1. Education policy-making

III. Summary and synthesis of the report

Drawing on information from a desk-based review, documentation, including policy analysis and semi-structured interviews, this report synthesizes the education policy responses of various global regions during the time of COVID-19, focusing subsequently on the African continent. This section summarises the overall key findings and reflects on how several of the challenges reported can be mitigated or improved. Sensitivity to context is always acknowledged. Moreover, it needs to be acknowledged at the outset that one of the most important effects of the COVID-19 pandemic is that it has generalised the education experience of the marginalised and the impoverished to all, with the already marginalised bearing the brunt of these negative effects. Refugees have always experienced education disruption; children living in conflict and fragile contexts have limited and irregular access to equitable and quality education; and natural disasters have adversely impacted education. What the report highlights is that even though the already marginalised are more affected, the wealthy were not unscathed. It is a telling reminder of how inequality, conflict, natural disaster and fragility impact the learning experiences of children, youth and adults. We synthesise the findings across three areas. First we deal with the macro effects, how policies are made and who is involved. Secondly, we consider several specific education choices during the pandemic, including curriculum, assessment and teacher professional development. We conclude by arguing that the crisis must result in building back a better and more ‘just normal’ rather than a ‘new normal’ which simply entrenches existing education inequities. In particular, we advocate for the idea of education as a public good underpinned by a social justice, radical, humanist education agenda.

1. Education policy-making

The effects of COVID-19 – socially, politically and economically – have been felt around the world as the global economy is “estimated to contract by 2.8% in 2020” (Buheji et al., 2020, p. 213). Not only has the pandemic wrought closures of institutions and lockdowns of

entire countries, but more subtly it has exacerbated inequalities between different groups within countries and between countries. The short-term effects of the pandemic on the impoverished have been significant, resulting in, for example, an increase in hunger, in extreme poverty, and in adverse social effects including the rise of gender-based violence (Mbunge 2020, p. 1). The Gates Foundation Report (2020) notes that the pandemic has pushed almost 37 million people below the USD 1.90 a day extreme poverty line. The poverty line for lowermiddle income countries is USD 3.20 a day, with 68 million people falling below that line since last year. The low threshold of extreme poverty in monetary terms belies the extreme deprivation the poor face, and will continue to face, as a result of the pandemic. The pandemic has intensified inequities in society at large and education in particular. As discussed in this report, those who have coped best educationally with the pandemic have been the wealthy and those with the necessary home background and cultural capital for whom education, whilst disrupted, has continued. This points to the salience of wealth and cultural capital as a determinant of education progress. This report has shone a spotlight on how the pandemic has exacerbated inequities for those who were already marginalised before the crisis, for example, those in conflict-affected contexts and refugees, as they have borne the greatest COVID-19 education burden. In throwing into sharp relief the fault lines of inequalities and the unlocking nature of inequities, the pandemic has foregrounded the purpose of education and who benefits. Whilst there have been many adverse effects of the education crises as noted above, education orthodoxies have been upended, such as the resolute hold on high stakes examination. Moments of crisis make evident that which is regarded as valid and allow for the questioning of the approach to determining education progress. The present pandemic provides the education community the opportunity to rethink the values and purposes of education. And it highlights that for the impoverished, schooling and education institutions are important spaces for learning as a socially constituted activity but also as a space for tackling inequities in education wealth and resources. In this respect, the report suggests the need for a (re)visioning of the purposes of education, with equity as core to quality education. This is also echeoed in a recent report published by Education International on the importance of educational equity,. The Report notes that a “lack of equity is one of the most pernicious barriers to achieving the universal human right to quality education”, thus addressing inequities is critical in the pursuit of quality education (Education International, 2020:3).

Whilst the pandemic has brought to the fore more the fundamental question about the purpose of education, and who benefits, who provides the answer has been a key concern as well. In this report we identify that education decisions and policy-making have not been included on policymaking, and that key stakeholders, teachers and their representatives have had to fight to get their voices heard. Further, it is argued that teachers and parents from disadvantaged schools and communities have less say in the policy-making process, with particular policy elites being privileged. Thus, it is not surprising that the consequences of these policy choices, as we discuss below, have had adverse effects on notions of equity and equality, with the most vulnerable populations suffering irreparably as a direct result of these policy responses and policy development processes. In reflection on these choices, it is outlined in the consensus document that an appropriate education response to the pandemic should pay attention to the following: i. Mitigating inequities: In processes of policy-making, it is imperative that attention be paid to the equity effect of policy choice. Ideally, there should be a strong commitment to gauging the efficacy of the policy choices made, such as online learning for example, and what the equity effects are likely to be and how inequities may be mitigated. This suggests the need for a modality of policy-making which has equity as its core education concern and an approach which focuses on the most marginalised and impoverished. ii. Meaningful and robust participation: A policy-making process that foregrounds equity requires an extensive, consultative and democratic process of education policy which crucially involves teachers and their representatives as they are frontline implementers and street-level bureaucrats responsible for enacting the choices made. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that their voice and the voices of other stakeholders reflect the views and needs of the impoverished and marginalised. Only then can it be possible for policy choice to foreground equity. iii. Re-envisioning education: The pandemic affords national government the opportunity to develop education policies which involve key stakeholders in rethinking the vision and purpose of education. And in rethinking and re-envisioning education, the pandemic affords policy-makers, national government and stakeholders an opportunity to see crisis and uncertainty as key aspects of the current global context, thereby necessitating education systems that are prepared for