2005 04-candian aid2education-whatwhyhow

477 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
477
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2005 04-candian aid2education-whatwhyhow

  1. 1. Canadian Aid to Education: The What, Why and How of Education Now Background Paper for the Canadian Global Campaign for Education Forum Karen Mundy and Zahra Bhanji Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (DRAFT - April 21, 2005)1. IntroductionIn this paper, we examine educational aid – a field of Canadian aid activity that has been particularly influencedby both a new donor consensus and by changes in Canada’s foreign aid policies.Changes in CIDA policies and practices related to education are striking. Only a decade ago, CIDA did little inthe area of basic education1 and subsumed most of its educational activities under the fuzzy rubric of “humanresources development” (Mundy 1992; Mundy 1996). Today the organization has an explicit commitment toexpanding its expenditures and programming in the field of basic education. And it is in education that CIDA ismost aggressively experimenting with new, programme-based approaches (PBA) to Official DevelopmentAssistance (ODA). CIDA’s education sector work thus offers us a window onto some of the core challenges andparadoxes facing Canada as it seeks to revamp its international development agenda.In what follows we review the evolution of Canadian aid to education. Our focus is primarily historical anddescriptive. Section 2 reviews changes in Canadian aid to education between 1951 and 2000. Section 3 looksat recent policy shifts in CIDA’s education sector activities; Section 4 provides preliminary information aboutthe implementation of CIDA’s education sector policies, where possible placing Canada’s new approach incomparative perspective. The paper concludes with a brief critical discussion of the broader challenges andimplications of CIDA’s move into basic education.2. The Historical Record of Canadian Aid to Education, 1951-2000Canada’s interest in supporting educational development is as old as CIDA itself. What began as a fairly simpleeffort comprised of sending volunteer teachers and experts abroad and providing post-secondary training inCanada in 1951, expanded to become an increasingly diffuse and disjointed array of bilateral projects and NGOand university-led initiatives between 1960 and 2000.During a first period in Canadian aid for education, lasting roughly from the inception of CIDA to the mid-1970s, Canadian educational aid imitated that offered by other Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) donor countries. Programs included the sending of teachers and other educators, theprovision of scholarships; and eventually the provision of Canadian paper for book production and shipments ofprefabricated schools. Expenditures were heavily concentrated on using Canadian expertise to support thedevelopment of tertiary level and technical vocational institutions, a pattern reinforced by the high prioritygiven to higher education in Canadian domestic policy during this period. Very little of CIDA’s educationalwork focused on support to basic education: only 31 out of a total of 588 education related projects, orapproximately 10.6 % of bilateral education sector spending until 1974/5, targeted basic learning needs (Mundy1996: 106).1 CIDA has adopted the broad definition of basic education used at the Jomtien World Conference on Education for All (CIDA 2002).In this paper we use the term to refer to primary schooling, basic literacy and numeracy, and early childhood education as well as adultliteracy and basic skills education.
  2. 2. Canada’s educational aid declined precipitously between 1975 and the mid-1980s. Flows of Canadian bilateralaid to education fell to less than half of their 1970-1975 levels, from a high of 14.7% in 1974 to a low of 5.1%in 1976. The reasons for this decline are telling. CIDA staff responded quickly to the OECD, DevelopmentAssistance Committee’s (DAC) condemnation of traditional educational aid flows. It came to view volunteerteachers and scholarships as substitutive, unsustainable, and out of keeping with a focus on poverty and ruraldevelopment, and moved out of the business of providing scholarships, educational volunteers and experts. Atthe same time, CIDA found it difficult to reconcile its education sector work with Canada’s new focus on ruraldevelopment and basic needs and its longstanding commitment to linking aid to Canadian interests. Thusalthough the importance of literacy and non-formal education were emphasized in policy documents between1975 and 1980, little programming occurred in these areas.The 1980s saw a steady resurgence in CIDA’s support for tertiary level training and institutional development.Sharing Our Future, the guiding policy for the agency between 1987 and 1995, committed CIDA to making“human resources development”(HRD) “the lens through which all development activities [would] beexamined” and the “goal of the Canadian development assistance program” (External Affairs 1987: 31, 43). Inpractice bilateral HRD was packaged into large programs of tertiary training and upgrading for governmentalstaff, which supplanted capital intensive infrastructure projects in size and centrality. CIDA also supported therapid expansion of a funding window for Canadian universities and colleges, responding to the emergence of aformidable and coherent tertiary education lobby (Mundy 1996: 132-136). Thus although the Canadiangovernment repeatedly endorsed basic education as part of its vision of HRD, Canadian aid flows for educationwere being used as a way of keeping Canadian higher education institutions and commercial educational serviceproviders internationally competitive.In the 1990s, Canadian educational aid flows continued to concentrate on tertiary level training, but on a smallerscale following a series of cuts to ODA between 1989 and 1999. CIDA reported to the DAC in 1993 thattertiary education (including scholarships and linkage programs) accounted for 31% of its total aiddisbursements (Lundgren 1994: p. 7). Some souring of interest in funding for tertiary education and training –especially that tied to Canadian universities and colleges -- occurred in the later 1990s, resulting in a decline ofCIDA supported students and trainees and an erosion of support for university linkages programmes. DespiteCanada’s participation in the 1990 World Conference on Education for All at Jomtien, no specific targets wereset for an expansion of CIDA spending on basic education during the first half of the 1990s. Only 2.96% ofbilateral aid disbursements supported basic education directly or indirectly in 1992/3 (Van Rooy 1995).The publication in 1995 of the government’s foreign policy statement Canada in the World, marked a watershedin the history of Canadian aid for education. For the first time a concrete target for CIDA’s flows to basiceducation was established as part of the government’s promise to spend 25% of ODA on basic needs, and 20%on basic social services (CIDA 1997). However, the revolutionary nature of this announcement was mitigatedby the fact that the broader ODA program continued to be tasked to meet conflicting foreign policy goals (ie,enhancing Canadian political and economic interests) (Therien 1996; Pratt 2001). Severe cuts to the ODAbudget followed the 1995 statement.2Bilateral programme disbursements for basic education took a heavy hit after 1993, dropping from $30.2million in 92/93 to $13.46 million in 1994/5. By the late 1990s, bilateral basic education programmes had begun2 Canada’s aid budget dropped 29% between 1992 and 1998, more than in any other area of Canadian public spending (DAC/OECD2003 Development Cooperation Review: 11). Its official development assistance effort (as measured by ODA/GNI ratio) fell from0.45% in the early 1990s to 0.22% in 2001 (the latest drop reflecting a rise in gross national income.) 2
  3. 3. to expand in a few areas: support for textbook production (using Canadian paper or publishers); a unique andlarge line of funding for the educational activities of BRAC (Bangladesh Rural Action Committee, implementedby the Aga Khan Foundation Canada) and some small funding for the ADAE (Association for the Developmentof African Education).Internally, however, CIDA remained woefully understaffed in the field of education. It had only 6 in-houseeducation sector specialists of any kind in 1995; there were still fewer than a 10 in 2002. At a time whenofficial policy was favorable, CIDA had few resources and little motivation to help build a broader Canadiancapacity in basic education. Its policies and programs remained divorced from academic educational researchin Canada, unlinked to the diffuse activities of NGOs and completely separated from the research activities ofthe International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (which completely divested its support for research onformal education in the early 1990s). Reflecting this, in the late 1990s CIDA experimented with channelingbilateral program dollars for basic education through multilateral organizations such as UNICEF.One shift in the use of Canada’s ODA for education in the 1990s deserves particular attention. During the1990s, the proportion of education, and basic education activities undertaken by Canadian NGOs andinstitutions supported by CIDA’s Partnership programs substantially decreased – from 7.4% to 4.10% ofdisbursements. Canadian NGOs had decreasing capacity in this area just at the time that CIDA began to thinkabout expansion of basic education programming. Canadian non-governmental organizations suffered a secondserious handicap: few of them had the resources, technical capacity or inclination to move beyond providingbasic educational services directly. By and large their services orientation overshadowed the development ofstrong partner non-governmental organizations in the South (Mundy 1996:175; Broadhead and Pratt 1996; VanRooy 2001).Five things are worth emphasizing about the 40 years of Canadian activity in the field of educational aid:1) CIDA’s education sector activities have been particularly vulnerable to rapid swings in emphasis and expenditure.2) Canadian aid for education has been characterized by a tendency to allow the supply side (for example, the availability of Canadian educational goods and services) to dictate the levels, content and mode of Canada’s assistance.3) CIDA has had very limited experience of working in basic education. It has little in house-expertise and has never actively cultivated the development of a Canadian base of expertise in this field.4) CIDA supported NGO activities in basic education have been on the decline since the 1990s.3. CIDA’s New Approach to EducationIn the mid-1990s, budgetary constraints and pressure to use aid to support Canada’s global economiccompetitiveness made it seem very unlikely that Canada would increase its support for global povertyalleviation (Pratt 1996; Pratt 1999; Pratt 2001). Yet by 2002, it was clear that an important sea-change wasoccurring within CIDA. Perhaps more than any other area, this change was evident in education.In the late 1990s, CIDA introduced concrete expenditure targets for activities in basic education as a proportionof total ODA. It withdrew support for tertiary level scholarship and university linkage programs. Under theleadership of Maria Minna the new Minister of International Cooperation, CIDA presented CIDA’s SocialDevelopment Priorities: A Framework for Action, a policy that committed the agency to doubling funding tofour priority areas (basic education, health and nutrition, HIV/AIDS and child protection) by the year 2005 3
  4. 4. (CIDA 2000). Minister Minna took a particular interest in basic education and the education of girls. She ledCanada’s delegation to the Dakar World Education Forum (follow up to the World Conference on Education forAll in 1990), and used the conference to announce that basic education would henceforth receive new fundingand attention at CIDA (Hynd 2000). Following Dakar, CIDA began to seek new ways of funding basiceducation, announcing large programs in several African countries. In 2000, CIDA promised to quadrupleODA flows for basic education by investing $555 million over five years.Basic education thus emerged as the most aggressively pursued sector among CIDA’s four social developmentsectors. In 2002, CIDA produced its first ever strategy for work in basic education. CIDA’s Action Plan onBasic Education promised to focus Canada’s aid to basic education on three key issues: “ensuring free andcompulsory primary education by 2015; eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education; and,improving quality basic education for all learners.” In addition the Action Plan committed CIDA to makinglong term investments and to heightening developing country ownership and donor coordination (primarily byusing sectoral approaches described below). A long list of “10 actions” is included in the framework,3reflecting a melange of ideas about best practice gathered from consultations with Canadian organizations4 andfrom international donor meetings on basic education.5 Canadian capacities in four areas are highlightedthroughout: educational system reform, teacher education, girl’s education, and the use of information andcommunications technologies in education. There is also substantial and novel attention paid to the role of civilsociety as policy-partners in education. CIDA promises to find new ways of working with Canadian partnersand to become more of a knowledge-broker.The scope of change implied by the new Action Plan was reinforced by several other governmentalannouncements and initiatives in 2002. In June 2002, Canada committed to an increase in ODA by 8% per yearuntil the end of the decade, with half of the increases going to African countries (OECD/DAC 2003). Thissuggests that funding for the expansion of basic education work in some of the poorest countries will be inplace. In September 2002, CIDA unveiled Canada Making a Difference in the World: A Policy Statement onStrengthening Aid Effectiveness (CIDA 2002). The document describes a new era in CIDA management – onein which decisions are to be based on clear sectoral and country-based policies, targets and results, betterknowledge, and greater donor coordination. Social sectors retain a high priority, but the policy statement alsoproposes a movement towards working with a smaller number of countries, around country-based plans fordevelopment.6 Most revolutionary is Canada’s announcement that it will untie Canadian aid – thus giving realimpetus to earlier promises from CIDA that it will increasingly channel ODA as direct budgetary support tosocial sectors such as education. Overall, CIDA is:3 The Framework also puts the following actions at the core of CIDA’s efforts in education reform: 1) Improve access to qualityeducation; 2) integrate strategies for gender equity; 3) improve the quality of classroom instruction; 4) enhance the training levels,professionalism, status and morale of teachers, principals and school administrators; 5) strengthen HIV/AIDS programming; 6)support good educational governance and management (focusing on centralized mechanisms for accountability and decentralization);7) promote respect for human rights; 8)strengthen civil society; 9)promote the use of information and communications technologies;10) heighten cooperation and coordination CIDA (2002). CIDAs Action Plan on Basic Education. Ottawa, Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency: 1-44..4 An online consultation on CIDA’s basic education framework was conducted in 2001 (a summary is accessible at http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca; CIDA also received formal responses from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the CanadianBureau for International Education CIDA (2001). CIDAs Action Plan on Basic Education - Summary of the consultations, CIDA.2004..5 CIDA is active in the CIDA coordinated Education for All Network, which sets out basic guidelines for donor EFA activities.Canada also spearheaded the G8 Task Force on EFA in 2002, which resulted in a series of guidelines; and it participates in the WorldBank’s Fast Track Initiative.6 Countries have been selected on the basis of need and commitment to development effectiveness. The aim here is to concentrateenough Canadian aid in a few countries so that Canada can have a direct impact (See Table 4). 4
  5. 5. aiming to transform itself from a project oriented organisation contracting with many “executing agencies”, mainly Canadian, to a programme and country focused organisation operating within the framework of developing country driven development strategies, aimed notably at poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals . (OECD/DAC 2003: 12).4. Implementation to DateAlthough these are still early days in the implementation of CIDA’s new policies, it is worth taking apreliminary look at some of the changes that have occurred since 2000 in CIDA’s education and basic educationpractices and activities, where possible placing these changes in comparative perspective. We have organizedthis discussion in four key areas: Changes in levels of funding; Changes in internal staffing, bureaucraticdecision making procedures, and knowledge management; Changes in the size, content and modality ofeducation sector activities; and new efforts at collaboration and coordination at home and abroad.Changes in levels of fundingAs Tables 1 and 3 below suggest, there has been a rapid expansion of Canadian funding for basic education. Asa share of all Canadian ODA flows (which includes CIDA and non-CIDA channels), basic education andgeneral education expenditures now exceed 1972 levels. The OECD/DAC reports that commitments to basiceducation in 2003 stand at 6.9 % of our total ODA; while total education commitments are 16.9 % of totalODA. This is well above the DAC averages of 1.9 and 7.7 % respectively. CIDA’s own figures (based ondisbursements) are slightly lower than the DAC, but still show substantial overall increases in aid to basiceducation. Surprisingly, Canada is not only expanding the proportion of its funding devoted to basic education,but also bucking the broader trend among DAC donors to increase basic education while dropping othereducation sector spending. Furthermore, Canada is among the only OECD countries to increase real (notproportional) resource allocations to all basic social services. It received high commendation for this in the2003 Development Cooperation Review (p. 36).Table 1: Canadian Aid to Education (As a Percentage (%) of Overall Aid Flows) 1972 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Aid to Education as % of 14.7 7.3 7.2 8.1 9.9 9.6 12.3 16.9Overall FlowsDAC average 10.8 10.6 10.7 7.8 8.6 8.7 7.7% ODA to Basic Education N/A 1.2 0 0.8 1.1 3.6 4.0 6.9DAC average N/A 1.3 1 1.2 1.5 2.1 2.2 1.9# of students supported by 2,468 2,254 1553 1398 1,444 1,241 1,579 N/ACIDASources:Rows 1 & 3/ Column 2: (OECD/DAC 1985), Rows 1 & 2/Column 3-9: (OECD/DAC 1993-2002), Rows 1 & 2/Column 10: (CIDA2004), Row 3/Columns 4-9 (CIDA 1992-2003), except for Row 3/Column 3 based on Lundgren (1994) report to the OECD/DAC. 5
  6. 6. More worrying, however, is that CIDA’s overall funding to the Canadian voluntary sector (NGOs and highereducation institutions) through the Canadian Partnership Branch has declined from 15.9% of total CIDA aidexpenditures in 1999/2000 to 12.5% in 2003/2004 (see Table 2). This 3.4% reduction aid expenditure issignificant and has hampered the ability of Canadian civil society organizations to effectively work withpartners overseas. The Canadian Council for International Cooperation also notes that the amount of CIDABilateral Program spending channeled through Canadian organizations dropped 25% between 2000 and 2003.Table 2: CIDA Disbursements through Canadian Partnership Branch (In $ millions and as % of total CIDA Aid Expenditures) 1999/2000 % 2000/01 % 2001/02 % 2002/03 % 2003/2004 %Canadian 272.4 15.9 277.2 14.0 278.2 14.5 300.3 15.0 281.9 12.5PartnershipSource: (CIDA 2005)Table 3, based on data provided by CIDA and Van Rooy’s 1995 estimates, shows that basic education hadgrown to 6% of CIDA’s geographic branch disbursements in 2003/04, up from less than 3% in the early 1990s.Dollar amounts are significantly higher, reflecting the end of an era of budgetary constraint in the 1990s. Notehowever, the dramatic drop in basic education activities supported through CIDA’s Partnership Branch, from7.4% in 1992/93 to 1.9% in 1999/2000 and 1.2% in 2003/04. IDRC expenditures on education related to basiceducation has remained very weak at well below 1/2 of 1% of its total budget.Table 3: CIDA Disbursements for Basic Education* (In $ millions and as % of total CIDA Aid Expenditures 1992/93 % 1999/ % 2000/01 % 2001/02 % 2002/03 % 2003/ % 2000 2004Geographic 30.02 2.7% 45.2 2.6 52.1 2.6 79.6 4.2 100.4 5.0 136.4 6.0%Canadian 17.66 7.4% 32.0 1.9 30.9 1.6 31.7 1.7 30.0 1.5 26.9 1.2%PartnershipSub Total 47.68 10.1% 77.2 4.5 83.0 4.2 111.3 5.8 130.4 6.5 162.3 7.2%(Geo + CPB)All Basic N/A N/A 81.7 4.8 107.0 5.4 120.8 6.3 144.5 7.2 177.1 7.9%Education7(Adjusted)Source: All figures obtained from (CIDA2005) except for figures in Column 2 1992/3 which are estimates from VanRooy 1995. Notes: *Adjustments made to original Basic Education figure based on discrepancies identified in projectcoding. It is estimated that at least 80% of projects coded under the general education code benefit Basic Educationoutcomes.7 The adjusted figures do not include the International Development Research Centre’s expenditures in basic education as follows:0.04% in 2000/2001, 0.46% in 2001/2002 and 0.25% in 2002/2003 (CIDA 2001/2002/2003) 6
  7. 7. Changes in internal staffing, bureaucratic decision making procedures, and knowledge management.In keeping with larger trends in the Agency, CIDA now has clearly designated basic education sector specialistsin its Policy Branch and its Geographic Branches. At 10 basic education sector specialists across the agency,CIDA’s staffing is still quite small relative to the expanding volume of flows for basic education.8 Staff isconnected by an intranet and meet regularly to discuss basic education. However, interviews conducted inMarch 2004 suggest bureaucratic decision making patterns have not changed much from those noted by Mundy(1996). Policy specialists have little control over geographic program expenditures; geographic branchspecialists are “advisors” and their degree of involvement in resource allocation and planning depends heavilyon the inclination of operational staff.9 There are few education specialists in the field, and they do notcommunicate directly with policy staff. Most planning and evaluation work for education sector projects is notaccumulated in a manner that could build an agency-wide knowledge base.Overall, Geographic branch decision-makers are responding directly to the commitment targets set out in theAction Plan; there is a clear pressure to move money. But resources to do solid integrative country-basedsectoral planning or to develop appropriate knowledge-based approaches to educational sector reform arelacking.A slightly different set of issues is raised in Partnership Branch. CIDA would like to see its funding toCanadian NGOs and institutions more directly complement its bilateral programs and policies. It has not figuredout what mechanism will be used to achieve this goal. Canadian partner organizations are worried thatresponsive programming, that allowed them to design their own objectives, will be lost.Changes in the size, content and modality of education sector activitiesIf fully implemented, CIDA’s new Basic Education Action Plan and its Aid Effectiveness Strategy implyimportant changes in the size, content, modality and geographic location of its education sector activities. Wehave completed only the most cursory review of CIDA’s activities in education. Based on this we note thatmany traditional project modalities are still being used, with content that typically ties educational flows toCanadian suppliers (publishers, paper, technical assistance, scholarships etc). A recent international report fromthe Global Campaign for Education suggests that about 70% of Canadian aid to education is still tied toCanadian technical assistance and services. CIDA continues to have a large number of small and medium sizedprojects in education, though this varies substantially by Branch (see Table 4 below).8 In addition 45-50 other CIDA staff participate in an Education Sector Network. In 1994, CIDA had only 6 education sector staff.9 A similar phenomenon is noted in the DAC/OECD 2003 review in relation to poverty reduction strategies more broadly. Itconcludes that “the extent to which poverty reduction is treated as a priority continues to depend in part upon the commitment ofindividuals involved in operations.” (p. 34). 7
  8. 8. Table 4. The Number of Basic Education Projects by Branch* (Projects committed between calendar years 1998-2004)10Branch # of Projects Smallest Project in Largest Project in ($CDN) ($CDN)Africa & Middle East 114 100,000 60,000,000Americas 19 130,000 40,000,000Asia 34 190,000 67,616,422Central & Eastern 9 633,343 18,138,960EuropeCanada Partnership 569 100,000 48,000,000Source: Provided by CIDA, April 20 2005 Notes: Counted projects had basic education listed as a “dominant” priorityin CIDA’s project coding.It is important to note that CIDA has been aggressively experimenting with new, programme based approaches(PBAs) for the delivery of its education sector aid. Indeed, education has by far the greatest concentration ofprogramme based efforts underway of any single sector – 12 of a total of 29 programme based activities listedin CIDA’s new PBA Primer are in education (Lavergne and Alba 2003: 30) (see also Table 5, below). Sectorwide education programs typically emerge in contexts where a group of donors has agreed to support aneducation sector spending plan which links necessary system-wide reforms in education to a broader publicexpenditure plan (e.g., usually around a Poverty Reduction Strategy Framework). These initiatives usually havea mix of more traditional project and technical assistance components. They also include some form of “pooledfunding” (Canadian resources pooled with those of other donors in an account for recipient governments todraw down upon); or direct budgetary support (funding channeled directly into a national budget, often forrecurrent costs). Programme based or “sector wide” approaches to funding educational development is novelbecause it requires: a) greater attention to donor coordination; b) some form of recipient country ownership of anational strategy; c) direct funding of recurrent costs; and d) the untying of large chunks of educational aidfrom Canadian goods and services.11A large literature on the various challenges posed by such funding for both donor and recipient exists. Butdespite its problems, sector wide approaches remain the first serious effort to deliver aid to education in aformat that allows for recipient country leadership, some funding of recurrent costs, coordination amongdonors, and a high degree of untying (Riddell 2001; Riddell 2002).New Efforts at collaboration and coordination at home and abroadCIDA’s Action Plan on Basic Education states that “CIDA is determined that traditional partnerships – both inCanada and internationally – will be strengthened and new forms of partnerships will be developed.” CIDA’seducation sector has been among the most aggressive in the Agency in promoting the idea that suchpartnerships are key to the achievement of policy coherence (across Canadian ODA channels) andharmonisation (among international donors).10 Budget amounts are for the project as a whole and may not reflect the portion thereof going to Basic Education, as the project mayalso include other sectors.11 “An example where traditional Canadian practice has been influenced by the new policy is in the provision of primary textbooks toMozambique. In the past, procurement of these textbooks had been tied to Canadian suppliers. Under the new DAC guidelines, this isno longer allowed and CIDA has agreed to phase out any remaining restrictions on procurement (Lavernge and Alba 2003: 46). 8
  9. 9. At the international level, CIDA has been central to the development of a strong contingent of like-mindeddonors with a commitment to EFA (Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Norway, U.K., France) and theestablishment of several multilateral Education for All (EFA) coordinating bodies. CIDA is represented atUNESCO’s High Level Consultative Group on EFA; it is a member of the steering committee of the WorldBank led “Fast Track Initiative” (a programme that aims to fill the funding gap for governments with a strongcommitment to universal quality basic education). It has been a founding partner in a new network on war,emergencies and education; it funds the Association for the Development of African Education (ADAE -- anAfrican consortium of Education Ministers and educators); and has participated in consortium of like-mindeddonors to conduct an early evaluation of aid to basic education, the “Joint Evaluation of External Support toBasic Education in Developing Countries” (Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2003). Canada now fundsand hosts UNESCO’S Institute for Statistics (an organisation responsible for collecting global, cultural,educational and scientific data and the data that fuels UNESCO’S Global EFA Monitoring Report). CIDAincreasingly engages in partnerships with multilateral organizations like UNICEF to deliver its education sectoraid; and it is rapidly gaining experience in coordinating its activities with those of other donors through its newsector wide basic education programmes. While it is difficult to gage the quality and effectiveness of thisextensive and varied list of international partnerships and initiatives, together it clearly represents a veryaggressive shift in the way CIDA does business.Domestically, however, there has been limited innovation. The drafting of the Action Plan for Basic Educationincluded a process of public consultation (web-based); CIDA received formal responses on it from theAssociation of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Canadian Bureau of International Education. In2004, the Agency held two “Partners Forums on Basic Education,” to which it invited nongovernmentalorganizations, teachers unions and academic institutions. However, the agency has been stalled on its plans toreorganize CIDA’s Partnership Programs. It currently has no strategy in place to support better coordinationand more knowledge-intensive activities among Canadian NGOs and tertiary institutions. In contrast to theexperience in the United Kingdom and the United States, where DFID and USAID have provided substantialfunding for the development of a strong base of expertise, knowledge and interest in basic education amongdomestic organisations, Canada is very far behind.125. Conclusion: Challenges and ProspectsIn this paper we have sought to outline the scope and trajectory of change occurring in CIDA’s education sectoractivities. Although much of our research is preliminary, it should be clear that basic education has become animportant vehicle and location for the achievement of a broad set of reforms at CIDA. Basic education has beenpursued aggressively as a priority sector in CIDA’s work. It has also been the focus for experimentation withnew kinds of policy and target driven decision making; new modes of aid delivery (e.g. sector wideapproaches); and new forms of Canadian leadership and partnerships internationally. If there is one sector thatcan provide a litmus test of Canada’s efforts to refocus aid around a new commitment to aid effectiveness andpoverty alleviation, clearly education is it.12 In the U.K., 5% of DFID’s education sector funding (or 4.7 million pounds) between 1993 and 1999 were earmarked for research ,producing an admirable body of basic and applied research. In the U.S., similar funding for research on basic education has beenavailable, involving a large network of not-for-profit research institutions (eg Academy for Educational Development); academicinstitutions (Harvard International); and increasingly nongovernmental organizations (CARE US). More recently these groups havecome together as a consultative and advocacy group in an initiative headed by Gene Sperling. 9
  10. 10. Yet although CIDA’s has set out important goals that have been useful in focusing CIDA’s geographicprograms on expanding their basic education sector work, its foray into basic education demonstrates that CIDAis only at a very early stage of articulating a coherent vision of its larger poverty mandate.CIDA’s Action Plan on Basic Education offers an unprioritised list of 10 potential actions. It offers little deepguidance on how CIDA’s intention of directly funding basic education in developing countries can bereconciled to its broader commitment to building Canadian partnerships and capacity. It is noticeably vagueabout how education sector priorities will be ultimately determined: through the needs/plans of developingcountries? From the lessons or benchmarks developed in the international community? Or the basis of Canadianexpertise, experience and values? And it provides no guidance on Canada’s involvement in other levels ofeducational development. This last defies the basic principal of coherent sectoral engagement (educationalplanning across levels) and it ignores important Canadian capacity outside of basic education (Association ofCanadian Community Colleges 2001; Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada 2002; Jackson 2003;OBrien 2003) Most importantly, the Action Plan leaves the largest part of Canada’s official development flowsfor education (16.9%, according to the 2003 OECD/ DAC figures presented in Table 1 above) without a clearmandate or strategy.What has emerged, then, is a profusion of international initiatives and commitments and some novel efforts thatchannel ODA into the direct funding of basic education systems in the poorest countries of the world. Beneaththis flurry of activity, one cannot help but note that Canada is very far behind in its efforts to build a strongdomestic base of knowledge and expertise.13 CIDA is not an effective knowledge broker.14 This is important,because it limits the extent to which Canada can aspire to meaningful, knowledge-driven leadership on issues ofeducation for all across its foreign policy sector and within the international community. As Smillie (2004:21)comments: “We could become leaders in any one or more of our current sectoral priorities if we made that a goal. Canada could become the very best in basic education, for example, through innovation and high-quality programs on the ground that inform a policy position, and through a coordinated approach to learning from all Canadian and other initiatives in the field. Canada’s leverage would derive from the quality of our knowledge rather than the weight of our budget.”The history of Canadian aid to education is suggestive here: where clarity is lacking, CIDA’s activities are oftendriven by a combination of bureaucratic expediency within geographic branches and domestic opportunism inits partnership programs. This rarely adds up to coherent, sustainable or poverty focused developmentassistance. Without clearer prioritisation and articulation, it would be easy for CIDA to use its basic educationflows as an isolated way of championing Canada’s place in the world, rather than an opportunity to extend,improve, and deepen Canada’s commitment to poverty alleviation. Nothing less than this commitment is atstake as CIDA moves beyond its Action Plan on Basic Education and begins to give practical form anddirection to Canada’s new engagement in international educational development.13 CIDA’s Policy Statement on Strengthening Aid Effectiveness commits CIDA to becoming a more knowledge based institution,seeing knowledge as the “true value added of aid agencies.” The Action Plan on Basic Education commits CIDA to improving itsknowledge sharing activities and creating new forms of partnership based on knowledge and expertise (p. 22 and 35).14 The term “knowledge broker” is borrowed from Culpepper, who argues that “the cultivation and dissemination of knowledge willbe central to the emerging multi-sector and interdepartmental involvement of global development issues. Canada’s strategicadvantage in the rapidly evolving global environment is likely to lie in its potential as “knowledge broker,” a country with historicaladvantages in international coordination, with a stock of international goodwill and expertise in communications (Culpepper et al.,2004 p. 27-28) 10
  11. 11. Table 5. CIDA’s Education Sector SWAps and Other PBAsCountry Period CIDA Content/Funding Modality Contributio n ($Cdn)Africa and the Middle East1) Burkino Faso 2001- 2005 $ 20 million CIDA’s contribution is pooled with other donors2) Kenya Free Primary Education Pooled funds managed by DFID a) FPE Phase I 2003-2006 a)$8.9 M Second tranche earmarked for b) FPE Phase II (approved March 2005) 2004-2006 b) $7.5 M textbook purchase3) Mali Project, budget support.a) PISEM – Soutien a la coordination a) 1999-2006 a) $ 3.150 Mb) PISEM- Formation b) 6 years,c) Projet d’appui au manuel scolaire ending FY b) $17.108d) Appui a la mise en œuvre d’une gestion 2006/7 Me) Appui à l’amelioration de la qualité de c) 2004-2008l’enseignment fondamental (Approved October d) 2004-2009 c) $ 13 M2004) e) 2005-2007 d) $ 20 M e) $ 17.8 M4) Mozambique Support to Education SectorCIDA’s support for the Education SWAp consists Strategic Plan I (1999-2003) and IIof: (2004-2008), along with 17 donors;a) pooled funds for education in Mozambique a) 2003-2006 a) $ 19.981 some project based programsb) support for educational materials Phase I millionc) support for educational materials Phase II b) 2003-2005 b) $ 20 M(Planning stage)5) Senegal All are projects except for PAVE,CIDA supports Senegal’s education policy through which is a targeted budget support tothe following initiatives: the Ministry of Education to funda) Projet d’appui à la qualité de l’education et du a) 2004-2009 a) $18.58 M volunteer primary teachers.rendement scolairé (PAQERS) b) 2003-2006 b) $ 19.145b) PAPA Phase II c) 2004-2005 Mc) PAVE c) $ 4.8 Md) Mise oeuvre du curriculum PAMISEC d) 2005-2009 d) $9.572 Me) Planification/Suivi du secteur éducation e) 2003-2005 e) $0.5 Mf) Formation professionnelle NÉO-ALP f) 2003-2007 f) $ 3.5 Mg) Partenariat formation prof. CCNB g) 2003-2006 g) $2.185 Mh) Planification/Suivi secteur éducation II h) 2004-2008 h) $0.5 M6) Tanzania Total CIDA CIDA is supporting the PEDPSupport to the Primary Education Development support is primarily through a multi-donor,Program (2001-2006) includes the following $79.5 M . pooled funding arrangement.projects:a) Basic Education Funding Facility (pre-PEDP) a) 2001-2004 a) $ 2 Mb) District Based Support for Primary Education b) 2002-2011 b) $ 6.5 M(pre-PEDP) c) 2001-2007 c) $ 71 Mc) PEDP7) Uganda 2002-2005 $ 14 million Funds are provided as budgetarySupport for Basic Education support to the Ministry of Education and Sports; funds are earmarked for primary education via policy support8) Zambia Approved Mar $4 (over two Pooled fundsSupport to the Education Strategic Plan 2003-2007 2004 years) 11
  12. 12. Asia9) Bangladesha) Primary Education Support Program (PEDP II) a) 2003-2009 a) $ 67.4 M a) CIDA is part of an 11- donor consortium (led by ADB); use pooled funding; total program funds amount to $US 2.5 billion (this includes GoB funds)b) BRAC Non-Formal Primary Education (NFPE b) 1999-2004 b) $ 28.2 M b) NFPE III is complementary to theIII) – other PBA GoB’s formal primary education program, which CIDA also supports. The purpose is to provide children in rural areas not served by the government education system with access to education and improved curriculum, learning materials, and teachers. CIDA’s contribution is pooled with other donors. c) BRAC Education Program (for approved) c) 2004-2007 c) $19.4 M c) targeted budget support – other PBA10) Vietnama) Basic Education Trust Fund – Pre SWAp a) 2001-2003 a) $ 8 a) Untied funding in support of a million consultative and donor coordination mechanism and technical working group that will support the preparation of a provincial education plan, and development of a framework for Education for Allb)Primary Education for Disadvantaged Children – b) 2004-2010 b) $ 15 b) Untied pooled funding through aother PBA million standard Trust Fund at the World Bank. The objective is to improve access to primary school and the quality of education for disadvantaged boys and girls.c) Vietnam EFA (Planning stage)Latin America11) Honduras EFA (approved November 2004) 5 years $ 20 million Pooled funds12) Nicaragua EFA 5 years $16.5 Pooled funds(approved April 2005)Source: (CIDA 2005) 12
  13. 13. ReferencesAssociation of Canadian Community Colleges (2001). A Holistic Approach to Addressing Basic EducationNeeds in Developing Countries - A position paper submitted to the Canadian International DevelopmentAgency, Association of Canadian Community Colleges: 1-21.Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2002). CIDAs Draft Action Plan on Basic Education,Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.Broadhead, T. and C. Pratt (1996). Paying the Piper: CIDA and Canadian NGOs. Canadian InternationalDevelopment Assistance Policies: An Appraisal. C. Pratt. Montreal & Kingston, London, Buffalo, McGill-Queens University Press: 87-115.CIDA (1992-2003). Statistical Report on Official Development Assistance - Fiscal Years 1992/1993,1996/1997, 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2001/2002, 2002/2003. Ottawa, CIDA.CIDA (1997). CIDAs Policy on Meeting Basic Human Needs. Hull, Quebec, CIDA: 21.CIDA (2000). CIDAs Social Development Priorities - A Framework for Action. Ottawa, CIDA: 51.CIDA (2001). CIDAs Action Plan on Basic Education - Summary of the consultations, CIDA. 2004.CIDA (2001/2002). Statistical Report on Official Development Assistance. Ottawa, CIDA.CIDA (2002). Canada Making a Difference in the World - A Policy Statement on Strengthening AidEffectiveness. Hull, Canadian International Development Agency,.CIDA (2002). CIDAs Action Plan on Basic Education. Ottawa, Canadian International Development Agency:1-44.CIDA (2002/2003). Statistical Report on Official Development Assistance. Ottawa, CIDA.CIDA (2004). CIDA Education Disburesments 1999-2004. Ottawa, Maher Mamhikoff/CIDA.CIDA (2004). CIDAs Intranet Reporting - CIDAs Education Projects and Programs. Ottawa, CIDA. 2004.Culpepper, R., D. Emelifeonwu, et al. (2004). Architecture without Blueprints: Opportunities and Challengesfor the Next Prime Minister in International Development Policy. Ottawa, The North-South Institute: 33.External Affairs (1987: 31, 43). Sharing Our Future. Hull, Government of Canada.Hynd, B. (2000). Education for All. Will it Ever Happen?, Oxfam/CCIC. 2003.Jackson, E. T. (2003). How University Projects Produce Development Results: Lessons from 20 Years ofCanada-China Co-operation in Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Development Studies. XXIV. 13
  14. 14. Lavergne, R. and A. Alba (2003: 30). CIDA Primer on Program-Based Approaches. Ottawa, CIDA: 56.Lundgren, H. (1994: p. 7). Note on Aid Flows for Basic Education, Development Cooperation Directorate,OECD: 8.Mundy, K. (1992). "Human Resources Development Assistance in Canadas Overseas Development AssistanceProgram: A Critical Analysis." Canadian Journal of Development Studies XIII(3): 385-409.Mundy, K. (1996). Education and Human Resources Development in the Canadian International DevelopmentAgency. Toronto, OISE/University of Toronto.Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003). Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education inDeveloping Countires: 206.North-South Institute (2001). North South Institute Canadian Development Report. Ottawa, RenoufPublications.OBrien, D. (2003). University-Government Policy Linkages and the Knowledge-based Approach toInternational Development, University of Saskatchewan International: 27.OECD/DAC (1985). Development Assistance Committee Journal. Paris, OECD.OECD/DAC (1993-2002). Development Assistance Committee Journal. Paris, OECD.OECD/DAC (2003). Development Co-operation Review - Canada. Paris, Development Assistance Committee -OECD: 87.Pratt, C. (1996). Human Internatioanlism and Canadian Development Assistance Policies. CanadianInternational Development Assistance Policies: An Appraisal. C. Pratt. Montreal & Kingston, London, Buffalo,McGill-Queens University Press: 334-380.Pratt, C. (1999). "Competing Rationales for Canadian Development Assistance." International Journal(Spring1999): 306-323.Pratt, C. (2001). "Ethical Values and Canadian Foreign Policy - Two Cases." International Journal(Winter2000-2001): 37-53.Pratt, C. (2001). "The Impact of Ethical Values on Canadian Foreign Aid Policy." Canadian Foreign Policy9(1): 43-54.Riddell, A. (2001). Sector Wide Approaches in Education: Implications for Donor Agencies and Issues Arisingfrom Case Studies of Zambia and Mozambique, International Working Group on Education.Riddell, A. (2002). Synthesis Report on Development Agency Policies and Perspectives on Programme-BasedApproaches. Ottawa, Learning Network on Program-Based Approaches: 42. 14
  15. 15. Smillie, I. (2004: 21). ODA: Options and Challenges for Canada. Ottawa, Canadian Council for InternationalDevelopment: 26.Therien, J.-P. (1996). Canadian Aid: Comparative Analysis. Canadian International Development AssistancePolicies: An Appraisal. C. Pratt. Montreal & Kingston, London, Buffalo, Mc-Gill-Queens University Press.Therien, J.-P. and C. Lloyd (2000). "Development Assistance on the brink." Third World Quarterly 21(1): 21-38.Van Rooy, A. (1995). A Partial Promise? Canadian Support to Social Development in the South. Ottawa, TheNorth-South Institute: 1-77.Van Rooy, A. (2001). "Civil Society and the Axworthy Touch." Canada Among Nations: 253-269. 15
  16. 16. Appendix IAssociation of Canadian Community Colleges (2001). A Holistic Approach to Addressing Basic Education Needs in Developing Countries - A position paper submitted to the Canadian International Development Agency, Association of Canadian Community Colleges: 1-21.Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2002). CIDAs Draft Action Plan on Basic Education, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.Broadhead, T. and C. Pratt (1996). Paying the Piper: CIDA and Canadian NGOs. Canadian International Development Assistance Policies: An Appraisal. C. Pratt. Montreal & Kingston, London, Buffalo, McGill-Queens University Press: 87-115.CIDA (1992-2003). Statistical Report on Official Development Assistance - Fiscal Years 1992/1993, 1996/1997, 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2001/2002, 2002/2003. Ottawa, CIDA.CIDA (1997). CIDAs Policy on Meeting Basic Human Needs. Hull, Quebec, CIDA: 21.CIDA (2000). CIDAs Social Development Priorities - A Framework for Action. Ottawa, CIDA: 51.CIDA (2001). CIDAs Action Plan on Basic Education - Summary of the consultations, CIDA. 2004.CIDA (2002). Canada Making a Difference in the World - A Policy Statement on Strengthening Aid Effectiveness. Hull, Canadian International Development Agency,.CIDA (2002). CIDAs Action Plan on Basic Education. Ottawa, Canadian International Development Agency: 1-44.CIDA (2004). CIDA Education Disburesments 1999-2004. Ottawa, Maher Mamhikoff/CIDA.CIDA (2004). CIDAs Intranet Reporting - CIDAs Education Projects and Programs. Ottawa, CIDA. 2004.CIDA (2005). CIDA Data Tables. Hull, CIDA.CIDA (2005). CIDA Supported SWAPS and Other PBAs. Hull, CIDA: 2.Culpepper, R., D. Emelifeonwu, et al. (2004). Architecture without Blueprints: Opportunities and Challenges for the Next Prime Minister in International Development Policy. Ottawa, The North-South Institute: 33.External Affairs (1987: 31, 43). Sharing Our Future. Hull, Government of Canada.Hynd, B. (2000). Education for All. Will it Ever Happen?, Oxfam/CCIC. 2003.Jackson, E. T. (2003). How University Projects Produce Development Results: Lessons from 20 Years of Canada-China Co-operation in Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Development Studies. XXIV.Lavergne, R. and A. Alba (2003: 30). CIDA Primer on Program-Based Approaches. Ottawa, CIDA: 56.Lundgren, H. (1994: p. 7). Note on Aid Flows for Basic Education, Development Cooperation Directorate, OECD: 8.Mundy, K. (1992). "Human Resources Development Assistance in Canadas Overseas Development Assistance Program: A Critical Analysis." Canadian Journal of Development Studies XIII(3): 385-409.Mundy, K. (1996). Education and Human Resources Development in the Canadian International Development Agency. Toronto, OISE/University of Toronto.Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003). Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education in Developing Countires: 206.OBrien, D. (2003). University-Government Policy Linkages and the Knowledge-based Approach to International Development, University of Saskatchewan International: 27.OECD/DAC (1993-2002). Development Assistance Committee Journal. Paris, OECD.OECD/DAC (2003). Development Co-operation Review - Canada. Paris, Development Assistance Committee - OECD: 87.Pratt, C. (1996). Human Internatioanlism and Canadian Development Assistance Policies. Canadian International Development Assistance Policies: An Appraisal. C. Pratt. Montreal & Kingston, London, Buffalo, McGill-Queens University Press: 334-380. 16
  17. 17. Pratt, C. (1999). "Competing Rationales for Canadian Development Assistance." International Journal(Spring 1999): 306-323.Pratt, C. (2001). "Ethical Values and Canadian Foreign Policy - Two Cases." International Journal(Winter 2000-2001): 37-53.Pratt, C. (2001). "The Impact of Ethical Values on Canadian Foreign Aid Policy." Canadian Foreign Policy 9(1): 43-54.Riddell, A. (2001). Sector Wide Approaches in Education: Implications for Donor Agencies and Issues Arising from Case Studies of Zambia and Mozambique, International Working Group on Education.Riddell, A. (2002). Synthesis Report on Development Agency Policies and Perspectives on Programme-Based Approaches. Ottawa, Learning Network on Program-Based Approaches: 42.Smillie, I. (2004: 21). ODA: Options and Challenges for Canada. Ottawa, Canadian Council for International Development: 26.Therien, J.-P. (1996). Canadian Aid: Comparative Analysis. Canadian International Development Assistance Policies: An Appraisal. C. Pratt. Montreal & Kingston, London, Buffalo, Mc-Gill-Queens University Press.Therien, J.-P. and C. Lloyd (2000). "Development Assistance on the brink." Third World Quarterly 21(1): 21- 38.Van Rooy, A. (1995). A Partial Promise? Canadian Support to Social Development in the South. Ottawa, The North-South Institute: 1-77.Van Rooy, A. (2001). "Civil Society and the Axworthy Touch." Canada Among Nations: 253-269. 17

×