|
The
Declaration and Framework of the World Conference on Education
for All (henceforth 'Jomtien') focused attention on basic
education. Agencies were asked to consider ways to assist with
basic education through budgetary support; the provision of
technical co-operation, revitalised partnerships and a
supportive policy context.
This study
examines what has happened to funding agency contributions to
EFA since Jomtien, focusing on financial contributions to
basic education, as well as policy and practice. It is based
on the responses to a survey of funding agencies, supplemented
by data from the Development Assistance Committee of OECD, as
well as a review of literature.
Agencies
vary in their definitions of basic education. In part this
variation simply reflects a lack of agreement, but can also be
related to their own perceived expertise, their foreign policy
goals and their concerns about their status within the agency
community. It is also a consequence of the inclusive nature of
the consensus reached at Jomtien. Whilst agreement across
agencies is neither feasible nor necessary and agreement
between agencies and partner countries can be on a bilateral
basis, this does pose problems for reporting and comparison,
both nationally and internationally.
The data
that has been received from funding agencies is described and
analysed in Chapter 5; supplemented by data from the
Development Assistance Committee. The context is that the
overall volume of bilateral aid commitment has dropped in
absolute terms during the 1990s (although the high level at
the beginning of the 1990s is partly due to exceptional
commitments at the time of the Gulf War). Aid Commitments to
education as a proportion of overall aid have fluctuated
between 6% and 18% but averaged about 14% over the decade. For
those countries providing disbursements data, proportions of
overall aid to education have increased over the decade. For
multilaterals, aid to education has varied throughout the
decade, although overall, it tends to remain less than 10%.
The total absolute volume of bilateral aid commitment to
education has remained roughly the same throughout the decade
at around $85,500m. Multilateral commitments to education rose
from $1000m in 1990, to nearly $2000m in 1994, falling back to
$1,300m in 1998.
Bilateral
aid commitments to basic education (as a percentage of
commitments to all education), have increased from a very low
level at the beginning of decade to an average of 28% in the
latter part of the decade. For those agencies providing
disbursement data, there has been a similarly dramatic
increase. Multilateral aid commitments to basic education (as
a proportion of their commitment to the education sector) have
been high throughout the 1990s at between 40% and 100%,
although they report problems with disbursing their increased
commitments. The total value of bilateral aid earmarked for
basic education has increased to around $500m at the end of
the decade and disbursements (for those agencies providing it)
have increased from almost zero in 1990 to $170m in 1998.
Among multilaterals, aid commitments to basic education have
increased from $500m to an average of $1500m in the second
half of the decade.
Perhaps
the main message is the difficulty of collating data, not only
for this survey, but also for the national and international
reporting systems that already exist. In part this has been
exacerbated by the recent emphasis on joint funding and sector
programmes, but there appears also to be a generic problem of
accountability that was remarked upon at the beginning of the
decade; the situation does not seen to have improved since
then.
The
Jomtien Conference called for targeting of countries and of
groups within countries. Based on what agencies have sent us
there is a clear commitment to human rights and poverty
reduction. Within that overall framework, there does appear to
be a focus on basic education (and especially primary
education). This has paralleled a focus on Africa and, within
that region, a focus on the most highly indebted countries,
although different agencies do this in different ways. Some
other agencies focus on countries "in transition", others have
preferred to concentrate their aid on a small number of
countries. However, there has also been the issue of education
programmes specifically for marginalised groups. The impact of
this targeting on the overall pattern of aid and upon
countries in greatest need is less clear; and the implied
conditionality may be unhelpful.
Since
Jomtien, there has also been an implicit debate over the
relative priority as between quantitative expansion to ensure
access and efforts to improve quality. On the whole, where
formal education has been firmly established for some time,
the emphasis tends to be on quality and relevance in order to
stop parents becoming disillusioned and keeping their children
away from school and to avoid disenchantment with education on
the whole. Where formal schooling has not been established for
such a long time, quality and relevance are indeed essential
to attract people but, in addition, non-formal solutions are
also promoted. Increasingly the solution are seen to be
context specific so that decentralisation is the key.
Adult
education was highlighted as an area of neglect in the
Declaration. From the documentation, we have received,
although most of the agencies claim to be involved, the actual
level of activity is quite low. Moreover the impression given
is that any involvement is reactive rather than part of a
longer term strategy.
Language
was another issue raised explicitly in the Jomtien Declaration
as having an important effect on access and retention.
However, apart from the clear position of UNESCO in favour of
the use of mother tongue as the vehicle for as long as
possible, very few have a stated policy. Partly this appears
to reflect a view that languages policy is a political issue
on which it is not appropriate for agencies to intervene.
Conventional delivery systems, such as projects and
programmes, are seen to have failed and often not to have been
adopted by the host government when funding stopped. Instead
the emphasis has shifted to policy dialogue and partnership to
ensure that aid is used in accordance with host governments'
policy priorities. Combined with the necessity to take a
longer term view of financial sustainability, this has led to
the progressive adoption/promotion of 'Sector Wide Approaches'
by some agencies. However, others are less sure, either
because of restricted staff or because of difficulties of
identifying their own agency contributions or because the
situation in the countries which they aid is not appropriate.
From the partner governments point of view, basket funding has
to be handled by a financial system creaking under the strain
of managing the current inadequate budget. Decentralisation
simply adds to the complexity of administration. From the
agency side, the problem of accountability to their own tax
payer is ever present and the more intensive policy dialogue
required imposes strains on existing agency staff.
The
profile of monitoring and evaluation has been raised over the
last decade. Firstly, there have been increasing attempts to
introduce assessment and testing procedures into schools in
developing countries for monitoring purposes although, in
practice, agencies have resorted to baseline surveys;
secondly, there has been increasing professionalisation in the
organisation of evaluation at the agency level, although the
timelines for these still leave a lot to be desired.
There
appears to have been a conclusive move away from scholarships
in the North and, to a lesser, but still substantial extent,
away from counterpart training via long term TA/TC. The
majority of agencies now emphasise institutional capacity
building, strengthening etc., although exactly what this
entails is not always clear. In practice, many focus on
strengthening the (financial) management and planning systems.
There is only limited evidence of successful capacity building
throughout the system.
Overall
the picture is mixed: a greater emphasis on basic education
but within declining commitments overall; clarification of
aims and policies but also some divergence; and continuing
difficulty in accountability. | 
The authors would like to acknowledge the time
and assistance provided by the very many officials in the
following agencies or ministries who responded to our requests
for information (AUSAID, Austrian MOFA, Belgium MOFA, Cida,
Danida, Finnish MOFA, French MOFA, German BMZ, GTZ and KfW,
Ireland Aid, Italian MOFA, JICA, Luxembourg MOFA, Dutch MOFA,
New Zealand MOFA, Norwegian MOFA, Portuguese MOFA, Spanish
MOFA, Sida, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, DFID,
USaid, Asian Development Bank, Caribbean Development Bank,
European Commission, Inter-American Development Bank, UNDP,
UNESCO, UNICEF and World Bank). Their contributions provide
the core information on which this report has been based.
