Every child has the right to learn. It is true that the number of children and adolescents accessing education and skills development in formal and non-formal systems has been steadily increasing. However, there are still millions of children who do not have access to these learning options. The need for multiple options and flexible pathways to learning is real and urgent.
Learning from the recent evaluation of UNICEF contribution to the reduction of out-of-school children and improving access to multiple and flexible pathways to learning, this note presents reflections and lessons learned on the various types of conditions for success and limiting factors.
Multiple and Flexible Pathways (MFPs) are worldwide programs that provide learning opportunities for children and adolescents who are out of school. These alternative educational programs aim at improving access to diverse learning pathways, reducing education inequities, and returning learners to formal education systems or helping them transition to work life. MFPs are adaptable and flexible, implemented with agility, and designed to meet learners’ specific needs.
Many MFPs have specific target groups of out-of-school children and adolescents, such as girls, refugee and migrant children, and children from socially excluded minorities. Some out-of-school children and adolescents were never enrolled in schools due mainly to poverty, the long distances between their homes and the nearest schools, and harmful gender norms. Some of them were enrolled but then dropped out because of conflicts, early pregnancy, and the financial burden of formal education, among other reasons. Regardless of their previous enrolment status and reasons for not being able to attend schools, MFPs offer them ways to learn, usually in community-based locations and with flexible hours and, for many, ways to return to formal schooling.
What were the conditions for success?
While operational contexts and program designs vary, the evaluation found that several factors were associated with implementing MFPs successfully across countries participating in the evaluation:
Successful MFPs resulted from well-conceptualized plans of action that responded to the needs of out-of-school children and adolescents and strategically aligned with local or national priorities. Instead of isolated efforts, MFP action plans usually included short- and long-term goals, common quality standards and norms of operation, indicators of progress and monitoring, and ways to build and/or enhance ecosystems for non-formal education. Collaborative work between implementing partners, governments, and other stakeholders are key to ensure the successful design and implementation of the MFP action plans. Good practices from UNICEF country offices include elements such as the transferability process was planned in the design; partial accountability was given to the Government from the beginning; and coordination with implementing partners were key to the transferability of the programme.[1]
Successful MFPs were accredited by local or national governments. Accreditation of MFPs and the development of an equivalency framework (i.e., a framework that recognizes academic achievements and equates MFPs with those in the formal systems) proved to be pivotal for success. Accredited MFPs became part of the non-formal education system (which, in many countries, is within the purview of the Ministry of Education) or were endorsed by governmental institutions. This is important because MFPs can provide a certificate of completion recognized by authorities; it incentivizes learners to complete their studies and ensures credibility of MFPs in local communities.
Successful MFPs built partnerships with stakeholders and organizations to mobilize local investments. These MFPs identified valuable services and resources in coordination with multiple stakeholders to design locally relevant programs to improve learning opportunities for out-of-school children and adolescents. Resultingly, successful MFPs hired and provided training to teachers already in the communities, utilized existing infrastructure as community learning centers, co-designed education awareness campaigns with community stakeholders to increase enrolment, and connected MFPs to local funding opportunities.
Successful MFPs leveraged strong partnerships with key development actors such as UNICEF, UNESCO, ILO, the World Bank, local civil society organizations, and academic actors. In countries with no non-formal education system, national education authorities sought significant technical assistance to develop policies and best practices. In countries with existing non-formal education systems, the focus was on communicating the value of MFPs to learning, on advocating for the expansion of services, and on generating demand for these services among the populations.
What are the limiting factors?
The evaluation found that, in general, countries had the capacity to identify or seek people with the technical capacity needed to implement small MFP pilots or initiatives to support community-level needs. In practical terms, nevertheless, some MFP programs faced significant challenges beyond the ‘proof of concept’ phase to become a sustained and long-term solution to providing out-of-school children and adolescents with access to learning.
In some cases, it has been observed a lack of interest among stakeholders in developing a non-formal education system to address the learning crisis. There were challenges that was consistently observed across various contexts:
Low level of demand for MFPs and perceptions of low value of MFPs among the populations that MFPs should serve and among the national authorities who should provide the services.
Lack of a systematic and intersectoral approach to finding quality solutions. This approach was needed because of the flexible nature of these programs, the diverse and adaptable pathways they offered, and the goals they should lead to.
Lack of coherent approaches to partnerships and to coordination with key stakeholders that were necessary to secure funding, scale up the programs, and ensure the programs’ sustainability.
Lack of disaggregated data (such as by age, gender, disability) to monitor and assess changes and risk factors to better design MFPs that would effectively support re-entrance to formal learning and meet the specific needs of out-of-school children and adolescents.
Lack of frequently and rapidly collected data for adaptive planning and implementation to meet the changing needs of t certain populations, particularly in emergency settings.
Next steps for UNICEF
UNICEF has the capacity and opportunity to improve work on MFPs and support out-of-school children and adolescents. To address the above limiting factors, the organization could:
Build on the existing tools and leverage the capacity of Country Offices to identify and design effective interventions to strengthen systems of MFPs across all levels of education.
Expand its global guidance, now largely focusing on secondary education, to include MFP programs that span across multiple developmental stages of children from pre-primary- to secondary-school-aged children, with an important opportunity for more comprehensively dissemination of existing tools to support country offices.
Share more widely, good practice and successful examples of MFP programming across regions.
[1] See the evaluation report and good practices notes for more information on examples from Uganda, Ghana, Guatemala, Tajikistan, among others.
About the evaluation
This blogpost is the product of further reflections informed by the “Evaluation of UNICEF Contributions to the Reduction of Out-of-School Children and Improving Access to Multiple and Flexible Pathways,” which took place between September 2023 and May 2024. This evaluation, commissioned by UNICEF Evaluation Office, was conducted by a team of external evaluators (Ted Freeman, Claudia Galindo, Alvin Leung, Matteo Valenza, and Paola Vela) and managed by Tami Aritomi, Evaluation Specialist. Internal and external stakeholders were integral to its completion, and we wish to thank all those who contributed to this evaluation. The evaluation report and good practice notes can be found here.
The opinions expressed on the UNICEF Blog are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of UNICEF.
