Tracking progress of the Fast Track Initiative: A review of the FTI and indicative framework for education reform

Pauline Rose

Centre for International Education, University of Sussex

‘No countries seriously committed to Education for All will be thwarted in their achievement of this goal by a lack of resources.’

Dakar World Education Forum, 2000

Progress is evident, although differing views amongst stakeholders towards main aims of EFA FTI:

• ensure more efficient use of available resources, and accelerated mobilisation of external resources to fulfill the Dakar pledge • targeting of aid flows to countries where aid is most needed, and intensifying donor coordination at the country level to ensure aid effectiveness • promising approach to involving civil society in formulation and implementation of education policy, and of ensuring national ownership

EFA FTI Process

• • • • Bilateral aid is increasing, but remains insufficient to meet the education funding gap in low income countries. Donor funding of recurrent costs requires far-reaching changes to donor practices - beyond the education sector - which are politically and technically demanding. Civil society has not been as engaged in the FTI process as originally envisaged in the framework, and there has been little transparency around key decisions or sharing of information. The success of the FTI will be strongly determined by the degree of consistent political support.

Endorsed

Burkina Faso Gambia Guinea Guyana Honduras Mauritania Mozambique Nicaragua Niger Yemen

Fast Track Countries Not yet endorsed

Albania Bolivia

Analytical

Bangladesh D.R. of Congo Ethiopia Ghana Tanzania Uganda India Nigeria Pakistan Viet Nam Zambia

Others at risk (GMR)

Benin Burundi Cameroon Central African Rep.

Chad Comoros Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Iraq Lebanon Madagascar Mali Morocco Nepal Senegal Sudan

• The 18 countries comprise only 18 million of the estimated 113 million children out of school.

• The 10 countries whose plans have been endorsed comprise only 15% of the World Bank’s estimate of US$2.8 billion annual external financing gap • US$300 million committed to the FTI plans so far (much of which is not genuinely additional) falls short of the estimate of around US$400 million per annum needed for these 10 countries alone • If the Analytical Fast Track is taken up, resources required once technical support has ensured that eligibility criteria are met will add approx. US$820 million per annum

Simulation modelling and indicative benchmarks

• Only 47 countries included – up to one-quarter of children not in school excluded from the analysis • Poor quality data on government and external expenditures • Unreliable population projection, enrolment and completion data • Unpredictability of economic growth, and unrealistic assumptions about domestically generated resources • Focus on only one EFA goal • Exclusion from the costings of key demand and other cost increasing strategies (gender, HIV/AIDS…) • Assumptions regarding transition rates to secondary and changes in teacher training needs not explicit

Relationship between primary completion rate and teacher salaries

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

.0

benchmark 10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

PCR

60.0

70.0

80.0

y = -0.0378x + 5.8273

R 2 = 0.1938

90.0

100.0

110.0

• • • • •

Recommendations

Process and country selection

Urgent need to arrive at common agreement on the key objectives and priorities of the FTI, a timetable for rolling out the initiative, and clear indicators for ongoing monitoring of progress Urgent need to reach agreement on the scope and objectives of the Analytical Fast Track Donors need to identify aid modalities that enable them to commit resources to the FTI, and move beyond current priority countries Donors and governments need to make a serious effort to broaden the education sector planning process Need to revisit the PRSP eligibility criterion, and consider all low income countries with poverty-focused development programmes

• • • • •

Simulation modelling and indicative benchmarks

Indicative benchmarks should be used as tools to open a debate about efficiency, quality and equity issues, rather than as a set of prescriptive conditions Complexity of modelling at the country level needs addressing Domestic and external resources to education, and basic education in particular, need to be monitored more rigorously Clarity is required about assumptions made for post-basic education in the model More rigorous analysis is needed to assess the extent to which absorptive capacity is a genuine constraint on the effective use of available resources