The world post-Covid-19 might be the world pre-Incheon – or even pre-Dakar

By Sheldon Shaeffer, Chair, Board of Directors, Asia=Pacific Regional Network on Early Childhood (ARNEC)

Post-Covid-19, the world will not be the same for a very long time. Life may be so different that there might not even be a post-Covid-19 world in the sense of ever returning to any form of normalcy. We should spend more time assessing exactly what effect this pandemic is going to have on the feasibility of achieving SDG 4. It is time that we moved past discussions about the logistics of school opening to the policies needed to address the pandemic’s long-term damage. At least four major implications for education come to mind.

First, achievements in virtually all sectors of development will be reversed and even lost.  Maternal, child, and infant mortality; immunisation rates; food security; poverty; and school enrolment and completion rates will be affected.  Parents may no longer be able to afford to educate their children, and child labour may increase.  They may also decide to prolong home schooling in face of successive waves of Covid-19 or other pandemics, while students may decide themselves not to return to school after their extended break.

Second, young children will likely be the most harmed by the pandemic. Their nutritional status will be damaged, their sense of security threatened, their health compromised, and their cognitive and social-emotional development seriously disrupted.  They will also be more often exposed to toxic home environments – the result of increased domestic violence and poverty – in which many of them will not thrive.

Third, early childhood education and development (ECD) will suffer more than other education levels. Government-supported schools and kindergartens will likely keep their teachers (though perhaps with less pay) during the pandemic and into the re-opening. But many non-elite private schools and community-based ECD programmes have already closed; without a salary, staff may leave and the ECD workforce capacity, enhanced over many years, will be seriously eroded. The slow but steady increase in enrolment in ECD programmes around the world over the last two decades may return to the multiple challenges they were facing a decade ago.

Fourth, existing disparities in access to social services, including education will be exacerbated:

  • Children with delays and disabilities, who often had extra support and targeted services in their ECD programmes and primary schools, will not find them at home and so will fall further behind.
  • Children living in poverty and those living in rural and remote communities already have less access to the tools required to benefit from distance education than their peers; post-Covid-19, their families will be less able to afford the costs of (re-)enrolling them in ECD programmes and schools.
  • Girls in some contexts will likely be more disadvantaged as well – less likely to go back to school, especially from poor families, with heavier domestic responsibilities and increased chances of pregnancy and early marriage.
  • Children of refugees and migrants may face greater stigmatisation as “bearers” of the virus, less access to technology, and education programmes even less well-funded than before.
  • Ethnic and linguistic minorities will also suffer. Those children who were being taught in the national language will fall further behind, and those being taught in their mother tongue likely do not have online lessons nor printed material in this language for use at home.

In addition, education facilities may have suffered from disuse, children’s learning will have been disrupted, and teachers will be demoralised and demotivated; some may have even left the profession. The challenge will be to return to where education was pre-Covid-19 and to become strong enough to progress enough to reach SDG 4.  Current discourse focuses largely on immediate responses to the pandemic and the mechanics of re-opening, and not on addressing its longer-term impact. There has been virtually no discussion of solutions to the challenges mentioned above. But some solutions can be imagined; for example:

  • move the discourse around the opening of schools away from logistical issues to its larger challenges, especially those related to increasing inequities and exclusion resulting from Covid-19
  • assess more exactly the nature and magnitude of the pandemic’s impacts on achieving the SDGs
  • ensure that those most disadvantaged are given high priority as schools and ECD programmes re-open, especially community-based ECD programmes and schools and the most affected families
  • promote education activities (especially those which are low-tech and no-tech) that have proven effective with disadvantaged children during the pandemic; e.g., home based learning kits, supplementary reading materials and exercise books for children without internet access, photos of homework sent to teachers by mobile phone, free educational programme streaming, apps for home based testing and exams, etc.
  • design programmes for disadvantaged and excluded children to guarantee that they resume their education, make up for the disruption they have suffered, and address the gaps that have increased:
    • extra support to children with delays and disabilities
    • extra academic support for students who have not been able to follow mandated online and high-tech distance and online education programmes
    • extra efforts to ensure that girls return to schools
    • psycho-social support to help children better handle the stress, anxiety, and trauma resulting from Covid-19
  • ensure strong support to teachers in recognition of the challenges they have faced (often with no or reduced pay) and encouraging them to give attention to the most disadvantaged children in the transition back to school.
  • provide support to school leaders who will play an essential role in managing the re-opening of schools with special attention to those in schools in poor/remote/disadvantaged areas
  • adjust government budgets to meet the needs of children who have been the worst affected: ensure that any additional funds for re-opening schools are not simply provided per student but are based on the needs of different locations and groups

There is a risk that the losses caused by Covid-19 will take the world back to where it was at the starting point of the Sustainable Development Goals and the time of the Incheon Declaration (2015) or even to Dakar (2000).  The hard-won gains, the momentum towards enhanced early childhood development and a greater focus on successful early learning, and the strengthened commitments of many governments towards achieving the SDGs are at high risk of being lost, especially if the points above are not underlined by all as they build back better in the future.

Fuente: https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2020/05/20/the-world-post-covid-19-might-be-the-world-pre-incheon-or-even-pre-dakar/

Comparte este contenido:

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

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: