Karen Mundy, OISE-UT with Richard Maclure, University of Ottawa Suzanne Cherry (OISE-UT)

1. Civil Society Participation in the Governance of New Efforts to Improve Basic Education:Lessons from Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mali and Tanzania Karen Mundy, OISE-UT with Richard Maclure, University of Ottawa Suzanne Cherry (OISE-UT) Megan Haggerty(OISE-UT) Caroline Manion (OISE-UT) Malini Sivasubramaniam (OISE-UT) Benoît Kabore (Université de Ouagadougou) Colette Meyong (University of Ottawa) Daniel Lavan (University of Ottawa)

2. Background • New efforts to expand access to basic education central to national development plans across Africa. • Official Donors - moving towards a new “compact” with governments, providing reliable long term, budgetary support for recurrent costs of basic education, from 2000 • Civil society actors increasingly seen as partners in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of new efforts. Emphasis on governance and accountability Question: What factors limit or encourage effective CSO engagement in new education policy arena?

3. The Context: Burkina Faso, Mali, Kenya, Tanzania Education systems in crisis during the 1980s -1990s • economic crisis and structural adjustment programs • In Tanzania and Kenya: reversals in primary enrolments, user fees. • In Mali and Burkina Faso: low access led donors to fund NGO schools Mid 1990s • Democracy reforms in each country. • Rapid expansion of civil society – especially formally registered NGOs. • First experiments with systemic efforts to revitalize basic education • State no longer conceived as the sole party responsible for the design, regulation, ownership, and delivery of education. Education Sector Programs, From 2000 • Country owned plans + pooled funding in education (still about half of aid to sector is still in project form). • EFA declarations: free primary education (Tanzania, Kenya); expansion • Decentralization reforms - decision making shifted to local government and school level. • New emphasis on civil society participation in the governance of education programs.

4. Basic Data from the Four Countries

5. The Study - Design & Goals • Rapid assessment of current civil society actors in the education policy arena of four countries • CS actors NGOs, INGOs, parents associations, teachers unions, faith based organizations, other citizen organizations with a history of action in basic education. • Study Design • 8 desk studies, (all in countries where Canada is engaged in a SWAp to basic education. • 4 field based studies: Tanzania, Kenya; Burkina Faso and Mali, involving interviews with civil society organizations, donor organizations and government. • 30-50 CSO interviews in each country • Limits

6. Civil Society Engagement: Tanzania • Sector support program (2001) • Follows abolition of school fees and rising enrolments; like Kenya, the country had previously achieved UFPE. • Pooled funding; decentralization to district level and school. • Changes in CSO engagement • Government acknowledges role for CSOs - especially technical expertise/innovation - but still wants to control CSO activities • Of all the cases, strongest CSO coalition, with international funding but local CSO control. Clearest example of evidenced-based policy advocacy. • However, also most contentious relationship between CSOs and government (especially 2005-6). Illustrates tensions between “watchdog” and “complementary” roles. • Major challenges exist in engaging local level actors in educational policy issues.

7. Civil Society Engagement: Burkina Faso • Ten year sector plan (PDDEB, 2002-2011): • partial budget support, decentralization and regional planning. • CSOs play an increasingly active role in monitoring the sector plan, via, joint missions, regional annual planning. • Key innovation = FONAENF (jointly managed fund as part of SWAp) • Changes in CSO engagement: • Limited CSO involvement in initial sector program design: but later buy in by CSOs • Growth of “complementary” service providers through jointly governed nonformal education project fund. • Coalition links largest local and international NGOs for dialogue with government at both central and regional levels • Teachers unions and Parents associations somewhat marginal to CSO-government dialogue • Limited ability of CSO coalition to engage wider public on education issues

8. Civil Society Engagement: Kenya • Sector support program (2005/10) • Follows renewed declaration of free primary education and massive increase in enrolments. • Pooled funding with major resources directed and controlled by schools. • Changes in CSO engagement in education • CSO coalition played a key part in the abolition of primary schools fees. • Coalition later lost capacity for effective engagement - reasons include different interests among CSO actors, continued threats of deregistration, dependency on INGO (Actionaid) • Individual NGOs advocate and work with Ministry on specific policy issues (gender, early childhood education etc). • No coordinated CSO effort to track government promises - equity and access still major issues.

9. Civil Society Engagement: Mali • 10 year Sector Plan (1999). • Some pooled funding and direct budget support • Decentralization - local officials responsible for school construction, local planning, teacher hiring and payment, some curriculum • Changes in CSO engagement in education • Community schools’ movement in 1990’s led to first CSO coalition • Government has history of “bypassing” existing organizations in major reforms: (teachers unions; parents associations) • Considerable tension between INGOs and NGOs, and between community schools providers and teachers unions • Major CSO debate about decentralization. • CSOs threatened by government demands for “harmonization” of resources (1% budgets for govtl oversight, 60% for infrastructure) • While CSOs see important need for national coordination, so far no effective national coalition (ongoing leadership struggles) • Education sector program can intensify existing divisions within civil society: especially between NGOs, teachers’ unions, parents associations.

10. Government-CSO Relationships Governments • Often try to limit or contain CSO roles, usually to service delivery rather than advocacy/criticism. (NB - threat of deregulation). • Wish to preserve control, but are struggling to do so alongside decentralization and increased oversight by international donors • Respond to distinct constituencies (“teachers” “parents”). • Often pick “winners” - those with clear capacity and expertise, and elite links - “divide and rule” strategies. • Want to see CSOs “on plan” - and sometimes mention the need to harmonize and pool NGO resources with government. • Are skeptical about NGO capacities, criticize their accountability. • View CSOs as “temporary gap fillers” - not permanent partners. • Avoid formal, regularized roles for civil society in policy processes CSOs • Not clear on where they fit into new decentralized governance structures • Want to be both “on plan” and independent/autonomous • Rarely work through parliamentary mechanisms. • Limited capacity to engage wider public in education issues

11. Donor - CSO Relationships • Official Donor Organizations • Formally supportive of CSO participation - but often vague when asked “participation for what” - (“accountability” vs. “capacity” vs. “citizenshp”) • Unclear how to fund in context of sector approach and country ownership - different views on right roles for CSOs. • Often unfamiliar with INGOs and domestic CSOs working in education - • Can play a major role in ensuring CSO participation.[Tanzania] • Interesting experiments: FONAEF, Foundation for Civil Society, Commonwealth Education Fund. • CSOs • Only a privileged few have a direct relationships with major donors • Are afraid that new sector approaches will further limit their ability to access major donor organizations. • Also believe they have a role to play in monitoring donors and their promises (accountability not a one way street). • Want to maintain independence/autonomy - fear fads among donors and seek to manage risk.

12. General findings: • ‘’Invited spaces” for civil society organizations in educational policy growing. BUT: Governments control the “invitations” and sector programs create clear CSO “Winners” at the policy table • Coordination among CSOs improves their voice and recognition • CSOs are playing new roles in providing a forum for citizen let accountability. (NB: Experiments in budget tracking and expenditure monitoring, advocacy campaigns, national debate). • Most coalitions/networks face major challenges: • Competing interests or loss of focus • Weak capacity - especially in evidence based policy engagement • Limited or unreliable resources - need for autonomy • Difficulties in working in new decentralized education systems • Weak relationships to elected representatives - mainly focused on Ministry of Education • Limited ability to engage wider public in education issues - especially those related to equity and quality.

13. Three Key Challenges for CSOs: • How to be “partners” with government and be critics/advocates capable of holding governments responsible? [requires independent funding] • How to coordinate civil society actors, domestic/intersectoral and domestic/international to achieve effective policy voice? • How to mobilize local communities around the right to education, and deal with decentralized governance structures, while maintaining national role?