Bangladesh - Context

1
(No Transcript)
2
Civil Society and the Governance of Education in
the Context of SWAps Kenya Tanzania

• Malini Sivasubramaniam
• Megan Haggerty
• OISE/University of Toronto
• October 2, 2006
• Africa-Canada Forum

3
Tanzania, Kenya and Education for All

• Equal access to education a key promise at
  Independence but different roots
• Tanzania African socialism Ujamaa
• Education for self reliance
• Swahili
• Resources concentrated on primary and adult
  literacy
• Centralized system closed to public debate
  (education and villagization).
• Narrow staircase with broad base Primary 100,
  Secondary 5-10, Tertiary lt1
• Highly donor dependent
• Kenya One party state market economy
• Harambee movement communities drive rapid
  expansion of secondary
• Centralized and politicized policies but
  laissez-faire approach to finance
• Limited use of curriculum to produce national
  identity
• Wider staircase but growing regional and
  socio-economic inequalities, decline in quality
  and employment opportunities.

4
Crisis, Adjustment, Change

• Economic crisis, globalization, and structural
  adjustment
• Political mismanagement/poor governance
• In education sector
• Demand outpaces resources and opportunity for
  formal employment
• Financing burden steadily shifted on to parents
  cost sharing
• From Universal Primary Education (UP) in
  1971,1974 and 1978 (Kenya) and 1978 (Tanzania) to
  a deterioration in both Quality and Access.
  (Tanzania dropped to 70 enrollment by 1990
  Kenya dropped to 86.9 by 1998)
• From the late 1980s
• structural reform/economic liberalization -
  limited aid.
• education sector reforms focus on privatization,
  cost-sharing, containment of dissatisfaction
  through decentralization.
• In mid 1990s political liberalization
• Late 1990s
• New governments promise EFA abolish user fees
• New donor resources for EFA and transnational
  advocacy rights
• Continuing dilemmas equality, quality, demand,
  dependency.

5
Education SWAp 2000 - Present

• TANZANIA - PEDP (2002-2006)
• Sub-sector approach
• Harmonization of donors Basket funding
• Heavily donor dependent -
  63 Million/year (1999-2003)
• BEDC chaired rotationally. Netherlands, CIDA,
  World Bank, AfDB, DfID, SIDA, NORAD, IRE, JICA,
  EC
• Abolished primary school fees (2001) Enrolment
  85.4 (01) to 109 (05)
• Implementation focus on Access to Primary
  Education (not Quality)

• KENYA KESSP (2005-2010)
• Sector wide approach
• Harmonization of donors Basket funding
• Less donor dependent
  - 23 Million/year (1999-2003)
• EDCG co-chaired by UNICEF and Dfid. World Bank,
  Dfid, CIDA, UNICEF, JICA, USAID, SIDA, NORAD
• Abolished primary school fees (2003). Enrolment
  88.2 (02) to 104.8 (04).
• Overcrowding in schools. I million out of school.
  Non-formal schools a new reality.

6
Nature of Civil Society engagement Tanzania

• TENMET (Tanzanian Education Network) ? Advocacy
  and Policy network 161 members with regional
  and international connections
• Complementary organizations ? Private Schools ?
  Govt owned NGOs ? Innovations taken to scale
  by Govt (FAWE AKF)
• Tanzania Teachers Union School Committees
  Parents Association
• Little Voice in policy Grassroots NGOs, CBOs

• Who?

• TENMET members present _at_ all major policy
  meetings
• ? Legitimate Representatives ? Voice of CSOs
• Policy negotiation monitoring Advocacy
  Capacity building Budget tracking
  Non-government schools Innovations
  Evidence-based Research
• INGOs/National NGOs Dar-es-Salaam based
  Urban/Rural Elite-leadership Grassroots
  connections
• Approaches to Govt Complementary or Watchdog?
• Communication Logistics Internet Access?
  Reliable Post-box?

• Roles?

• Tensions?

7
Nature of Civil Society engagement Kenya

• EYC (Elimu Yetu Coalition) ? 1999 Advocacy and
  Policy network 110 members with regional and
  international connections (GCE, ANCEFA, CEF)
• Kenya national union of Teachers (KNUT) limited
  involvement in advocacy issues in EFA.
• Parents associations, non-formal schools, service
  delivery, INGOs, advocacy networks. Competing
  interests.
• Dense, extensive networks and cross-networks.
• Post 2002 political landscape. Participatory
  democracy and pluralism problematic.
• KESSP official recognition of CSO. Limited
  participation
• Participation in policy advocacy, capacity
  building, budget tracking.
• Limited capacity to offer evidence-based
  research.

• Who?

• Roles?

• EYC network INGO driven.
• Government is accommodating to CSOs but CSOs
  fragmented, competing interests.
• National umbrella organizations/coalitions weak
  and ineffective. EYC and NCNGOs
• Donor and resource driven. Lacking capacity to
  make real contribution
• NGO community not well known by donor community.

• Tensions?

8
Equal Partners?
TANZANIA
KENYA
Government
Government
Donors
Donors
Civil Society
Civil Society/ TENMET
MODEL
Government
Civil Society
Donors
9
de - CENTRAL - ization
And how does this affect CSOs?
TANZANIA
KENYA
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Education
District
10
How is SWAp affecting CSOs In Kenya?

• SWAps heightens and centralizes power of
  government. Govt and CSO competing for funds
  (cordial/ineffective/divide and rule)?
• All CSO activities should be harmonized with
  KESSP.
• Do NGOs want their resources harmonized or pooled
  with the government? Larger NGOs see link to
  government (i.e., money represented as part of
  KESSP) as ensuring sustainability. Smaller NGOs
  more hesitant to have their money
  reflected/disclosed as part of KESSP.
• SWAPS appear to be removing CSO leverage.
• Competing interests among civil society. E.G.
  Churches advocating for government to return
  running and ownership of schools to FBOs.
  Harmonization and pooling among INGOs and NGOs
  difficult.

11
How is SWAp affecting CSOs?Tanzania

• SWAPS appear to be increasing CSO leverage.
• Opportunity to bring forward issues to the policy
  table / United front
• Role of the Opposition?
• Contentious Space / Government Resistance
• Sees NGOs proper role as complementary
• Attempt to limit public criticism and control
  input (Haki Elimu ESR saga)
• CSOs input not seen as important as donors
• Select Donor support (morally and financially)
• Concentrated into few NGOs, TENMET related
• Primary Education concentration
• Challenges
• As speed of policy increases, CSO input decreases
• Affect of Sub-sector to Sector support, OR Direct
  Budget Support

12
SUMMARY

• IN KENYA SWAps heightens and centralizes power of
  government. Govt and CSO competing for funds
  (cordial/ineffective/divide and rule). IN
  TANZANIA, SWAps has created space for NGO/civil
  society participation even though government
  resistant.
• TENMET a more cohesive network of CSOs. EYC
  fragmented and INGO driven. Why is Tanzania a
  strong network, not Kenya?
• Timing of UPE, user fees
• Who do donors meet regularly? Donors get to know
  those represented at meetings.
• Coalesce against Govt vs. Pull the rug out
• Decentralization takes very different forms in
  Kenya and Tanzania.

13
QUESTIONS

• Should donors pool, harmonize and channel all
  their funds through government?
• Do CSOs/INGOs want their resources harmonized or
  pooled with the government? What form of
  harmonization should there be between INGOs?
• Any donor organization that does not have a
  balanced portfolio will fail (CSO33, Kenya)
  Dont put your eggs all in one basket (CSO14,
  Tanzania)
• How does SWAPs change the way CSOs should operate
  in a sector?
• Programming, Advocacy, Cooperation changes