Évaluation du paysage de l'éducation inclusive en Amérique latine et dans les Caraïbes

PHOTO CREDIT: MERRYSKY (DIVERSIFYLENS), THIRDMAN (PEXELS), USAID CARS (DEVTECH), VISUAL ARTS (CANVA) LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT REVISED MARCH 2024 This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of DevTech Systems, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT REVISED MARCH 2024 Prepared for Nathaniel Haight, Contracting Officer’s Representative USAID/LAC Prepared by DevTech Systems Inc 1700 North Moore St. Suite 1720 Arlington, Virginia 22209, United States of America This publication was produced for the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DevTech, Inc., under the Latin America and the Caribbean Education Support Contract (7200AA18M00024). This report was authored by a multidisciplinary team of international consultants, including Pauline Martin, Patricia Andreu, María Paulina Arango, Lucio Severo, Marian Cálix, Fabiola López, Omar Zambrano, Karina Delgado, Miguel Nunez, Carla Paredes, and Jose Pineda. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................iv ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................................viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................ix METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................... ix MAIN RESULTS BY RESEARCH TOPIC................................................................................................................. x RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................ xv I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 1.1. DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. TARGET GROUPS............................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4. REPORT STRUCTURE........................................................................................................................................ 6 II. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................7 2.1. METHODS.............................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2. INSTRUMENTS..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. SAMPLE ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.4. STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS RESEARCH QUESTIONS...........................................................................13 2.5. LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................................................16 2.5.1. COUNTRY-LEVEL LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................................17 III. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................19 3.1. REGIONAL FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................................19 3.1.1. EDUCATION ACCESS IN LAC .................................................................................................................................19 3.1.2. DATA ON ACCESS TO EDUCATION BY TARGET GROUP.........................................................................21 3.1.3. REGIONAL LEARNING OUTCOMES .....................................................................................................................27 3.1.4. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS..............................................................................32 3.1.5. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES....................................................................................34 3.1.6. SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AS A DETERMINANT OF EDUCATION QUALITY......................................36 3.1.7. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DETERMINANTS...................................................................................................37 3.1.8. MULTILATERAL SUPPORT.........................................................................................................................................38 3.2. COLOMBIA OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS.................................................................................................40 3.2.1. EDUCATION SYSTEM SNAPSHOT.........................................................................................................................40 3.2.2. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN COLOMBIA.............................................................................................................40 3.2.3. MARGINALIZED TARGET GROUPS.......................................................................................................................40 3.2.4. EDUCATION ACCESS AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT (RQ1).................................................................42 i | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 3.2.5. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (RQ2).................................................................46 3.2.6. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES (RQ3).......................................................................49 3.2.7. SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AS A DETERMINANT OF EDUCATION QUALITY (RQ4).........................55 3.2.8. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DETERMINANTS (RQ5)......................................................................................60 3.2.9. MULTILATERAL SUPPORT (RQ6)............................................................................................................................64 3.3. EL SALVADOR OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS...........................................................................................68 3.3.1. EDUCATION SYSTEM SNAPSHOT.........................................................................................................................68 3.3.2. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN EL SALVADOR.......................................................................................................68 3.3.3. MARGINALIZED TARGET GROUPS.......................................................................................................................69 3.3.4. EDUCATION ACCESS AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT (RQ1).................................................................72 3.3.5. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (RQ2).................................................................77 3.3.6. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES (RQ3).......................................................................79 3.3.7. ENVIRONMENT AS A DETERMINANT OF EDUCATION QUALITY (RQ4) ............................................84 3.3.8. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DETERMINANTS (RQ5)......................................................................................87 3.3.9. MULTILATERAL SUPPORT (RQ6)............................................................................................................................89 3.4. HAITI OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS.............................................................................................................94 3.4.1. EDUCATION SYSTEM SNAPSHOT.........................................................................................................................94 3.4.2. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN HAITI.........................................................................................................................94 3.4.3. MARGINALIZED TARGET GROUPS.......................................................................................................................94 3.4.4. EDUCATION ACCESS AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENTS (RQ1)...............................................................96 3.4.5. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (RQ2).............................................................. 100 3.4.6. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES (RQ3).................................................................... 102 3.4.7. SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AS A DETERMINANT OF EDUCATION QUALITY (RQ4)...................... 105 3.4.8. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DETERMINANTS (RQ5)................................................................................... 107 3.4.9. MULTILATERAL SUPPORT...................................................................................................................................... 108 3.5. HONDURAS OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS............................................................................................ 111 3.5.1. EDUCATION SYSTEM SNAPSHOT...................................................................................................................... 111 3.5.2. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN HONDURAS........................................................................................................ 111 3.5.3. MARGINALIZED TARGET GROUPS.................................................................................................................... 111 3.5.4. EDUCATION ACCESS AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT (RQ1).............................................................. 112 3.5.5. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (RQ2).............................................................. 120 3.5.6. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES (RQ3).................................................................... 121 3.5.7. SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AS A DETERMINANT OF EDUCATION QUALITY (RQ4)...................... 125 3.5.8. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DETERMINANTS (RQ5)................................................................................... 128 3.5.9. MULTILATERAL SUPPORT...................................................................................................................................... 129 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................133 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................140 ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................149 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | ii ANNEX A. PROPORTION OF CHILDREN ATTENDING TO SCHOOL............................................ 149 ANNEX B. COLOMBIA DATA........................................................................................................................... 151 B1. ENROLLMENT REPORT BY SECTOR AND ETHNIC GROUP 2018-2021................................................... 151 B2. NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ENROLLED IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, FROM 2018 TO 2021............................................................................................................................................................. 152 B3. DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES BY AGE AND SEX REPORTED IN SIMAT, 2018-2021 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 154 B4. APPROVAL, DROPOUT, AND FAILURE RATES OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES BY SECTORS, 2018- 2020 (TOTAL ENROLLMENT)........................................................................................................................................... 154 B5. COLOMBIA – ERCE MATH SCORES BY GROUP................................................................................................ 155 B6. COLOMBIA – PISA READING AND MATH SCORES BY LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION.................. 157 B7. COLOMBIA – ENROLLMENT IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION....................................... 158 B8. COLOMBIA – PROPORTION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH ATTENDING SCHOOL.......................... 159 B9. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN COLOMBIA FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 160 ANNEX C. EL SALVADOR DATA..................................................................................................................... 162 C1. EL SALVADOR – ERCE MATH SCORES BY GROUP.......................................................................................... 162 C2. EL SALVADOR – ENROLLMENT IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ................................ 164 ANNEX D. HONDURAS DATA........................................................................................................................ 167 D1. HONDURAS – ERCE MATH SCORES BY GROUP............................................................................................. 167 iii | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: MARGINALIZED TARGET GROUPS BY COUNTRY .............................................................................................8 TABLE 2: SAMPLE DESCRIPTIVES BY DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT.....................................................................9 TABLE 3: STAKEHOLDERS AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS...................................................................................9 TABLE 4: INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICY CLASSIFICATION RUBRIC........................................................................14 TABLE 5: LEVELS OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT......................................................................15 TABLE 6: ACCESS INDICATORS BY COUNTRY AND MARGINALIZED GROUPS ....................................................24 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION BY TARGET POPULATION.......................................................................................................................................................................................35 TABLE 8: COLOMBIA, ENROLMENT IN FORMAL EDUCATION SYSTEM BY PRIORITY GROUPS, 2019-202142 TABLE 9: COLOMBIA, ERCE RESULTS, 2019.............................................................................................................................43 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: LAC, FIRST GRADE NET INTAKE RATE, 2000 – 2018.......................................................................................20 FIGURE 2: LAC: PERSISTENCE TO LAST GRADE OF PRIMARY, 2000-2021...................................................................21 FIGURE 3: FOUR COUNTRIES, PRIMARY COMPLETION RATE, 2017-2021..................................................................22 FIGURE 4: FOUR COUNTRIES, PERCENT OF OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN, 2017-2021......................................23 FIGURE 5: COLOMBIA, EL SALVADOR, AND HONDURAS. THIRD GRADE STUDENTS ERCE AVERAGE SCORES IN READING BY QUINTILE, 2019................................................................................................................................28 FIGURE 6: COLOMBIA, EL SALVADOR, AND HONDURAS. THIRD GRADE STUDENTS ERCE AVERAGE SCORES IN READING BY GENDER, 2019..................................................................................................................................29 FIGURE 7: COLOMBIA, EL SALVADOR, AND HONDURAS. SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS ERCE AVERAGE SCORES IN READING BY MIGRATORY STATUS, 2019 ........................................................................................................30 FIGURE 8: COLOMBIA, EL SALVADOR, AND HONDURAS. SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS ERCE AVERAGE SCORES IN READING – INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES, 2019...........................................................................................31 FIGURE 9: COLOMBIA, EL SALVADOR, AND HONDURAS. SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS ERCE AVERAGE SCORES IN READING – LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION, 2019........................................................................................32 FIGURE 10: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE RATES (2021 – 2022, HAITI 2017), DATA AVAILABLE BY COUNTRY.............................................................................................................................................................................................33 FIGURE 11: COLOMBIA, PROPORTION OF SECONDARY LEARNERS ACHIEVING, 2018.....................................45 FIGURE 12: COLOMBIA, PISA SCORES TIME SERIE, 2006-2022..........................................................................................46 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | iv ACRONYMS BUNEXE Bureau for National Exams CASAS Commission for Adapted Schooling and Social Support CEPAL Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe CRPD Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CSO Civil Society Organization CWD Children with Disabilities DANE National Administrative Department of Statistics DHS Demography and Health Survey (Haiti) DIGESTYC General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses EHPM Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples (El Salvador) EMIS Education Management Information Systems ENCI National Strategy for International Cooperation EPH Encuesta Permanente de Hogares (Honduras) ERCE Comparative and Explanatory Regional Study FEM Flexible Education Model FGD Focus Group Discussion GEIH Gran Encuesta Integrada de Hogares (Colombia) GIFMM Interagency Group on Mixed Migration Flows GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation GPE Global Partnership for Education ICBF Colombian Institute of Family Welfare ICFES Colombian Institute for the Evaluation of Education IDB Inter-American Development Bank v | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV IDP Internally Displaced Person IEA International Evaluation Association of School Achievement IELA Inclusive Education Landscape Assessment IHFOSED Haitian Institute of Training in Educational Sciences IOM International Organization for Migration ISCED International Standard Classification of Education KII Key Informant Interview LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LAC EduTrends Summary analysis of educational trends in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC): Update 2022 LEE Laboratorio de Economía de la Educación, Javeriana University LGBTQIA+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual + MEN Ministry of National Education MENFP Ministry of Education and Professional Development MINEDUCYT Ministry of Education, Science and Technology MOE Ministry of Education M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIR Net Intake Rate ODK Open Data Kit Application ONEC National Office of Statistics and Census OREALC Regional Office of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean PISA OECD Program for International Student Assessment PND National Development Plan PPT Temporary Protection Permits USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | vi Q1- Q5 Quintile One through Quintile Five RQ Research Question RV4 Refugees and Migrants of Venezuela SABER Systems Approach for Better Education Results SACE Education Center Administration System SART Early Warning and Response System SDG United Nations Sustainable Development Goal SDG4 Sustainable Development Goal 4 SEDESOL Secretary of Social Development SEIP Own Indigenous Educational System SES Socioeconomic Status SIGE Système d’Information sur la Gestion de l’Education SIGES Sistema de Información para la Gestión Educativa Salvadoreña SIMAT Sistema Integrado de Matrículas SIR System in a Room SIUCE Unified Information System for School Coexistence TERCE Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study UDL Universal Design for Learning USAID U.S. Agency for International Development USI Unit of Statistics and Information vii | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The study “Latin America and the Caribbean Inclusive Education Landscape Assessment” is the product of a collaboration between USAID/Washington, USAID country missions in Colombia, El Salvador, Haiti and Honduras, and DevTech Systems Inc. The following people played key roles in the provision of advice for this study: ● Nathaniel Haight, Education Advisor/COR ● Michael Lisman, Education Team Lead ● Jamie Salazar, Youth and Workforce Development Specialist ● Melissa Chiappetta, Senior Education Advisor ● Zaid Abuhouran ● Meghan Hussey ● Carmen Henriquez The authors wish to thank USAID for commissioning this assessment conducted under the USAID Latin America and the Caribbean Support Contract GS-10F-0048L/7200AA18M00024. USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document outlines the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Inclusive Education Landscape Assessment (IELA), financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. DevTech Systems Inc. conducted the assessment between April and September 2023, with a focus on evaluating the landscape of inclusive education in four countries: Colombia, El Salvador, Haiti, and Honduras. USAID defines inclusive education as a system of education, accompanied by policies, and practices, that aims to ensure equal opportunities for all, regardless of their background or abilities. This approach is particularly focused on improving the learning and skills of marginalized groups, such as girls, children affected by armed conflict or humanitarian crises, children with disabilities, children in remote or rural areas (including indigenous populations), and married adolescents (USAID, 2018a; USAID, 2018b). The purpose of the IELA is to provide the Ministries of Education, USAID, and their implementing partners in each of the four target countries with the following information: 1. Any available information about the state of education of selected marginalized populations. 2. The main barriers to generating and accessing data for their enrollment and education outcomes from the perspective of education stakeholders and selected marginalized groups. 3. Policies, practices, and school environment settings that enable or create barriers to equitable access to quality education, and inclusive education, from the perspective of education stakeholders and selected marginalized groups. 4. Opportunities for aligning interventions designed to address the barriers identified in this study with existing programs that other multilateral organizations and other bilateral and multilateral donors are implementing and/or funding. 5. Recommendations for USAID, national and local governments to improve access to quality education for marginalized groups. This report refers to inclusive education from a holistic perspective drawing from USAID’s conceptualization of this term. Although the context of each country is unique, this report conducts a cross country examination of the practices that enable and inhibit learning tailored to diverse populations’ needs. METHODOLOGY The LAC IELA employed a mixed-methods research approach. The inquiry worked at two levels: 1) a broad overview and synthesis of trends on inclusive education across the four selected countries, and 2) a multi-case study that includes country-level cases of data, policies, practices, and other factors around inclusive education from within these countries. The study´s quantitative component gathered and synthesized available literature and secondary data for each targeted country and analyzed data from national Education Management Information Systems ix | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV (EMIS) to estimate enrollment and access to education for marginalized groups where information was not readily available. The study´s qualitative component involved multi-country case studies engaging with key education stakeholders associated with three select underserved, marginalized groups in each of the four countries. The research team collected data from 271 informants (183 female, 88 male) using as data collection methods: System in a Room (SIR) sessions – eight sessions in total, focus group discussions (FGDs) – three sessions in total, and key informant interviews (KIIs) – 50 sessions in total. This approach captured key stakeholders’ perspectives on policies, practices, factors affecting inclusive education, and recommendations for addressing barriers. The focus on three prioritized groups and four countries was primarily dictated by resource limitations, precluding a thorough analysis of all groups across the Latin American and Caribbean regions. This strategic choice allowed for a more in-depth exploration within the scope of the study´s resources. As shown in Table 1, on page 24 of Section III, in Colombia, the study focused on urban and rural pregnant girls, Venezuelan migrant children, and indigenous and Afro-Colombian youth. El Salvador’s emphasis was on rural girls, children with disabilities, youth, and returned migrants or internally displaced people (IDPs). In Haiti, the study concentrated on lower socioeconomic status (SES) urban and rural children, youth with disabilities, and returned migrants and IDPs. In Honduras, the study targeted children from lower SES backgrounds, those with disabilities, and migrants and IDPs. The research team addressed key questions on the availability and outcomes of school enrollment data for selected groups (research question [RQ] 1); barriers faced by national EMISs in data collection (RQ2); policies and practices that mitigate unequal access to quality, inclusive education (RQ3); the impact of school environments on marginalized learners’ access to education (RQ4); community and family influence these learners’ educational access (RQ5); and the role and efficacy of multilateral organizations and donors in the LAC region’s inclusive education landscape (RQ6). MAIN RESULTS BY RESEARCH TOPIC RQ 1. School Enrollment and Education Outcomes. The research team found that enrollment data disaggregated by marginalized groups is limited, i.e., most countries have gross enrollment information disaggregated only by geographical region (rural and urban) and sex, but information by marginalized group is limited and not consistently available every year. Regarding children with disabilities, UNICEF (2021) reports that the estimated 19.1 million children with disabilities in LAC are 49 percent more likely to never have attended school than their peers. To analyze access, the research team used data from UNESCO to analyze the percent of primary completion rate and out-of-school children for selected marginalized groups with available data across the four prioritized countries. ● Using data from a household-level survey, UNESCO calculates that the average primary completion rate is 94 percent for Colombia, 92 percent for El Salvador, 89 percent for Honduras and 53 percent for Haiti. Among vulnerable groups, girls are more likely to complete their primary education than boys; in all countries, girls have a slightly higher primary completion rate than the country average. In all countries except for Colombia, children and youth from the poorest socioeconomic backgrounds have lower completion rates. Richer USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | x countries demonstrate better primary completion rates. Haiti, being the poorest of the four countries studied, has notoriously lower completion rates. ● Regarding out-of-school children, data from UNESCO for the four countries indicates that girls and boys show similar results, i.e., for both groups, values associated with this indicator are similar to those of country-averages (around four to five percent for Colombia, El Salvador and Honduras, and eight percent in Haiti). In all countries, children from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be out-of-school than those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. This is especially evident in Haiti where 21 percent out of school children are categorized as being from the poorest SES category. Regarding school attendance, data shows that across the four countries, children from rural areas attended school less than their urban counterparts. The differences are higher in Haiti, where the most recent school attendance data (2017) shows that almost 74.1 percent of rural children attended primary school compared to 87.6 percent of urban children. However, due to increased gang violence since 2021, around 1,700 schools are closed across the country. Similarly, across the four countries under study, children from with lower SESs (quintile one [Q1]) attended school less than children from higher quintiles. In Colombia, 94.3 percent of children from Q1 attended school compared to 97.6 percent from Q5.1 In El Salvador, the difference between Q1 and Q5 is also of three percentage points (96.3 Q1 versus 97.6 Q5), while in Honduras the difference is of 6.7 percentage points. (89.4 Q1 versus 96.1 Q5). Meanwhile, in Haiti, the difference is a startling 30.1 percentage points (61.1 Q1 vs 91.2 Q5).2 Key informants in Haiti indicate that there is an issue of violence against children in vulnerable situations, including verbal, physical violence/abuse in schools, that makes parent reconsider school enrollment. In terms of learning achievement, marginalized groups tend to score lower in standardized assessments when compared to those from non-marginalized groups. The research team’s calculations using UNESCO’s Comparative and Explanatory Regional Study (ERCE) 2019 microdata show: ● Third graders from lower SES categories score significantly lower in reading than those from higher SES categories across Colombia, Honduras, and El Salvador. In Colombia, third graders from Q5 on average score 786 points on ERCE Reading while third graders from Q1 score on average 654 points. This is equivalent to a gap of 132 points, or a 20 percent difference. The gap in El Salvador between Q1 and Q5 is 121 points (equivalent to 18 percent) and in Honduras the gap is 97 points (equivalent to 7 percent). ● Girls consistently outperform boys across the three countries with available data. By third and sixth grade, girls usually show stronger reading performance than boys. In LAC, according to 1 An economic quintile is a measure of a population's socioeconomic status. It divides the population into five groups based on income, with each group representing approximately 20 percent of the population. The first quintile represents the poorest 20 percent of the population, while the fifth quintile represents the wealthiest 20 percent. 2 Data for Colombia CEPAL 2021, El Salvador, Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples, 2022, and Honduras CEPAL 2019, and Haiti DHS 2016- 2017. xi | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV USAID’s A Summary Analysis of Education Trends in Latin America and The Caribbean – 2022 Update (USAID, 2022), thirteen countries out of sixteen showed significant gender differences favoring girls on the third-grade ERCE reading test. ● Overall, ERCE reading scores show that sixth grade migrant learners have consistently lower scores than non-migrants. In Colombia, migrants have a 3.6 percent lower ERCE reading score than non-migrants. In El Salvador this gap is equivalent to 4.8 percent, and in Honduras to 4.1 percent. This gap is slightly higher for girls than for boys (i.e., non-migrant boys and migrant boys tend to perform more similarly). ● Sixth grade children from indigenous communities perform consistently lower than children from non-indigenous communities. The average ERCE reading score for sixth grade learners was 11 percent, 7 percent, and 6 percent higher for children from non-indigenous communities compared to those from indigenous communities in Colombia, El Salvador, and Honduras, respectively. ● Children whose first language is different than the official language of instruction in the classroom perform consistently lower in reading according to ERCE reading scores. The average ERCE reading scores for sixth-grade learners were 10 percent, 5 percent, and 8 percent higher for children learning in a first language compared to those not learning in their mother tongue in Colombia, El Salvador, and Honduras. In the case of Haiti, descriptive findings from 2022 sixth grade national assessments show similar trends for selected marginalized groups. For example, students across the board perform better in their mother tongue language; girls tend to outperform boys in language subjects; students in bilingual households score better across all subjects; and, while performance varies significantly by department, rural areas lag behind urban areas. Except for in the case of Colombia, there is limited data on standardized learning outcomes post COVID. Average OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 results for Colombia were about the same as in 2018 in mathematics, reading, and science. The OECD PISA 2022 country summary for Colombia shows that there are no statistically significant changes between 2018 and 2022 results, as PISA results have been remarkably stable for a long period of time, with only small and mostly non-significant fluctuations since 2009. RQ 2. Education Management Information Systems. The results in this report show that all countries, except for Haiti, have education data from 2018 onwards regarding enrollment by sex, location (urban/rural), SES quintiles, and for learners with disabilities, yet this data is not available from a single source and often requires additional analysis. Enrollment data by race/ethnicity and migratory status is only collected in Colombia and El Salvador. Countries in this study are not reporting school enrollment data for girls with early pregnancies. None of the countries report data on out-of-school children. While the EMIS in Colombia, El Salvador, and Honduras collect similar types of data, the level of detail varies. In the four countries, management information systems for different sectors -education, health, and migration- function independently, without the ability to share or cross-reference data. Such compartmentalization not only hinders a unified analysis of the variables impacting educational outcomes USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | xii but reinforces exclusion of the most marginalized. Moreover, when available, EMIS data often remains inaccessible to the public, local institutions, and schools, with its use predominantly confined to the ministry level. When data is available in statistical reports the data is not widely disseminated, which becomes a barrier to informed decision-making. According to respondents in this study, the main barrier to collecting this data is limited access to technology infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, which limits the capacity of teachers and school administrators to keep data up to date. Informants across all countries report the need to provide more training to schools to improve data quality. RQ 3. Inclusive Education Policies and Practices. Overall, all countries have established education policy frameworks in favor of inclusive education, except for explicit inclusive education guidelines for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual + (LGBTQIA+) community. Using the World Bank Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) framework, the research team assigned policy development levels for each country and each target group. Colombia’s education inclusive policies are advanced, EL Salvador and Honduras are emergent, and Haiti has a mix of emergent and latent policies. In El Salvador and Colombia, a legal framework supporting returning migrants exists. Colombia has a long-standing policy on education for indigenous and Afro-Colombian children and educational attention for ethnic groups. While policies are in place, putting this into practice has been a challenge. Key barriers include limited coordination, limited reach and sustainable financing, lack of consensus of legal definitions (e.g., what constitutes a disability), lack of national guidelines/curriculum to train teachers in inclusive education to implement policies in the classroom, red-tape and complex bureaucratic processes to meet school requirements for enrollment and graduation, and stigma and discrimination even when the policy is known to school staff and parents. RQ 4. School Environment as Determinants of Quality Education. Across all countries, informants identified several school- and classroom-level barriers that prevent marginalized groups from receiving quality education. Among these are: lack of nearby upper primary and secondary schools, school fees, lack of basic school infrastructure (drinking water, electricity, internet) and adequate didactic materials (particularly for ethnic minorities, migrants and IDPs, and learners with disabilities), the absence of assistive technologies,3 the lack of knowledge of sign language, instruction in language different than mother tongue, lack of content relevance, lack of accommodations such as onsite childcare facilities, ramps, and universal design for learning. Stakeholders across all countries also identify challenges at the teacher level. In Haiti and Honduras, informants reported an explicit insufficient teacher supply, particularly in rural areas and schools catering to learners from lower SESs. In all countries informants reported a lack of teacher training and preparedness and insufficient specialized support staff to address inclusive education issues. Informants reported that school meal programs, free tuition, cash transfer programs and flexible education programs increase school access and retention for the most marginalized.4 Colombia has created 32 flexible educational models that assume teaching 3 This includes assistive devices, which refer to input technology such as adapted keyboards and computer input controls, speech input, dictation software and output technology, such as screen readers and magnifiers, three dimensional printers, and Braille note-takers. 4 References to explicit informants are provided in the results section of the report. xiii | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV learning processes within formal education, with school and semi-school alternatives, such as Walking in Secondary School, Escuela Nueva, Learning Acceleration, and UNICEF’s Learning Circles. RQ 5. Family and Community Determinants. Respondents across all countries mentioned positive and negative family and community practices and beliefs that affect children’s access to quality education. As positive contributors to marginalized children’s education, SIR participants in Colombia mention the key role families play in the transmission of values setting “a good example”, promoting good habits in children, including the use of technology, adequate food at home, among others (SIR 2), as well as ensuring emotional help and support, and facilitating home study (SIR 4). In Honduras and El Salvador, respondents agreed that community organizations providing after school programs or services tailored for children with disabilities and for pregnant adolescents have played a key role in keeping children in school and providing them with learning opportunities. Respondents across all countries believe a key barrier to education is household poverty, with a greater impact on rural areas, ethnic groups, migrant families, and families with pregnant adolescents. Households without resources could make the decision not to send their children to school (Colombia MEN, 2022a, p. 25). The lack of resources implies difficulties in paying for transportation, uniforms, materials, school supplies, and books, but it can also be an incentive for child labor due to the need to generate income for the home. It can also cause girls to drop out of education due to the need to cover unpaid care at home. An informant in Colombia pointed out that “children are not allowed in schools without full uniform or in flip flops or shorts. So, the children are sent back, which is further triggering to avoid sending them to school.” In El Salvador, respondents report that boys drop out of school quite frequently because they are more motivated by migration, either by family reunification or as an option to meet the basic needs of their family. Other informants stressed that early marriages are sometimes used as a way to mitigate the economic needs of the family, especially if the family has daughters. Across all countries, violence through gangs and/or armed conflict, and insecurity stands out as a primary community-level obstacle affecting both the attendance of marginalized children and the ability to remain in school. In Colombia, this takes the form of violence, and armed conflict in addition to household poverty, and the “double impact” of making potential victims vulnerable to armed groups’ recruitment of children and adolescents. In El Salvador, the government has established a ‘State of Exception’ since March 2022 in response to an increase in homicides, which grants authorities power to arrest anyone suspected of gang activity and suspends several constitutional rights. In Haiti, FGD informants reported widespread gang violence, recruitment of children by gangs, weaponization of hunger, indiscriminate attacks against the population, obstruction of humanitarian access and assistance, and lynchings. In Honduras, according to SIR participants, insecurity arises from pervasive violence and high crime rates, which threaten children’s safety and foster a climate of fear discouraging families from allowing their children to travel to school, especially on foot. RQ6. Multilateral Support. The study highlights many cooperation initiatives mainly implemented and/or funded by bilateral donors and multilateral entities. Projects relevant to inclusive education include but are not limited to: in Colombia UNICEF/Learning Circles initiative, USAID/Together we Learn, IADB/Aprendamos todos a leer, Save the Children/Reading Clubs; in El Salvador GPE/World Bank/Growing Up and Learning Together; Save the Children/Equitable, Inclusive and Quality Education USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | xiv for Migrant and Internally Displaced Children, USAID/ Proyecto Aprendo para Brillar/ Innovative Education Project, among others; In Haiti IADB’s investment in the Education Sector Plan, and USAID’s RAPID project for an integrated library/Bibliothèque Roger Dorsainville; USAID; and in Honduras The Word Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank funding for conditional cash assistance for poor households; and USAID’s funding for the Honduras Local Governance Project to promote the use of the Open Data Kit. In terms of challenges, informants perceive a lack of rigorous monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices in project implementation and a lack of a culture of evaluation (Colombia) as well as programs being one size fits all without considering local adaptations (Colombia, Haiti, Honduras). Across all countries, informants perceive a lack of alignment and coordination across donors and among implementing partners and local institutions disregarding existing practices, leaving gaps, and/or resulting in the duplicating of efforts. Other challenges include little community participation in project design and implementation (El Salvador and Haiti), and the perception that programs promoted by multilateral organizations operate in the short or medium term with little investment in sustainable partnerships to continue implementation and with few possibilities of achieving sustainability (Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti). RECOMMENDATIONS The authors of this study developed recommendations from the insights gained from secondary data and key informant responses to interviews and SIR discussions. These are detailed in Section IV of this report. Some of the main recommendations include: Prioritizing Marginalized Populations for Education Investments. Results from this assessment indicate that one of the greatest challenges to ensuring inclusive and equitable access to quality education and to promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all (United Nations Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] Four), is to respond to the diverse learning needs of marginalized groups. For groups with available data on learning outcomes, the research found that learners from lower socioeconomical status categories demonstrate wider gaps when compared to country averages, followed by learners from indigenous and ethnic minority groups, those whose languages of instruction don’t align with their mother tongue languages, learners from rural areas, and migrants. However, children with disabilities, girls with early pregnancies and internally displaced children and youth also face challenges that the research team was not able to quantify in terms of learning outcomes. Governments and international organizations should prioritize resources and offer technical cooperation to bridge these populations’ educational service and outcome gaps and meet SDG4 in the next six years. Governments in this study should consider strengthening their domestic revenue mobilization and increasing the share of expenditure for inclusive education while international organizations should prioritize development assistance to close the gap in education services and outcomes between marginalized groups and the rest of the population. Investments to foster inclusion are critical across the education system, encompassing governance, regulatory frameworks, EMISs, student assessments, and support for educators, classrooms, families, and communities. Prioritizing Marginalized Populations for Education Investments. Results from this assessment indicate that one of the greatest challenges to ensuring inclusive and equitable access to quality education and to promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all (United Nations Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] Four), is to respond to the diverse learning needs of marginalized groups. For xv | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV groups with available data on learning outcomes, the research found that learners from lower socioeconomical status categories demonstrate wider gaps when compared to country averages, followed by learners from indigenous and ethnic minority groups, those whose languages of instruction don’t align with their mother tongue languages, learners from rural areas, and migrants. However, children with disabilities, girls with early pregnancies and internally displaced children and youth also face challenges that the research team was not able to quantify in terms of learning outcomes. Governments and international organizations should prioritize resources and offer technical cooperation to bridge these populations’ educational service and outcome gaps and meet SDG4 in the next six years. Governments in this study should consider strengthening their domestic revenue mobilization and increasing the share of expenditure for inclusive education while international organizations should prioritize development assistance to close the gap in education services and outcomes between marginalized groups and the rest of the population. Investments to foster inclusion are critical across the education system, encompassing governance, regulatory frameworks, EMISs, student assessments, and support for educators, classrooms, families, and communities. Strengthening the EMIS. Governments and international organizations should consider refining their EMISs. Up to date, reliable, relevant, and easi