Accelerated Education Programmes: An Evidence Synthesis for Policy Leaders

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented global education crisis. It has closed schools around the world, resulting in about 1.5 billion out-of-school children and youth (OOSCY) in spring 2020, from pre- primary through tertiary age (UNESCO, 2020a). The pandemic exacerbated global out-of-school numbers and drastically impacted student learning, with some research estimating more than a year of learning loss after only a three-month school closure (Kaffenberger, 2021).
Today, the dialogue is evolving beyond schools reopening to focus on learning recovery, with countries implementing a variety of approaches for catch-up, remedial, or accelerated learning (Nugroho et al., 2020; USAID, 2020). Education leaders are facing calls to improve guidelines and/or policies in the face of highly varying curricula, pedagogy, certification, and promotion. This is the context to which this evidence synthesis responds.

In using a novel approach to rapidly crowdsource a wide range of published and unpublished evidence related to accelerated education programmes (AEPs), and then synthesising this evidence, our aim is to build on existing critical AEP evidence by offering practical, contextually relevant points of guidance for those shaping policies and guidelines for AEPs.

Complementing the policy brief high-level lessons for senior policy makers, this evidence synthesis serves decision-makers with technical backgrounds, providing more detailed analysis and discussion which will aid in the implementation of policy decisions.

As decision-makers decide whether to embark on AEPs, strengthen existing AEPs, or exercise greater oversight over AEPs, this evidence synthesis offers six major insights to help guide policy actions and guidance as well as implementation:

1. Effective accelerated education programmes share key features across design and implementation. These features can be supported meaningfully by government engagement, including through national policy actions.
2. AEPs have emerged as an alternative route to access education and learning for OOSCY learners who have not been reached effectively by the formal system. New or revised government AEP policies can improve OOSCY access and learning, especially among the most marginalised.
3. Amidst growing calls for the alignment of accelerated education with national education systems, it is important to recognise that alignment is not a one- size-fits-all solution but takes many forms in different contexts. A one-size-fits-all-approach could leave out more children and youth unintentionally.
4. Learning from country experiences points to a tactical, staged path to strengthening AEP alignment with national systems based on starting points of need and readiness.
5. Countries with effective AEPs prioritise alignment with goals, equity and inclusion, curriculum, assessment, and certification, with other dimensions being defined by programme implementers.
6. AEPs are designed to offer accelerated education for OOSCY. However, the lessons hold implications for broader COVID-19-related learning recovery and support measures in the formal school system.

During the course of this work, and with the collaboration of critical partners already deeply invested in AEPs, the topmost additional knowledge needs for education leaders are raised, including cost-effectiveness, effective promotion and transition, financial sustainability, and integration within national education data systems and cycles. It is hoped that the insights offered, and the future opportunities described, will help prioritise AEP funding and future AEP research and data collection.

While this report focuses on AEPs, bringing in deep insights from East and West Africa, its insights can be applied globally.