BACKGROUND PAPER FOR FIXING THE BROKEN PROMISE OF EDUCATION FOR ALL

NON-FORMAL EDUCATION AS A MEANS

TO MEET LEARNING NEEDS OF
OUT-OF-SCHOOL CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

By Mari Yasunaga, UNESCO

2 May 2014
This background paper was commissioned by the Report Team, composed of the UNESCO Institute of
Statistics (UIS) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), to inform the global report Fixing the
Broken Promise of Education for All: Findings from the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children. It was
drafted by Mari Yasunaga, under the supervision of Venkata Subbarao Ilapavuluri, Section for Youth,
Literacy and Skills Development within the Division for Policies and Lifelong Learning Systems of the
UNESCO Education Sector.

The paper benefited from invaluable inputs from Rolla Moumne and useful advice from Nicole Bella,
Ichiro Miyazawa, Sobhi Tawil and Barbara Trzmiel of UNESCO. Sheena Bell, Angela Hawke and other
members of the Report Team provided useful guidance.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author; they are not necessarily those of
UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.
 Table of contents

Page

1. Non-formal education in changing educational and development landscapes .................... 4

2. The evolving concept of non-formal education: A concept and a type of

non-formal education treated by this paper ......................................................................... 5

3. System-wide approach to non-formal education: Prerequisite for meeting learning

needs of out-of-school children and adolescents ................................................................ 7

3.1 Better positioning of non-formal education in national education systems and its
governance and management .................................................................................... 7

3.2 Data, information and knowledge bases .................................................................... 9

3.3 Relevance and implementation of legislation and policies ....................................... 11

3.3.1 Normative instruments and legal frameworks ............................................... 11

3.3.2 Education policies and beyond ..................................................................... 13

3.4 Financial resources .................................................................................................. 14

3.5 Capacities of institutions, professionals and practitioners ........................................ 14

3.6 Towards breaking a vicious circle in non-formal education ...................................... 15

4 Targeted non-formal approaches to specific groups of out-of-school children and

adolescents........................................................................................................................ 16

4.1 Targeted non-formal interventions for equitable and quality provision of

learning opportunities ............................................................................................... 16

4.2 Non-formal education for specific target groups of out-of-school children and
adolescents .............................................................................................................. 17

5 Policy recommendations.................................................................................................... 20

References.................................................................................................................................. 22

List of boxes
Box 1. Evolving concept of non-formal education ......................................................................................... 6
Box 2. Definitions of three forms of education by the ISCED 2011 .............................................................. 7
Box 3. Obligations of a State committed to guaranteeing the right to education ........................................ 11
Box 4. BRAC free primary school ............................................................................................................... 16
Box 5. Affordable new and old technology can improve learning for disadvantaged groups ..................... 17
Box 6. Using technologies for rural children and adolescents to overcome a distance barrier in Brazil .... 19
Box 7. Quote from a Roma parent in Romania ........................................................................................... 19
Box 8. Voice from a child, working in a bazaar in Kyrgyzstan .................................................................... 20

- iii -
1. Non-formal education in changing educational and development landscapes

It is increasingly recognised that school alone cannot provide quality basic education for ‘all’.
The global progress made towards Education for All (EFA) since the World Education Forum in
2000 has arguably been significant, particularly with regard to enrolment and gender parity at
primary level. Yet, there were more than 57 million out-of-school children of primary age
worldwide in 20111. At least another 69 million young adolescents were not attending primary
or secondary school, due to the multiple and often inter-connected disadvantages they face,
such as poverty, rural location, gender bias, disability and social discrimination. Moreover, the
current structure of formal education in many countries is in itself excludes specific groups of
children. To uphold the right to education of those who are not enrolled in schools, diverse
forms of provision through different learning pathways are required.

Non-formal education is one such pathway. Characterised by a high degree of flexibility and
openness to change and innovation in its organisation, pedagogy and delivery modes, non-
formal education caters to diverse and context-specific learning needs of children, young people
and adults worldwide. It thereby involves a wide range of stakeholders, including educational
establishments, the private sector, non-governmental organisations and public institutions
(UNICEF/UIS, 2014). Non-formal education has been evolved over past decades and regained
currency in recent years in light of changing educational and developmental landscapes
(Council of Europe, 2003; Rogers, 2004; Hoppers, 2006, 2007b; Rose, 2009; UNESCO
Bangkok, 2012; UNESCO and UNICEF, 2013).

The notion, if not its practice, of non-formal education emerged in the global education
discourse in the late 1960s, out of a recognition that formal education was in a state of disarray
(Coombs, 1968). The concept of lifelong learning put forward by the ‘Faure Report’ (UNESCO,
1972) expanded the understanding of traditional education which until then had been limited to
formal schooling. Since the early 1970s, many typologies of education or learning have
assumed three forms of education, of which non-formal education is one, together with formal
and informal education (Coombs & Ahmed, 1973; European Commission, 2001; UIS, 2012). ‘A
massive outburst of interest’ emerged regarding non-formal education during the 1970s and the
1980s (King, 1982; Rogers, 2004). However, this has significantly diminished since the late
1980s, when the international community increased its focus on schooling as a dominant means
of learning. In parallel, less positive characteristics of non-formal education have been
highlighted. Non-formal education tends to comprise small-scale, short-term programmes with
limited funding, which sometimes limit its impact and sustainability and raise the question of
quality and effectiveness. Non-formal programmes may not always be aligned with broader
national education and development policies, or demands from the world of work, and quite
often they do not induce learners to continue their education formally. Thus, non-formal
education tends to be perceived as somewhat inferior to formal education.

In today’s increasingly inter-connected, globalised, and technologically advanced societies

within which lifelong learning takes place, internationally agreed goals, notably the EFA goals
and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), have provided new contexts for non-formal
education. Non-formal education has become a policy focus of the international community, due
mainly to the following recognition.

1
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), 2013.

-4-
 • Multiple types of non-formal education exist which can be adapted for specific learning
needs of individuals and populations in different conditions. Particularly, in the context of
achieving the EFA goals and the MDGs, non-formal education’s elastic, and context-
specific approaches are appropriate and useful in fulfilling the right to education of the
marginalised and those populations with special learning needs. While schooling
remains an important means for providing basic education, non-formal education can
reach learners who lack access to formal education or cannot complete full cycle of
basic education.

• Along with formal and informal learning, non-formal education constitutes an integral part
of lifelong learning towards which many countries are shifting their policy focuses. This
recognition has been accompanied by national efforts to explore potential roles of non-
formal education in their education systems and the way in which non-formal education
can be related to formal education.

• The innovative nature of non-formal education to develop human capabilities, improve

social cohesion and to create responsible future citizens has increasingly been
recognised. With reforms to improve school curricula taking place across the world, non-
formal education has proven to be effective for critical pedagogy and innovative
approaches, going beyond the two pillars of learning, ‘learning to know’ and ‘learning to
do,’ that used to be the main focus of formal education in the past, to also include the
other two pillars - ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live together’ (Delors, 1996).

• There have emerged heightened individual and societal expectations of the positive
impact of non-formal education on economic productivity. Providing learning
opportunities for those who partially or completely missed formal basic education could
potentially lead to higher social productivity and thus greater economic growth.

It is in this context that this paper intends to explore the potential of non-formal education to
meet learning needs of out-of-school children and adolescents, based on country and regional
reports produced by the UNICEF-UIS Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children (UNICEF and
UIS, 2010) and other existing literature2.

2. The evolving concept of non-formal education: A concept and a type of non-formal

education treated by this paper

Understanding what constitutes non-formal education is an important first step for managing
policies and programmes as well as national education systems. Currently, there is no single
universally accepted definition of non-formal education (Hoppers, 2006; Rogers, 2004; Romi
and Schmida, 2009). Instead, many existing definitions simply contrast it with formal education,
adopting the tripartite categorisation of education – formal, non-formal and informal education –
as devised in 1973 (Coombs and Ahmed) 3 . This categorisation is still widely used for the
purposes of planning, administration, financing, monitoring and evaluation.

2
At the time of preparing this paper, the following UNICEF and UIS country and regional reports
(2011a; 2011b; 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2012d; 2012e;2013a; 2013b; 2014) prepared based on the
conceptual and methodological framework (2011a) were available.
3
“Non-formal education is any organised, systematic, educational activity carried out outside the
framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular subgroups in the
population, adults as well as children” (Coombs, P.H.; Ahmed, M, 1973).

-5-
 Box 1. Evolving concept of non-formal education
While the notion of non-formal education based on the 1973 definition by Coombs and Ahmed is still
influential in practice, experts and educationalists have conceptualised non-formal education,
reflecting changing educational landscapes and understandings of ‘learning’. Some have moved away
from the simple counter-positioning of non-formal and formal education, by which non-formal
education tends to be treated as inferior to the latter (Robinson-Pant, 2014). Others claim that
boundaries between formal and non-formal education are blurred (Farrell & Hartwell, 2008). Another
view point among those who focus on ‘situated learning’4 holds that the tripartite categorisation of
education should be abandoned, conceiving ‘formality’ and ‘informality’ as attributes present in all
circumstances of learning (Colley, Hodkinson, and Malcolm, 2003). There are also those who
recognise the breadth and richness of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values acquired outside school,
and argue for a perception of learning as a continuum of informal, self-directed, non- formal, and
formal learning. (Rogers, 2004).
Moreover, the terminology complicates the matter further. To express ‘non-formal education’ or ‘a form
of it’, different terms are used, such as ‘flexible learning’, ‘alternative learning’, ‘complementary
learning’, ‘supplementary education’, ‘second chance education’ and ‘extracurricular activities’. Due to
the concept’s vagueness, some even advocate using descriptions of each framework, rather than
attempting to arrive at a common definition (Bhola, 1983).

While registering debates about the evolving concept, this paper will adopt a recent definition of
non-formal education as indicated in the box below. This definition is contained in the 2011
International Standard Classification of Education (UIS, 2012) developed to facilitate
comparisons of educational statistics and indicators across countries. The 2011 ISCED
definition is similar to the EU definition (European Commission, 2001) which is also in frequent
use.

It is important to note diverse forms of non-formal education as shown by a number of

typologies (Brennan, 1997; Hallak, 1990; Hoppers, 2006; Rogers, 2004). Broadly, these fall into
the following types, some of which could be combined: 1) remedial and supplemental non-
formal education to satisfy unfulfilled provision by formal education, targeting school dropouts,
out-of-school children and young people and adults who have missed schooling; 2) non-formal
education which includes vocational training and a skills development component;
3) experimental and innovative non-formal education, some of which involves greater
independence from governments, to respond to emerging learning needs as societies evolve
(e.g. education for sustainable development, education for peace and democracy, citizenship
education). Innovations in curricula and pedagogies generated through this type of non-formal
education can be adapted to teaching and learning in formal education. It can also challenge
traditional concepts of education (Romi and Schmida, 2009); and 4) others types of non-formal
education, including indigenous and traditional education (Brennan, 2006), religious education,
and education programmes for personal development organised by cultural institutions.

The following section will focus mainly on the first category of non-formal education – remedial
or supplemental – which has gained particular attention worldwide due to increasing concern
about the unmet leaning needs of out-of-school children and adolescents.

4
Situated learning: The notion advanced by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991) regards learning as
a social process whereby knowledge is co-constructed. Learning is not the transmission of abstruct
and decontextualised knowledge and should be situated in a specific context and embedded within a
particular social and physical environment.

-6-
 Box 2. Definitions of three forms of education by the ISCED 2011
Non-formal education. Education that is institutionalised, intentional and planned by an education
provider. The defining characteristic of non-formal education is that it is an addition, alternative and/or
complement to formal education within the process of the lifelong learning of individuals. It is often
provided to guarantee the right of access to education for all. It caters to people of all ages but does
not necessarily apply a continuous pathway-structure; it may be short in duration and/or low-intensity,
and it is typically provided in the form of short courses, workshops or seminars. Non-formal education
mostly leads to qualifications that are not recognised as formal or equivalent to formal qualifications by
the relevant national or sub-national education authorities or to no qualifications at all. Non-formal
education can cover programmes contributing to adult and youth literacy and education for out-of
school children, as well as programmes on life skills, work skills, and social or cultural development.
Formal education: Education that is institutionalised, intentional and planned through public
organizations and recognised private bodies and – in their totality – constitutes the formal education
system of a country. Formal education programmes are thus recognised as such by the relevant
national education authorities or equivalent authorities, e.g. any other institution in cooperation with
the national or sub-national education authorities. Formal education consists mostly of initial
education. Vocational education, special needs education and some parts of adult education are often
recognised as being part of the formal education system.
Informal learning: Forms of learning that are intentional or deliberate but are not institutionalised. It is
consequently less organized and structured than either formal or non-formal education. Informal
learning may include learning activities that occur in the family, workplace, local community and daily
life, on a self-directed, family-directed or socially-directed basis.
Source: UIS, 2012

3. System-wide approach to non-formal education: Prerequisite for meeting learning

needs of out-of-school children and adolescents

Effective provision of non-formal education for out-of-school children and adolescents requires a
combination of both system-wide and targeted approaches.

A system-wide approach to non-formal education, linked with broader development frameworks,

is an essential condition for sustainable, quality non-formal provision for out-of-school children
and adolescents. Key areas covered by this approach, some of which will be discussed in detail
below, include: 1) positioning of non-formal education within national education systems in
terms of education governance, management and coordination; 2) data and knowledge bases of
non-formal education; 3) relevance and implementation of related legislation and policies;
4) financial resources; and 5) capacities of institutions, professionals and practitioners.

3.1 Better positioning of non-formal education in national education systems and its
governance and management

Better positioning of non-formal education within national education systems, governance and
management structure is crucial, in particular in the following respects: 1) bridging non-formal
education and formal education within the education system; 2) promoting inter-sectoral
cooperation; 3) strengthening collaboration among different levels of the education systems –
central government, decentralised authorities, school and communities and 4) ensuring
adequate provision in fragile states.

-7-
Firstly, it is increasingly becoming an area of policy focus to establish an integrated education
system, underpinned by a comprehensive approach to learning, encompassing formal non-
formal and informal education (ADEA, 2012; Morpeth and Creed, 2012; UNICEF, 1993;
UNICEF and UIS, 2014). Being out of school is not a synonym for ‘no learning’. Out-of-school
children and young people may be involved in non-formal education provided by state and non-
state actors in or outside the education sector (e.g. health programmes, skills training,
agricultural extensions) and may acquire knowledge and skills from parents and peers through
informal learning. Frequently, however, learning outcomes of non-formal and informal education
are not recognized in a way which allows learners to transit into formal school or technical and
vocational institutions. Such lack of recognition can also limit learners’ career prospects in the
world of work. In certain locations therefore, efforts have been made towards more integrated
education systems by ensuring equivalence of learning outcomes and developing frameworks
for transferable credit. The National Institute for Open Schooling, in India, BRAC Primary School
in Bangladesh and Escuela Nueva in Colombia are a few examples (Farrell & Hartwell, 2008).
Equivalency programmes have been developed elsewhere such as Afghanistan, Burkina Faso,
Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Namibia, Mali, the Philippines, Thailand Uganda
and Zambia (ADEA, 2012; Hoppers, 2007a, 2007b; UNESCO Bangkok, 2006, 2011, 2012;
USAID, 2006, 2007) to bridge formal and non-formal education by linking learning content and
developing frameworks to recognise learning outcomes of prior learning.

Secondly, non-formal education draws its strength from inter-sectoral cooperation supported by
appropriate national systems, governance structure and management. (UNICEF and UIS, 2014).
A rural out-of-school girl, for instance, may require curricular and corresponding learning
materials which address her specific learning needs and indigenous knowledge, better aligned
to her life context. This may require a more nuanced, individualised approach with a multi-
sectoral perspective as oppose to the national-standardised approach. At the same time, her
family may need social protection through, for instance, cash transfers. Education systems
alone cannot remove barriers obstructing many children from meaningful learning. In reality,
non-formal education does involve several sectors in countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil,
Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia and Thailand. Effective linkages and coordination among these
sectors, however, remains a challenge. In Senegal, for instance, no fewer than four ministries
coordinated their own non-formal literacy programmes without any oversight by the ministry in
charge of the sector (ADEA, 2012).

Thirdly, system enhancement and governance reforms are areas deserving of particular
attention. Some countries have enhanced decentralised national education systems and
improved coordination among different levels of these systems. To better reflect local needs in
policies and interventions, many countries have decentralised education systems by transferring
decision-making powers, resources, planning and monitoring functions from the ministries of
education to sub-regional and local governments, communities and schools. In addition, special
departments for non-formal education were also created at the national level, although not all of
them are sufficiently resourced. In Asia and the Pacific region, many countries lack special
unites for non-formal education at provincial or district levels, with some exceptions such as
Thailand. This presents a challenge, particularly when numerous small-scale activities are
implemented at community and local levels. In Ethiopia, for instance, 85 programmes of 35
NGOs were concentrated in less difficult areas with no coordination (Rose, 2009). Enhanced
decentralised non-formal education systems, therefore, are required not only to ensure better
coordination of these community-level activities but also to link those activities with the
decentralised education systems for improved coherence in policies and practices.

-8-
Lastly, special attention is required concerning non-formal education in unstable and fragile
education systems which often exist in countries with political turmoil, and/or natural and man-
made disasters. While globally the number of out-of-school children decreased by 3 million
between 2008 and 2011, the share of out-of-school children of primary school age in conflict-
affected countries increased from 42% to 50% (UNESCO, 2014). Under these circumstances,
system-wide approaches are needed to ensure effective and coordinated intervention of diverse
providers through preparation of a national plan of action at the early reconstruction phase as
well as a framework for non-formal education according to the phase of emergency (UNESCO-
IIEP, 2006).
3.2 Data, information and knowledge bases
Accurate and adequate data, information and knowledge of non-formal education are
indispensable for managing a cycle of policies and programmes (e.g. identification of key issues,
policy and programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) and demonstrating
potential socio-economic impacts of non-formal provision. Monitoring of non-formal education,
however, is a complex task due to diverging understandings of its meaning and its
heterogeneous nature, as well as, its diverse modes of delivery, wide-ranging stakeholders
involved and limited financing. Despite recent global developments, data and knowledge
regarding non-formal education remain relatively weak.
On the international level, there is no comparable data for non-formal education which is
collected in a systematic manner (e.g. mappings, surveys, censuses). While recognising non-
formal education, the 2011 ISCED (UIS, 2012) states clearly that it ‘does not give specific
advice on the development of mappings for non-formal programmes or any related non-formal
educational qualifications’. However, it advances some ideas for improving international
statistics, including further development of the concept of non-formal education and the
establishment of criteria of content equivalency for the classification of non-formal education
programmes and qualification frameworks to facilitate a classification of non-formal programmes
by level.
A positive country-level development is national Education Management Information Systems
(EMIS), which have been enhanced in recent years in nearly all developing countries. The need
for data and information relating to non-formal education is increasingly recognised. As a result,
most ministries of education in South Asia, for instance, include non-formal education
departments which manage related programmes, including data collection. While several
countries have developed Non-Formal Education Management Information Systems (NFE-MIS)
in the last decade, an increasing effort has been directed towards developing more
comprehensive EMIS which integrates both formal and non-formal education in a number of
countries, such as Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania.
Regarding collection of data on non-formal provision and demands, the lack of a single data
source usually derives from the limitation of administrative data which does not always cover
non-formal programmes, private and religious education. Survey data are useful but they are
not always linked with education systems (UIS and UNICEF, 2011a) and may omit some
population groups (Carr-Hill, 2012). A mix of the main data collection methods for non-formal
education described by Carron and Hill (1991) is still in use today: the directories which are
usually under the authority of or in cooperation with the Ministry of Education; statistical reports;
sector assessments which identify needs for non-formal programmes; national and international

-9-
household surveys to collect information from participants in non-formal programmes 5 ; and
research (e.g. costs, dropout, tracer studies or assessments). The availability and quality of data
on non-formal education, however, are uneven across counties, and methodological challenges
remain.

In addition, little systematic monitoring has been conducted regarding learning outcomes and
impacts of non-formal provision for out-of-school children and young people. Increasing the
visibility of learning outcomes, however, is becoming a policy focus in some locations, not least
in European countries where the creation of active citizens who are employable and productive
ranks high on policy agendas in the context of lifelong learning (Bjornavold, 2000; Werquin,
2012). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Programme
for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), for example, assesses
literacy and numeracy skills as well as problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments of
populations between 16 and 65 years of age (OECD, 2013). Efforts have also been made in a
number of countries such as Australia to establish assessments and recognition frameworks in
the context of equivalency programmes. With their relatively high flexibility and adaptability,
small-scale assessments have the potential to improve the understanding of knowledge and
skill levels acquired through non-formal learning. Such small-scale assessments include the
Early Grade Reading Assessment employed in nearly 50 countries6, ‘Uwezo’ in Kenya, Uganda
and Tanzania7, and assessments included in a sample-based household survey distributed by
Pratham, an Indian NGO 8 . The OECD is also planning to expand the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) into low- and middle-income countries (OECD, ‘PISA
for Development’), which includes assessments of out-of-school 15 year-olds to understand
their socio-economic background, schooling history and current situation in addition to their
cognitive performance (Bloem, 2013).

With regard to knowledge of non-formal education, there also exists a gap, between the
theoretical knowledge base and an abundance of practical experiences in non-formal education
(Romi and Schmida, 2009). The recent renewed focus on non-formal education for out-of-
school children and young people, however, has had a positive impact on the information and
knowledge base. The UNICEF and UIS Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children (OOSCI) is
filling the statistical information and analysis gap, making available detailed profiles of out-of-
school children 9 . Other efforts in narrowing the knowledge gap include: the UIS report on
Children Out of School (2005); the annual monitoring by the EFA Global Monitoring Reports10
and the work of the Working Group on Non-Formal Education of the Association for the
Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) 11 , UNESCO Bangkok 12 , Educate a Child 13 ,

5
Catalogues of the major surveys (e.g. International surveys include Demographic and Health Suevey,
Muitiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, and Living Standards Measurement Studies Statistical Information
and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour) are available at the International Household Survey
Network (IHSN) and the Understanding Children’s Work (UCW) survey database.
6
EGRA: https://www.eddataglobal.org/documents/index.cfm/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdir&ruid=1&statusID=3
(USAID); http://www.rti.org/page.cfm/Teaching_and_Learning (RTI International)
7
UWEZO: http://www.uwezo.net/
8
Pratham: http://www.pratham.org/M-19-3-ASER.aspx
9
UNICEF and UIS Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/out-of-school-children.aspx
10
EFA Global Monitoring Reports: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-
international-agenda/efareport/reports/
11
ADEA Working Group on Non-Formal Education: http://www.adeanet.org/adeaPortal/adea/workgroups/en_wgnf.html
12
UNESCO Bangkok (2002, 2013a, 2013b)
13
Educate a Child: http://www.educateachild.org.qa/papers-publications

- 10 -
UNICEF14, the UNICEF and World Bank project on ‘Simulations for Equity in Education’15, and
the Center for Educational Innovations Initiative of the Results for Development (E4D)16.
3.3 Relevance and implementation of legislation and policies
Appropriate legal and policy frameworks related to non-formal education are an integral
dimension of the provision of meaningful support to out-of-school children and adolescents.
3.3.1 Normative instruments and legal frameworks
While international normative instruments or frameworks such as the Dakar Framework for
Action (UNESCO, 2000) enshrine the right to education with a significant focus on schooling,
the role of non-formal education has also been recognised. The Committee established to
monitor the UN Convention on the Right of the Child (1989) interprets this right as related to
both formal and non-formal education 17 (McCowan, 2013), as does the Committee for the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in its Article 1318.
Other frameworks such as EFA Regional Frameworks for Action developed in 2000 to
implement the aforementioned Dakar Framework for Action include explicit reference to non-
formal education.

Box 3. Obligations of a State committed to guaranteeing the right to education

• The obligation to ‘respect’: to avoid measures that hinder or prevent the enjoyment of the right
to education.
• The obligation to ‘protect’: to take measures that prevent third parties from interfering with the
enjoyment of the right to education (usually through regulation and legal guarantees)
• The obligation to ‘fulfil (to facilitate and provide)’: to take positive measures that enable and
assist individuals and communities to enjoy the right to education and to provide appropriate
measures towards the full realisation of the right to education
Source: UN, 1999 and UNESCO webpage19

14
Some examples are ‘Innovations in education’: http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_73537.html
15
http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_SEE.html and the ‘Let us Learn Initiative’:
http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_70396.html
16
Center for Educational Innovations Initiative: http://www.educationinnovations.org/
17
UN Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) Article 29(1)
(http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx). General Comment by the Committee
on the rights of the child: ‘Article 29 (1) not only adds to the right to education recognized in article 28
a qualitative dimension which reflects the rights and inherent dignity of the child; it also insists upon
the need for education to be child-centred, child-friendly and empowering, and it highlights the need
for educational processes to be based upon the very principles it enunciates. The education to which
every child has a right is one designed to provide the child with life skills, to strengthen the child’s
capacity to enjoy the full range of human rights and to promote a culture which is infused by
appropriate human rights values. The goal is to empower the child by developing his or her skills,
learning and other capacities, human dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence. “Education” in this
context goes far beyond formal schooling to embrace the broad range of life experiences and learning
processes which enable children, individually and collectively, to develop their personalities, talents
and abilities and to live a full and satisfying life within society.
18
ICESCR, Article 13(1). General observation by the Committee: ‘States parties agree that all education,
whether public or private, formal or non formal, shall be directed towards the aims and objectives
identified in article 13. The Committee notes that these educational objectives reflect the fundamental
purposes and principles of the United Nations as enshrined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter’.
19
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/right-to-
education/normative-action/state-obligations/

- 11 -
A number of countries, such as Honduras, Nepal, Indonesia and Thailand, have developed legal
frameworks to consolidate the provision of non-formal education. These frameworks help out-of-
school children and adolescents access meaningful learning opportunities20. In Mongolia, the
amendment of Education Law in 2006 brought about a major policy shift towards integrating
non-formal education into the broader national education system and securing a part of the
education budget for non-formal education. In Indonesia, a presidential decree set a minimum
3% of the annual education budget for community learning centres, where non-formal education
is provided for young people. (UIL, 2014) In Burkina Faso, the Education Outline Act of 1996
contributed to raising the profile of non-formal education and brought about closer cooperation
between the formal and non-formal education sectors (Hoppers, 2007b). More efforts are
required, however, for further enhancement of national legal frameworks and full implementation
of legislation, particularly at local and grassroots levels.

States, committed to guaranteeing the right to education, have three major obligations as
indicated in the box above. Instituting appropriate legal frameworks is part of their obligation to
‘fulfill’ this right, as are other activities such as facilitating culturally appropriate and gender-
sensitive non-formal programmes to rural indigenous girls. States’ obligation to ‘respect’ the
right to education can be fulfilled, for instance by respecting the freedom of parents to choose a
type of non-formal programme for their children. This obligation could also address the question
of a balance between, on the one hand, innovation in non-formal provision based on the
autonomy of providers and governments’ control, on the other.

An example of the obligation to ‘protect’ can be seen in light of growing non-formal provision by
non-state actors, such as communities, NGOs, the private sector and donors. Many of these
non-state provisions are at the grass-root level often on a small scale, and not all of the
activities are coordinated and monitored systematically. As the number of non-state providers
increases and their activities diversify, parts of non-formal education have been commercialised
in places as reflected by the creation of ‘ISO 29990:2010 - Learning services for non-formal
education and training: Basic requirements for service providers’ in 2010 by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)21 (Maruyama and Ohta, 2013). To ensure the quality of and
equity in the growing non-state actors’ provision, the state is expected to play a stronger role in
its obligation to ‘protect’ the right, for instance, by improving coordination of non-formal provision
and enhancing regulations, guided by a shared vision of education, policies and strategies for
education and development. (UNESCO-IIEP, 2011) In Burkina Faso, the public-private
partnerships (‘faire-faire strategy’ – 1999) were introduced to the non-formal education
governance and management through the creation of a common fund to mobilise resources for
disadvantaged groups (FONAEFE) (Hoppers, 2007).

20
Honduras’s Law on the Development of Non-Formal Alternative Education (1999)
(http://www.unesco.org/education/edurights/media/docs/de25c375950386e49423e94a63d04932acb6b
2c1.pdf); Nepal’s Education Rules 2059 (2002)
(http://www.unesco.org/education/edurights/media/docs/9d45ce9e6a48b088fa23c1fc17e1fb5ece0c12
21.pdf); Indonesia’s Law on National Education System (2003)
(http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/worldtvetdatabase1.php?ct=IDN&ct2=&ct3=&disp=2); and Thailand’s
Non-formal and Informal Education Promotion Act B.E.2551 (2008)
(http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/INSTITUTES/UIL/confintea/pdf/National_Reports/Asia
%20-%20Pacific/Thailand.pdf).
21
Founded in 1947, ISO is a developer of voluntary International Standards for products and services
and has published more than 19 500 International Standards. (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm)
See the webpage on ISO 29990:2010 at:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref1384

- 12 -
3.3.2 Education policies and beyond

National policies addressing non-formal education, in alignment with broader education and
development policies, are conducive to effective non-formal provision. Such policies define the
position and role of non-formal education within the national education systems. They may also
indicate objectives and measures in realising a vision in specific areas of non-formal education
such as curriculum, teaching and learning material, modes of delivery, teachers and teaching
professionals, language of teaching and learningand issues related to the learning environment.
However, many national education sector plans, including those funded by the Global
Partnership for Education, often do not include or prioritise non-formal education. Despite some
positive policy efforts, the perception of non-formal education as ‘second-class’ still persists,
encouraging separation of non-formal programmes from formal education in national policies
and sector-wide approaches.

Regarding the direction of national policies, there has been a gradual shift towards greater
integration of formal and non-formal education through equivalency of learning content and
development of qualification frameworks (UNICEF and UIS, 2014). In South Asia, where
indigenous NGO have provided non-formal education for many years, governments are joining
these efforts. In India, the government’s long-standing support for non-formal education
expressed in its national plan has set a trend towards a more integrated approach to formal and
non-formal education (Rose, 2009). In Bangladesh, where NGO provision has been prominent,
the government has brought about a major policy shift. Building on the 2006 non-formal
education policy, the government developed the ‘Non-formal policy implementation: Strategic
Action’ in 2010 as well as the national frameworks for its implementation, encompassing
equivalence education, effective non-formal education delivery, standard and capacity
development for non-formal education facilitators, and enhancement of the legal framework
through a non-formal education act and monitoring. Nepal has formulated a non-formal
education policy outlining objectives to provide alternative basic and vocational education to
school dropouts (UNESCO, 2012a). In sub-Saharan Africa, a similar policy shift can be
observed. In Ghana, the Complementary Basic Education Policy was developed in 2008 to build
on positive experiences of the flexible school model which targeted out-of-school children aged
8-14 (UNICEF and UIS, 2012a).

As a component of policies promoting integrated approaches to non-formal provision, many

countries developed some form of policy framework to recognise, validate and accredit (RVA)
non-formal and informal learning (UIL, 2012; 2013a, 2013b). This is particularly true of the area
of higher education and technical and vocational education. Concurrent with policy shift for
integrated education systems, development of national frameworks for recognising prior
learning in basic education has attracted far greater attention.

Another policy dimension is inter-sectoral cooperation. For instance, policies to promote an

integrated approach to rural transformation combining the education, health, labour, agriculture,
water and environment sectors can enhance not only non-formal learning of out-of-school
children and adolescents but also livelihoods of community members. Policies to enrich literate
environments, which include production of reading materials on different topics, library
construction, and the promotion of ICTs for learning, also help out-of-school children and
adolescents acquire, sustain and develop knowledge and skills.

- 13 -
3.4 Financial resources

Despite the increasing efforts of governments and non-state providers, the current investment in
non-formal provision is far from sufficient and equitable to accommodate all eligible children.

In many developing countries, provision of public funds to non-formal education programmes is

extremely limited (UNESCO, 2008), especially when the education budget itself is not sufficient.
In Ghana, for instance, a mere 2.7% of primary school allocation, or 1.1% of the total education
budget for 2003 was allocated to non-formal education designed to support out-of-school youth
and adults (Rose, 2009). As indicated by the UNICEF and UIS South Asia Regional Study
(2014), the per-child investment is lower compared to that in formal education. This is a source
of concern when estimated unit costs to reach the ‘last 10 per cent’ of out-of-school children are
even higher (UNICEF and UIS, 2010). If education sector budgets continue to assume equal
unit costs for all children, additional expenses required to offset the multiple disadvantages of
out-of-school children, including forms of social exclusion, can never be sufficiently secured.
Inequitable distribution of funds within a country is another persistent challenge, often resulting
in the disadvantaged out-of-school children and adolescents receiving a lower-quality education.

Nevertheless, some positive steps have been taken by governments to ensure sustained and
equitable provision to mitigate supply-side financial barriers. In Malawi, the current National
Education Sector Plan aims to ensure that, by 2017, at least 2% of the education budget will be
devoted to second-chance education and training of out-of-school youth by 2017 (Engel, 2012
in UNESCO, 2012a). In Bangladesh, the Primary Education Development Program (PEDP III,
2011-2015) recognises non-formal education and second-chance education with mandated
provision of resources for NFE programmes (UNICEF and UIS, 2014). Although earmarked for
formal school, Sri Lanka’s introduction of an equity-based decentralised funding mechanism to
invest more in under-performing schools in its provinces marks a positive move in terms of
equity (UNICEF and UIS, 2014). To address demand-side financial barriers, a number of
governments have also taken social protection measures, such as poverty alleviation
programmes in South Asian countries (UNICEF and UIS, 2014), to ensure out-of-school
children can gain access to non-formal education.

Non-state providers are also playing a significant role in narrowing the financial gap in Africa
and in South Asia, as well as Latin American where non-state provision has a long history
(Burnett, 2014). The example of countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria and India, demonstrate the
rapid expansion of low fee private primary schooling where public schools fail to meet parents’
demands both quantitatively and qualitatively (Tooley and Dixon, 2006). These schools serve
poor households and providing a pragmatic solution for deprived individuals, although concern
remains that their overall costs tend to be higher than those of public schools (UNESCO, 2012a)
and not affordable for many parents, many of whom would opt for well-functioning government
schools, if such schools existed (Harma, 2009).

3.5 Capacities of institutions, professionals and practitioners

Institutional, organisational and individual capacities are essential for consistent and effective
management of policies and programmes for non-formal education for out-of-school children
and adolescents. As capacity development requires internal ownership and a shared vision, the
widespread understanding of policy-makers and professionals regarding non-formal education
as ‘second-class’ education is a major obstacle to effective adoption and application of non-
formal approaches (UNICEF, 1993). Perceptions and communities’ awareness levels can also

- 14 -
form impediments. Examples of community mobilisation campaigns in Bangladesh and Pakistan
represent effective measures to remove socio-cultural barriers relating to gender roles and
tolerance of child labour (UNICEF and UIS, 2014). The global campaign ‘Emergency Coalition
for Global Education Action’, established by the UN Special Envoy for Global Education in early
2014 to send 57 million children to school, could help kindle support for national efforts and to
raise awareness levels of policy-makers and practitioners22.

As part of an integrated education system, the strengthening of the capacities of ministry units
attending to non-formal education is crucial, but often not sufficient. In Ghana, the
decentralisation policy has not been in full operation owing largely to limited capacities at the
district level, an issue that has been highlighted in the UNICEF and UIS country study (2012a).
Equally, the organisational capacities of non-state non-formal education providers such as
NGOs are not always well developed.

While quality teachers and facilitators contribute pivotally to effective learning, non-formal
educators tend to be under-valued in many national education systems. This reality affects
teachers’ quality, motivation and performance. Out of 40 national education plans examined,
only 11 plans included training in non-formal education (UNESCO, 2014)23. Evidence from rural
Rajasthan in India shows that the absenteeism rate of teachers in 120 NGO-run non-formal
education centres was as high as 44% in 2003, although daily monitoring had reduced the rate
to 21% in 2006 (UNESCO, 2014). To narrow the teacher gap, efforts have been made by
governments and partners, in particular by NGOs, which play a major role in providing teacher
training and other teacher-related services. In Uganda, the government supports NGO providers
to expand primary education for disadvantaged rural and urban areas, through teacher training
and development of a costing plan to fund teachers’ salaries through the government payroll. In
Malawi, a national plan which aims to reach 90% of out-of-school youth by 2017 includes a goal
of more than tripling the number of facilitators offering second chance education, from 700 to
2,380. (UNESCO, 2012a) In 2010, Mongolia developed and piloted non-formal education pre-
service training for teachers, which includes multi-grade teaching. Thailand provides a
supplementary e-training programme for NFE teachers with six components, including action
research, English and mathematics (UNESCO and UNICEF, 2011). Greater efforts, however,
are required if the number of qualified teachers is to be increased and if their capacities, status,
working conditions and prospects for professional development are to be improved.

3.6 Towards breaking a vicious circle in non-formal education

Overall, the above-mentioned issues and challenges related to systemic approaches to non-
formal education are interrelated, often creating a vicious circle: inadequate understanding of
the potential of non-formal education, including a bias towards non-formal education as
secondary to formal education; a low priority given to non-formal education in national education
systems; insufficient support and limited resources for non-formal education, which
consequently affect quality and impact of non-formal provision. This vicious circle in non-formal
education must be broken, if effects and impacts of non-formal provision are to be optimised for
out-of-school children and adolescents.
22
http://educationenvoy.org/the-emergency-coalition-for-global-education/#sthash.B1sr7noT.dpuf
23
The 40 countries examined are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Cambodia, Ecuador, Egypt,
Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Nepal, Nigeria, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan
(pre-secession), Swaziland, the United Republic of Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Uganda, the United Arab
Emirates, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The references for the plans can be found in Hunt (2013).

- 15 -
4 Targeted non-formal approaches to specific groups of out-of-school children and
adolescents

4.1 Targeted non-formal interventions for equitable and quality provision of learning
opportunities

Inherently targeted non-formal interventions, underpinned by flexibility, diversity, context-

specificity and openness, are forceful in accommodating specific learning needs of
heterogeneous learners with diverse backgrounds. For many children and young people who
experience educational exclusion, non-formal education is an important means to acquiring
knowledge, skills, values and attitudes required for further learning, better well-being and
improved livelihoods. Every out-of-school child and adolescent is unique, affected by
interrelated factors of exclusion, such as poverty, geographical location, social status and
gender bias, and their profiles changes over time as those factors evolves, together with other
conditions such as age, family situation and related national policies. Hence, non-formal
education can target particular population groups facing educational marginalisation as well as
specific geographical locations in which educational challenges persist.

Major advantages of targeted non-formal interventions include a greater ability to reach under-
served children and the potential to amend inequalities in education. Several UNICEF and UIS
OOSCI studies highlight the limited availability of schools and inconvenient school timetables as
barriers for accessing and completing schooling. Non-formal education enables more flexible
modes of delivery and learning, such as multi-grade schools in which one teacher instructs
students of different ages, grades, and abilities at the same time, boarding schools, mobile
schools for nomadic pastoralist children, and distance education, using open learning principles
and ICTs. In Kenya, Turkana Education for All (TEFA), in collaboration with UNICEF and the
government, provides education for children of marginalised and nomadic pastoralist
communities with low-cost mobile schools.

Box 4. BRAC free primary school

Initiated in 1985 in Bangladesh, BRAC (formerly known as Bangladesh Rural Advancement
Committee) free primary schools have responded to a perceived need for quality, non-formal
education for disadvantaged and out-of-school children in Bangladesh, particularly girls. The BRAC
primary school program began with 22 one-room schools providing three years of schooling up until
Grade III, after which students were transferred to state schools. With the success of the programme,
it was expanded in 2000-2001 to cover the entire five-year primary school curriculum, through a four-
year, catch-up program. Currently, over 22,000 BRAC primary schools are operating throughout the
world.
BRAC primary schools adapt a leaner-centered approach to teaching and learning. Its curriculum
emphasises not only core subjects, but also confidence-building, team-work skills, gender rights,
nutrition and hygiene. Teachers are recruited from the local community, all of whom are female, and
receive an initial 12-day training course from BRAC and in-service monthly trainings. School timings
and class schedules are flexible for children to be at home to help with chores or harvesting. BRAC
primary schools also cater to students with special needs, providing learning materials in minority
languages for ethnic minority students for the first couple of years, and providing surgeries and
medical devices free of charge to students with medical disabilities.
BRAC students are now able to sit for the government Shomaponi Examination that occurs at the end
of primary school. Examination results have shown that BRAC students can be competitive with, if not
higher performing than, government school students.
Source: Nath, 2002 and the Centre for Education Innovations, 2014

- 16 -
 Box 5. Affordable new and old technology can improve learning for disadvantaged groups
The prevalence of ICT in some parts of the world does not mean that this is the cheapest or even most
effective type of technology for educational purposes. In the developing world, the radio – so-called
old technology – has a powerful reach, particularly in rural areas or sparsely populated regions.
Radios are everywhere, with at least 75% of households in developing countries having access to a
radio. An example is South Sudan Interactive Radio Instruction. It offers daily half-hour lessons in
English, local language, mathematics and life skills. More generally, such programmes have improved
student learning by 10% to 20% over control groups that did not use interactive radio instruction. This
type of instruction is also extremely cost effective. In one project in Honduras, such instruction cost
US$2.94 per student in the first year and US$1.01 per year thereafter.
Tablet computers and e-readers, although currently expensive, are expected to fall in price, allowing
for their use in expanding access to information resources for all learners. In India, with government
subsidies, such devices could be provided to students for as little as US$10. Multimedia educational
resources, such as videos, are also being used to enhance the learning experience and reach
students in remote areas. The Khan Academy, for example, produces short educational videos that
serve as self-learning tools. There have been over 60 million downloads of its videos to supplement
teaching in many classrooms in developing countries. Policy-makers seldom adequately address how
new technology will affect the inclusion of marginalized youth. Cost is a key factor. But some forms of
technology can be affordable, and could be used to provide a wide range of information resources for
disadvantaged learners.
Source: Winthrop and Smith, 2012 in UNESCO, 2012a

While the quality of many non-formal programmes itself remains an issue, their flexible and
context-specific nature, when proper support is given, can tangibly enhance the quality of
learning. The adoption of the mother tongue as the language of teaching and learning,
connection of learning content to learners’ daily life, and provision of training to local teachers
and facilitators, are a few examples of the elements of flexible non-formal provision of good
quality.

4.2 Non-formal education for specific target groups of out-of-school children and
adolescents

The following is a brief illustration of non-formal education targeted at specific groups of out-of-
school children and adolescents, highlighted by UNICEF and UIS OOSCI country and regional
studies for improved policies and interventions. It is acknowledged that there are other excluded
groups or populations, such as HIV&AIDS infected children, stateless children and parents who
missed schooling and require targeted non-formal interventions.

Girls

Many interrelated factors prevent girls from entering or staying in school such as early marriage,
pregnancy, poor households or cultural bias. Non-formal education offers them a chance to
continue education and reintegrate into formal education. In Gambia, the Re-Entry Programmes
for Girls, initiated by the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education, targets girls who have
dropped out of school due to social, financial or other reasons. Initiated in 2002, this programme
employs a multi-pronged approach, including tertiary education, with each participant receiving
extensive guidance and counseling services, such as personal, social and vocational assistance
(UNESCO, 2012b). In India, a project known as ‘Pehchan’, developed in 2002 by the Centre for
Unfolding Learning Potentials (CULP) in collaboration with the government and UNICEF, offers

- 17 -
2-3-year courses at primary level to rural out-of-school adolescent girls for their reintegration
into the formal school system. Spaces are provided by local communities, and courses are
taught by female teachers who completed twelve grades of schooling and trained for 40 days
(Centre for Education Innovation, 2014). An initiative ‘HOPE for Teenage Mothers’ in
Kenyaprovides teen mothers with access to economic and educational opportunities through
formal education, vocational training and skills building (Centre for Education Innovation, 2014).

Children suffering from man-made and/or natural disasters and conflicts

Millions of out-of-school children and adolescents impacted by natural and man-made disasters,
conflicts and food crises are in need of learning. A programme of BRAC (formerly known as
Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) in Bangladesh is an example of a targeted
approach, enabling children to access learning through floating schools when a combination of
floods and poverty make normal schooling almost impossible. In this programme, boats serve a
dual purpose: buses for transportation and classrooms for learning24. Indonesia’s equivalency
programme includes ‘Disaster Service Mobile Class’ to serve learners in areas affected by
disasters. Equipped with tents, wheelchairs, chairs or mats to sit on, books, white boards,
radios, tape recorders and TVs, this service offers, in addition to regular Package programmes,
psychological counselling and skills-training for learners (UNESCO and UNICEF, 2011).

Children in rural areas

Large majorities of the world’s out-of-school children and adolescents reside in rural areas
where a series of socio-economic barriers are persistent. Beyond the question of limited access
to formal schools, rural children tend to encounter the quality challenges as a result of
inequitable distribution of resources within their countries. Non-formal education is a response
to the access and quality challenges faced by children and adolescents in rural areas. Its
flexible mode of delivery and provision, such as multi-grade classes, and flexible schedule,
enables them to study while supporting their families at home. Specific curricula can be
developed, in light of the national framework and local knowledge to respond to global, national
and local concerns. The Escuela Nueva model in Colombia is recognised for its success in
meeting the learning needs of rural children through a multi-grade school model; later, in 2001,
it was adapted to out-of-school, displaced children25. In Lao People’s Democratic Republic, a
non-formal mobile teacher for the primary education programme was introduced to reach the 6-
14-years-old children who live in isolated and remote areas without schools26.

Children from minority groups

Non-formal programmes can better accommodate children from minority groups who may need
special attention due, for example, to ethnicity, race and language. In Brazil, for instance, Afro-
Brazilian children and adolescents face a disadvantage compared to their white peers due to
racial discrimination (UNICEF and UIS, 2012e). Appropriate non-formal curricula, materials,
pedagogies and the use of appropriate language of teaching and learning can help out-of-
school children from minority groups to learn in safe and appropriate environments and can
prevent potential discrimination.

24
http://www.unescobkk.org/news/article/beauty-of-alternative-learning-getting-students-to-schools/
25
http://www.escuelanueva.org/portal/en/escuela-nueva-model.html
26
http://www.unescobkk.org/fr/education/literacy-and-lifelong-learning/flexible-learning-
strategies/country-cases/

- 18 -
 Box 6. Using technologies for rural children and adolescents to overcome a distance barrier in
Brazil
A research undertaken by the IBO- PE in 2010 at the request of Brazil’s Confederation of Agricultural
and Livestock Production, and of the National Apprenticeship Service (SENAR) in 10 states of the 5
Brazilian regions has pointed out that 10% of the students of the rural schools need more than one
hour to reach school.
To facilitate the access to education for the children and adolescents living in remote areas, some
secretariats of education have sought alternative solutions, which allow to serve the largest possible
number of students.
In the state of Amazonas, for instance, the solution found by the State Secretariat of Education and
Quality in Teaching (SEDUC) to secure the right to education of the children and adolescents living in
the rural communities more distant from the urban centers, was to create in 2007 the project of Face-
to-Face Higher Secondary School with Technological Mediation. From the Center of Educational
Media, live lessons are transmitted in real time to classrooms located all around the state, through a
platform of interactive TV and teleconference that operates through satellite.
In 2011, the project assisted 27 thousand students of the 6th, 7th and 8th grades of lower Secondary
School, and of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades of higher Secondary School in 1500 rural communities of
all 62 municipalities of the state of Amazonas. In 2012, it is assisting 34 thousand students of 2100
communities. In the current year, along with higher Secondary Learning, all grades of lower Secondary
Learning are also offered (from 6th to 9th grade), along with the first segment of Youth and Adult
Education.
In the state of Tocantins, a pilot project is in course with full-time education at ten schools in the
countryside. As an alternative, the possibility of creating mobile teaching units in school-buses and
school-boats is under consideration.
Source: UNICEF and UIS, 2012e

Box 7. Quote from a Roma parent in Romania

‘I have a girl who finished 5th grade last year; she went to school for a while and then she wouldn’t go
anymore. She felt bad for not being like the others. She didn’t know [things]. Her colleagues would
help her do her homework.’ (Interview with Roma parent, Apud Ulrich, 2009: p.29).
Source: UNICEF and UIS, 2012d

Working children

Due to economic difficulties, many children do not enter or eventually leave school to contribute
to the family income or even to take up paid domestic work. Non-formal education is effective in
reaching such children. In the six largest cities of Bangladesh, for instance, learning centres
under the Basic Education for Hard-To-Reach Urban Working Children (BEHTRUWC) project
provide life skills-based, non-formal basic education for working children aged 10-14 years who
have either have never attended or dropped out of school. (UNICEF and UIS, 2014) Joint
programmes of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Programme on
Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) on non-formal or transitional education aim at reintegrating
former child workers into formal school in countries such as Brazil, India, Mongolia and
Nicaragua. Through Bridge Schools or intensive transitional education programmes, former
working children are supported to compensate for the years of study they have ‘lost’ and to
attain an academic level adequate to enrol in formal school or vocational training (ILO, 2006).

- 19 -
 Box 8. Voice from a child, working in a bazaar in Kyrgyzstan
‘My name is Ruslan and I am 14 years old. I do not go to school, since I work as a tachkist in Osh
Bazaar. I come here before 8.00 o’clock in the morning and leave home at 8.00 o’clock in the evening.
I can take a day off during the week but Saturdays and Sundays are my busiest days which I cannot
skip. These days I use my tachka to deliver goods from storage to selling tables. Sometimes, my
tachka is overloaded and it’s very difficult to pushing it through overcrowded market place. Some of
my friends work with food sellers and their work is even much harder. However, I have no other
options because my family has nobody else to feed us. I would like to attend school, but I don’t want to
study with children much younger than me.’ (Personal conversation, July 1, 2011)
Source: UNICEF and UIS, 2012c

Children with disabilities

Different forms of disabilities – children in wheelchairs, children with hearing problems, children
who have difficulty in walking and holding a pen or who possess visual impairments – require
tailored learning. Non-formal education can respond to these learning needs through its flexible
and context-specific provision, including creating accessible school buildings, classrooms, and
facilities such as toilets with handrails. Flexible learning programmes allow children who need to
stay in hospital for long periods of time to continue their study through distance learning.
However, challenges remain in the form of undertrained teachers, insufficient social protection
for families with disabled children, and social perceptions of disability by which children often
face teasing and bullying at school. Lack of support for many unregistered children with
disabilities is also an issue. (UNICEF and UIS, 2012c). BRAC’s Children with Special Needs
programme in Bangladesh is an example of how educational opportunities for children with
disabilities may be combined with specific government-supported interventions such as physical
therapy, hearing aids, ramps to school buildings, wheelchairs, crutches, glasses and surgery
(DFID, 2010).

5 Policy recommendations

Non-formal education is indispensable in realising the right to meaningful education for all out-
of-school child and adolescents. Its innovations in curricula, pedagogies, and delivery modes
can also make a positive influence on formal education to prevent dropout and improve the
educational quality. Overall, the following is recommended as major conditions for equitable and
quality non-formal provision for out-of-school children and adolescents.

Overall conditions

 Breaking the vicious cycle in non-formal education is a key. A critical step for this is to
change the negative perception, held by policy-makers, practitioners and development
partners, of non-formal education as the secondary to formal education..

 Revisiting the concept of non-formal education in light of lifelong learning which

encompasses formal, non-formal and informal learning to improve its relevance in the
contemporary world.

 With the strong ownership of governments, promoting a combination of system-wide and

targeted approaches to non-formal education, recognising the diversity of learners’ profiles
and needs.

- 20 -
Conditions for a system-wide approach

 While enhancing decentralised non-formal education systems and capacities, the

integration of relevant part of non-formal education into national education systems is of
considerable importance. This can be achieved by ensuring equivalency of learning content
and developing frameworks for recognising learning outcomes of non-formal and informal
education.

 Developing further data, information and knowledge bases regarding non-formal education
and integrated monitoring systems for effective policy management and programme cycles
for non-formal education. Instituting appropriate legal frameworks and policies to ensure
quality and equitable non-formal provision for out-of-school children and adolescents.

 Making available increased domestic and external resources in a sustained and equitable
manner for enhanced non-formal systems, policies and provisions.

 Developing capacities of institutions and education personnel for effective non-formal

education.

Conditions for a targeted approach

 Enhancing effectiveness of non-formal learning through development of context-specific,

gender-sensitive and development-relevant curricula, pedagogies, teaching and learning
materials as well as adaption ofspecific teacher training, appropriate language of teaching
and learning and delivery modes. Such learning can help promote individualise learning
and cater to specific needs of targeted population groups.

 Adapting innovative, flexible and multiple delivery modes to learners’ convenience (e.g.
time, location) to ensure equitable access to non-formal programmes of adequate quality.
Pedagogical and assessment tools must be aligned to provide high-quality individualised
learning opportunities and feedback from formative assessment processes.

 Enhancing institutional capacities of government and non-state providers in managing non-

formal programmes, such as programme design, implementation and monitoring to ensure
the quality and sustainability of the programmes.

 Fostering more coordinated partnerships guided by a national vision of education and

development so that each stakeholder, notably governments, non-state actors such as
NGOs and the private sector, donors, and communities, can play its respective role.
Adapting an inclusive approach to managing policies and programmes to ensure the sense
of ownership and accountability of stakeholders, including parents and communities.
Promoting inter-sectoral collaboration.

- 21 -
 References

Association for Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) (2012). Strategic Orientation Framework for
Non-Formal Education in a holistic, integrated and diversified vision of lifelong education. Burkina Faso:
ADEA Working Group on Non-Formal Education. Available at:
http://www.adeanet.org/adeaPortal/includes/publications/PDF/educationnonformelle_14_en.pdf (Last
accessed 20 March 2014)
Bjornavold, J. (2000). Making learning visible: Identification, assessment and recognition of non-formal
learning in Europe. Thessaloniki: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. Available
at: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/summary3013_en.pdf (last accessed on 1 April 2014)
Bloem, S. (2013), "PISA in Low and Middle Income Countries", OECD Education Working Papers, No. 93,
20 Aug 2013, OECD Publishing. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-in-low-and-
middle-income-countries_5k41tm2gx2vd-en (Last accessed on 11 April 2014)

Bhola, H. (1983). Non-formal education in perspective. Prospects. 13(1), 45-53

Brennan, B. (1997). Reconceptualizing non-formal education. International Journal of Lifelong Education.

Vol 16, No.3 (May-June 1997), pp.185-200. London: Routledge.
Burnett, N. (2013). Why non-state education and why CEI? Article posted on the Center for Education
Innovation webpage. Available at: http://educationinnovations.org/blog/why-non-state-education-and-why-
cei (Last accessed on 20 March 2014)
Car Hill, R. (2012). Finding and then counting out-of-school children. Compare, 42(2), 187–212.
Carron, G., and Carr Hill, R. (1991). Non-formal education: Information and planning issues. (IIEP
Research Report No. 90). Paris: IIEP.
Centre for Education Innovations: an initiative of Results for Development Institute. Programmes for out-
of-school children. http://www.educationinnovations.org/topics/out-school-children (Last accessed on
20 March 2014)
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P. and Malcolm, J. (2003). Informality and Formality in Learning. London: Learning
and Skills Research Centre. Available at: http://lllp.iugaza.edu.ps/Files_Uploads/634791628087049086.pdf
(Last accessed on 14 March 2014)
Coombs, P.H. (1968). World Education Crisis: a systems approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Coombs, P.H. and Ahmed, M. (1973). Attacking rural poverty: how non-formal education can help.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Council of Europe (2003) Non-Formal Education. Brussels. Council of Europe.
Delors, J. et al. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within. Paris, UNESCO.
Department for International Development (DFID) (2010). Education for children with disabilities:
Improving access and quality, Guidance note: A DFID practice paper. London; DFID.
Education a Child. Examples of projects. Available at: http://www.educateachild.org.qa/where-we-work
(Last accessed on 25 March 2014)
European Commission (2001). Communication: making a European area of lifelong learning a reality.
COM (2001) 678 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0678:FIN:EN:PDF (Last accessed on 14 March
2014)

- 22 -
Farrell, J., and Hartwell, A. (2008). Planning for successful alternative schooling: A possible route to
Education for All. Paris: IIEP.
Hallak, J. (1990). Investing in the future: Setting educational priorities in the developing world. Paris,
France & Oxford, UK: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
Harma, J. (2009). Can choice promote Education for All? Evidence from growth in private primary
schooling in India. Compare, 39(2), 151–165
Hoppers, W. (2006). Non-Formal Education and Basic Education Reform: a conceptual review. Paris:
UNESCO International institute for Educational Planning. Available at:
http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/pubs/K16.pdf (Last accessed on 14 March 2014)
Hoppers, W. (2007a). Integrating formal and non-formal-basic education: A policy case-study from
Uganda. Paris: IIEP.
Hoppers, W. (2007b) Meeting the learning needs of all young people and adults: an exploration of
successful policies and strategies in non-formal education, Background paper for the Education for all
global monitoring report 2008: Education for all by 2015: will we make it?; Paris: UNESCO.
International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2006). Education as an Intervention Strategy to Eliminate and
Prevent Child Labour: Consolidated Good Practices of the International Programme on the Elimination of
Child Labour (IPEC). Geneva: ILO.
King, K. (1982). Formal, non-formal and informal learning: Some North-South Contrasts. International
Review of Education, Vol.28. No.2, Formal, Nonformal and Informal Structures of Learning, pp.177-187.
Springer.

Lave, J and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambriedge:
Cambridge University Press.

Maruyama, H. and Ohta, M. (Ed.) (2013). Non-Formal Education’s potential: Towards education based on
real life. Tokyo: Shinpyoron.

McCowan, T. (2013) Education as a Human Right. London & New York: Bloomsbury
Morpeth, R. and Creed, C. (2012). Reframing basic education to deliver education for all: flexible
provision and enabling frameworks. Opening Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,
27:3. 201-214. London: Routledge.
Nath, S. (2002). The transition from non-formal to formal education: The case of BRAC, Bangladesh.
International Review of Education, 48(6), 517–524.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013). OECD Skills Outlook 2013.
Paris: OECD.
OECD. PISA for Development. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisafordevelopment.htm (Last
accessed on 1 May 2014)
Robinson-Pant, A. (2014). Learning knowledge and skills for agriculture and improving rural livelihoods:
Reviewing the Field. Draft paper. Paris: UNESCO
Romi, S. and Schmida, M. (2009). Non-formal education: a major educational force in the postmodern era.
Cambridge Journal of Education. Vol.39. No2, June 2009, pp.257-273. Routledge.
Rose, P. (2007a). NGO provision of basic education: Alternative or complementary service delivery to
support access to the excluded? (CREATE Pathways to Access Research
Monograph No. 3). Brighton: University of Sussex, Consortium for Research on Educational Access,
Transitions and Equity.

- 23 -
Rogers, A. (2004) Non-Formal Education: Flexible Schooling or Participatory Education?. Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Tooley, J., & Dixon, P. (2006). ‘De facto’ privatisation of education and the poor: Implications of a study
from sub-Saharan Africa and India’. Compare, 36(4), 443–462.
United Nations (UN) (1999) Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, General Comment No.13, The right to education. New York: UN. Available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/ae1a0b126d068e868025683c003c8b3b?Opendocument (Last
accessed on 11 April 2014)
UNESCO (1972). Learning to be: The World of Education today and tomorrow, a report submitted by the
International Commission on the Development of Education chaired by Edgar Faure. Paris:UNESCO.
Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000018/001801e.pdf (Last accessed on 20 March
2014)
UNESCO (2000) The Dakar framework for action. Education for All: Meeting our collective commitments,
adopted by the World Education Forum held in Dakar, Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO (2008) EFA Global Monitoring Report: Overcoming inequality – why governance matters, Paris
UNESCO (2012a). EFA Global Monitoring Report: Youth and skills – putting education to work, Paris
UNESCO (2012b) From Access to Equality: Empowering Girls and Women through Literacy and
Secondary Education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2014) EFA Global Monitoring Report - Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO Bangkok (2002) Innovations in Non-Formal Education: A Review of Selected Initiatives from the
Asia-Pacific Region. Bangkok: UNESCO. Available at:
http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/INFE/p1-14.pdf (Last accessed on 14 April 2014).
UNESCO Bangkok (2006). Equivalency programmes for promoting lifelong learning. Bangkok:
UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. Retrieved September 2, 2012, from
http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/096/equivalency.pdf
UNESCO Bangkok (2011). Achieving EFA through Equivalency Programmes in Asia-Pacific: A regional
overview with highlights from India, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines: UNESCO Bangkok.
Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002141/214109e.pdf (Last accessed on 11 April
2014)
UNESCO Bangkok (2012). Asia Pacific regional guide for equivalency programmes. Bangkok: UNESCO
Bangkok. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002160/216086E.pdf (Last accessed on 11
April 2014)
UNESCO Bangkok (2013a) Flexible Learning Strategies: Country Case Report: Regional Meeting on
Alternative Learning/Schooling Programmes for Primary Education to Reach the Unreached - Outcome
Document: Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Available at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002233/223325E.pdf (Last accessed on 11 April 2014)
UNESCO Bangkok (2013b) Flexible learning strategies for out-of-school children and youth. Bangkok:
UNESCO Bangkok. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223023E.pdf (Last
accessed on 11 April 2014)
UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) (2012) CONFINTEA VI/United Nations Literacy Decade
country reports. Hamburg: UIL.
UIL (2013a). Linking Recognition Practices and National Qualification Frameworks: International
benchmarking of experiences and strategies on the recognition, validation and accreditation (RVA) of
non-formal and informal learning. Edited by Madhu Singh and Ruud Duvekot. Hamburg: UIL.

- 24 -
UIL (2013b) Second Global Report on Adult Learning and Education: Rethinking Literacy. Hamburg: UIL.
UIL. (2014).Community Matters: Fulfilling Learning Potentials for Young Men and Women. Poicy brief.
Hamburg: UIL
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2005). Children Out of School: Measuring exclusion from primary
education. Motreal: UIS. Available at: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/oosc05-en.pdf (Last
accessed on 8 April 2014)
UIS (2008). A typology of out-of-school children to improve policies that address exclusion, prepared for
the International Conference on Education “Inclusive education: the way of the future”. Montreal: UIS.
UIS (2012). The International Standard Classification of Education 2011. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for
Statistics. Available at: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf (Last
accessed on 14 March 2014)
UIS (2013). Schooling for millions of children jeopardised by reductions in aid. UIS Fact Sheet, 2013 June,
No.25. Montreal: UIS.
UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) (2006). Guide for planning education in
emergencies and reconstruction: Non-formal education. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.
IIEP. (2011). Directions in educational planning: International experiences and perspectives. Ed. Mark
Bray and N.V. Varghese. IIEP Policy Forum. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.
UNESCO and UNICEF (2011). Report on the Joint UNESCO and UNICEF Regional Workshop on
Achieving Education for All and Promoting Lifelong Learning ‘Equivalency Programmes and Alternative
Certified Learning’. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001930/193012e.pdf (Last accessed on 26 March 2014)

UNESCO and UNICEF (2013). ‘Envisioning education in the post-2015 development agenda:
thematic consultation on education in the post-2015 development agenda’ in ‘COMPARE
Forum: The post-2015 education and development agenda’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 43:6, 791-799.

UNICEF (1993). Reaching the Unreached: Non-Formal Approaches and Universal Primary Education.
Rosa María Torres and Manzoor Ahmed. New York: UNICEF. Available at: http://otra-
educacion.blogspot.fr/2013/06/reaching-unreached-non-formal.html (Last accessed 20 March 2014)
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2005). Children out of school: Measuring exclusion
from primary education. Montreal: UIS. Available at:
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/oosc05-en.pdf (Last accessed on 26 March 2014)
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2010). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children,
Flyer: Montreal: UIS. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/education/files/OOSCI_flyer_FINAL.pdf (Last
accessed 16 March 2014)
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2011a). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Conceptual and Methodological Framework (CMF). Montreal: UIS.
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2011b). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Bolivia. La Paz: UNICEF Bolivia.
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2012a). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Ghana Country Study. Accra: UNICEF Ghana.
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2012b). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Finishing school – A Right for Children’s Development - A joint Efforts. Latin America and the Caribbean.
Panama: UNICEF Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.

- 25 -
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2012c). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Kyrgyzstan country study. Kyrgyzstan: UNICEF.
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2012d). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Romania Country Study ‘Analysing the situation of out of school children in Romania’. Bucharest:
UNICEF.
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2012e). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Brazil Country Study. Brasilia: UNICEF.
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2013a). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Out-of-School Children in the Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh Provinces of
Pakistan. Islamabad: UNICEF Pakistan.
UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2013b). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
Tajikistan Country Study. Dushanbe: UNICEF.

UNICEF and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2014). Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children:
South Asia Regional Study covering Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Kathmandu: UNICEF
Regional Office for South Asia.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2006). Meeting EFA: Reaching the
underserved through complementary model of effective schooling. Working paper prepared under
Educational Quality Improvement Program 2 (EQUIP2). Washington, D.C.: USAID.

USAID (2007). Reaching the underserved: Complementary models of effective schooling. Washington.
D.C.: USAID.

Werquin, P.(2012). Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning in OECD Countries: an Overview of
Some Key Issues. Available at: http://www.die-bonn.de/doks/report/2009-erwachsenenbildner-01.pdf
(Last accessed on 26 March 2014)

- 26 -