these two is a very broad field, making it hard to cover. Suggestions were that it could be useful to concentrate on activities that are regulated by national ministries of education.  The analysis across all education levels could be complemented by a distinction between formal and non-formal/ alternative modalities of education, extending through even to sport, volunteering, arts agencies, co-curricular organisations, etc.

Key concepts

The team was urged to use the adjectives “public” and “private” without nuance according to whether they qualify institutions, people, users, freeze ideologies, and make the “education” sector a sanctuary sector.  And the report should be aware of the variety of possible definitions of non-state actors. There may be challenges of definitions in UIS when deciding what constitutes private, which may mean we underestimate its prevalence, particularly as regards unregistered schools. For example, the statistics of the UNESCO Institute do not include schools of non-state actors that are (partially) financed by the state. A comment also called for the Report to also clearly delineate between private for-profit providers and NGOs.

1. Provision

The Report is to use a broad conceptualization of education provision, encompassing different types of education operators, learning related goods and services, and other support goods and services. Several areas of research were suggested to understand the full range and impact of non-state provision of education, including on faith-based services, on the role of civil society in providing global citizenship education, on the role of non-state actors in the collection of education data, and on the growth of a shadow education in the form of private supplementary tutoring. Successful Public Private Partnerships that focus on equity should be explored. Companies’ involvement in curriculum and testing deserves to be examined as well.

You also noted that the provision of ancillary services should also be covered; something done in almost every public education system, but with questionable accountability around the way it is contracted and regulated. Technology is opening up many new fronts in non-state provision of education as well, as the 2022 GEM Report on technology will carry on to explore. Across the UK, state education is deeply entwined with, and dependent on, commercial digital tools in the edTech market, for instance. How is student data being linked with other government departments’ data (on tax, and welfare, for example), and what privacy and security risks does this entail?

2. Governance and regulation

The 2021 GEM Report expects to comprehensively cover regulatory arrangements and other forms of available accountability for non-state actors in education.

In terms of analyzing regulation for equity, comments suggested that the 2021 GEM Report could look at the divergent challenges of human rights with regard to non-state actors, including the right to freedom of religion. Legislation, such as data protection laws, statutory Codes of Practice, and enforcement actions are particularly important for protecting the privacy and rights of the child and young people across all areas, but crucially in the digital environment in education. Lawmaking and procurement at all levels of government must respect the UN General comment No. 16 (2013) on State obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights. Comments underscored that the Abidjan Principles apply and can be particularly useful in humanitarian as well as development contexts.

Many international statements have made reference to the role of non-state actors in education, including the Incheon Declaration, the Convention against Discrimination in Education; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights law and international agreements are clear in establishing the international legal and regulatory parameters for non-state actors.

Several comments focused on regulatory instruments that could ensure non-state provision worked in line with education quality and equity principles. Some even suggested that governments do not need to be the regulator.

3. Finance

The 2021 GEM Report will cover household, government, donors and corporate financing in education, including philanthropy with an equity perspective. The Report was urged to start by reminding of the state’s obligation to provide enough means for education.

Starting by looking at household expenditure, the Report was advised to look at the risks to equity posed by private education. It was advised to also address the ‘false dichotomy’ in the debate between ‘low cost private schools’ and so-called ‘free’ government schools, which frequently still charge all manner of fees. Distinguishing between the pragmatic requirement to sometimes charge (affordable) fees to students who can pay should not be seen as the same as promoting for-profit or commercially driven education, one comment said.

One person called for looking closer at the reasons for investing in non-state education, both because of the communities they serve, but also because of the element of choice that many parents wish to retain. The fiscal realities of providing education for expanding populations may also necessitate private delivery solutions. Similarly, the investment from governments and aid agencies in low fee private schools is tiny relative to their share of total education provision. Analysis into arguments that the private sector can achieve equal or better outcomes at a lower cost should feed into this. The Report was cautioned not to be too critical of donors’ commitment in the area of non-state actors because many donors in development cooperation are explicitly non-state actors themselves. Ultimately how governments choose to finance education should be their decision.

The Report could look at the support that GPE’s developing country government partners give to the private provision of education, including by providing subsidies to providers or parents to reduce or remove the costs of education to low-income communities. One comment said a reference could be made to the budget savings that faith-based schools brought to governments – larger than ODA contributions.

4. Influence and innovation

The fourth section of the 2021 GEM Report aims to capture the influence exerted by different non-state actors, and the role this plays in innovating in the system. You called for looking at the role of interest groups at the international level both for and against the ‘privatisation’ of education, as well as the role of international and UN organisations in attempting to create partnership platforms and initiatives. A suggestion was made that a strong role for the international community was in investing in global public goods related to non-state education, including research, innovation, experimentation and evaluation. And in supporting non-state actors in fragile and conflict affected states.

The Report was directed towards evidence that Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), particularly when targeted at disadvantaged populations, can engage the private sector to improve both access to education and learning outcomes.

There was a call for greater evidence on how non-state actors in non-formal/alternative education have managed to influence education reforms, although there are not many examples of mechanisms to help best practice leap from the non-state sector into the public education system.

Some mentioned the growing influence of private foundations in the policy (and advocacy) debates in education, warning that, though they may lend a new and unique voice, they come with agendas, such as the philanthropic arms of large tech companies. There was also a suggestion of the need to discuss networks of influence – networks of actors that have shared interests who may be working to positively or negatively influence the discourse.

See more blogs on this subject

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

¿Cómo podemos detener las barreras del idioma que frenan el aprendizaje para las personas en movimiento?

Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

GEM REPORT

Uno de cada cinco estudiantes tiene antecedentes migratorios en los países de la OCDE, lo que resulta en aulas multilingües / multiculturales. Sin embargo, solo la mitad de los inmigrantes reciben apoyo lingüístico en los países de la OCDE en promedio. Llegar a un nuevo país y, de repente, sentarse en un nuevo salón de clases debe sentirse lo suficientemente extraño sin tener que navegar para aprender un nuevo idioma sin ayuda. Aprender un idioma es el primer paso para abrir la educación. informe de la gema del día de la lengua materna sistemas para inmigrantes y ayudarlos a sentir que pertenecen.

Además, no hablar el idioma de instrucción frena el aprendizaje de los estudiantes. Es un factor explicativo clave detrás del hecho de que dos veces más estudiantes nacidos en el extranjero abandonan la educación tempranamente en la Unión Europea que los nativos. Los datos de 2018 en los países de la OCDE muestran que aproximadamente el 62% de los estudiantes inmigrantes de primera generación y el 41% de segunda generación no hablaban el idioma de evaluación en el hogar.

No hablar un idioma de instrucción puede estar relacionado con peores resultados educativos. En Uganda, los refugiados de la República Democrática del Congo fueron colocados automáticamente en grados más bajos porque carecían de dominio del inglés. Terminaron con tasas de repetición más altas incluso cuando habían dominado el programa de estudios. Esto también terminó presionando a los que generalmente son los maestros menos calificados y aumentó los riesgos de protección para los niños más pequeños. Los refugiados burundeses en Ruanda enfrentaron el mismo desafío.

Pero a pesar de la importancia del idioma para el aprendizaje, solo un tercio de los países de la OCDE evalúa las necesidades lingüísticas de los inmigrantes a su llegada . A menudo, los recién llegados a menudo se incorporan a clases de idiomas que coinciden con su edad, en lugar de sus necesidades.

En Europa, las clases de idiomas varían en duración, desde un año o un año escolar en Bélgica, Francia y Lituania hasta dos años en Chipre, Dinamarca y Noruega, tres años en Letonia y cuatro años en Grecia. El Informe GEM 2019 exige un mejor apoyo lingüístico para los migrantes y refugiados, pero advierte contra la separación de los niños de sus compañeros durante demasiado tiempo en las clases de idiomas, lo que dificulta el progreso educativo y la integración social. Suecia redujo las clases de idiomas para durar solo dos años, por ejemplo, al ver que los estudios que duraron más tiempo solo dieron como resultado una tasa de graduación de la escuela secundaria del 9%.

La educación preescolar para los hijos de migrantes es particularmente importante para darles una exposición temprana al idioma de instrucción. En Dinamarca, por ejemplo, una ley reciente exige que los hijos de inmigrantes de 3 años que no asisten al preescolar tomen un examen de idioma danés. Aquellos que fallan deben asistir al preescolar y recibir capacitación adicional en idiomas o sus padres perderán sus beneficios sociales relacionados con los niños. Muchos países reconocen la importancia de los primeros años. Los derechos de los niños indocumentados a asistir al preescolar están protegidos por políticas educativas en Milán, Génova, Turín, Serbia y Suecia.

E incluso si se encuentran lugares escolares, los maestros que se encuentran en la clase a menudo carecen de capacitación para enseñar el idioma de instrucción como segundo idioma. El número de inmigrantes que requieren apoyo de idiomas en Japón aumentó en un 18% entre 2014 y 2016), por ejemplo, sin embargo, todavía hay una escasez de maestros capacitados en educación del idioma japonés y campos relacionados.

El Informe GEM de 2019 mostró que la educación está en constante movimiento: el número de niños en edad escolar migrantes y refugiados en todo el mundo ha crecido hoy en un 26% desde 2000. Pero la capacitación de maestros no se mantiene. En seis países europeos, la mitad de los docentes consideró que no había suficiente apoyo para gestionar la diversidad en el aula (y el próximo Informe GEM 2020 confirmará este hallazgo en base a los datos TALIS más recientes). En Turquía, los maestros nombrados por el ministerio de educación no tienen la capacitación para enseñar turco a extranjeros. Después del primer año del plan de educación de refugiados de Grecia en 2016, una de las debilidades identificadas fue que los maestros no habían sido contratados por su capacidad para enseñar griego como segundo idioma. Posteriormente, la dificultad del idioma fue la razón principal por la cual los niños refugiados dejaron de asistir a la educación formal en el país.

Como con cualquier cambio hacia la inclusión, la política de educación lingüística también puede ser impugnada políticamente. En los Estados Unidos, las políticas de educación multicultural, como la instrucción bilingüe o multilingüe, se han enfrentado a un retroceso activo. Por el contrario, cada vez se presta más atención a la inclusión y la cohesión social en Europa. Irlanda se destaca como un país campeón, con su examen de certificado de abandono secundario ahora administrado en 18 idiomas de la UE. Sin embargo, el éxito de este tipo cuesta. El país recibió 100 millones de euros para el apoyo lingüístico en las escuelas y 10 millones de euros para cursos de adultos de la UE.

Los cambios hacia la inclusión son un ejercicio de democracia, que requiere la participación de todos los actores de la educación, así como de la comunidad para que esto suceda. El Informe GEM 2020 sobre inclusión y educación que se publicará este abril explorará esto en profundidad, mostrando dónde la interacción significativa con todos los interesados ​​en educación ha abierto las puertas de la escuela a la diversidad y ha mejorado el aprendizaje para todos.

Fuente:  https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2020/02/21/how-can-we-stop-language-barriers-holding-back-learning-for-people-on-the-move/

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »

Join the consultation on the 2021 GEM Report on non-state actors in education

Informe GEM: Informe de Seguimiento de la Educación en el Mundo

Hugo Infante with creditPor GEM REPORT

We are extending the online consultation and expressions of interest for the 2021 GEM Report on non-state actors in education. The concept note for the Report is now available in English/ Français / Español  and Русский. Chinese and Arabic will follow soon.

Your views at this stage of our report process are vital to be sure we have as broad an understanding of your requirements when researching this issue, that we are aware of existing research already available, and of experts on the issue who might be able to contribute to the Report as it develops.

Online consultation: 

We would like to invite readers to:

  • Provide substantive feedback to the proposed lines of research in the concept note
  • Recommend interesting examples from around the world that illustrate the different roles non-state actors play in in different education systems
  • Recommend potential areas of new research drawing on already established or previously unexplored sources of quantitative and qualitative data.

 

Feel free to also provide comments on the shape and focus of the monitoring section of the report as well.

To share your comments with the GEM Report team, either post them as a comment direct on the consultation webpage, or email gemreport@unesco.org with ‘2021 Report Consultation’ as a subject heading.

Call for expressions of interest :

We are inviting contributions towards the development of the 2021 Report, including through :

  • Suggestions of papers in 10 areas selected by the GEM Report team (see below); and
  • Suggestions for ideas in other areas for new, previously unpublished research drawing on already established or previously unexplored sources of quantitative and qualitative data which could be essential for the 2021 GEM Report

consultation

Fuente: https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2020/01/20/join-the-consultation-on-the-2021-gem-report-on-non-state-actors-in-education/

Comparte este contenido:
Leer más »
Page 3 of 9
1 2 3 4 5 … 9