(2024) Evalyasyon Peyizaj Edikasyon Enklizif nan Amerik Latin ak Karayib la

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. 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 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. i | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | ii 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 iii | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | iv 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 -2021 42 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 v | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | vi 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 vii | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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 Goa l 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 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | viii 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. ix | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | x (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 i ndigenous 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 xi | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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. USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | xii 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 outcome s xiii | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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 E nvironment as D eterminants 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. USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | xiv 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 S upport. 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 xv | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV 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 du plicating 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. R esults 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 USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | xvi 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 easily accessible information about the education status of the marginalized groups examined in this study is difficult to access or incomplete. USAID could play a leading role in supporting these governments to understand what is working in partner country EMISs and what is needed to ensure that data on marginalized populations is collected, analyzed, and disseminated, and connected with information systems from other sectors to provide a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of education. A national intersectoral task force to document the current state of data-sharing across government agencies could be established. The task force could determine where data-sharing exists and when links are critical. The task force could also identify policy and technical challenges and promising national and international practices and develop a national plan of action to cross-reference data aligned with the national education strategy. An international benchmarking tool such as the World Bank SABER tailored for education data on equity and inclusion could support this process across countries. Updating Inclusive Education Laws and Policies. In countries where inclusive education policies are not established or advanced, it is critical to update legislation to respond to the current needs of marginalized groups including clear definitions of the protected groups and their rights. These policies need to develop in tandem with national education strategies to implement them in coordination across sectors and with adequate financing. USAID could support this process by furthering the policy framework analysis started in this study to identify policy gaps and bring promising policies from other countries with similar context for their consideration and development. Develop an Inclusive Education National Curriculum for Teachers and Students. All countries should consider a curricular reform to mainstream inclusive education to ensure all students have the accommodations they need and to reduce stigma and rejection. This reform requires the development of an overarching curriculum for general inclusive education teaching practices and curricular content for training teachers in specialized education to address the needs of the different marginalized populations (e.g. deaf and hard of hearing, blind, post- traumatic stress, etc.). USAID has xvii | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV started this process in countries like Morocco with the Inclusive Teacher Training Activity and should draw on its lessons to support the LAC governments in this study. Adopting Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a central part of the national inclusive education policies and designing targeted interventions for specific marginalized populations. UDL is a set of principles to guide the design of learning environments aimed at the inclusion of all learners, irrespective of the kind of barriers to learning that they face. 5 USAID can support dialogues with the four governments to discuss UDL and how tools such as the UDL Toolkit can be applied to help all children read, particularly those marginalized and vulnerable. 6 In addition, governments can capitalize on the existing programs that respondents mentioned in this study – including after school programs, education services for children with disabilities, support services for adolescent girls, and the flexible educational models in Colombia and Honduras – by determining what works and investing on scaling these efforts up. Invest and Coordinate Efforts to Remove Learning Barriers for Children with Disabilities (CWD). USAID could support national governments with conducting nuanced and robust diagnoses of the extent of the issues mentioned in this report to ensure CWD enroll and succeed in school. This assessment could inform the development of the national curriculum for inclusive education and teacher training practices. USAID could also support the government with convening different relevant stakeholders to promote collaboration. Increase the Supply of Teachers in Remote Areas and Schools that Cater to the Poorest Children. This is particularly for countries that show evidence of teacher shortages. The government, in Honduras and Haiti for example, should conduct a full assessment or the teacher supply and demand and consider (1) revising teaching requirements to allow expansion strategies such as allowing qualified candidates to work and earn before completing teacher training qualifications; (2) promoting teacher mobility; (3) improving the status and social standing of the teaching profession to attract more candidates; and (4) providing targeted incentives to retain teachers and bring new teachers into the profession. Develop a Comprehensive Intersectoral Strategy to Tackle Education Exclusion. Given the intersectionality between poverty and educational exclusion, especially for marginalized groups that face the double or triple challenge of being poor, with a disability, identifying as an ethnic minority, a migrant and/or a girl with an early pregnancy, multi- sector interventions are necessary. The ministries of education need to be actively involved in the design and implementation of poverty reduction plans that include demand- side incentives such as cash and non- cash transfers and other benefits/safety nets to families (unemployment benefits, tax exemptions, pensions, etc.) to ensure children attend and remain in school. The government should also consider developing social sector strategies that include access to 5 https://www.edu-links.org/resources/universal-design-learning 6 https://www.edu-links.org/resources/universal-design-learning-help-all-children-read USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | xviii health interventions in school and service referencing for parents including skill training and employment programs. Establish Community Engagement and Education Campaigns . After conducting a mapping of communities where patriarchal norms are limiting girls’ access to education, and in collaboration with local partners, USAID could develop a program to promote family and community engagement in schools and the importance of education. The program could also include a component of mentorship programs that connect girls with female professionals who can provide guidance and support throughout their educational journeys and create safe spaces within schools or community centers where girls can access resources, receive academic help, and build a network of like- minded peers. Mitigate the Effects of Community Violence with School-Based Support. As part of a national violence prevention strategies, governments in the four countries should consider partnerships with local organizations to train school staff in using trauma-informed education approaches, including compassion and clear behavioral expectations, and by promoting mental health and a positive school climate. USAID in collaboration with local partners, could develop interventions to prioritize mental health by training school staff to conduct mental health screenings for students and providing ongoing education to staff and students about trauma, including how to find help or provide support to those in need. Establish a Harmonized Coordination Plan and Platform. Governments should revise their national strategies for international cooperation in education and require that these respond directly to the goals and needs in the national education strategy. A single source digital platform could enable collaboration amongst partners to ensure alignment with the national priorities and amongst each other. Standardized reporting formats allow for easier data comparison and identification of areas for collaboration or streamlining efforts. Government s should consider establishing regular joint planning workshops where representatives from different development agencies can discuss proposed projects, identify potential overlaps, and explore opportunities for joint implementation or complementary initiatives. Empower Local Stakeholders with Capacity Building. USAID can support this initiative by conducting comprehensive needs assessments in collaboration with local governments and community leaders to ensure programs address locally-identified priorities and foster a sense of ownership. Training workshops for local stakeholders on project management, data collection, and monitoring & evaluation techniques should also be considered to empower active local participation in program design, implementation, and evaluation. Finally, local advisory boards with representatives from civil society organizations, women’s groups, and community leaders could ensure programs are culturally appropriate and responsive to local needs. Strengthen M&E with Collaborative Frameworks. International donors and multilateral should ensure their M&E frameworks are aligned with international goals and indicators including the SDGs / SDG4 and with national education priorities. Multilaterals should budget and include independent program evaluations as a standard project practice from its design. For this purpose, multilaterals should commission independent evaluations conducted by reputable research institutions to assess the long- [... middle sections omitted for long document ...] USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | 164 C2. EL SALVADOR – ENROLLMENT IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Source: Estimated based on Censo escolar, Ministerio De Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología (2012, 2022). Notes: The educational level was modified for comparison purposes with other countries. Primary covers students between first grade and sixth grade students. Lower secondary ranges from seventh to ninth grade; and us pper secondary include students from high school and vocational training. Originally, in the case of El Salvador, primary 62.74 51.06 26.56 21.56 7.62 14.51 0 20 40 60 80 2012 2022 Number of students, thousands Ethnic community Children from indigenous communities (both genders) Enrollment in primary (Number) Enrollment in lower secondary (Number) Enrollment in upper secondary (Number) 3.43 2.86 1.32 1.51 0.64 0.64 0 1 2 3 4 2012 2022 Number of students, thousands Migratory status Migrants -The children are foreign-born citizens (both genders) Enrollment in primary (Number) Enrollment in lower secondary (Number) Enrollment in upper secondary (Number) 9.98 6.71 2.56 2.54 1.69 1.75 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2012 2022 Number of students, thousands Children and youth with disabilities (Both genders) Enrollment in primary (Number) Enrollment in lower secondary (Number) Enrollment in upper secondary (Number) 165 | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV involved students between first grade and ninth grade and s econdary students from high school and vocational training. In addition, we considered the number of students enrolled in the education system between 7 and 19 years old. 467 441 412 387367 342331314309307307 373358348337328312313302299288287 0 200 400 600 20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022 Number of students, thousands Type of community Primary Children from rural communities Children from urban communities 246 232 217 203 192 179173163161159159 221 209 196 183174 163158151149148148 0 100 200 300 20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022 Number of students, thousands Rural communities, by gender Enrollment in primary Male Female 215212207 196 185 168169 158156152150 174173165 156 145 128126 117113110109 0 100 200 300 20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022 Numberof students, thousands Type of community Lower secondary Children from urban communities Children from rural communities 9189 85 80 75 6766 60585655 848480 75 69 6261 56555454 0 50 100 20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022 Number of students, thousands Rural communities, by gender Enrollment in lower secondary Male Female USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | 166 Source: Censo escolar, Ministerio De Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología (2012, 2022). Notes: The educational level was modified for comparison purposes with other countries. Primary covers students between first grade and sixth grade students. Lower secondary ranges from seventh to ninth grade; and u pper secondary includes students from high school and vocational training. Originally, in the case of El Salvador, p rimary involved students between first grade and ninth grade and s econdary students from high school and vocational training. In addition, we considered the number of students enrolled in the education system between 7 and 19 years old. 167 | LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT USAID.GOV ANNEX D. HONDURAS DATA D1. HONDURAS – ERCE MATH SCORES BY GROUP 700 678 704 687 660 670 680 690 700 710 3rd grade Math (ERCE) 6th grade Math (ERCE) Average score Children by gender Female Male 697 702 693 686 683 688 705 699 711 680 675 686 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 Both Female Male Both Female Male 3rd grade Math (ERCE) 6th grade Math (ERCE) Average score Type of community Children from rural communities Children from urban communities 669 705 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 Both 6th grade Math (ERCE) Average score Socioeconomic status Children from 1st quintile (Poorest quintile) Children from 5th quintile (Richest quintile) USAID.GOV LAC INCLUSIVE EDUCATION ASSESSMENT | 168 Source: UNESCO ERCE 2019 database. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/es/articles/estudio-regional- comparativo-y-explicativo-erce-2019 and: https://github.com/llece/erce. 678 675 681 700 698 702 660 670 680 690 700 710 Both Female Male 6th grade Math (ERCE) Average score Ethniccommunity Children from indigenous communities Children from non- indigenous communities 690 685 695 640 657 619 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 Both Female Male 6th grade Math (ERCE) Average score Migratory status Non-migrants - The children are natural born citizens Migrants - The children are foreign- born citizens 686 682 691 645 642 647 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 Both Female Male 6th grade Math (ERCE) Average score Language of instruction Children whose first language does align with the official language of instruction in the classroom Children whose first language does not align with the official language of instruction in the classroom