What is evidence required for and who generates that evidence in the Finnish Educational System?

Peer reviewe

“It is all about the fear of being discriminated [against]…the person suffering from HIV will not be accepted”: a qualitative study exploring the reasons for loss to follow-up among HIV-positive youth in Kisumu, Kenya

BACKGROUND: Youth represent 40% of all new HIV infections in the world, 80% of which live in sub-Saharan Africa. Youth living with HIV (YLWH) are more likely to become lost to follow-up (LTFU) from care compared to all other age groups. This study explored the reasons for LTFU among YLWH in Kenya. METHODS: Data was collected from: (1) Focus group Discussions (n = 18) with community health workers who work with LTFU youth. (2) Semi-structured interviews (n = 27) with HIV + youth (15–21 years old) that had not received HIV care for at least four months. (3) Semi-structured interviews (n = 10) with educators selected from schools attended by LTFU interview participants. Transcripts were coded and analyzed employing grounded theory. RESULTS: HIV-related stigma was the overarching factor that led to LTFU among HIV + youth. Stigma operated on multiple levels to influence LTFU, including in the home/family, at school, and at the clinic. In all three settings, participants’ fear of stigma due to disclosure of their HIV status contributed to LTFU. Likewise, in the three settings, the dependent relationships between youth and the key adult figures in their lives were also adversely impacted by stigma and resultant lack of disclosure. Thus, at all three settings stigma influenced fear of disclosure, which in turn impacted negatively on dependent relationships with adults on whom they rely (i.e. parents, teachers and clinicians) leading to LTFU. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions focusing on reduction of stigma, increasing safe disclosure of HIV status, and improved dependent relationships may improve retention in care of YLWH

Educational change, inertia and potential futures

The point of departure of the paper is that there are profound social, cultural, technological, scientific and environmental changes which occur at most local but also at global levels of the modern world. From these will stem huge challenges in all spheres of life. These demand changes in education, not necessarily in the system or how it operates, but perhaps in its aims, and most certainly in its content. Knowledge that was once powerful to understand the world, to develop as a person and address the challenges of life, should be replaced with new knowledge which may often be outside the traditional disciplines. Moreover, a host of new skills may be relevant for the world of tomorrow. There are, however, many obstacles to change, both reasonable and unreasonable ones. The thrust of the paper is to provide a discussion of nine categories of inertia or constraints that are seen to stifle change, in particular, as it relates to the content of education. The categories are discussed under the headings of general conservativism, system stability, standards, fuzziness of new ideas, the strength of old ideas, vested interests, teacher education, lack of space and motivation for initiative, and lack of consequence of no change. Added to this there are serious logistic problems for those who want to foster change. It is argued that very little change in content will be seen if these inertial constraints are not recognised. Assuming there is a will to change, the institutional infrastructures that should facilitate sustained change must be scutinised and it must be ensured that the teachers, i.e. the professionals that operate the system, are involved.Peer Reviewe

International Aid to Education: Moderated Discussion

The ultimate financial responsibility for improving educational access, participation, and quality lies with national governments. However, for many countries, particularly the poorest and most conflict affected, educational progress depends, to a significant extent, on aid coming from bilateral, multilateral, and philanthropic agencies. Since 2000, when the international community pledged that no country seriously committed to achieving Education for All (EFA) would want for lack of funding, the importance of using aid to construct classrooms, distribute textbooks, pay teachers, and assess learning has increased. But many have voiced concerns that donor countries are reneging on their promises and cutting back on aid to education. Recent evidence highlights several worrisome trends regarding aid pledges and disbursements, which have been exacerbated by the global financial crisis.1 First, while overall development assistance rose in 2008, after 2 years of decline, the share of all sector aid going to the education sector has remained virtually unchanged at about 12 percent since 2000. By contrast, aid to the health sector increased in the 2000–2008 period from 11 percent to 17 percent. Second, members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) disbursed approximately US$10.8 billion of overall aid to education in 2007, up from US$5.2 billion in 2002.2 However, the share of aid going to basic education declined from 41 percent to 38 percent during the same period. Third, the number of donors providing aid to education is concentrated among a small group of donors: only five donors account for over 60 percent of all aid commitments to basic education. This means that decisions to cut funds among certain donors can have major global reverberations. Fourth, during the recent recession some donors have sustained, or even increased, their aid commitments (e.g., the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain), while others have severely cut back (Ireland, Italy) on aid pledges. This unpredictability in future aid undermines sound educational planning. Fifth, overall aid from non‐OECD countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brazil, India, China) appears to be rising; so too are the contributions of private foundations and philanthropies. However, the share of this aid targeting educational frameworks varies considerably across countries and agencies, and it is inconsistent over time. Finally, aid allocation to conflict‐affected countries, where educational challenges are acute, is highly concentrated (mostly to Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Pakistan); many other conflict‐affected countries receive insufficient aid relative to their educational needs. These trends underscore the concerns of many educational stakeholders: an inadequate level and predictability of education aid, an insufficient targeting of aid to basic education, a high concentration of aid donors, and aid flows not matching real educational need. These issues further amplify continuing debates over whether donors and recipient countries can improve aid effectiveness and developed institutional capacities and whether the EFA Fast‐Track Initiative (FTI) embodies the most appropriate platform for mobilizing and disbursing funds for education, or if a new platform is necessary. With these issues and concerns in mind, CER invited several experts—David Archer, Stephen Moseley, Karen Mundy, Felix Phiri, Liesbet Steer, and David Wiking—to participate in a special moderated discussion on international aid to education. This group brings an unusually rich array of knowledge, perspectives, and experience to the discussion, as they represent bilateral donor agencies (Moseley, Wiking), nongovernmental organizations (Archer), educational planners in national education ministries (Phiri), as well as comparative education researchers (Mundy and Steer). To create a broad basis for exchange and debate, participants were first asked to read several relevant background documents.3 They were then requested to respond to one or two of the following questions: 1. Around which educational challenges have multilateral and bilateral aid strategies brought about real progress on the ground over the past decade? 2. What have been the accomplishments and shortcomings in implementing the Education for All Fast‐Track Initiative (FTI), which was established in 2002 as a global partnership between donor agencies and developing countries to accelerate progress toward free, universal primary education by 2015? 3. Given the current global financial crisis and the long‐term global economic situation, which policy options best address the challenges facing donor agencies and recipient countries in mobilizing and effectively distributing international aid for education? The initial discussion was joined by four colleagues; additional viewpoints emerged at a subsequent stage with contributions from other participants. The entire moderated discussion was then edited and shortened. We believe that these exchanges will enable CER readers to better appreciate the tone and parameters of the ongoing debate over aid to education and to begin clarifying sound policy options

erp4students: Introducing a Best Practice Example for Vocational Training in Universities

In this paper, we introduce the international program erp4students as general example on how to successfully prepare university students for the world of works without having to give up the basic principle in higher education, i.e., to exclusively provide sustainable education. We start with introducing the basic concept and design of the program and provide information regarding the demographic development over the past decade and implemented quality assurance mechanisms. Subsequently, the scope and design of and hitherto achieved insights from the Learning Culture Survey are outlined. On the basis of found results, we finally discuss how erp4students can deal with possible culture-specific issues that latest might emerge when the program gets available for learners in the Asian context