Local Solutions to Global Challenges: Towards Effective ...Ernesto Schiefelbein Bolivia Study Anne...

LLooccaall SSoolluuttiioonnss ttoo GGlloobbaall CChhaalllleennggeess::

TToowwaarrddss EEffffeeccttiivvee PPaarrttnneerrsshhiipp iinn BBaassiicc EEdduuccaattiioonn

UUGGAANNDDAA

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003

Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education in Developing Countries

Local Solutions to G

lobal Ch

alleng

es: Toward

s Effective Partnersh

ip in B

asic Education

- Coun

try Study R

eport Ug

and

a

27056_IOB_omslag_Uganda_GB 20-11-2003 16:02 Pagina 1

© Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2003

Non-commercial reproduction of all or part of this publication may be made

providing the source is acknowledged. Requests for commercial reproduction

should be addressed to the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB),

Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, P.O. Box 20061, 2500 EB, The Hague,

The Netherlands.

Printing: Opmeer | De Bink | TDS vof

Design: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada

Cover photograph: John Berry

ISBN: 90-5328-326-9

Order Code: OSDR0510/E

Web Sites: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Policy and Operations Evaluation Department:

www.euforic.org/iob

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC)

Evaluation Inventory:

(The site is managed by the Canadian International

Development Agency on behalf of the DAC Network on

Development Evaluation of the OECD)

www.dac-evaluations-cad.org/dac


LLooccaall SSoolluuttiioonnss ttoo GGlloobbaall CChhaalllleennggeess:: TToowwaarrddss EEffffeeccttiivvee PPaarrttnneerrsshhiipp iinn BBaassiicc EEdduuccaattiioonn

UUGGAANNDDAA



Evaluation Undertaken by Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Goss Gilroy Inc. − Canada Education for Change Ltd. − United Kingdom

Report Prepared by

John Berry (J. W. Berry & Associates, Inc.) John Wood (Education for Change Ltd.) Kupuliano Odaet (Independent consultant) Titus Balemesa (Independent consultant)

Evaluation Team

Vindu Balani Document Review Titus Balemesa Uganda Study John Berry Document Review, Lead Evaluator Uganda Study, Zambia Study N’gra-zan Coulibaly Burkina Faso Study Kadiatou Ann Dao Sow Burkina Faso Study Sheila Dohoo Faure Final Report, Document Review, Lead Evaluator Burkina Faso Study José Subirats Ferreres Bolivia Study Ted Freeman Final Report, Document Review, Lead Evaluator Bolivia Study Annette Isaac Document Review Joe Kanyika Zambia Study Margery Leach Document Review Richard Maclure Document Review, Burkina Faso Study Lilian Goytia Marín Bolivia Study Enrique Ipiña Melgar Bolivia Study Kupuliano Odaet Uganda Study Ernesto Schiefelbein Bolivia Study Anne L. Sikwibele Zambia Study Stephen St. Michael Document Review Geofrey Tambulukani Zambia Study John Wood Lead Evaluator Zambia Study, Uganda Study

The evaluation was commissioned by a group of thirteen donors and development organizations, who along with representatives from four partner countries, constituted an Evaluation Steering Committee. Evaluation Steering Committee Members

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Department for International Development (DFID), United Kingdom Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland European Commission Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Ministry of Basic Education and Literacy, Burkina Faso Ministry of Foreign Affairs − Danida, Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway Ministry of Education and Sports, Uganda Ministry of Education, Zambia Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Chair) Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) UNESCO UNICEF Vice Ministry for Initial, Primary and Secondary Education, Bolivia World Bank

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education in Developing Countries

i

PREFACE “Education for all” entails a vision and a set of objectives adopted by the world’s governments and international organizations in Thailand in 1990 and reaffirmed a decade later in Senegal. That shared goal requires new levels and forms of global cooperation, including significant and sustained external support. Alas, progress has been slower than anticipated. What has happened? What have been the extent, forms, and consequences of external support to basic education in developing countries? Reflecting the partnership at the core of the commitment to education for all, thirteen international and national funding and technical assistance organizations launched an evaluation of external support to basic education. Four partner countries, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia participated in the evaluation, making it a truly joint effort. The oversight and governance of the evaluation was itself participatory, involving a steering committee which was constituted by the thirteen agencies and the four partner countries and which included representatives of both evaluation units and education departments. Evaluating aid to education is particularly challenging. External support has both technical and political dimensions, each shaping and supporting, and sometimes obstructing, the other. Education is a marvellously complex, and often only partly visible process, and perhaps the most contested of public policy arenas. The evaluation’s major strategy for addressing these challenges was reflected in its objective, which was to examine the process of external support to basic education provided by international and national funding and technical assistance agencies. The evaluation was thus mainly concerned with external support (aid) and basic education, with primary emphasis on the links between the two. Partnership and process have been central to the evaluation, both in its content and its conduct. Its focus had three major components. First, what has been the nature and evolution of external support to basic education? Second, what have been the effectiveness and efficiency of externally supported basic education activities? And third, to assess the evolution of the aid relationship more generally, has there been progress in restructuring foreign aid as partnerships for basic education development? This evaluation has thus had a very broad reach. To assess external support to basic education globally, the evaluators reviewed a very large set of documents, including smaller and larger scale evaluations, project reports, sector studies, and other analyses of aid and basic education. To ground their findings empirically, the evaluators completed four illustrative detailed case studies, with the cooperation and participation of national education officials, in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Zambia. The evaluators were themselves a distinguished international group, led by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and including Goss Gilroy Inc. and Education for Change Ltd. The evaluation team consisted of experts from the North and from the South. The evaluation reports draw on the evaluators’ work over nearly eighteen months, including the document review, four country case studies, and the final report. Detailed separate reports on that work are available in both print and electronic format. This report reflects the findings of the case study in Uganda.

September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education in Developing Countries

ii

What have we learned? External support has contributed to expanding access to basic education. Funding agencies and partner countries have developed new patterns of cooperation and collaboration. External support is now increasingly routed directly to the education ministry or to the national budget. At the same time, project support continues to have a useful role. The focus on formal primary education has often reduced attention and funding to adult literacy and other out-of-school education programmes. Increased standardization and coordination of approach among funding agencies has been accompanied by inattention to national and local needs and circumstances. The voices of teachers and others in the broader education community remain difficult to hear. The findings are of course much richer and more detailed than these brief observations! Their presentation is readable and provocative. Evaluations provide a mirror, helping us to see more clearly the choices we have made and the paths we have decided to follow. Their findings prompt us to reconsider those choices and explore other paths. That is the challenge we are facing today. Rob D. van den Berg Chair, Evaluation Steering Committee


iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The team would like to express its sincere thanks to the many people in Uganda who assisted the consultant team in the preparation of this country case study. It would be impossible to name them all, and, in any event, a list of those contacted or interviewed is appended to the report. We are grateful to all of them for their contributions to the team’s work. But the team would like to explicitly acknowledge the warm hospitality and assistance provided by district officials, teacher educators, head teachers, teachers, parents and students during the consultants’ site visits to the districts of Arua, Mbale, Mbarara, Mukono, and Wakiso. The opportunities they provided for discussion and information gathering on the “front line” added immeasurably to the report. Special thanks are also due to the busy officials of the Ministry of Education and Sports, who were generous in their time, and patient in dealing with our questions and requests. Similarly, representatives of a wide variety of Ugandan and international Civil Society Organizations helped the team with information, interviews, and many documents. Mr. Abel Ojoo, of the Kampala firm of MSE Consultants, provided very helpful local logistical support. Finally, we must acknowledge the wise counsel and support provided by the Country Reference Group and the leadership of its Chair, Mr. Sam Onek, the acting Director of Education. To all of these, and the many more whom we have not specifically identified, the team expresses its thanks. As usual, responsibility for the opinions and recommendations, as well as any errors, lies with the team itself. Working with such a wide range of educators – and stakeholders in education – in Uganda was a rare privilege for the consultant team. The progress that Uganda has made, and the exemplary relationships with organizations providing external support in contributing to that progress, are indeed impressive. It is our sincere hope that this report may contribute to further advances in this exciting collaboration in support of basic education and a better future for the youth of Uganda. John Berry John Wood Kupuliano Odaet Titus Balemesa


iv


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF BOXES......................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................................ ix GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................ xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ xiii PART ONE: BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background to the Study................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Uganda Case Study ................................................................................... 2 1.3 Structure of the Report...................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Overview of Methodology................................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Documents ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Site Visits................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Individual Interviews ................................................................................................. 6 2.1.4 Group Meetings and Discussions .............................................................................. 6 2.1.5 The Country Reference Group................................................................................... 6 2.1.6 Stakeholders’ Workshop............................................................................................ 7 2.1.7 Integration and Analysis of the Data and Information .............................................. 8 2.1.8 Summary of Chronology and Key Dates................................................................... 9

2.2 Strengths and Challenges................................................................................................ 10 2.2.1 Strengths .................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.2 Challenges ............................................................................................................... 10

PART TWO: FINDINGS............................................................................................................ 13 3.0 External Support to Basic Education ............................................................................. 13

3.1 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies................... 13 3.2 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Practices ..................................................... 16

3.2.1 The Use of Conditionalities ..................................................................................... 21 3.3 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Results........................................................ 23

4.0 Externally Supported Basic Education........................................................................... 27 4.1 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies .............. 27

4.1.1 The Uganda Context for Basic Education Policy Formulation ............................... 27 4.1.2 Universal Primary Education................................................................................... 29 4.1.3 Decentralization....................................................................................................... 29 4.1.4 Basic Education Outside the Primary Schools ........................................................ 31 4.1.5 NGOs’ Role in Education Policy............................................................................. 32 4.1.6 HIV/AIDS................................................................................................................ 33

4.2 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Practices................................................. 35 4.2.1 Practices: Expanding Primary Schooling ................................................................ 35


vi

4.2.2 Practices: Teaching and Learning............................................................................ 38 4.2.3 Practices: Other Components of Basic Education ................................................... 39 4.2.4 Practices: Monitoring and Data ............................................................................... 41

4.3 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Results ................................................... 43 4.3.1 Results: Expanding Primary Schooling ................................................................... 44 4.3.2 Results: Teaching and Learning .............................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Results: Other Components of Basic Education...................................................... 48

5.0 Partnerships for Basic Education ................................................................................... 51 5.1 Partnerships for Basic Education: Intents, Policies and Strategies ................................. 51 5.2 Partnerships for Basic Education: Practices.................................................................... 53 5.3 Partnerships for Basic Education: Results ...................................................................... 55

6.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 59 6.1 The Uganda Sector-wide Approach as a Modality for External Support Delivery ........ 59 6.2 The Persistence of Project Approaches........................................................................... 60 6.3 Achieving the Basic Education Goals of the Dakar Framework .................................... 60 6.4 Access and Quality in Ugandan Education..................................................................... 61 6.5 Sustaining the Outcomes of External Support ................................................................ 62 6.6 Using Partnerships Effectively ....................................................................................... 62

7.0 Implications for Policy and Programmes ....................................................................... 65 7.1 Policy at Global and National Level ............................................................................... 65

7.1.1 Policy Implications for External Partners................................................................ 66 7.1.2 Policy Implications for the Government of Uganda................................................ 67

7.2 Programmes at the Global and National Level ............................................................... 68 7.2.1 Programme Implications for External Partners ....................................................... 68 7.2.2 Programme Implications for the Government of Uganda........................................ 69

ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................... 71 Annex 1: Profile of External Support........................................................................................ 71 Annex 2: Profile of Basic Education .......................................................................................... 83 Annex 3: Details on Methodology .............................................................................................. 91

3.1 Key Informant Interviews ............................................................................................... 92 3.2 Site Visits ........................................................................................................................ 95 3.3 Stakeholder Workshop.................................................................................................... 97 3.4 Documents ...................................................................................................................... 98

Annex 4: Comments on the Draft Case Study Report from the Country Reference Group......................................................................................................... 99 Annex 5: Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 103


vii

LIST OF BOXES Box 1: EFA Goals..................................................................................................................... 28 Box 2: Arua Hill: A Large School ............................................................................................ 36 Box 3: Primary Leaving Examination Abuse ........................................................................... 39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Literacy in Action ........................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2: Underlying Logic of Issues Matrix .............................................................................. 9 Figure 3: Classroom in Mukono District................................................................................... 13 Figure 4: ODA Flows to Uganda by Modality.......................................................................... 17 Figure 5: ODA Project Funding: Education Share.................................................................... 17 Figure 6: Budget Support to Education, 1998 to 2002.............................................................. 18 Figure 7: Total Basic Education Expenditures, 1998 to 2002................................................... 20 Figure 8: Schoolyard in Arua District ....................................................................................... 26 Figure 9: Growth in Number of Classrooms per School: 2000 to 2001.................................... 36 Figure 10: EMIS at Kisowera School.......................................................................................... 41 Figure 11: Primary Enrolments, 1983 to 2002 ............................................................................ 44 Figure 12: Children Speak Out.................................................................................................... 51 Figure 13: Partnership Map for Basic Education in Uganda....................................................... 56 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Framework for Issues Matrix ........................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Chronology of the Uganda Case Study ......................................................................... 9 Table 3: Net Attendance Ratio .................................................................................................. 45 Table 4: Net Attendance Ratio, Urban/Rural ............................................................................ 45 Table 5: National Basic Learning Standards Test Results......................................................... 47 Table 6: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio in Selected Districts ........................................................... 47 Table 7: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio in Selected Districts ............................................................... 47 Table 8: Teacher-to-Classroom Ratio........................................................................................ 48 Table 9: Assessment of ESIP as a Case Study of a SWAp in Basic Education ........................ 54 Table 10: Situation in Uganda − Project Approaches and ESIP ................................................. 57 Table 11: Profile of External Support Agencies.......................................................................... 73 Table 12: Gross Intake Rate (GIR).............................................................................................. 86 Table 13: Net Intake Rate (NIR) 1990 to 1995 ........................................................................... 86 Table 14: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) .................................................................................... 87 Table 15: Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) ........................................................................................ 87 Table 16: Number and Qualifications of Primary School Teachers............................................ 88 Table 17: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio ................................................................................................ 88 Table 18: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio ............................................................................................ 88 Table 19: Repetition Rates, by Grade.......................................................................................... 89 Table 20: Adult Literacy Rates.................................................................................................... 89


viii


ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronyms Specific to Uganda ABEK Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja BECCAD Basic Education, Child Care and Adolescents BEUPA Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas CAO Chief Administrative Officer (District Level) CCB Central Capacity Building CCT Coordinating Centre Tutors COPE Complementary Opportunities for Primary Education DEO District Education Officer DHS Demographic and Health Survey DIS District Inspector of Schools EFAG Education Funding Agencies Group EPD Education Planning Department (within MOES) ESA Education Standards Agency ESCC Education Sector Consultative Committee ESIP Education Strategic Investment Plan ESR Education Sector Review FENU Forum for Education NGOS in Uganda GOU Government of Uganda LABE Literacy and Adult Basic Education LCV Local Council V Level MOES Ministry of Education and Sports MOFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development MOGLSD Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development MOLG Ministry of Local Government MOPS Ministry of Public Service MTBF Medium-term Budget Framework NAPE National Assessment for Progress in Education PAF Poverty Action Fund PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan PLE Primary Leaving Examination PPET Post-Primary Education and Training PTA Parent-Teacher Association PTC Primary Teachers College SMC School Management Committee SUPER Support to Ugandan Primary Education Reform Program TDMS Teacher Development and Management System UJCC Uganda Joint Christian Council UMEA Uganda Moslem Education Association UNISE National Institute of Special Education UPK Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo [now Kyambogo University] UTA Uganda Teachers’ Association External Agency Acronyms ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Organization AUCC Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada


x

BMZ Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany) CfBT Centre for British Teachers CIDA Canadian International Development Agency DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) EC European Commission EDF European Development Fund FAWE Forum for African Women Educators GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Countries (Initiative) INSSTEP Service Secondary Teacher Education Project JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund US United States (of America) USAID US Agency for International Development VOICE Voluntary Organizations Initiative in Central and Eastern Europe/Eurasia WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization General Acronyms CDF Comprehensive Development Framework CRG Country Reference Group ECCD Early Childhood Care and Development EFA Education for All EMG Evaluation Management Group EMIS Education Management Information System ESC Evaluation Steering Committee FAL Functional Adult Literacy FTI Education for All Fast Track Initiative GDP Gross Domestic Product GER Gross Enrolment Ratio GIR Gross Intake Rate HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ICT Information and Communication Technology MOU Memorandum of Understanding NER Net Enrolment Ratio NGO Non-governmental Organization NIR Net Intake Rate ODA Official Development Assistance PIU Project Implementation Unit PRSC Poverty Reduction Support Credit (World Bank) PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RBM Results-Based Management SASP Structural Adjustment Support Programme SWAp Sector-wide Approach TA Technical Assistance TOR Term of Reference UPE Universal Primary Education UPC Universal Primary Education Completion


xi

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Basic education – While there is no universally accepted definition of what is included in basic education, the Jomtien Conference identified basic education as being the foundation for lifelong learning and human development and recognized that “the diversity, complexity, and changing nature of basic learning needs of children, youth and adults necessitates broadening and constantly redefining the scope of basic education” (Declaration 5). Basic education programme – A programme is a grouping of activities that support one or more basic education objectives, but which are broader in scope than a project (for example, covering all regions of a country, addressing several components of basic education, using multiple strategies). A programme is usually funded and/or implemented by more than one external agency. Basic education project – A project is a grouping of activities that support one or more basic education objectives, but which are limited in time and in scope (for example, targeted to one geographic area, addressing only one or two components of basic education, using only one strategy). A project is typically funded and/or implemented by one external agency. Basic learning needs – Generally, the terms “basic education” and “basic learning needs” are used interchangeably. Basic learning needs generally include “early child care and development opportunities, relevant, quality primary schooling or equivalent out-of-school education for children, and literacy, basic knowledge and life skills training for youth and adults.” (Bentall, C., Peart, E., Carr-Hill, R., and Cox, A., 2001, p. 15). Budget support (direct budget support) – This is external financial support that is provided to the recipient country’s national government, usually through the Ministry of Finance. Budget support can be divided into three categories of increasing constraint:

• General budget support: flows from external sources into the general revenue of the government. Constraints are sometimes in the form of Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) or PRSP conditionalities;

• Sector support: is external funding that is targeted for use in a specific sector or sub-sector; and

• Earmarked sector support: is further constrained, or targeted, to particular activities within a sector or sub-sector. Within the constraints of sector or earmarked sector support, the line ministry may have the flexibility to move resources around within the sector or sub-sector.

Education for All – Based on the six goals of Education for All defined in the Dakar Framework for Action, externally supported efforts to attain Education for All could be expected to encompass activities in the areas of:

• Comprehensive early childhood care and education; • Free and compulsory primary education of good quality; • Addressing the learning needs of all young people and adults through equitable access to

appropriate learning and life skill programs; • Adult literacy, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing

education for all adults;


xii

• Elimination of gender disparities in primary and secondary education, and achieving gender equality in education; and

• Improving all aspects of the quality of education so that measurable outcomes are achieved by all.

Macroeconomic budget support – This is support that is provided to the recipient country’s national government, through the ministry of finance, and is not earmarked for any particular sector. Project or programme support – This is support that is provided by one or more external agencies for a specific set of activities that are defined in the project or programme design and in which there is limited flexibility to move resources between activities. Sector – The operational definition of a sector varies from context to context. In some countries, basic education is considered to be a sector. In others, it is a sub-sector of the education sector. Sector-wide Approach (SWAp) – Generally a SWAp includes support that:

• Is sector-wide in scope; • Is based on a clear sector strategy and framework; • Is based on long-term plans; • Includes host country ownership and strong coordinated partnership with external

agencies; • Is developed and implemented with the involvement of, and partnership with, all local

stakeholders; • Includes the involvement of all main external agencies; • Is based on common implementation arrangements and effective donor coordination; • Relies on local capacity; and • Includes provision for results-based monitoring.

Universal Primary Education (UPE) – The Millennium Development Goal defines Universal Primary Education as being a state in which children everywhere, boys and girls alike, are able to complete a full course of primary schooling of acceptable quality.


xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the case study of external support to basic education in Uganda for the period of 1990 to 2002. It is one of four case studies carried out for the Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education commissioned in February 2002 by a consortium of 13 external agencies, the participation of the four case study countries. The work for this case study was carried out between April 2002 and November 2002 by a team of four consultants: two consultants from Uganda and two international consultants. The international consultants made three field visits to Uganda, in April, October and November. Between these field visits, the Uganda-based consultants had many meetings with individuals and organizations in Uganda, gathered data, opinions and information. They also participated in the seventh and eighth Education Sector Reviews (ESRs) conducted in April and October of 2002. During the second field mission in October, the four consultants visited several rural districts. Interaction with stakeholders at the district and local school levels added important elements of grassroots input to this report. The team received useful advice and support from the Country Reference Group (CRG) established in Uganda by the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES), which brought together approximately 20 education experts who met on several occasions throughout the period of the study. As well, the team liaised both formally and informally with the other three country teams to ensure consistency and the sharing of common issues and ideas among the four country case studies. Periodic quality assurance workshops and meetings helped to integrate the four studies into a coherent part of the overall evaluation. As in each of the other products of the evaluation exercise, this report is organized around three key themes: external support to basic education, externally supported basic education, and partnerships. Each theme is examined at three levels: intents, policies and strategies; practices; and results. External Support to Basic Education External support agencies have cooperated with the MOES in Uganda to support basic education throughout the period under review. However, until 1996, this cooperation, whether in the form of funding assistance, technical support, or policy dialogue tended to be one-on-one − not located within an overall strategic framework. Uganda itself had “bought in” to the global Education for All (EFA) movement, as far back as 1989, with an Education Commission report leading to the 1992 White Paper. In 1996 the government announced that primary school fees would be abolished for up to four children in each family to encourage Universal Primary Education (UPE). Following that, the cooperation between external support agencies and the government accelerated dramatically in support of basic education. Accelerated policy dialogue led to a shared vision, under the leadership of the MOES, in developing the Education Strategic Investment Plan (ESIP). Shortly thereafter the external agencies established the Education Funding Agencies Group (EFAG) and, in parallel, the MOES established the Education Sector Consultative Committee (ESCC). These structures contributed to enhanced levels of collective and coordinated policy dialogue, planning, management and monitoring of externally supported basic education.


xiv

Together, the partners in this process conduct semi-annual ESRs, in which all aspects of ESIP and external support targets are carefully monitored. The ESR process also affords an opportunity for intense multi-stakeholder discussion about policy, priorities, and the planning of future activities. At the beginning of the review period, virtually all external funding was delivered through individual stand-alone projects. After 1996, several external funding agencies made a substantial shift towards budget support. At a macro level, this was assisted by Uganda’s development of their Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) (1997), which, through agreement with external agencies, became their Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). External financial support for basic education has increased steadily since 1996, as has the proportion delivered through budget support. There are now signs that the rate of increase is flattening out. Overwhelmingly, the focus of external support has been to support increasing access to primary schooling. Other areas of basic education: alternative basic education, early childhood education, and Functional Adult Literacy (FAL), receive much more modest levels of external support, delivered through project modalities. The focus of external support within ESIP, delivered mainly through budget support, makes Ugandan education the very prototype of a Sector-wide Approach (SWAp). The stages of evolution through the 1990s provide a valuable model of how external agencies and a government department can move towards closer and more strategic cooperation. Nevertheless, success is not without limitations. First, although ESIP is indeed sector-wide, external funding is almost entirely focused on primary schooling. Second, although SWAps are intended to reduce the administrative burden on partner governments, there is little evidence of this in Uganda. On the contrary, there appears to be a massive transfer of administrative work from the external agencies to the MOES, which is seriously overstretched. Third, there is a continuing level of support for project modalities as well as for budget support often for good reasons. There is a sound basis for believing in the validity of both budget support (programme) modalities and individual project approaches in the evolving Ugandan context for basic education. Approximately 60% of basic education financing is now from external sources. Since the future date when basic education can be financed by domestic sources is unknown, but clearly a long way off, there is concern in some quarters about the degree to which the large flow of external support has encouraged Uganda to expand its system to a level that is so heavily dependent on external funding. The period in question goes well beyond the time scale for which external agencies can make formal contractual commitments. All stakeholders share an assumption that external funding agencies have made an implicit commitment for a much longer period. Externally Supported Basic Education Strong national commitment to UPE, led by the President of Uganda, and supported by increased funding through external agencies, has led to a dramatic increase in primary school enrolment, which doubled in 1997 and continued to increase after that. It now stands at over 7 million as compared to 3 million in 1996. This surge has put incredible strain on the physical capacity of the primary education system. Substantial external funding has been devoted to classroom construction, as well as the provision of enrolment-driven grants to individual schools to replace the revenue lost through the abolition of school fees. The MOES manages this support in a context of government decentralization. Administratively, funds are transferred to the district offices and disbursed to individual schools. The mechanisms tend to encourage the addition of classrooms to existing schools, rather than the establishment of new schools.


xv

As a result, some primary schools are becoming very large, which is not conducive to either improving quality or access (by reducing the distance children must travel). Moreover, the decentralization mechanisms pose their own challenges of capacity development at the district and local school levels. While public sector reform has resulted in some downsizing at the centre in the MOES, there has been a significant transfer of transaction costs to the district level. District offices face real problems in managing their increased responsibilities, including the monitoring of what is happening in individual schools; they lack the resources to carry out the task effectively. There is a nearly universal perception that the quality of primary education has suffered through the period of rapid expansion. Recognizing this, attempts are being made to improve the professional development of teachers, as well as to provide a greater number of textbooks linked to a recently reformed curriculum. However, the effects of these inputs to address quality have not yet materialized substantially in the classrooms. The recent establishment of the Education Standards Agency (ESA) is intended to improve the monitoring of educational quality, as well as strengthen partnerships in inspection, monitoring and assessment between the centre, district and local levels. Retention of children in school remains a problem, particularly for girls in the upper grades. While Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) results indicate almost universal support among parents for both boys and girls completing primary education, there appear to be persistent systemic barriers to achieving this result. A disturbing 13% (DHS estimate) of children remain out of school, in spite of UPE. Districts report the need for greater local flexibility in curriculum, so that particular material of local relevance can be included to catch students’ interest and encourage them to remain in school. However, the standardization pressures of the Primary Leaving Examination (PLE), tend to make this difficult. In parallel to the expansion of primary schooling, the provision of alternative forms of basic education has received attention from some external partners, through project mechanisms. These alternative programmes have been evaluated as very successful, but the number of students targeted has been modest and unit costs are relatively high. As well, the success in expanding primary enrolments has created a “bulge” that will soon be putting pressure on secondary schools. Therefore, there are plans to address Post-primary Education and Training (PPET), and there will be pressure on the external support agencies to increase support for this level, beyond basic education. Greater attention to the integration of basic education into the education sector as a whole is thus emerging as a strategic issue. Partnerships The partnership between the external support agencies and the MOES is managed, as noted above, by the ESCC and the EFAG. These groups come together twice each year for the ESR process, which, over a period of several days, reviews achievement to date, current plans, challenges and problems − all in the context of the ESIP agreements. Agencies providing financing through budget support mechanisms address accountability during the review, by monitoring a series of “undertakings” negotiated collectively with the Government of Uganda (GOU). For example, the key undertaking that ensures their contributions are targeted to basic education is currently that at least 31% of overall discretionary recurrent government spending be on education, at least 65% of which on basic education. Stakeholders agree that these processes of review and accountability work well.


xvi

Beneath the surface, however, there is some degree of tension about the relative division of power in setting priorities and determining strategic directions. While the external support agencies tend to believe that they have put the GOU “in the driver’s seat,” this perception is not fully shared by their Ugandan partners. The power of the cheque-book is still very real. Furthermore, the administrative requirements assumed by the MOES, more specifically in the management of budget support flows, are substantial. There is some concern that key units in the MOES, particularly the planning department, have been forced to shift their workload too much away from the planning and management of education, to the planning and management of Official Development Assistance (ODA) flows. It is clear that many of them are overstretched, and that this is related in part to the management of the semi-annual sector reviews. Outside the bilateral and multilateral partnerships with government, non-governmental agencies are important players. To some extent they have been, and continue to feel marginalized in the processes described above. Efforts are being made to reduce this problem. For example they are now invited to participate in the sector reviews. The Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) are also a channel, to a degree, through which external financing flows into basic education. Funds flow through international NGOs that work with local partners at the grassroots level. They are involved in classroom construction, community schools, school feeding programmes, and other community projects in support of basic education. They are the main channel for support to adult literacy programmes. It is their local NGO partners who come to the table as dialogue participants with the government and the external support agencies. One of the effects of the budget support movement has been the perception, at least, that funding for NGO efforts in basic education is being reduced. However, as there is no system for tracking these funding flows, accurate data is not available. It is clear, nonetheless, that greater involvement of NGOs (both international and Ugandan) in policy dialogue would be helpful. Their own efforts would benefit from greater coordination in the overall strategic planning for basic education. NGOs, however, have a continuing challenge to find the right balance between involvement with the MOES and, at the same time, retaining their traditional independence. The shift from external support through projects to budget support mechanisms thus lies at the heart of all discussions about partnership. While the GOU would prefer all external support to come through budget support mechanisms not all stakeholders agree that this would be beneficial. Both budget support and project mechanisms, they argue, have a part to play. Channelling external financing through budget support on a large scale clearly makes a strong contribution to sustainable basic education. At the same time, individual projects often provide the mechanisms for piloting new approaches and experimenting on a modest scale before major national commitment are made to a particular course of action. As well, there are strong perceptions that projects operate more quickly and efficiently in response to local needs with fewer layers of bureaucratic approval necessary before action can be taken. Therefore, there would seem to be good arguments that while the bulk of external financing should flow through budget support, some room (and funding) should remain for project approaches.

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 Joint Evaluation Of External Support To Basic Education in Developing Countries

1

PART ONE: BACKGROUND 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background to the Study This report presents the results of the case study of external support to basic education in Uganda for the period of 1990 to 2002. It is one of four case studies carried out for the Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education commissioned in February 2002 by a consortium of 13 support agencies with the participation of four developing countries1. Five developing countries were invited to participate in the evaluation (Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia) and all but Bangladesh agreed to do so. The four remaining countries joined the 13 supporting organizations to form an Evaluation Steering Committee (ESC). The ESC meets at important points in the evaluation cycle (two meetings have been held to date and two more are scheduled) to provide overall governance to the evaluation process. The ESC was the ultimate decision-making body for the evaluation. A consortium of private firms with experience in evaluation and in basic education carried out the evaluation. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) is the lead organization in the consortium, which includes Goss Gilroy Inc. of Canada and Education for Change of the United Kingdom. In Uganda, as in each of the four case study countries, a team of four consultants (two international and two national) were responsible for carrying out the study and for the development of this report. Dr. John Berry served as the team leader and the international consultant specialist in education. John Wood, of Education for Change, served as the international consultant specialist in evaluation. Professor Kupuliano Odaet, of Makerere University, and Mr. Titus Balemesa, both based in Kampala, served as Uganda-based consultants. The Uganda case study was carried out from April 2002 to January 2003. It involved three different missions to Uganda by international consultants for joint work with the Uganda-based consultants, in April, October and November 2002. The Uganda-based consultants also carried out data collection and analysis duties between the missions. More details on the methodology of the Uganda case study are provided in Section 2.0 below. The four country case studies examined a common set of evaluation issues and questions as presented in the Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education: Framework Terms of Reference, 2001 for the evaluation. This foundation was strengthened and refined through reference to the preliminary results of the document review component of the evaluation. They relied on common methods to carry out the evaluation and reported using a common framework.

1 The Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education is sponsored by: the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA); Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Danida, Denmark; European Commission (EC); Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany; Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland; Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA); Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); Department for International Development (DFID), United Kingdom; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank.


2

1.2 Purpose of the Uganda Case Study The Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education has been planned to result in six specific products:

• A document review report surveying current available international documentation on external support to basic education, externally supported basic education, and the partnerships involved;

• Four country case study reports: for Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia; and • A synthesis report summarizing the lessons for policy and programming in external

support to basic education contained in the first five products.

As one of the six core outputs of the evaluation process, the Country Study Report: Uganda can be expected to serve the purposes of:

• Exploring and illustrating the key findings and lessons learned from the document review;

• Providing further evaluation evidence that either reinforces or calls into question the lessons learned at the global level through the document review process; and

• Serving as a stand-alone evaluation of external support to basic education in Uganda over a critically important time in the evolution of both external support and national efforts to address needs in basic education.

Finally, the Uganda country case study of should serve the purpose of identifying important lessons learned to improve policy and programming in external support to basic education at the global and national level. 1.3 Structure of the Report The report is structured as follows: Part I: Background Section 1.0 presents this introduction and overview. Section 2.0 provides an overview of the methodologies used during the Uganda case study and discusses both their strengths and challenges. Part II: Findings Sections 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 present the analytical basis and the findings of the Uganda country case study. These three sections of the report are structured in keeping with the three key areas of enquiry of the evaluation: External Support to Basic Education, Externally Supported Basic Education and Partnerships for Basic Education. Further, each area of enquiry is analyzed at three different levels: Intents, Policies and Strategies; Practices; and Results. Section 6.0 summarizes the implications of the case study for policies and programmes at the national and global levels.


3

Section 7.0 draws together the main conclusions of the report, based on the information and analysis of the preceding sections. Finally, the report comprises a comprehensive set of annexes profiling external support and basic education in Uganda, including details on the methodologies used and data sources consulted during the evaluation. One annex contains comments on an earlier draft of the report, which were received from the Country Reference Group (CRG), together with the response of the team leader to each of these comments.


4


5

2.0 Methodology 2.1 Overview of Methodology This report is based on information gathered through a variety of sources, which are explained in more detail in Annex 3:

• Document study; • Site visits; • Structured and unstructured individual interviews; • Group meetings and discussions; • Meetings of the CRG; and • Stakeholder workshop to review findings.

2.1.1 Documents

Figure 1: Literacy in Action

Approximately 70 documents were gathered during the study. An initial set was derived from the large documentation set associated with the Document Review component of the Evaluation. The bulk of the documents however were gathered in Uganda: from the Ministry of Education and Sports MOES and other government departments, from the external support agencies, and from Non-governmental Organizations NGOs. A number of documents were downloaded from various agency web sites. Documents were of various kinds:

• Government of Uganda (GOU) planning and policy doc-uments;

• Education Sector Review (ESR) reports and annexes;

• Evaluation reports from the GOU or from funding agen-cies;

• Specific studies commissioned by the GOU and/or funding agencies;

• Consultants’ reports; • Country plans or strategies of

individual funding agencies; and

• Reports of individual NGOs.


6

2.1.2 Site Visits The consultants visited five districts outside Kampala: Arua, Mbale, Mbarara, Mukono, and Wakiso. About two days were spent in each district, not including travel time. Details of these visits are in Annex 3.2. The visits, usually done in teams of two, added a valuable perspective on the outcomes of external support to basic education at the “front line” level, through discussions with district officials, Coordinating Centre Tutors (CCTs), head teachers, teachers, students and parents. Data and information provided by district offices and by individual schools provided a useful form of triangulation against information collected in Kampala. But the direct experience of schools and classroom activity was even more important. This is the “front line” where the outcomes of external support to basic education are achieved. Perspectives gained by the team through these direct discussions with stakeholders at “the grassroots” are incorporated into the discussion and analysis of Section 2.0 to Section 7.0 of this report.

2.1.3 Individual Interviews Meetings with a wide variety of individuals were a major activity of each of the international consultants’ field missions, as well as a significant component of the Uganda-based consultants’ work, both during and between these missions. Many of the meetings were conducted according to a pre-determined set of questions or issues for discussion and, in many instances, an outline was sent to the stakeholder in advance of the meeting. Typically, however, the discussions took on their own life as new issues emerged and the “agenda” redefined itself in the course of the discussions. A list of some 75 individuals is included in Annex 3.1, which comprises 27 GOU officials, 20 external support agency representatives and 20 NGOs. That list also includes an additional 56 people interviewed during the site visits. 2.1.4 Group Meetings and Discussions These proved more difficult to organize than the team had initially anticipated, and few such meetings occurred. Often, they emerged as an ad hoc response of an interviewee who “pulled together” a group of colleagues, teachers or students. In Arua district, the consultants had a question and answer session with some 400 students of the Primary Teachers College (PTC). This was the only “large” meeting, other than the much smaller stakeholder workshop and CRG meetings described below. It was particularly interesting that, in such a large group, the teacher trainees – for the most part young, recent school graduates – were not at all reticent about raising the “hard” issues of educational quality and sustainability of the primary school system after the rapid access growth to Universal Primary Education (UPE). Other group sessions were quite small – typically two to 10 people. Our meeting with the Uganda Joint Christian Council and with the Uganda Moslem Education Association (UMEA), for example, involved about six people, plus the consultants. This gave the opportunity for intensive interchange, with each person’s views getting a full hearing. 2.1.5 The Country Reference Group Uganda was the first of the four countries to launch an active CRG. The group was established on the initiative of the Acting Director of Education, in consultation with the Royal Netherlands Embassy. Approximately 20 members were invited from among the MOES, other Government Departments, civil society and individual educators. Meetings were held with the CRG during each of the field missions. The Acting Director of Education, who served as chairman, called each meeting. A MOES staff member kept minutes.


7

The CRG was mandated to assist the evaluation team by providing advice and guidance in the following areas:

• Comments on the work plans of the evaluation team; • Advice as to contacts and sources of information; • Debriefing discussions; and • Comments on preliminary reports, findings and case study drafts.

However, it was clearly understood that the evaluation team was responsible for the report and its conclusions, under the direction of the Evaluation Management Group (EMG) and, ultimately, the Steering Committee. From this perspective, the CRG’s role was clearly advisory rather than directive. In addition to meeting with the international consultants during each of their visits to Uganda, the CRG also met, between these missions, with the Uganda-based consultants in attendance. A list of CRG membership is in Annex 3.1. In all, the CRG held four meetings in 2002:

• April 5, 2002: Inaugural meeting of the CRG. The mandate of the group was reviewed, in the context of a reflection of the Joint Evaluation and the particular importance of the Uganda case study as a component in that study;

• September 3, 2002: This meeting reviewed the draft Framework Terms of Reference for the Uganda case study and prepared detailed comments that were sent to the team. It also provided the Acting Director of Education with advice for his participation in the Steering Committee meeting held in Ottawa later in the month;

• September 30, 2002: This meeting, at the beginning of the second field mission, reviewed work to date and plans for this mission, and advised the consultants on additional data sources and informants. Contacts through the CRG with the NGO community were particularly helpful; and

• October 11, 2002: This meeting’s main agenda was a debriefing by the consultant team at the end of the second field mission. The CRG also reviewed future plans and discussed, in particular, the details of the stakeholder workshop, planned for November.

Moreover, all members of the CRG were invited to participate in the Stakeholders’ workshop, to which a substantial number attended. Finally, individual members of the CRG were invited to comment on the initial draft of this case study report. The Acting Director of Education gathered together their comments into a single document by. This consolidated document, along with the evaluation team leader’s response, is appended as Annex 4 to this report. 2.1.6 Stakeholders’ Workshop The Stakeholders’ workshop was held on Monday, November 18 at the Equatoria Hotel in Kampala. The firm of MSE Consultants Limited of Kampala facilitated the event and provided related logistical support. Attendance was about 40 of the 65 people invited. The strongest participation was from district representatives, NGOs and National Associations. A number of MOES officials had scheduling conflicts, which meant they could only attend part of the meeting. Participation from external support agencies was poor. Nonetheless, the participants brought a broad range of perspectives and voices, some of which had not been previously heard in the case study work. Three consecutive structured discussion sessions, in which the participants divided into four groups, allowed a rich discussion, captured


8

by rapporteurs in each group and provided to the consultants. As well, one consultant “sat in” on each group as a listener and as a second note taker. Details of the workshop are in Annex 3.3. 2.1.7 Integration and Analysis of the Data and Information Section 3.0 to Section 6.0 contain the consultant team’s analysis of the gathered information and data. This has been structured according to the original questions of the Framework Terms of Reference, but also filtered through the experiences and reflections of the team during the time they spent working together in Uganda in 2002. Overall, the organization follows the original three-by-three matrix, originally presented in the study’s inception report and the country Framework Terms of Reference. The conclusions comprise a fourth column.

Table 1: Framework for Issues Matrix

Intents, Policies and Strategies Practices Results Conclusions

Nature and Evolution of External Support Section 3.1 Section 3.2 Section 3.3 Section 6.0

Basic Education Receiving External Support Section 4.1 Section 4.2 Section 4.3 Section 6.0

Partnerships Section 5.1 Section 5.2 Section 5.3 Section 6.0

In the course of the team’s data gathering, and even more in the subsequent analysis, it was increasingly clear that as we move to the right in this matrix, the previous columns cascade across the rows. It emerges, for example, that the practices in basic education are strongly influenced by the intents, policies and strategies of both the GOU and their external support partners, as well as by the modalities of partnership through which these are linked. Thus Section 4.2 flows, in a very real sense, out of Sections 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1. The same is even more true for results and conclusions. Rather than a simple matrix with a vertical and a horizontal logic, the analysis has to embrace diagonal links as well, so that a better representation would look like the following diagram, in which each cell is identified as having an influence on all three levels in the next column.


9

Figure 2: Underlying Logic of Issues Matrix

2.1.8 Summary of Chronology and Key Dates The following table summarizes the key dates and events in the Uganda Case Study.

Table 2: Chronology of the Uganda Case Study

Date Event April 1-8, 2002 First (Inception) mission to Uganda by team leader April 5, 2002 First CRG meeting April 15-26, 2002 Seventh ESR: national consultant participation May 7-8, 2002 EMG meeting in Ottawa (review of draft Framework Terms of Reference) July 2-3, 2002 EMG meeting in Ottawa (review of revised Framework Terms of

Reference) Sep. 12-13, 2002 Steering Committee meeting (review of revised Framework Terms of

Reference) Sep. 16-17, 2002 Quality Assurance workshop for Country Case Study teams and planning

of second field mission Sep. 28-Oct. 10, 2002 Second field mission by international consultants Oct. 2-5, 2002 Site visits to four districts Oct. 21-25, 2002 Eighth ESR: national consultant participation Oct. 15-Nov. 15, 2002 Additional meetings and data gathering by Uganda-based consultants Nov. 15-Nov. 22, 2002 Third field mission by international consultants Nov. 18, 2002 Consultative workshop with stakeholders Dec. 2002-Jan. 2003 Final data gathering and drafting of this report February 2003 Consideration of draft report by EMG and, in Uganda, the CRG March 2003 Submission of draft report to the CRG March 2003 Second Quality Assurance workshop

External Support

Basic Education

Partnerships

Intents, Policies

Sec 3.1

Sec 4.1

Sec 5.1

Practices Results Conclusions

Sec 3.2

Sec 4.2

Sec 5.2

Sec 3.3

Sec 4.3

Sec 5.3

Conclusions Section 6

& Strategies


10

2.2 Strengths and Challenges 2.2.1 Strengths The success of our case study is the result of a number of factors. First and foremost, a wide variety of stakeholders in Uganda were eager to be involved in the consultative process. Government officials, NGO representatives, church and community leaders, educators, teachers, and students were all eager to discuss these issues and share their views. Clearly, basic education, particularly Universal Primary education (UPE), is a major topic of public discourse, in which every Ugandan feels a stake. These views varied widely. For example, while the dialogue between government and NGOs is strengthening, there is still a degree of tension, and a sense of different agendas at play. Another divergence is between Kampala and the local level. Mindful of the Steering Committee’s instructions, this report reflects the findings and the conclusions of the evaluators. For this, the team takes full responsibility. Doubtless, there are items with which particular Ugandans would take issue. While the process was planned and implemented to maximize the consultative aspects, with the broadest range of stakeholders and informants, the consultants’ mandate was not to reflect consensus views but to reach independent conclusions. So, there are limitations on the degree to which the case study is truly participatory. The commitment of the GOU, as well as representatives of a wide range of educational stakeholders, was strong. Through mechanisms such as the CRG, they demonstrated their belief in the value of this case study and gave it their cooperation. Individuals were equally eager to make time available for meetings and discussions. This is significant, as we noted (with concern that we expand on below), that most key people are “overstretched,” with far too many demands on their time. Finally, the fact that four case studies, albeit in very different countries, were proceeding in parallel, offered numerous opportunities for cross-fertilization, shared methodological approaches, and informal comparisons of preliminary findings. In this sense, the four studies, collectively, are more than the sum of their parts. In detail, however, each of the four case studies proceeded along a distinct path. This reflects the differences in the actual situation in each country (with respect to the context, and the approaches of both governments and external agencies). It also reflects the differences in the information and types of data that turned out to be available in each case. But, shared reflections on these very differences cast light on the specific reality that each team was confronted with in their particular country of focus. In the case of the Uganda and Zambia studies, this was particularly true, since the same international consultants were involved in both and, indeed some of the Ugandan- and Zambian-based consultants were able to use the Steering Committee meeting in September 2002 for an intense exchange of views. The comparisons, as well as the contrasts, between the approaches to external support to basic education in the two countries shed considerable light on the individual situations of each. 2.2.2 Challenges The greatest challenges in the evaluation relate to gaps in the ideal set of information and data that the consultants would have wished for. These gaps are of several types.


11

First, the written record during the period from 1990 to 1996 is relatively sparse. This is true in the MOES, but even more so in the offices of the external support agencies. No doubt there was less support for basic education during those years, but the flow of Official Development Assistance (ODA) was not insubstantial as noted in Section 3.3. The situation is made more acute by the lack of personal corporate memory, due to turnover of staff in the external support agencies. Time and time again, agency representatives told us, in effect, “I can only tell you about the situation since I arrived” (usually within the past 2 or 3 years). In the MOES, we sensed that the problem was rather different. There was a great deal of documentation, but no systematic organizational process through which it could be accessed. Often, several different people said that a certain report existed, but no one could actually find a copy for us. For documents produced in recent years, the situation seems to have improved a great deal. There appear to be several reasons for this. One reason is that, after UPE and the Education Strategic Investment Plan (ESIP), there is a joint commitment to information sharing and coordination, which has created a need for clear documentation. Another is that the extensive use of computers and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) by all partners means that documents now are prepared and stored in electronic form. This makes organization, retrieval and sharing of documents vastly simpler. A second significant gap occurred in the quantitative data available. Up until the year 2000, the capacity in the MOES for quantitative tracking of education indicators was weak. Again, the situation has improved substantially under ESIP. At the end of the 1990s, the Education for All (EFA) 2000 Assessment, supported by UNESCO, was a significant catalyst that accelerated improvement of the gathering and management of education information. The assessment specifications provided strong information about what was needed, and training workshops increased the awareness and skills levels needed to conduct the assessment. Uganda’s capacity was then observed to be weak and the end result (in the gathering of quantitative data) was less than satisfactory. Significant investments were then made to create a more robust Education Management Information System (EMIS). As a result, management and organization of the data from the year 2000 is greatly improved. However, this very improvement creates difficulties in comparing recent data with that from earlier years. Differences in the processes for gathering, storing and analysing educational statistics pre- and post-2000 make any longitudinal comparisons of time series dangerous indeed. The tables in Annex 2 must be interpreted with this caveat. A related problem is the accuracy of the raw data itself. More detail is provided below, but it is acknowledged by both MOES officials and by partner agency representatives that the quality control of data gathering (particularly at the first level of individual schools) is very weak. Finally, challenges of communication and coordination between a team of four consultants based in widely separated locations (Uganda, United Kingdom, and Canada) were very real. ICT, particularly e-mail, was used extensively. Indeed, our methodology would have been impossible even ten years ago, except at far greater cost in time and money. However, the limited availability and use of technology in Uganda, both in the GOU, NGOs and by the Uganda-based consultants created problems. It is clear that joint projects like this study will become much easier to implement in the future as computer technology makes greater penetration into developing countries such as Uganda.


12


13

PART TWO: FINDINGS

Figure 3: Classroom in Mukono District

3.0 External Support to Basic Education 3.1 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies Based on the Framework Terms of Reference, our analysis focuses on the following questions:

• What is the broad framework of ideas, understanding and institutions within which external assistance is provided to basic education in Uganda? How has that framework, or its major components, changed over the past decade?

• How has the nature of external support to basic education in Uganda evolved since 1990? • How were external funding agencies involved in the development of Uganda=s basic

education policies, particularly the White Paper and, subsequently, ESIP? • How did Uganda’s early participation in both the Comprehensive Development

Framework (CDF) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) processes affect its relationship with external agencies?


14

The team’s review of documents, as well as interviews with Kampala stakeholders, indicate that in the early 1990s, individual agencies were funding separate projects, guided mainly by their own particular interests and priorities. Coordination between agencies was minimal, with ad hoc links to Uganda=s education strategies that were just emerging in explicit form. Harmonization of approach was virtually non-existent. As we note in Section 4.0, the GOU, early in its reconstruction efforts in the late 1980s, targeted the reform and strengthening of basic education as a key priority. After Jomtien, the Government White Paper (MOES, 1992) led to enhanced dialogue with individual external support agencies. Although records from the period of 1990 to 1996 are rather fragmentary, they indicate that by the mid-1990s, the agencies were moving towards closer coordination through various informal mechanisms (USAID, 1992, 1996; Wright and Govinda, 1994). More structured approaches emerged after that. With the movement towards UPE, announced in 1996, followed by the development of the ESIP in 1997 (MOES, 1998), it was clear that stronger coordination and more focused support among external agencies would be essential if Uganda’s bold initiatives were to be adequately sustained. By the time of the evaluation team’s work in 2002, virtually all external support agencies were operating within the framework of ESIP. Moreover, a significant number of them were providing their assistance through budget support mechanisms rather than individual projects. The processes established through the joint efforts of the external agencies and the MOES had led to a high degree of harmonization in both the policies and procedures used for providing external support. This process provides a model case study of the evolution from individual project approaches to a SWAp in Uganda over the period of 1990 to 2002. At the level of national policy, the Ugandan process leading from the work of the Education Policy Review Commission of 1989 to the 1992 Uganda Government White Paper on education are described in Section 4.1. This paper provided a framework within which external support was intended to operate. But the concept of a SWAp was yet to emerge. The thinking – it appears of all parties – was focused on the relationship between the MOES and individual agencies, with some appreciation that external agencies should coordinate their efforts, to reduce overlap, avoid gaps, and simplify administration and reporting procedures for the GOU. It took some years, then, for external support agencies to adapt their approaches to a coordinated and shared policy dialogue with the GOU. Indeed, the evolution of the early ideas that led to ESIP were described to the team as a process of dialogue, led on the external side by the World Bank and Department for International Development (DFID), that resulted in Uganda’s becoming one of the first and most successful education SWAPs. The idea of developing an education SWAp in Uganda seems to have emerged in 1996 during a World Bank Study Tour to Korea, involving a number of senior MOES officials. DFID provided some initial technical assistance (TA) to get the process started in the MOES, and ESIP emerged in 1997. The initial group of supporting agencies was relatively small: DFID, Ireland, Netherlands, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with the European Commission (EC) and the World Bank were the initial providers of budget support. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) joined this group a little later. Other agencies were also brought into ESIP, by bringing their legacy projects within the ESIP “umbrella” for purposes of strategic planning and monitoring. In parallel to these efforts, there was a strong coordinated external agency consultation on a much broader multi-sector front, that led to the development, with Uganda, of the CDF at the macro-economic level, and the Poverty


15

Eradication Plan (PEAP) as a strategic focus on poverty eradication. We explore the links between these and basic education support below. As these types of coordinated policy dialogues intensified, it was clear to the funding agencies, as well as to the government, that a more structured process was necessary. This resulted in the development of a negotiated agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on government-agency dialogue, cooperation, coordination and harmonization. For their part, the external support agencies formed the Education Funding Agencies Group (EFAG), which operates under an agreement between the funding agencies themselves. In meetings with various agencies, however, it became clear to the team that these arrangements were seen from a variety of perspectives. The agencies committed to budget support tend to view them very seriously, as formal and binding commitments. Others, primarily those providing support through projects, see them as less formal arrangements or guidelines. Notwithstanding these differences in perception, the team had an overall impression that there was a strong consensus among the external agencies and GOU officials that the mechanisms worked well. Indeed, the divergence, as a reflection of a degree of flexibility among agencies, can be seen as a positive aspect. Harmonization need not mean uniformity. The important thing is that there seems to be enough consistency between agencies to simplify considerably the processes of shared planning, monitoring and accountability for the GOU with its external partners. The monthly EFAG meetings involve the review of progress in education, coordination of activities, and discussion (leading to agreement) on a common position on critical issues. The main outputs of the EFAG meetings are a list of key issues for inclusion in the agenda for the next meeting of the Education Sector Consultative Committee (ESCC), and to the semi-annual ESR process. Between the semi-annual review meetings, regular meetings of the ESCC, involving both MOES officials and representatives of the external support agencies, provide a mechanism for continuing dialogue, the regular monitoring of progress, and both preparatory and follow-up work for the reviews. The ESCC thus acts as a kind of “executive committee” for the review process, which involves a very large group of stakeholders. The April 2002 review, for example, involved: representatives of funding and TA agencies; parliament; the Prime Minister’s office; the MOES and its affiliated institutions; Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MOFPED; the Public Service Commission; Local Government; the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries; Ministry of Health; the President’s Office; district offices, religious institutions, teachers’/head teachers’/directors’ Associations; Uganda Defence Force; Police; NGOs; and the private sector (List from the Seventh ESR Aide-Memoire, April 2002). By dealing with the EFAG instead of with individual agencies, the GOU, through the MOES is able to negotiate, dialogue and work in partnership with the external support agencies as a single body. While the GOU may reach different arrangements with individual funding agencies, the overall modalities of support and cooperation take place within this structure. It has major implications for the management of the ODA process (in education) for Uganda, which will be explored below. While UPE has been a major priority since 1997, many external agencies have also supported individual projects supporting alternative or non-formal education, as well as ECCD and Functional Adult Literacy (FAL). These are project approaches, although there is some desire, both in the MOES and among some agencies, to move them closer towards budget support. Except for FAL, they are still included within the ESIP framework and, to some degree, subject


16

to the processes of the ESR. The MOES, however, notes that the degree to which these individual projects actually benefit from ESIP coordination mechanisms varies from one agency to another. Inevitably, semi-annual sector reviews focus mainly on: first, the review of annual undertakings to determine whether the next release of budget support money occurs, and second, planning of future strategies. Review of current activities within project approaches is a lower priority. Since FAL falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MOGLSD), the (relatively small amount of) support in this area lies outside ESIP. Thus, modest amounts of support to basic education provided by some agencies fall outside the scope of the MOES and, consequently, of ESIP. Significant amounts of external support, originating in part in the bilateral agencies, flow through NGOs. Norway, for example, channels significant assistance to basic education through Save the Children Norway (formerly Redd Barna). Much of the external support through NGOs is difficult to track and impossible to quantify in a comprehensive way, since neither MOFPED nor MOES requires systematic reporting from NGOs and neither maintains a systematic record of this type of activity. It thus falls outside ESIP, although some discussion occurs in the process of recent ESRs, due to the presence of NGO representatives. 3.2 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Practices Here, the key questions are the following:

• How have the practices of support to basic education changed over time? • What factors influenced the approaches of individual external agencies in support of

ESIP? • What has been the experience of agencies regarding the various modalities through which

support is provided? • How has support been provided between formal and non-formal education?

An attempt is made to trace, with varying success (depending on the information available), three types of evolution in the practices of external support during the period of 1990 to 2002:

• The amounts of financial assistance; • The modalities through which the assistance was disbursed; and • The priorities to which this assistance was directed.

Also discussed are the conditionalities that have been negotiated between external support agencies and the GOU and the evolution of this process, particularly since the beginning of ESIP. The MOFPED now tracks all ODA flows, using a complex system whose development was supported by the World Bank, and their records appear to be comprehensive, consistent from year-to-year, and accurate. Unfortunately, although their data is complete since 1990, it does not support accurate dissagregation by sector, except for specific project funding. Indeed, such analysis is becoming more complex as ODA becomes increasingly fungible as a result of external agencies channelling funding through budget support. Figure 4 shows the time series for total ODA flows, divided into project support and budget support (including debt relief and import support). It shows that, throughout most of the 1990s, project support exceeded budget support, indeed by an increasing margin. The situation reversed dramatically after 1998 and by 2001 budget support represented 61% of ODA.


17

Figure 4: ODA Flows to Uganda by Modality

(Source MOFPED) Within the smaller envelope of project funding, it is possible to track the portion disbursed to education. After 1997 and the introduction of UPE, the amount of ODA project funding devoted to education increased dramatically. Even as overall project funding declined with the shift to budget support, education’s share remained in the range of 14-16%, as compared to around 6% prior to 1997.

Figure 5: ODA Project Funding: Education Share

(Source: MOFPED)

ODA, ALL SECTORS, BY MODALITY

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

US$

Tho

usan

ds

Budget Support Project Support Total ODA

Year

ODA PROJECT FUNDING: TOTAL AND EDUCATION SHARE

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000Year

Education Other Sectors

US$

Tho

usan

ds


18

Since 1998, however, it is possible, from data in the Medium-term Budget Framework (MTBF) reviews, to track the share of total budget support flowing into Uganda by sector. In Figure 6, we track the total flow of budget support into education, broken down into three categories:

• General Budget Support: This is the largest component. It is primarily Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative funding. Under the provisions of Uganda’s PRSP a negotiated percentage (currently 60% of PAF funds) is to be targeted to education, through the Poverty Action Fund (PAF). General Budget Support also contains funds allocated to education under the Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC);

• Sector Support: Funds provided specifically for the education sector by several bilateral agencies and STABEX funds from the EC; and

• Earmarked Sector Support: Funds for specific projects or activities (e.g. classroom construction, Teacher Development and Management System (TDMS)) administered by the MOES, provided by individual bilateral agencies or the EC. (Project Support, in contrast, is administered by the funding agencies directly rather than through the MOES budget).

Between 1998 and 2002, overall budget support to education grew by nearly 25% (from US$120 million to US$148 million).

Figure 6: Budget Support to Education, 1998 to 2002

(Source: MTBF)

BUDGET SUPPORT TO PRIMARY EDUCATION 1998 to 2002

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Earmarked Sector Support Sector Support General Budget Support

% of Total Primary Education Budget (recurrent + Development): 59% 55% 57% 61% 54%

US$

Tho

usan

ds

Year


19

Since the mid-1990s, a substantial but far from complete shift towards budget support emerges. The GOU has clearly stated its preference that ODA should be disbursed through budget support mechanisms. Why, then, have external agencies not completely committed their funding support through that modality? In discussions with various stakeholders, several answers have emerged:

• First, there are continuing concerns expressed by agency representatives that budget support through a SWAp may leave the agency unable to meet particular accountability requirements at home office, often part of agency-specific Results-based Management (RBM) requirements going back to the early 1990s;

• The agencies also report domestic pressures for “showing the flag” on projects that can be directly identified with individual country contribution;

• Some agencies present arguments that for certain activities, stand-alone projects present advantages of efficiency over earmarked sector support. This point of view also has significant support among Ugandan officials at the district and school level; and

• Finally, the team observed a tendency for individual agencies to “hedge their bets.” By dividing their support between budget support, individual projects and agency-managed TA, they feel they are diversifying their risk, and keeping options open − at least until experience with SWAps becomes clearer over the longer term.

Budget support, through ESIP, also favours certain priorities or activities over others. Reflecting GOU priority, it is channelled towards UPE, particularly UPE grants (capitation grants provided directly to schools to replace school fees formerly collected from parents) and School Facilities Grants (SFGs) to support the construction of extra classrooms. The earmarked sector support funds are spent mainly on classroom construction, TDMS, instructional materials development and on capacity building activities in the MOES and at the district level. Agencies wishing to support other types of activity tend, therefore, to be pulled towards project modalities. General budget support assists the MOES in meeting the recurrent costs of a greatly expanded system. As noted in Figure 6, during the period of 1998 to 2002, external assistance has funded between 54% and 61% of the recurrent costs of basic education delivered through primary schools. (We examine the distribution of spending more closely in Section 4.2.) Some external partners, as well as GOU officials, have expressed concern about the sustainability of a system that is heavily dependent on external flows. Future estimates in the medium term budget framework show this percentage declining, but this may in fact be because all the commitments of external support agencies for future years are not yet included in the computations. There is a relationship between the priorities of individual external support agencies with respect to different kinds of education activity and their commitment to budget support. Those agencies closely aligned with budget support prioritize increasing access to public schooling, as that is the major focus of budget support. On the other hand, those who wish to focus on other priorities, such as special needs education (e.g., Danida), or alternative basic education (e.g., GTZ), feel a need to use project funding as the delivery mechanism.


20

Figure 7: Total Basic Education Expenditures, 1998 to 2002

(Source: MTBF) Figure 7, based on data from the April 2002 Sector Review, shows total basic education expenditure by funding source. The data suggest that the GOU is heavily dependent on external ODA to support the expansion of basic education. The bars represent total spending on primary education, both recurrent and development, as reported in the MTBF. (The 2002 data is the budgeted amount, not actual expenditure. Based on past practice, the difference is not highly significant.) During the five-year-period reviewed, recurrent spending was approximately 70% of the budget, with the remaining 30% in the development budget (primarily classroom construction). Note that the “Budget Support” component of each bar is exactly the same as the total bar in Figure 6. While the GOU’s own proportion of total expenditure is gradually increasing, the concomitant reduction in dependence on external support is small. The situation is likely to persist for a number of years to come. The GOU faces a significant challenge in mobilizing the domestic resources to fund its share of the basic education budget – a share that is increasing. The situation is helped by the active participation of a MOFPED representative in the Sector Review Process, but the MOES must still make its case for each year’s budget within a larger mix of competing priorities. Inter-sectoral budget allocation takes place in the context of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework of Uganda’s PRSP. Fifteen Sector Working Groups are each tasked with presenting their case for resource allocation through the preparation of explicit, costed plans. The most recent PRSP progress report (2002) cited the Education Sector as one of the very few that has an effective, costed sector plan (ESIP). This high level of performance relative to other sectors has, to date, benefited the education sector. Education’s sectoral share of the GOU Budget (as presented in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework) is the largest of any sector, at around 26% of the annual budget. In absolute amounts, budget allocations to basic education have been growing by 6% to 9% each year (recurrent plus development budgets). As such, the education budget is under constant pressure from MOFPED when sources to economize are sought. In the absence of new revenues, any new government

EDUCATION EXPENDITURES 1998-2002

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

GOU share

Project Support

Budget SupportUS$

Tho

usan

ds


21

initiatives can only be financed by re-allocation of existing resources. As this study was ending, the team learned that the pressure from MOFPED to limit the education budget, or at least to constrain its growth, was increasing. The negotiated agreements between external support agencies and the MOES, subject to regular review in the sector review process, provide additional “ammunition” to the MOES for maintaining the GOU financial support for basic education at agreed levels. This powerful conditionality is discussed further in the next section. It is clear that those external agencies who choose to funnel their assistance through budget support, need to be “in for the long haul.” Inherently, budget support provides the means and thus encourages the GOU, to expand its education spending. Were funding agencies to reduce their contributions and/or withdraw from budget support, the GOU would be left with a system it could not afford. There is no clear estimate of the number of years it will take before Uganda’s own revenues can fund the system without the need for external support. But most stakeholders with whom this issue was discussed believe that we are talking about at least 10 years, perhaps much more. This goes beyond the period for which funding agencies can make formal commitments, but they need to realize that they have made an implicit commitment to at least that time span. 3.2.1 The Use of Conditionalities External support has always come with conditions attached. There are at least three reasons for this:

• Each of the external support agencies within the scope of this study has explicit policy objectives at both the global and national level. Conditionalities, from their perspective, help to ensure that the support they provide does indeed further those policy objectives;

• Agencies, moreover, are accountable domestically, both to government and to the general

public. The agencies need assurances (that they can use to report back to these domestic sources) that the assistance provided is being used effectively. Here, the nature of “effectiveness” is defined domestically, not in the partner country, and so implicitly or explicitly imposes conditionalities; and

• Finally, conditionalities tied to their support are often regarded by external agencies as a

form of TA. From this view, the agencies use conditionalities to influence the policy or programme environment for basic education in the partner country, or even the basic education system itself.

Each of these three rationales for conditionalities can be found in the processes of external support to basic education in Uganda. Under ESIP, conditionalities take on a particular form for those external agencies providing budget support. Since their contributions are more or less fungible, the usual accountabilities or requirements attached to a project implementation and reporting framework are not available. Instead, a set of undertakings is negotiated (or updated) at each sector review meeting. Progress in achieving these undertakings is reviewed at the next review meeting, about six months later. These undertakings are the main triggers for the release of budget support funds. The process of defining and reviewing the undertakings has been refined and, to a degree, simplified, since their introduction in 1999. Initially, the undertakings included both general targets and specific items


22

that reflected individual agency priorities carried over from earlier project approaches. (The May 1999 ESR, for example, involved 16 distinct undertakings.) Over time, the number of undertakings has been reduced and reflects a consensus negotiated among funding agencies and the MOES. As an explicit example, the list of conditionalities from the May 2002 ESR has seven items: Critical Undertakings:

• Financial Commitment: Government budget and releases should maintain a minimum of 31% of recurrent discretionary expenditure for education and at least 65% of this for primary education;

• Public Expenditure Management: Requires a progress report on implementation of the Financial Management Strengthening Component of the Second Economic and Financial Management Project and the Financial Accountability Project; and, a tracking study of teacher recruitment, deployment and payroll management;

• Quality of Education: Reaching a pupil- to-teacher ratio of 54:1, and a pupil-to-classroom ratio of 92:1;

• Equitable Quality: Reaching equitable enrolment of girls and boys in Primary 7. Process Undertakings:

• Equitable Access: Development of a costed policy framework on the education of disadvantaged children;

• Teacher Recruitment: Establishment of a monitoring system and an action plan to accelerate recruitment and deployment; and

• Monitoring and Evaluation: Effective gathering, analysis and reporting of 2002 EMIS data.

This use of undertakings as both the monitoring mechanism and the trigger for release of funds provides mutual assurance to the external agencies that their concerns will be addressed, and to the GOU that funds will be released to them if the negotiated undertakings are achieved. Each undertaking is accompanied by explicit means of verification and data sources, which provide the input to the review of the undertaking at the next sector review meeting. The list of undertakings, as well as the specific targets associated with each of them, evolves from one semi-annual sector review to another. The critical undertakings tend to be carried forward, from one sector review to the next, with only minor adjustment. However, the process undertakings are more typically “one-off” initiatives that are replaced with other requirements once they have been completed (perhaps over a period of more than one review). This process is strongly supported by those agencies providing budget support. Indeed all external support agencies involved in the EFAG (including those in “project mode” and those providing TA) felt they had a part to play – particularly regarding the process undertakings. For the MOES, the net effect of the undertakings clearly has a strong steering effect on their work and on the deployment of resources. While they have every opportunity to make their case when the undertakings are developed, they report being very conscious of external pressures. It would be unfair to say that the undertakings are imposed by external agencies. They are the result of mutual agreement between GOU representatives and the EFAG members. However, it is certainly the perception of MOES officials that the negotiations are complex and that while they get a fair hearing, they often have to “bend to the will of external partners.”


23

3.3 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Results Here the following questions are addressed:

• What have been the results and consequences of external support to basic education in partner countries?

• What are the strengths and weaknesses, particularly from the perspectives of the external partners, of the EFAG/ESCC processes?

• How is the effectiveness of the semi-annual review process perceived? • Which agencies have been the chief providers of TA and policy dialogue in Uganda and

how have their roles changed over the period? Ugandan officials informed the team that in the early 1990s, the individual project approaches of each external agency caused significant management problems for the GOU in planning for the education sector, and even more, for managing the flows of external support. A variety of different accountability and reporting practices made consolidated planning and management very difficult. This perspective is shared, to a lesser degree, by the external agencies themselves. A number of informants felt that, in the past, individual project approaches caused some duplication, as well as significant gaps in coverage which led to weakening of the collective strategic impact of interventions. In particular, officials in the MOES felt that the budget support mechanisms in place since 1999 made strategic planning and deployment of financial resources much more effective. Since 1999, the government and participating funding agencies have formed the ESCC in the MOES and the EFAG, for the external agencies. These two bodies together coordinate and manage a shared approach to budget support, project support and coordination, and TA. The EFAG meets regularly and its efforts have passed beyond coordination to a high degree of harmonization of approach. Interviews with EFAG members, as well as examination of EFAG documents, suggest to the evaluation team that the degree of harmonization is not uniform among EFAG members. There is an inner group of “like-minded” members who share a commitment to budget support and a common sense of priority focused on UPE and support for primary schooling. This group includes the EC, the World Bank, CIDA, DFID, Ireland Aid (Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland), and the Netherlands. Their approaches are strongly harmonized. Indeed, the EC, DFID and CIDA share common representation in the EFAG through a common office and official (currently in the EC office). The remaining EFAG members can be visualized in a set of two additional concentric circles:

• The first group contains agencies committed to basic education, but whose highest priority is not budget support for primary schooling and UPE. These agencies support alternative basic education, early childhood education, and adult basic education. In some instances, they are key players in policy dialogue or TA, but not as providers of external funds. The agencies in this first “outer group” include UNICEF, UNESCO, Danida, and GTZ; and

• The second group includes EFAG members whose activities are primarily devoted to

other parts of the education sector. This usually means support to tertiary education, although some support to basic education may also be present. This group includes Austria, France, Japan, and Norway.


24

Representatives of these two “outer” groups are generally satisfied with the EFAG process, but it is important to note that they do not feel they are central players in it. They perceive the EFAG processes as being steered by the priorities and views of the “like-minded” inner group. The team notes that this perception is natural and appears to be accurate. There is no evidence that this division between different members of the EFAG is doing any real harm. Rather, it is a natural consequence of the inclusion of support for primary schooling as by far the largest component in a true SWAp that also includes other parts of basic education, as well as secondary and tertiary education. The positive aspects of including agencies supporting all these elements in a common dialogue seem clearly to outweigh the disadvantages. EFAG members jointly participate every six months in the review of educational sector plans and their implementation with colleagues in the MOES, as well as other educational stakeholders invited by the GOU. The EFAG also supports and works with the government in its management of the review process. Accountability requirements of those external support agencies that provide budget support is now based on a set of negotiated undertakings, which are examined and updated in each sector review meeting and provide the triggers for the release of the next tranche of external funding. All parties agree that this ESR process is a substantial improvement over previous arrangements. Agency representatives noted that initially, accountability was measured in terms of some 57 distinct undertakings. As the ESR process has evolved, this has been focused down to less than 10 carefully nuanced undertakings. As joint commitments of the GOU and the EFAG, these involve other ministries, particularly the MOFPED as well as the MOES. The ESR process deals with both planning and management issues. Many officials and stakeholders interviewed by the team in Kampala drew a distinction between coordination and control. Coordination is now seen by most partners in the ESR process as a means of ensuring that the planning and ongoing management of externally supported basic education take place within a single structured mechanism involving the government and the external agencies as dialogue partners. Coordination is thus a process rather than an end in itself. All participants in this process agree that the EFAG has provided an extremely effective and efficient mechanism for coordination. Control, on the other hand, is seen, particularly by the Uganda partners, as a reflection of the inherent inequalities in power that different stakeholders bring to the ESR process. While the funding agencies believe that the ESR gives real substance to the mantra of “putting the developing country in the driver’s seat,” Uganda partners appear to be much more ambivalent. There are real perceptions, on the part of government officials, that the management of undertakings represents a strong conditionality of funding agencies. Since they are supplying the funds, the review of ESIP is not one of equal partners. Meeting the conditionalities imposes an undue restriction on the Ministry of Education’s flexibility to spend money effectively. A second set of conditionalities, of course, surround earmarked sector support. Here, there is much less flexibility to move money around. It must be used for the particular activity or target for which the donor has earmarked it. The Commissioner for Planning in the MOES cited several difficulties that this inflexibility causes:

• There is often a less than perfect match with absorptive capacity. This leads to some earmarked funds remaining unspent while other budgets are in deficit;


25

• At the district level, the earmarked priorities may not match perceived needs. For example, one district turned down additional earmarked classroom construction grants because they attached a higher priority to the construction of teachers’ housing, for which the grants could not be spent; and

• Delays in the release of earmarked funding cause particular problems. It is sometimes necessary to “borrow” from other budgets, but it is later very difficult to repay the transfer of earmarked funds.

There is less evidence that, in longer term planning, the setting of activities and priorities is unduly controlled by funding agencies. The emphasis on UPE, delivered through the public schools, as the core of ESIP, was clearly a GOU decision. In current planning of “ESIP II,” the extension of priority to Post-primary Education and Training (PPET) is a GOU-initiated enhancement of ESIP. Some agencies are ambivalent about “diluting” ESIP away from its focus on basic education. Their headquarter strategies give clear priority to basic education with a cut-off that generally excludes support to higher levels of education. Nonetheless the initial planning of PPET has been supported by pooled TA funding and appears very likely to go ahead with a reasonable base of external support. One of the advantages often cited in the literature for SWAps is a reduction in the complexity of administrative, accountability and reporting burdens, particularly on the partner country. It is not evident that this has been achieved in Uganda. Clearly, for those agencies that channel funding through budget support, there is much less detail work as compared to the management of individual projects. It would appear, therefore, that for these agencies, the burden is lightened. However, it seems that much of this burden has been transferred to the MOES. Transaction costs for budget support agencies have dropped, in their opinion. But, MOES officials feel that their own transaction costs have risen. This is consistent with the preliminary observations of Foster, Brown, Norton and Naschold (2000), who observed that in Uganda’s health SWAp there were increased transaction costs in the short run, with no clear evidence of reductions that might accrue later when the new arrangements were fully in place. The semi-annual review process is extremely labour-intensive and time-consuming. A number of the staff in certain departments of the MOES, particularly the Planning Department, report that they are engaged virtually full-time in this activity. No sooner does one review end that the task of planning for the next review begins. This raises the very real concern that much of the attention and effort of senior levels in the MOES are devoted first to managing the relationship with funding agencies, through ESIP and the ESR process, and only second (sometimes a very “stretched” second) to managing Ugandan education itself. Two related points are worth noting. First, officials of some agencies point out that the work being carried out by the MOES in preparing for the semi-annual ESR is part of a monitoring function that they should be conducting in any event, irrespective of ESR requirements. It is part of good educational management. The team believes that this is only partially true. Preparing the documentation in the form required by the ESR entails much additional work that is not directly related to education per se, but instead is devoted to proper accountability for external funding support. There is not clear baseline or methodology for quantifying this, but an increase in work load, unaccompanied by the approval of extra professional positions by the Public Service Commission has clearly occurred.


26

Second, there has been a decision recently to move from semi-annual to annual reviews. This, we have been told, is the result of two factors:

• A desire to reduce the work load and transaction costs associated with the ESR process; and

• Agreement among partners that the ESR process itself has matured to a level where a single review each year should be adequate.

A positive and perhaps unexpected result, noted briefly above, of the coordination and harmonization processes such as the EFAG is the pooling of agency representation. Since the purpose, in part, of EFAG, is to enable the funding agencies to speak with one voice in Kampala, some agencies have concluded that they do not need continual staff presence there. For example, the EC office is now providing coordinated representation of both DFID and CIDA, which is both cost-effective and efficient. There is a question, of course, whether in the longer term, agencies that choose this indirect representation will begin to feel out of touch or less well-informed about the context in which their support is being applied. It is too soon to tell, but the team believes that this matter is a success story, as well as a situation that warrants monitoring. Due to the EFAG/ESCC process, all agencies are involved in policy dialogue. They all provide financial support, either through project funding or budget support, or a combination of both. TA is partly supported through an earmarked pooled fund, managed by the MOES. As well, individual agencies retain some funds through which they directly manage some consultant assignments. The role of UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank, and DFID, in particular, supports individual TA consultancies that provide policy-level inputs to the MOES. This support is doubtless valuable. The wish of individual agencies to directly “manage” TA reflects some concern about the capacity of the MOES, as well as a wish to steer the Framework Terms of Reference for such consultancies along agency lines. However, MOES officials and, indeed, some agency representatives have raised questions about coordination issues, as well as the appropriateness of these “departures” from a pooled approach.

Figure 8: Schoolyard in Arua District


27

4.0 Externally Supported Basic Education 4.1 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies At this level, our analysis focuses on the following questions, derived from the Framework Terms of Reference:

• Within the policy framework for basic education, to what extent and in what ways has external support been integrated?

• How are global policy priorities reflected in Uganda’s policies and strategies for basic education?

• What have been the challenges and progress in the decentralization of basic education (particularly primary schooling)?

• How has the role of non-formal education been addressed? 4.1.1 The Uganda Context for Basic Education Policy Formulation Education reform, with a particular focus on primary education, received focused attention from the GOU beginning in 1988 as part of the government’s post-war reconstruction programme. This led, first to the Education Policy Review Commission Report of 1989, and then, in response, the Government White Paper of 1992. The situation in the late 1980s was indeed urgent:

• More than half of primary teachers were untrained; • Trained and certified teachers earned, on average, US$8.00 per month. The need for extra

employment led to high teacher absenteeism; • The school infrastructure had deteriorated. Many classes were held under trees or in

makeshift shelters; • Textbooks and other materials were non-existent; • Less than half of the children of primary age were in school; and • There were no standards or inspection system in place on any regular basis.

In response to this dire situation, the GOU, in a real sense, anticipated the world community by setting up the Education Policy Review Commission in the late 1980s, in advance of the Jomtien World Education Forum. They were already “thinking EFA” before Jomtien. According to Ugandan officials, there was considerable discussion with individual agencies in the period between Jomtien and the 1992 White Paper. However, coordination mechanisms were not yet developed, so much of this policy dialogue was of an ad hoc and unstructured nature and was one-on-one with individual agencies. The lack of strong corporate memory among the local offices of external agencies in Kampala means that much history and perspective on this period has largely been lost. The decision to implement UPE was made in 1996. UPE represented the commitment of Uganda to achieve the EFA goal of UPE as quickly as possible. The decision to focus on UPE among the six goals of the Jomtien Framework Terms of Reference appears to have been an initiative that was driven by the highest levels of the Ugandan government, and not determined by any pressure from funding agencies (although consistent with their own priorities). It quickly generated strong agency support and commitment. After the proclamation of UPE, the dialogue between agencies and the government accelerated and began to be more coordinated.


28

The Six EFA Goals (Updated Version, from the Dakar Framework for Action): 1. Expanding and improving comprehensive early

childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children;

2. Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to and complete, free and compulsory primary education of good quality;

3. Ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life-skills programmes;

4. Achieving a 50% improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults;

5. Eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to basic education of good quality; and

6. Improving all aspects of the quality of education so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.

There has been increasing integration of external support over the period since 1996. Education was directly linked to poverty reduction by the GOU through Uganda’s PEAP of 1997 (MOFPED, 2001) through which the government made a commitment to education as a key component of its strategy. External support agencies were brought more directly into the process in the preparation of the PRSP, based directly on the PEAP and completed in 2000. The PRSP consolidates funding from the HIPC initiative and regular Bank and other funding to support the target of reducing poverty in Uganda to below 10% of the population by 2015.

Box 1: EFA Goals

This was consolidated specifically for education through ESIP. The resulting consultations over the PRSP and HIPC processes integrated basic education into broader poverty reduction and social development strategies for both the government and cooperating partners through the PAF. Thus PRSP, CDF, and UPE have all worked together as pillars of ESIP and supported Uganda’s EFA strategy, as well as being broadly consistent with external agency priorities. This is a success story of effective coordination and complementarity along several axes. The GOU and external funders have increasingly coordinated their strategy in relation to the post Jomtien “consensus” on EFA reflected in the Dakar Framework for Action. This is particularly evident in ESIP, which to date has focused within EFA mainly on education access for children of primary school age.

More broadly, the government’s commit-ment to basic education has five components, the first four of which are in ESIP:

• UPE (reflecting EFA goal #2 and #6); • ECCD (reflecting EFA goal #1); • Alternative or complementary basic education for out-of school children and youth, in

particular disadvantaged groups: urban poor, nomadic groups (reflecting EFA goal #2 and #3);

• A strong commitment to girls’ education is built into both UPE and alternative education, reflecting EFA goal #5. Thus the approach under ESIP is strongly consistent with both the six EFA goals and the two Millennium targets (essentially EFA goals #2 and #4) set for basic education; and

• FAL, through the MOGLSD (reflecting EFA goal #4).


29

However, it is clear that, to date, the overwhelming emphasis is on UPE, through a focus on expansion of access to primary schooling. Section 4.3 demonstrates that the results related to increased access (since 1996) are indeed impressive. Serious questions regarding quality still remain.

ESIP is a true SWAp. It covers primary, secondary and tertiary education, but GOU budget commitments agreed to in the PRSP process, reflected in the MTBF, and monitored through the semi-annual ESR meetings include maintaining a budget minimum 31% of recurrent discretionary expenditure for education and at least 65% of this for primary education. Indeed, the meeting of these thresholds is the key financial undertaking committed to by the GOU in agreement with the external agencies providing budget support to education. In particular, the 65% requirement addressed the requirement of a number of agencies that their earmarked contributions be used for basic education. For those providing general budget support, this is less of an issue. It is thus possible for ESIP, as a strategy covering all levels of education, to account for budget support funds from external agencies that wish to target basic education particularly, as well as those providing general budget support. 4.1.2 Universal Primary Education Following the 1992 Government White Paper on Education, the immediate progress was small with little increase in enrolment in primary schools. The main emphasis of external support was to address issues in teacher training through programmes such as the TDMS. In order to focus directly on the issue of increasing access, President Museveni announced, in 1996, that, effective at once, primary school fees would be abolished for up to four children from each family. Moreover, families with more than four children would have to give priority to girls. (The team was told that, in reality, the “four children limitation” was often not enforceable and was largely ignored). This proclamation by the President was a bold stroke. It had immediate effects. At the policy level, it sent a strong signal to both Ugandans and to external partners that the government was seriously committed to the achievement of a key EFA goal. Politically, it was quickly communicated to families throughout Uganda and many who hitherto were reluctant to send their children to school were motivated to participate in this “universal” movement. Soon, large numbers of children and young people came to enrol for primary school (many well above the normal age for entry). Enrolments soared. These results are tracked in Section 4.3.1. A number of partner agency representatives told the team that this strong national leadership, followed by consistent commitment and support, as evidenced by the GOU’s own budget commitments, was a key factor in encouraging agencies to move quickly to increase dramatically their support for basic education. 4.1.3 Decentralization Implementation of the government’s decentralization policies had begun just before the UPE decision. This was a much broader strategy than education alone, cutting across a broad range of government services. Nevertheless, as education is a sector that, more than any other, touches every person’s life, the processes and the politics of decentralization had major implications for the implementation of increased school access at the local level.


30

The pursuit of decentralization was a deliberate policy of the GOU to achieve several related goals:

• To accelerate the reconstruction reconciliation process following the civil unrest of the 1970s and early 1980s and, so, contribute to national development;

• To reduce regional disparities, which were large; and • To achieve greater local engagement and sustainability, particularly in health and

education, the key social priorities of the PRSP.

External support agencies certainly supported these goals. Moreover, in line with their own policies, they also emphasized additional objectives, namely:

• To improve responsiveness, transparency, and local relevance in the delivery of services, as part of the strategy to improve governance; and

• To improve the quality and efficiency of resource allocation through closer links between resources and local needs.

On the whole, both Ugandan officials and agency representatives described the adoption of the decentralization policies as a Ugandan-driven process, which subsequently was welcomed and supported by agencies, particularly as they began to increase basic education support after UPE. These decentralization policies remain broadly supported by both Ugandan officials and external agencies. As well, NGOs, who operate mainly at the “grassroots” level in selected districts, are particularly positive. However, the belief in total responsibility at the centre is still encouraged by some local politicians, and this, the team was told, can impede the effective mobilization of local community interest and support. To counter this tendency, local education officials believe that clear information and messages need to be transmitted to communities by both the MOES and, to an increased extent, the Ministry of Local Government (MOLG). The situation is exacerbated by the inability of local government to raise adequate revenue. An example frequently cited in our field discussions was the central authority’s assumption that the district level should take responsibility for local supervision and monitoring. District officials, particularly the district inspectors, claim that they have inadequate budgets for travel, fuel and related expenses, so that visits to individual schools that are distant from the district office are far too infrequent for effective monitoring. District officials and school head teachers told the team that district politicians tend to actively campaign against local revenue collection for education, on the grounds that UPE is “completely free primary education.” This has two effects. First, the efforts of School Management Committees (SMCs) to raise much-needed funds to supplement school programmes and facilities become much more difficult. Second, the evolution of a shared responsibility and governance mechanism between the central authority and local government, with complementary responsibility for resources and programmes, is thwarted. Instead, local politicians too often see themselves as advocates on behalf of the district. Success is measured by the level of resources they can extract from the national level, and thereafter re-distribute to their constituencies as a “reward” for their election. Many officials feel that this “politicization” of UPE in a decentralized environment is a significant impediment to effective partnership between the central, district and local levels.


31

4.1.4 Basic Education Outside the Primary Schools

Drawing on the 1992 Government White Paper on Education, the focus of the MOES, expressed in ESIP, has overwhelmingly been on the increase of access to primary education in the public schools. The other three components of the GOU’s basic education strategy: early childhood education, alternative education, and FAL, have each received proportionally much less attention. Nevertheless, there is a policy environment for each one, in which external agencies play a partnership role. Alternative programmes, private schools and community schools now serve the needs of approximately 750,000 pupils – about 10% of primary enrolment. There are distinct streams here:

• Alternative programmes for disadvantaged groups (urban poor, nomadic peoples, school dropouts) for whom formal public school programmes are inaccessible or inappropriate;

• Private schools paid for by parents (mainly middle class and mainly urban) who are dissatisfied with the quality of public education provision and who are prepared to pay for an alternative; and

• Informal community schools established by local communities and by NGOs where no public school is nearby, or where parents cannot afford public schooling.

Each of these alternative channels of provision, in its own way, provides a valuable service. The growth in private schools has significant implications for basic education and is monitored by the MOES. A significant part of the growth in private schooling had been driven by wealthier parents, perception that the quality of public schooling has declined. Such parents are willing to pay fees to put their children in private schools that have smaller class sizes. MOES officials expressed concern about the risks of moving towards a “two-tier” system, particularly in Kampala. While the MOES monitors private schools, there is no clear evidence that they deliver better quality education, other than the fact that, as noted above, class sizes tend to be much smaller than in the public schools. An examination of the 2001 EMIS data reveals that, of the 734,000 children enrolled in private primary schools in Uganda, over 300,000 (or 42%) were from Kampala and surrounding districts (Masaka, Mpigi, Mukono and Wakiso). In contrast, these districts make up only 9% of public primary school enrolment. Kampala itself has 78,628 children enrolled in private schools as opposed to 64,402 in public primary schools. It is also worth noting that these figures are gender neutral; indeed, in each district, female private school enrolments exceed those of boys. This data indicates that, centred on Kampala, and to a lesser degree in the nearby districts, there is a major movement towards private schooling, which is much weaker in rural districts. Since no significant external support is provided to private schools, there is, therefore, proportionally greater targeting of external support to basic education in public schools of the rural areas away from Kampala. This is consistent with stated donor policies to assist the GOU in reducing rural-urban disparities and targeting assistance where it is most needed. However, it should also be noted that several Ugandan educators raised concerns with the team about the growth of parallel systems based on ability to pay. The growth of community schools as a means of increasing access is increasingly important in situations where the formal public school system is unavailable or inappropriate. This growth is incorporated into the policy framework of ESIP, and also attracts external support through NGOs.


32

Community schools often target children from disadvantaged groups who face particular barriers in attending public schools. The factors creating such barriers include:

• Poverty issues, such as inability to pay for school uniforms and supplies; • The need to work or perform household duties such as caring for sick relatives or siblings

(a critical factor in children from AIDS-affected families); • Weak English language skills; and • Unsettled domestic or family situation.

Community schools also provide a mechanism for the establishment of new schools. Although it is not apparently well documented, there seems to be a process through which community schools achieve “critical mass” and then become eligible for government support. In those situations where the school has been created to compensate for the absence of a nearby public school this is particularly valuable. At some stage, they may move onto the books as a regular government school. Given the need to expand the number of schools, as well as adding classrooms to existing schools, this is an important process to understand and to encourage. The target groups for complementary or alternative education tend to face the same or similar barriers, and in this sense, community schools and the non-formal programmes can be visualized as a range of alternative approaches that provide basic education to children outside the public school system. External agencies have provided TA and funding support to various non-formal programmes such as:

• BEUPA: Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas (GTZ); • ABEK: Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja (Save the Children − Norway, Canada,

UNICEF); and • COPE: Complementary Opportunities for Primary Education (Canada, Netherlands,

UNICEF). These programmes are small in numbers, relative to potentially large demand. (BEUPA targets 3,500 children through 45 learning centres in greater Kampala, for example.) But they generate enormous leverage and policy dialogue, by providing a rich set of pilots or alternative approaches through which the great variety of learning needs and appropriate responses, cutting across different disadvantaged groups, can be observed. The lessons learned are starting to feed back into formal education, and this trend, hopefully, will accelerate. The actual practices in these three programmes are examined in Section 4.2. 4.1.5 NGOs’ Role in Education Policy The team’s discussions with representatives of NGOs and church groups reveal a considerable degree of frustration on their part. While they are often invited to the table in policy and planning discussions, they repeatedly expressed the feeling that their involvement in such discussions with government only occurred relatively late in the process. They felt that they were asked to consider decisions that already been taken, for which their subsequent “buy-in” was wanted. While NGOs are generally positive about decentralization, the effect of ESIP in concentrating policy decisions at the centre is a concern to them. Many informed the team that the mounting layers of bureaucracy between funding sources and the decentralized end user (i.e., schools) together have increased their feelings of marginalization in decision making. Ugandan NGOs told


33

the team that they are in increasingly competitive situations in seeking funding through international NGO partners (who in turn would receive financial support from their own government agencies). Their traditional channels for funding support through these external agencies are now much less accessible since money is routed through central government mechanisms. There are now concrete efforts on the part of the GOU to involve local NGOs more actively in policy dialogue. The government recognizes their role and importance, perhaps to a greater degree than do the NGOs themselves. For example, they are now invited to send representatives to the ESR meetings. The NGOs told the team that such steps need to be accelerated and need to be seen as leading to concrete results that enhance the NGOs’ role. It seems clear that, in turn, the NGOs will have to accept a greater degree of coordination with GOU strategies, accountability and, potentially, control as a consequence of greater integration into ESIP. This may be a questionable trade-off for some. Indeed, in discussions with representatives of various civil society organizations: religious foundations as well as NGOs, the team got the distinct impression that while these organizations wished to be involved in policy dialogue with the government, they had their own agendas and terms for such cooperation. There was a strong feeling that their independence of government, which makes it possible to pursue independent strategies and to pilot alternative approaches to education (even those not finding favour initially in official circles) is of great value. There is still a need in Uganda for experimentation and a variety of approaches. In discussing this issue with government officials, the team sensed that this point was recognized. They understood the value of independence among alternative providers and stakeholders in basic education. However, the government is rightly concerned that they should at least know what’s going on. Officials cited, as an example, the problems caused if an NGO or a project supported by an external agency, arranges an activity for teachers, which pulls them out of school without the government’s knowledge – as has happened in the past. 4.1.6 HIV/AIDS The intents, policies and strategies of the GOU regarding basic education are, of necessity, developed and implemented in the shadow of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. UNICEF (2001a) estimates that, in 1997, 9.5% of the adult population (ages 15 to 49), amounting to some 930,000 people out of 9.8 million, were HIV-positive. AIDS is estimated to have been the cause of 1.8 million deaths cumulatively up to that year. The 1995 Demographic Health Survey (DHS) (USAID, 1999) reported that 25% of households have at least one child under 15 who was displaced from their home because of HIV/AIDS. More recent data indicates that the situation may have plateaued, and indeed the rate of new infections appears to be declining. The 2002 UNAID Update (UNAIDS, 2002) estimates the number of HIV-positive Ugandans at the end of 2001 at 600,000. Of these, an estimated 110,000 were children under 16 years old. The number of children under 16 who have lost at least one parent to AIDS is estimated at 880,000. The impacts on schooling are diverse. According to the MOES (2000b), absenteeism from work and low productivity by professional and support staff due to HIV/AIDS is a major problem. The loss of teachers who die from AIDS is a serious drain on the education system’s resources. As well, there are clear impacts of HIV/AIDS infection on school-age students, who will be less likely to go to school with medical complications and often face discrimination from peers at


34

school. UNICEF (2001a) reports that siblings of students with AIDS develop negative attitudes towards the educational process because of the way they are taunted or teased. Older children with AIDS often are isolated from their peers. These factors contribute to dropout in the higher primary grades. More serious still is the plight of AIDS orphans, or those whose families include AIDS-affected members. Family income is reduced, often drastically, and the direct costs of remaining in school, even under UPE (uniforms, school supplies, lunches) are often impossible for families to meet. Moreover, the additional opportunity costs are substantial. Children are needed to work to augment family income, to care for sick relatives, or to look after younger siblings in the absence of adult care givers. These responsibilities fall differentially on girls and are a significant factor in their lower retention rates in upper primary grades. Young people (ages 15 to 19) are particularly vulnerable to HIV infection. Girls in this age bracket are estimated by the Uganda AIDS Commission (2000) to have infection rates four to six times that of boys. The response of the MOES, in cooperation with the Uganda AIDS Commission, includes two distinct areas:

• Dealing with the AIDS Orphan Crisis: The HIV/AIDs Plan for the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES, 2000b) called for the establishment of an “early warning” system to identify those at risk (both staff and students) and provide comprehensive welfare programmes, including bursaries and the linking of income-generating skills to schooling; and

• Harnessing the education system to combat the pandemic: The HIV/AIDs Plan for the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES 2000b) calls for a comprehensive information dissemination policy, including the mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS material into the curriculum at all levels starting in primary school. Through schools, counselling services would be made available to all children as both a preventative and palliative measure.

However, examination of the subsequent documents for the MTBF for education suggest that no funds have been allocated (within the MOES budget) for the first area, while only modest amounts are available to support the second area. It is perhaps noteworthy that in the team’s field work, the subject of HIV/AIDS rarely came up in discussion with local officials, head teachers and teachers. When raised by the evaluators, the reactions tended to focus on the impact on children in AIDS-affected families. These impacts included increased absenteeism and dropout that, in turn, were attributed to increased family responsibility and inability to meet both the real and opportunity costs of remaining in school. These observations are consistent with the findings of other studies and reports. More significantly, the evaluation team failed to observe any proactive work in the schools visited that dealt with AIDS education. While the sample involved is small, the team got the impression that HIV/AIDS was not seen as a priority action item for these schools. Discussions about AIDS tended to treat it as an isolated issue rather than as a pervasive dimension cutting across basic education. Internal, school-based issues such as overcrowded classrooms, lack of appropriate furniture, materials, and other items of support, and teachers’ housing and conditions of service loomed much larger in priority.


35

4.2 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Practices The Framework Terms of Reference suggests the following set of questions:

• At the operational level of basic education, to what extent and in what ways has external support been integrated?

• How has the provision of basic education, through various approaches, evolved in Uganda since 1990, both in quantity (access) and quality?

• What have been the major challenges and progress in the expansion of the primary school system towards UPE?

• How have approaches to alternative forms of basic education in Uganda been affected during this period?

• How effective are the mechanisms for monitoring progress and quality assurance in basic education?

4.2.1 Practices: Expanding Primary Schooling Expansion of access to primary schooling has been supported principally by two programmes, each of which received major external support: school facilities grants, which fund classroom construction, and UPE grants which are provided to individual schools as a replacement for the revenue which they formerly generated through charging school fees. (As well, alternative basic education, dealt with below in 4.2.3, supports programmes for particular disadvantaged target groups.) The processes for site selection and administration of school facilities grants favours the expansion of existing schools by adding more classrooms, rather than establishing new schools. Existing schools are often growing to unmanageable size. The process may need modification to provide greater priority to the establishment of new schools. This is illustrated in Figure 9, which compares the number of classrooms per school between 2000 and 2001 in selected districts. These are the districts visited, Kampala, and two additional districts (Bundibugyo and Iganga), which have extremely large pupil-classroom ratios. The data was taken from the annual school census. Kampala had significantly larger expansion of existing schools, which makes sense in terms of the greater density of schools and the shorter distances children have to travel. In five of the six other districts, the number of classrooms in use expanded by between 7% and 13% in one year. This suggests that, as we observed in the field, the bulk of investment is made in expanding the number of classrooms in existing schools in contrast to the establishment of new schools. However, the data for Mbarara indicate that data must be treated with caution, as it suggests that on average, the number of classrooms per school decreased. There are two points to be considered here. First, the annual school census data has gaps and comes from different schools each year. Comparability of averages derived from data sets that are not entirely consistent can produce such anomalies. Second, and this is perhaps more interesting, the team was told in its visit to Mbarara that, in fact, new schools were being built. At the district level, administrators were finding ways to redirect SFG grant money towards the establishment of new schools in areas where the distances travelled by pupils were large. If this were happening on a large scale, it would indeed reduce the average number of classrooms per school as new, small schools come on stream. The data seems to support this hypothesis. This situation should be carefully monitored.


36

Arua Hill School is an example of a school that has grown to a very large size. The team visited it during its field work in October 2002. The school experienced an enrolment increase from 1,600 (1997) to 2,700 students (2002). Even with SFG the school still has only 24 classrooms, so the pupil-to-classroom ratio is 112:1. While the school is requesting additional SFG, the team suggested, in discussions with the head teacher and district officials, that creating new schools might be a better strategy. One model would be to use Arua Hill as a hub with satellite clusters of classrooms, each managed by an assistant head, located a few kilometres away. The satellites would be located so as to minimize the distance that children have to walk to school.

Figure 9: Growth in Number of Classrooms per School: 2000 to 2001

Source: Ministry of Education & Sports, Statistical Abstract 2001

Box 2: Arua Hill: A Large School

In discussions with district officials and head teachers, the team concluded that building new schools would reduce the distance children have to walk each day and thus strengthen access. As well, best practice in primary schooling in many countries suggests that smaller schools are more effective in encouraging quality and promoting retention of pupils. (See, for example, Cotton (1996), or Postlethwaite and Ross (1992) to enter into the extensive literature on this subject). However, district officials cautioned the team, that the allocation of SFG is a complex and often politicized process. There appears to be a need for tighter link and conditionality between SFG allocation decisions, made locally and school mapping processes, which are managed centrally.

PERCENTAGE GROWTH IN SCHOOL SIZE: 2000 to 2001

MUKONO

MBARARA

MBALE

KAMPALA

IGANGA

BUNDIBUGYO

ARUA

-10 0 10 20 30

Percentage Growth in Number of Classrooms per School

Percentage growth


37

District officials pointed out that the establishment of new schools faces significant additional problems:

• The cost of land acquisition; • Lack of a SMC or other local body to supervise construction; • Perceptions that creation of another administrative unit may be financially inefficient;

and • Inadequacy of SFG amounts to fund the construction of a new school. The current SFG

amount is budgeted for construction of four classrooms. Even for expansion of existing schools, the amount of SFG is too small in certain situations. In some districts, (e.g., Mbale, Sironko) officials noted that SFGs are not adjusted to take into account difficult or mountainous terrain, remote access or other local factors that drive up costs. In the implementation of decentralization policies in education, MOES officials soon discovered that local management capacity, approval processes, and other aspects of administrative infrastructure at all levels (particularly regarding financial transfers), as well as the capacity for monitoring local efforts, including accountability of funds transferred, were all weak. The TDMS programme provides management training for head teachers, and, from all reports, has improved this particular component of capacity. But MOES and district officials each told the team that much more needs to be done. This is explored is more detail below, in Section 4.2.4. At the same time, decentralization has given local communities an important role, and responsibility, in the implementation of UPE. This is often not well understood. Immediately after UPE, local responsibility often declined as parents and others at the local level believed that the central government was providing everything and “education was free.” Often, local politicians encouraged this attitude, as noted above. Then some disillusionment set in, as parents and schools realized that the UPE capitation grants would not cover all costs and that local revenues also needed to be generated. This has had two effects:

• As parents realize that they still have to pay for school uniforms, supplies (notebooks, pencils, etc.) and school lunches, the reality that primary education is still not completely “free” has caused some disillusionment and, in high poverty areas, contributed to low retention rates; and

• Efforts by schools to raise funds for supplementary purposes through Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) dues meet considerable resistance, as parents have been told “the government will pay.”

Local provision of the cost of school lunches is problematic. The team observed a range of policies:

• Some schools provide no lunch; children are expected to bring a snack; • Others charge a fee for lunch and provide lunches only to those children whose parents

pay; • Still others supply a basic lunch to all children, but those whose parents pay a fee get a

better quality lunch; and • Others supply the same lunch to all children who wish it, regardless of whether their

parents have paid a fee.


38

Officials observed that in many instances, children in poverty areas are not adequately nourished for effective learning. Some arrive at school in the morning already hungry, and the provision of a lunch to them is a virtual necessity. 4.2.2 Practices: Teaching and Learning Both during site visits, and in discussions with stakeholders in Kampala, the team was repeatedly told that the quality of learning in Ugandan schools had declined since UPE. Certainly in site visits the team noted significant problems that would impair teaching and learning in the classroom. Overcrowding is the most obvious. It also appears that the teaching resources are not efficiently used, because of the lack of classroom space. Section 4.3 explores the data on enrolment, number of classrooms and number of teachers. External support has provided major resources to improve the quality and amount of teacher training. Since the mid-1990s, the TDMS has provided in-service training to new or untrained teachers, which, in many instances, spills over to support for all teachers in the school. Most informants agreed that the TDMS process has been very effective in giving support and professional development to new teachers, as well as generally strengthening the quality of teaching in schools. During site visits the team with several TDMS tutors. While they were very positive about their work in the TDMS process, it was clear that they were working under rather difficult circumstances. Most tutors have too many schools in the circuit for which they are responsible, and facilities, materials, and financing are barely adequate to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities. There is also some confusion about the respective roles of the Coordinating Centre Tutors (CCTs), and the school inspectorate. The team heard different perceptions of whether they are complementary, if they overlap, and what degree of coordination could occur between them. The CCTs report to and are under the authority of the local PTC. The PTC, in turn, is responsible to the Department of Teacher Training in the MOES and has no direct link to the District Office. In contrast, the District Inspector of schools and his staff are responsible to the District Office and through them to the Inspectorate of the MOES. District officials observed that the lack of a coordination mechanism between CCTs and inspectors has, on occasion, led to tension and possible inefficiency, duplication or gaps. At the level of individual schools, there are no clear perceptions of their respective roles. However, the whole situation is in a state of flux. The establishment of the new ESA (described in more detail in Section 4.2.4) is intended to involve an overhaul of the whole inspectorate mechanism and, therefore, the situation may change. The time lag in new teachers accessing the payroll – sometimes more than a year – is a serious drag on teacher morale. Indeed, it is cited by MOES officials, along with the lack of suitable teachers’ housing, as a major impediment to the posting of teachers to remote rural schools. Therefore, it needs to be significantly reduced. This would address some financial problems for schools, improve teacher morale, as well as provide a valuable alternative monitoring device. The ESR meetings have focused on this issue in recent years, and progress has been made. However, district officials and head teachers still cite it as a serious problem. Testing and assessment practices also influence the quality of teaching and learning. The Primary Leaving Examination (PLE) still dominates the upper primary grades as a significant barrier to innovation. In spite of the weight of tradition and strong public support for the PLE, cited by


39

many Ugandans, it appears to have several detrimental effects, as discussed with head teachers and district officials during the team’s field visits:

• It pressures head teachers to assign their most experienced teachers and allocate extra resources to the upper primary grades, rather than to ensuring that beginning pupils get the best possible start in school;

Box 3: Primary Leaving Examination Abuse

• It encourages rote learning and memorization approaches to learning in the upper grades;

• It puts inordinate pressure on young children in a “one-time” challenge that determines their future educational opportunities;

• Its results can be skewed by gender differences in cognitive development at the standard age when the examination is taken;

• It appears to re-inforce social and economic stratification and puts marginalized groups at a special disadvantage; and

• It puts undue pressure on schools to achieve “good PLE results” at the cost of other, potentially more important educational goals.

These factors are common to many countries. The PLE, however, is strongly entrenched for two major reasons, as cited by MOES officials:

• Officials and policy makers consider it to be a necessary instrument for rationing scarce secondary places. This need will persist until the supply of PPET provision catches up with the demand generated by the numbers now passing through primary school; and

• MOES officials also report that the PLE provides the public with the most obvious feedback and accountability mechanism about the quality of individual schools.

External partners are encouraging the MOES to pursue alternative tools, such as classroom-based continuous assessment. As well, the strengthening of external monitoring processes through the ESA (see Section 4.2.4) should, over time, reduce the importance of the PLE as a tool for “ranking schools.” 4.2.3 Practices: Other Components of Basic Education

Alternative education programmes are designed to reach specific target groups, such as the urban poor and nomadic groups. Examples are BEUPA for urban poor areas, COPE in 16 districts, and ABEK in three districts. Each of these programmes has received positive evaluations. They

Makubuya Warns Against Pupil Sieving

EDUCATION Minister Dr. Kiddu Makubuya has warned head teachers who bar candidates considered academically weak from sitting national examinations.

Makubuya, while releasing the 2002 PLE results on Monday said that although 401,575 candidates had registered for the examinations, over 35,000 did not sit.

“This phenomenon is because some head teachers sieve out weak candidates to safeguard the reputation of their schools. But the practice of excluding duly registered candidates from national examinations is contrary to the Government regulations," Makubuya said.

New Vision (Kampala) January 31, 2003 John Eremu, Kampala


40

address real needs of particular target groups for whom formal primary schooling is inappropriate – for financial, cultural, social or time-scheduling reasons. The programmes provide “second-chance” education, which enables children to cover the core parts of the primary curriculum in an accelerated way. However, the number of children in the programmes has remained low in relation to the potential demand, and unit costs, compared to formal schooling, are very high. The experience of children from these programmes, who subsequently transfer into formal schooling, has been good, but the numbers doing so have been very low. There appears to be a need for better articulation, sharing of materials, and crossover opportunities with formal schooling. Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas (BEUPA), supported as a project by GTZ in cooperation with the MOES and the Kampala city council, operates in the poor urban areas of Kampala. Some 45 learning centres provide education to approximately 3,500 children. TA provided by GTZ works with Ugandan colleagues to develop the pedagogical approaches and learning materials and to train instructors. Many children in the programme are Luganda-speaking and their English language skills need to be strengthened. English as a second language is thus an important component of BEUPA, which also focuses on the other core subjects of mathematics, science and social studies. By now, about 900 children have “graduated” from BEUPA into regular primary schools at various grade levels, but there has been no formal review of their subsequent academic achievement. Sustainability of the programme, with a withdrawal of GTZ TA, is targeted for 2006. Complementary Opportunities for Primary Education (COPE) targets disadvantaged children in eight districts (initially four districts, later scaled up to eight) (MOES, 1997). It is a MOES programme, with financial and technical support managed by UNICEF-Uganda. The programme is designed to provide accelerated basic education covering the material of Primary 1 to Primary 5 in three years. Programmes are flexible, responsive to the needs of disadvantaged children and feature a shorter school “day” of about three hours. While the programme initially attempted to harness community resources, the MOES has had to provide increased support, particularly instructors’ salaries. Dewees (2000) has estimated that about 35% of the entering cohort complete the three-year cycle and proceed to Primary 6 in formal schools. While judging COPE a success, Dewees (2000) cited two problems that needed attention:

• High unit costs: the three-year cycle to take a child from Primary1 to Primary 5 costs about three times that of the five years of formal primary schooling (US$1619 vs. US$562); and

• The need for true complementarity: that is the need to re-conceptualize COPE centres and nearby primary schools as components of the same system, with strong articulation and cooperation between the two types of neighbouring institutions.

Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja (ABEK), launched as a special programme in 1997 by the MOES, with support from Redd Barna (the Norwegian Save the Children NGO) and UNICEF. It targets children in the pastoral, semi-nomadic communities of Karamoja in North-East Uganda (Kotido and Moroto districts). This region had the worst education indicators in the country, with adult literacy rates around 12% in 1991 and, in 1999, with only 31% of primary school-age children actually in school. By 1999, the first parishes piloted had 80% of school-age children participating in ABEK, and by 2000, over 10,000 children were enrolled. The Norwegian Save the Children reports that by 2001, 21,000 children were targeted. Like COPE, ABEK compresses the first five years of primary schooling into a three-year cycle, offered with a very flexible schedule to accommodate the nomadic lifestyles of the Karamojong. The target group is children aged eight to 18 years. The content of the standard curriculum was adjusted based on a participatory needs assessment carried out in the targeted Karamoja communities.


41

Thus in addition to core academic material, locally relevant life skills such as health, sanitation, home management, etc. are included. The Functional Adult Education Programme under the MOGLSD, and implemented in 26 districts, has benefited from Action Aid’s REFLECT and other NGOs like Adventist Development and Relief Organization (ADRA), Literacy and Adult Basic Education (LABE), SOCADIDO, SCF, WEP, etc. Indeed, the NGO community remains the main source of support for adult literacy programmes in Uganda. Special adult literacy programmes in Karamoja (part of a parallel strategy with ABEK) is supported by the World Food Programme (WFP) and by ADRA. Early Childhood Development and Nutrition is jointly implemented by the MOES and Ministry of Health, and is supported by the World Bank, UNICEF and NGOs. The curriculum and training of nursery teachers have been designed and implemented by the joint efforts of the MOES and NGOs. 4.2.4 Practices: Monitoring and Data

Figure 10: EMIS at Kisowera School

GOU spending on basic education is carefully monitored, as it is a key undertaking within ESIP by which further tranches of budget support are released by external support agencies. Financial data is maintained in the MOFPED and available through their own databases, as well as through the MTBF and the Medium Term Expenditure Framework for education, which are reviewed regularly in the ESR process. Basic education currently runs at 65% of the education budget, as agreed to in the ESR. This is expected to decline slightly in the next phase of ESIP, as efforts to strengthen the secondary sub-sector under PPET are brought on stream. Financial records related to education spending and the role of external funding are maintained both in the MOFPED and in the Planning Department of the MOES. Both sources have proved valuable in the preparation of this case study report. Financial monitoring linked to regular review against the MTBF, and supported by robust data, from the two ministries, appeared to the team to reflect a high level of accuracy and consistency.


42

The situation with respect to education statistics is more complex. There is a large gathering of data on enrolment, infrastructure, facilities, and teachers to support tracking of an agreed set of indicators with respect to access, quality, and efficiency of education. Since 2000, this data has been managed in a computerized EMIS facility in the MOES. Thus, starting with that year, there are much more complete and accessible data sets available on education indicators than in the past. Education data sets, of course, are only as good as the raw data that is input. Each school we visited was able to provide, on the spot, up-to-date data on enrolment. Usually, this was a handwritten copy from their own ledgers. Occasionally, it was a mimeographed copy of a typewritten document, presumably prepared for local distribution. Every school recorded daily attendance on a blackboard outside the head teachers’ office. This is encouraging evidence that, in most instances, schools are providing feedback to their own communities. Nonetheless, officials at both the district level and in Kampala expressed real concern about the accuracy of data, particularly as it relates to enrolment. As noted below in Section 4.3, there is a substantial divergence between the “official” enrolment data provided by schools, and the alternative estimates from the DHS. The obvious inference is that there is over-reporting of enrolment by some schools. As the UPE grant to the school is based on this number, there is certainly an understandable motivation to inflate enrolment figures. [Indeed, prior to UPE, when schools had to transfer part of the fees collected to the district level, there was, inversely, a motivation to under-report enrolment.] Agreements on accountability, audit, conditionality, procurement, etc. have been implemented, but better monitoring is needed. In each district visited, officials informed the evaluation team members that there is need for much more effective monitoring and quality assurance at the local level. Funds for this, however, are lacking. As a result, the district inspector and staff are unable to travel to schools sufficiently often. Funds provided through decentralization are targeted to other areas, and local revenue sources are unavailable. It was suggested that using a small percentage of UPE and SFG grants, say 3%, to monitor how the remaining 97% is spent, would be a good investment. As well as improving the accuracy of enrolment reporting, this would help to ensure that the various funds transferred, particularly UPE capitation grants and school facilities grants, are in fact being used as intended. There is strong evidence, cited by researchers at Makerere University, of the existence of “ghost schools,” receiving UPE grants. Indeed, the Commissioner of Planning in the MOES expressed the concern that this phenomenon is on the rise, and that stronger monitoring measures are needed to check it. SMCs, when properly constituted and managed, are seen as an effective quality assurance mechanism that helps to ensure accurate, honest reporting. Some officials raised doubts, however, on the basis that the committees were too often “political” and controlled by a combination of the head teacher and local politicians. While SMCs are increasing in importance, there appears to be a proportional decline in the role of PTAs in local communities. PTAs were perceived by some to be more “independent” and less subject to control or coercion. The team, however, was not in a position to make judgements about the relative merits of SMCs and PTAs. They did note that in one district visited (Mbale) there were no PTAs in the primary school system. The monitoring of district level activities by the centre, and the local level by district authorities, both need significantly increased resources. As noted above, both central officials and district authorities agreed that a percentage of both UPE and SFG money should be held back to pay for the improved monitoring of the remainder of the funds transferred.


43

District authorities and individual head teachers also reported that the provision of information (from the MOES, as well as the district level) to individual schools is improving, with gradual moves to improve qualitative information, but communication channels still need to be strengthened. In the other direction, both district authorities and officials in the planning department of the MOES reported that the flow of data and information collected in individual schools, and incorporated into the EMIS for monitoring purposes, needs better quality control. In 2000, the GOU established the ESA (Casteel and Roebuck, 2000), a new autonomous body linked to a restructuring of the Department of the Inspectorate in the MOES. It is mandated to set standards in all levels of education and implement a regular programme of evaluations to measure the degree to which these standards are being met. The resulting information would be used to inform policy-makers and to provide formative evaluation information to managers of all education institutions. The establishment of the ESA was an activity supported by DFID, both through TA and a start-up grant. A budget for the ESA is now provided in the MTBF for the education sector. The ESA will also have regional level representation where it will have a team of inspectors supported by teams of associate assessors drawn form the district level inspectorates, centre coordinating tutors and other qualified educators. One of the intended results is to bring the district inspectors and the CCTs into a closer working relationship. It is too early to judge how the ESA will improve the monitoring of quality in Uganda’s schools, but officials are optimistic that it will have a strong impact. It is also expected to improve the coordination between the various stakeholders that have hitherto been involved in monitoring and inspection as well as providing formative assistance to schools and teachers: the MOES itself; district offices and the district level inspectorate; the PTCs; and the CCTs. 4.3 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Results This analysis centres on the following questions, derived from the Framework Terms of Reference:

• From the perspectives of those involved in basic education in Uganda, what have been the results and consequences of external support to basic education?

• What progress has been achieved in basic education? • Has this progress aligned with the expectations of external partners? • How has basic education opportunity for special groups (girls, the HIV/AIDS affected,

those in remote areas or regions of conflict, those in poverty, nomadic peoples, those with special learning needs) been improved?

• What challenges does expansion of basic education pose for the broader education sector (e.g., changes in secondary education)?

A detailed analysis of the indicators listed in the Uganda Country Framework Terms of Reference can be found in Annex 2. In this section we discuss the most significant trends uncovered in our study, which cast some light on these five questions.


44

4.3.1 Results: Expanding Primary Schooling Enrolments were low during the 1980s and early 1990s, then rose dramatically after UPE through abolition of school fees. In many situations, consistent attendance is still problematic, for a variety of social, cultural and economic factors. This makes enrolment quite unstable. (For example, the Arua district reports much lower attendance in the second term compared to the first and third terms.) Furthermore, indicators such as retention, dropout, and transfer are very difficult to track.

Figure 11: Primary Enrolments, 1983 to 2002

To a large extent, the significant and observable results of external support to basic education have been achieved during the past five years. Examination of the ESR reports confirms strong external agency satisfaction with the results achieved. Prior to the introduction of UPE in 1997, there were significant improvements in the provision of teacher training through the TDMS programme, but the various statistical educators for access to education stayed more or less flat. That all changed after 1997 with the introduction of UPE and the resulting surge in primary enrolments. In parallel, there were considerable increases in external support (both funding and TA), in an enhanced policy dialogue, and changes in the modalities through which external support was deployed, as discussed above in Section 3.0. These joint efforts resulted in enhanced access: enrolment increased from 2.9 million children in 1996 to 7.3 million in 2002 (this latter figure includes approximately 700,000 students in private and community schools. Public school enrolment in 2002 was 6.576 million). Comparison of the Uganda DHS Ed data survey reports (1996, 2001) from the DHS of 1995 and 2000 give an alternative, though broadly consistent picture of the progress that was achieved through the introduction of UPE and related events.

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

Pupi

ls

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Year

PRIMARY ENROLMENTS (1983-2002)

pupils


45

Table 3: Net Attendance Ratio

Net Attendance Ratio Female Male Total 1995 67% 70% 68% 2000 87% 87% 87%

Source: DHS The net attendance ratio is broadly comparable to the net enrolment ratio gathered by the MOES (and is arguably a more accurate measure of the proportion of children actually in school). The alternative terminology is used because it is based on questioning parents about the attendance of their children in school rather than being based on the schools own enrolment records. The above numbers are national averages. The DHS data permits disaggregation along a rural/urban axis as well as by gender:

Table 4: Net Attendance Ratio, Urban/Rural

Net Attendance Ratio Urban Rural Urban Female Rural Female 1995 80% 67% 79% 65% 2000 89% 87% 89% 87%

Source: DHS This data buttresses the notion that during this five-year period there was a significant reduction of urban rural disparity, particularly between urban and rural girls. Increased access has thus been achieved. However, signs of “plateauing” or even decline after the initial UPE surge are evident. There are still significant numbers of out-of-school children with primary net enrolment rates “stuck” at around 88% (estimated from DHS data). Increased retention is likely being achieved, but this is very difficult to track accurately. Indeed, the whole issue of improving consistent attendance and retention of students (particularly older girls) is recognized as a significant problem warranting greater study and intervention. DHS data identifies pregnancy, domestic duties and social pressures as major causes of girls’ dropout before Primary 7 completion. About half the parents interviewed support greater recruitment of female teachers in primary school to encourage retention of girls. Approximately 98% of parents (DHS data) believe that boys and girls both need at least a complete primary education. There are no significant differences if the question is asked about boys’ or girls’ education, and no significant differences between urban and rural parents. Given this overwhelming majority, the team questioned whether continuing the investments in measures to persuade parents of the values of girls’ education is still necessary. The money might better be spent on girl-friendly improvements in the schools themselves and on measures to bring more local relevance into the upper-primary curriculum. This would appear to have greater value and cost-effectiveness than programmes to convince parents of something they already appear to accept. However, in the consultative workshop and in subsequent comments received from the CRG, there was a strong message that Ugandans feel such public education measures continue to be necessary. Only when the retention rates in upper-primary grades, particularly for girls, improve markedly, should these efforts be relaxed.


46

For boys, the chief factor influencing dropout rates is the perception that further education is irrelevant to future livelihood. This is a curriculum issue, strongest in rural areas, and one that points to the need for greater flexibility in tailoring the curriculum, particularly in upper grades, to local conditions. Significant findings of the 2000 DHS also include the observation that the average distance to school in rural areas was 35 minutes (adult walking time) with over a quarter of children more than one hour away from the nearest school. As children walk considerably slower than adults, these estimates are on the low side. This provides further evidence for the team’s belief that building satellite schools or new schools would significantly improve access, as opposed to enlarging existing schools. 4.3.2 Results: Teaching and Learning

Increasing the quality of teaching and learning is problematic and has yet to be visibly achieved. According to the 2000 DHS, about half of urban parents believe that children are now learning less than before UPE. This drops to about a quarter for rural parents. In part, this difference may reflect the greater gains in access achieved in rural areas. But the number of parents (both urban and rural) with major concerns about educational quality in the primary schools is disturbing. Thus, a large number of Ugandans believe that, overall, quality of instruction and learning has declined since UPE. Of course, public perception, and the reality in the schools, may be different. Officials, however, are rightly concerned about the issue of quality. Some decline is understandable, given the need to recruit many teachers with minimal training who then have to work under poor conditions in acutely overcrowded classrooms. Community survey data from 1999 also provides some important data about school quality. At the community level, the survey tracked the number of students that sat for the PLE in Primary 7 and the number of students who passed the exam. Only 67% of students in Primary 7 completed and passed the final exam. Put another way, 33% of those students reaching Primary 7 failed to complete primary education (as defined by a PLE “pass”). Some of these may repeat the exam. As well, the examination fees may be a barrier to taking the exam. Notwithstanding these factors, the fact that one third of those reaching the final year of primary school fail to complete their primary schooling that year is a troubling indication that justifies concerns about the quality of teaching and learning. Most of the quality indicators track inputs that are normally expected to have a positive influence on quality. Examples are pupil-to-teacher ratio, pupil-to-classroom ratio, and pupil-to-textbook ratio. It is important to recognize that such input indicators are proxies for quality measurement. They reflect the view that, other things being equal, teaching and learning will be better if class sizes are smaller and more textbooks and materials are available. While such proxies are useful, they are not a substitute for the direct measurement of the achievement of learning outcomes. The main concrete evidence at this output level of decline in actual learning achievement comes from the 1996 and 1999 National Assessments for Progress in Education (NAPE). These two dates, of course, bracket the advent of UPE. The percentage of pupils with at least Primary 3 completion who meet national standards for basic learning competencies declined rather strikingly during the three years since UPE. The following table records this decline.


47

Table 5: National Basic Learning Standards Test Results

Year Subject 1996 1999

English 92% met the minimal standard 56% met the minimal standard Mathematics 48% met the minimal standard 31% met the minimal standard

Source: NAPE Classroom overcrowding is a critical problem. The team observed this directly in its field work, and it is reflected clearly in the EMIS data. Both the GOU and external support agencies agree that the construction of new classrooms and schools needs to be accelerated. As a result of external support, the pupil-to-classroom ratio has improved slightly. However, the national averages hide significant regional disparities. On a positive note, these regional disparities seem to be shrinking. Tables 6 and 7 illustrate this for the districts visited, for Kampala, and for two additional districts at the extreme of the range of pupil-to-classroom ratio.

Table 6: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio in Selected Districts

Pupil:Classroom Ratio (Government Schools)

2000 2001 2002

National Average 106:1 98:1 94:1 Arua 184:1 137:1 124:1 Bundibugyo 209:1 160:1 105:1 Iganga 145:1 140:1 122:1 Kampala 83:1 67:1 61:1 Mbale 103:1 102:1 105:1 Mbarara 69:1 73:1 102:1 Mukono 103:1 84:1 82:1

Source: Statistical Abstract (2000, 2001) The comparable data for pupil-to-teacher ratio is as follows:

Table 7: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio in Selected Districts

Pupil:Teacher Ratio (Government Schools)

2000 2001 2002

National Average 65:1 58:1 55:1 Arua 90:1 60:1 56:1 Bundibugyo 68:1 55:1 55:1 Iganga 71:1 70:1 62:1 Kampala 51:1 44:1 46:1 Mbale 64:1 63:1 55:1 Mbarara 551 51:1 52:1 Mukono 59:1 50:1 49:1

Source: Statistical Abstract (2000, 2001) Of course, neither student-to-classroom ratio nor student-to-teacher ratio gives an actual picture of class size (i.e., the number of pupils actually present with a teacher at a given time). It is clear, however, that the number of teachers is far greater than the number of classrooms, as Table 8


48

displays. Moreover, the ratio is not decreasing: teachers are being recruited faster than classrooms are being built. In the absence of split-shift timetabling, there is a potential for considerable inefficiency in the use of human resources.

Table 8: Teacher-to-Classroom Ratio

All government schools 2000 2001 2002

Number of teachers 82,148 101,818 118,784 Number of classrooms 50,370 60,199 69,990 Ratio of teachers-to-classrooms 1.63 to 1 1.69 to 1 1.70 to 1

Source: Statistical Abstract (2000, 2001) Generally speaking, the number of classrooms needs to be doubled to bring things to a reasonable level, unless the use of split-shift scheduling is increased. The team was repeatedly told that split-shift strategies “would not work,” although the reasons for this conclusion, linked to local custom and context, were not entirely clear. The Ministry’s December 2002 MTBF paper (Ministry of Education & Sports, 2002e) reports that double shift teaching was piloted in four urban areas (in Tororo, Mbale, Soroti and Fortportal). The results were poor, as parents were not supportive of their children attending school in the afternoon. Certainly split-shift schedules have major social implications and need to make sense in the context of local communities. However, given the shortage of classrooms and the large imbalance between the number of teachers and the number of classrooms, it would appear that the split-shift option warrants closer examination. The pilot experience suggests that an investment in public sensitization is necessary before implementing double-shift programmes in any particular area, and a modest budget for this has been built into the MOES budget for the medium term. The new curriculum is increasingly penetrating the schools. In the field work, district officials and head teachers reported that Part 1 (core subjects) seems to be well received. Books are reaching schools leading to a student-to-text ratio of approximately 1:5 or better. Part 2 (cultural and vocational subjects) is more controversial with some evidence in rural or remote regions that relevance to their local situation is considered to be weak, and more flexibility is needed. The team heard repeated messages that there was an unsatisfied need to develop co-curriculum content that would provide relevant skills to rural youth and thus encourage retention in the upper primary years. One example cited was that specific material for communities where fishing is the primary source of livelihood needed to be developed, and their local use encouraged. 4.3.3 Results: Other Components of Basic Education

Each of the other components of basic education, described above in Section 4.2.3 has been subject to some degree of evaluation or review over the past two to three years. These results were made available to the evaluation team and provide the basis for the following remarks.


49

The alternative basic education programmes are generally deemed to be successful. By 2001, ABEK, for example, was reaching over 21,000 children in Karamoja and its community impacts were recognized. These included:

• Increased community awareness of the value of education, including education for girls; • Measured increases in literacy and numeracy among the targeted children; • Increasing levels of transfer into formal public schooling; • Improved family hygiene; • Parental involvement in the ABEK centres; • Community initiatives to establish additional centres; and • Accelerated demand by parents for adult literacy programmes.

This last outcome is an interesting example of the potential synergies that can emerge between different types of basic education programming. In this case, successful non-formal education of children led to increased interest and demand for adult basic education services by their parents. An analysis of the COPE programme carried out for UNICEF (Dewees, 2000) found the programme to be very effective in its ability to reach the disadvantaged target groups and deliver effective programmes. Those children who do stay in the programme are generally able to complete Primary 1 to Primary 5 in three years and transfer successfully to regular primary schools. However, the programme suffers from high dropout rates (about 66%) and very high unit costs – about three times those of the primary schools. Dewees also cited the tendency for COPE to become a “parallel system” rather than an integrated and articulated component within a single basic education system. He recommended that stronger integrated management, including common funding of COPE sites and primary schools, should be put in place to encourage complementarity rather than competition. He also noted that improved articulation with the primary schools would require changes in the schools themselves (more flexibility) − not just changes in the COPE programme. This would have at least three significant advantages:

• Smoother transition from alternative programmes into formal schooling (normally into Primary 6);

• Sharing of experiences about effective skills training and transition to work for students who do not proceed further in primary schooling. Evaluations of ABEK, COPE and BEUPA all noted that the alternative programmes do this better than primary schools, whose raison-d’être is retention and preparation for secondary school. However, for the majority, particularly in rural areas, primary schooling is terminal and the schools could learn much from the alternative programmes about the best ways of addressing the needs of this group; and

• Sharing of lessons learned about the effectiveness of mother-tongue education and optimal management of the transition to English medium education.


50


51

5.0 Partnerships for Basic Education Figure 12: Children Speak Out

5.1 Partnerships for Basic Education: Intents, Policies and Strategies Our analysis centres on the following questions, derived from the Framework Terms of Reference:

• To what extent and in what ways have the evolving concept and practice of partnership influenced the intents, policies and strategies of external support to basic education?

• How have the modalities of partnership between external agencies and the GOU evolved during the period?

• What have been the common areas, and the differences in the approaches, evolving strategies, and experiences of various partners?

• How are the new forms of partnership viewed by Ugandan stakeholders, particularly in relation to the effectiveness of education provision?

To a considerable extent, every external bilateral or multilateral partner has moved into a much stronger coordination relationship, both with other agencies and the GOU. This has been strengthened by ESIP, the EFAG, and the semi-annual sector review process. Among the 14 agencies that are members of the EFAG, the partnership mechanisms that have emerged during


52

the period under review have led to a strong degree of harmonization. Instead of 14 distinct positions, the agencies now divide into essentially three distinct groups, as described in Section 3.3:

• Those agencies committing the bulk of their funds to basic education through budget support mechanisms (Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, EC, World Bank);

• Those agencies committed to basic education, but providing support through projects or through TA (Denmark, Germany, USAID, UNICEF); and

• Those agencies involved in ESIP but not targeting their support at basic education (Austria, France, Japan, Norway).

Within each of the first two groups, particularly the first, agencies have developed a single harmonized position. (The third group fell outside the scope of this study). For the first group – those involved in budget support – this harmonized position reflects the following agreements at the level of intents, policies and strategies:

• A common commitment to support for primary schooling and UPE as the highest priority in their support for basic education in Uganda;

• Agreement that the bulk of external funding support should target the problems caused by the enrolment surge after UPE, particularly the construction of additional classrooms;

• Incorporation of common cross-cutting elements, in agreement with the GOU, such as an emphasis on girls’ education (the retention of girls in primary school);

• A common approach to capacity development, both in the MOES and at the district and sub-district level;

• Agreement on common monitoring and accountability mechanisms, centred on the semi-annual ESR process, to replace the need for individual reports by the MOES to different agencies; and

• A commitment to pooled approaches in the deployment of TA. Agencies vary in the degree to which they can move towards budget support. This depends on their own agency policies set at headquarters. Thus, those agencies in the second and third groups retain a project-based approach, although still subject to coordination under the ESR process and ESIP. Harmonization of both priorities and programme mechanisms is accordingly much weaker in these two groups. The GOU would prefer all external support to come through budget support, but recognises that a degree of earmarking and aid tying will always be present. They also recognize that for many stakeholders at the district and local school levels, there is a strong feeling that the delivery of support through individual projects had certain advantages of responsiveness and efficiency (as noted above in Section 3.2). Furthermore, there is increased recognition that the channelling of some ODA through international NGOs to local projects provides an alternative mechanism for innovation and the piloting of alternative approaches to basic education. Both church groups and NGOs feel a degree of marginalization as partners in the ESIP processes. While their role in education is recognized and their projects incorporated into the ESIP strategy, to date they state, that they have not felt like equal partners. Spokespersons for both religious foundations and for NGOs told the team that they had valuable experiences and ideas that should be given greater weight in the ongoing basic education policy dialogue. In 2002, this is being addressed by including them in the sector review, which may improve relationships. As well, education NGOs have recently formed the Forum for Education NGOs in Uganda (FENU), which is becoming a recognized dialogue partner with the government.


53

5.2 Partnerships for Basic Education: Practices Here the following questions are addressed:

• To what extent and in what ways have the evolving concept and practice of partnership influenced the practices of external support to basic education?

• Have the new approaches met the needs of funding agencies for review, monitoring, quality assurance, accountability and transparency?

• How has the role of international and national NGOs in basic education been affected? • How have partners (e.g., NGOs, universities) in the external agency’s home country, who

have been involved in Uganda’s basic education been affected? The provision of external funding, through budget support into ESIP, has enabled the GOU to greatly accelerate access to primary education. Without the external funding, UPE would not have been remotely affordable for the GOU. To date, budget support has been used mainly to facilitate access, through support for school construction, increasing the number of teachers, and UPE capitation grants to individual schools. In the next round of ESIP (MOES, 2003), attention will be extended to the linked issues of increased efficiency, through balancing the provision of teachers and facilities, and increased quality, through enhanced training of teachers and provision of materials, as well as further curriculum reform focusing on examinations and alternative student-centred learning assessment processes. Moreover, the GOU intends to shift its priority somewhat to secondary education, through financing of the PPET plan developed prior to the eighth ESR. Some agencies do not fully support this and will likely wish to keep their contributions earmarked for basic education. But it is very important to note that all of these, present and planned, initiatives are subject to very detailed discussion, debate and negotiation in the structured fora of the ESCC and EFAG. The extent to which more funding agencies will move towards budget support is unclear. Discussions with headquarters representatives and a review of agency documents suggest that decisions of this type depend mainly on headquarters’ policies, and secondarily on Uganda’s actual needs or situation. Those agencies currently providing budget support informed the team that they are generally satisfied with the semi-annual sector review process as the main vehicle for monitoring. However, this depends on the basis of accurate and verifiable monitoring and evaluation data from the local level. Failure to address the issues of better quality assurance of educational data, and the absence of sufficient resources for monitoring and evaluation of spending by individual schools by district and national authorities may endanger the whole process. Several bilateral support agencies informed the team that the involvement of domestic partners (universities and national associations, for example) has declined since they have moved to budget support. They advised these traditional domestic partners that, in the new processes, there would be a role for them. However, it would be necessary for them to find local partners and position themselves effectively relative to the expressed needs of the Ugandan MOES. The agencies observed that, to date, this shift was not happening. The actual practices of the MOES and of the external support agencies under ESIP can be summarized in the following table.


54

Table 9: Assessment of ESIP as a Case Study of a SWAp in Basic Education

SWAp Characteristic Situation in ESIP Approach is sector-wide ESIP focuses on the entire sector, but with the highest priority,

and 65% of resources, to basic education. The future may see enhanced focus on secondary education.

Based on a clear, strategic framework

ESIP provides the framework for the delivery of basic education services within a common vision and objectives for the sector. It is clearly linked to Uganda’s PRSP and is supported through the PAF, so there is integration with government-wide poverty reduction plans and Uganda’s CDF.

Ownership by the recipient country’s government

ESIP was developed by the MOES, and the government has demonstrated a strong level of ownership of the plan. UPE itself was a precursor of ESIP and was a presidential declaration. There was strong and enhanced dialogue with agency partners. Some, in Uganda, see this as unduly steering some aspects of the strategies according to external priorities rather than Ugandan needs.

Development of a framework included all sectors (government, NGOs, communities and private sector)

Within government, the development of ESIP was primarily the responsibility of the MOES at the central level. However, decisions to decentralize responsibilities in several sectors to local government had already been taken. Hence, the development of ESIP involved widespread consultation and had to incorporate pre-existing decentralization modalities. As well, ESIP was integrally linked to the CDF and PRSP via the PAF, so that other ministries (such as the Ministries of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, and Gender, Labour and Social Development (responsible for adult education and promotion of women)) were involved. All non-government sectors were involved but their level of involvement was limited. Attempts to spread an understanding of the SWAp beyond key government and external agencies have been limited but are being strengthened.

Framework takes long-term perspective

ESIP lays out a plan for five years (1998 to 2003), and a second phase is now being prepared. Commitments of external agency funding is, for the most part, only three years, but some agencies are moving to extend this, on the recognition that long-term commitments are needed.

Participation of all external agencies

All external agencies have committed to work within ESIP, but only some have committed to budget support to fund implementation of the Plan. Others accept coordination of their project support within ESIP.

Activities are implemented by the recipient country

Activities are to be implemented by the MOES. Much of this is the disbursement of funds to local government under UPE and SFG. Substantial monitoring challenges thus arise.

External agencies adopt common implementation procedures

The external agencies that are pooling their funding through budget support use the semi-annual ESR process as a planning, reporting and accountability tool. Other external agencies accept the planning and coordination discipline of the ESR, but implement their project funding separately. Coordination of TA is still not entirely successful.

Existence of good agency coordination

External agency coordination has improved considerably since the mid-decade, with the establishment of the EFAG. The process is well harmonized with that of government, in cooperation with the ESCC within the MOES.


55

Procedures and systems for results monitoring

Monitoring is within the ESR using an agreed set of education indicators for access, quality and efficiency, as well as “undertakings” that represent the conditionalities required by agencies to trigger subsequent releases of budget support. Some agencies, however, still have concerns about meeting their own head-office requirements for results reporting.

International NGOs remain a valuable alternative source of support at the local level, particularly for classroom construction. At the level of local schools, this alternative channel seems to be preferred, since it is faster and leads to a complete package, as opposed to the incremental construction under SFG. While the work of international NGOs appears to be integrated at the district and local level, strategic integration at the centre appears to be weak. NGOs tend to be more accountable to their individual funding sources than to the GOU. Indeed, they cherish their independence from government. The GOU does not track NGO inputs. This independence result in a source of tension with the NGOs’ desire of to “be at the table” and involved more fully in ESIP. As one government official put it, “they cannot have it both ways!” 5.3 Partnerships for Basic Education: Results Here, the questions derived from the Framework Terms of Reference are the following:

• To what extent and in what ways have the evolving concept and practices of partnership influenced the results and consequences of external support to basic education?

• Have the modalities of partnership, preferred by various funding agencies, been appropriate to Uganda’s own needs and policy environment?

• How have the partnerships contributed to accelerated or slowed progress? Have the emerging partnerships had an influence in strengthening dialogue around the intents, policies, strategies and practices of both partners?

The highest profile partnership is undoubtedly that between the MOES, on behalf of the GOU, and the external support agencies. This operates within, and also manages, ESIP, through the mechanisms of the ESCC, the EFAG and the semi-annual ESRs. As we noted earlier, one effect of the partnership, particularly in relation to the management of budget support funding flows, has to create a major administrative burden for the MOES. Managing the ESR process, and more generally, the relationship with external funders, is a full time job for several officials. There is some concern that this diverts attention, time and focus, in the MOES, away from the management of education per se, towards the management of ODA flows and the partner relationship with funding agencies. While this is one aspect of the complexity of partnerships, another is the variety and breadth of the types of relationship that need attention. The following figure illustrates the variety of partner relationships that exist in Ugandan basic education. Each double arrow reflects a particular two-way partnership. The varying weights of the arrows, as well as the unequal size of the arrows at each end, is intended to depict the common perception of the power or control relationship in each case.


56

Figure 13: Partnership Map for Basic Education in Uganda

In the case of the external agency – GOU partnership, for example, the heavy arrow indicates that this is perceived (by all stakeholders) to be very important. The larger arrowhead pointing to the GOU indicates the widespread opinion that the partnership is unequal to the degree that funding agency conditionalities empower them to influence GOU-MOES priorities, but not vice-versa. This is similar for the relationships between international and Ugandan NGOs, and between the MOES and local communities. Partnership, from this perspective, is a complex relationship. In nearly every instance, the partners do not share a symmetric relationship. Their priorities, positions and actions arise from very different perspectives, in many cases. Moreover, as the asymmetric arrows are intended to convey, very often, one partner is in a position to enforce “conditionalities” on the other. Much of this complexity in the partnership relationships is more or less ignored by funding agencies, who honestly believe that they have put the GOU “in the driver’s seat.” The team received a strong message, however, that it is acutely felt and, in spite of the best efforts of all stakeholders, sometimes quite understandably resented by Ugandan partners. The move to enhanced partnership, particularly through the EFAG mechanisms and cooperation with the GOU in the ESR process, has greatly accelerated and enhanced progress in UPE. Thus, the formal primary education sector has benefited greatly. As well, project approaches and programmes supported by individual agencies, which are included in the ESIP, have been better coordinated, although the MOES feels there is still need for improvement. In the case of COPE, ABEK and BEUPA, for example, integrating their funding continues to present challenges and makes their much-needed expansion problematic. The results achieved through the ESIP-ESCC-EFAG partnership as a SWAp mechanism, in contrast with project approaches, are summarized in the following table.

International NGOs

GOU

MOES

External Support

Agencies

Ugandan NGOs

Private Sector

Local Communities


57

Table 10: Situation in Uganda − Project Approaches and ESIP

Characteristics Project Approach

Situation in Uganda ESIP Situation in Uganda

Scope and Coverage

Specific activities with well-defined geographical focus.

External agencies develop projects reflecting their priorities within the framework of consultation in ESIP. Projects often target a particular geographical area.

Sector-wide scope and country-wide coverage with underlying macro policy and political commitment.

ESIP priority focus is on basic education – a sub-sector of education. External support agencies wish to keep it so; GOU would like to shift some emphasis to other sub-sectors.

Implementation Close external agency involvement in management through approval of annual work plans and budgets, and participation in steering committee meetings.

Implementation is often subcontracted, or through UN agencies such as UNICEF. ESR provides some coordination during implementation but GOU would like more.

National administration in charge of managing the programme. External assistance consolidates national capacity and promotes self-reliance.

The MOES manages ESIP, in consultation with the agencies through the ESCC and ESR processes. Focus of these mechanisms is on budget support for the MOES mainstreamed functions. Less attention is given to project modalities.

Management Project management unit set up within partner organization (NGOs or ministry).

Some projects are managed by the MOES but mostly through outside organizations. The MOES participates in macro-management through ESIP-ESR.

Sector management evolved as a whole with broader reform in administrative structures (including decentralization).

Decentralization is an intrinsic component of ESIP and determines many processes related to disbursement.

Funding Quantified physical and financial targets for external assistance. Funds channeled to specific, agreed-upon components.

Disbursement is linked to the project’s individual management plan in relation to progress towards goals and objectives.

Budget support for the sector as a whole, with priorities for investment. Disbursement is linked to impact and sector reform milestones.

Budget support is to education, with agency priority for basic education expressed through undertakings such as a 65% budget threshold. This is monitored in the ESR every six months. Meeting undertakings trigger the next release of external funding.

Financing Pattern

One external agency is often the sole financer.

Occasional co-financing (e.g., TDMS, COPE). Otherwise, individual agencies follow their own modalities (e.g. BEUPA-GTZ, JICA).

Sector financing is on common footing. International funding agencies support national modalities.

Built into the ESIP, as part of CDF, PRSP and PAF strategies.


58

Characteristics Project Approach

Situation in Uganda ESIP Situation in Uganda

Technical Assistance

TA often plays a co-management role.

TA in specific projects for general supervision, monitoring and evaluation in a participative mode. Some agencies also support individual TA consultancies as “small projects.”

TA is catalytic and firmly based on mutual interest and openness for learning and self-reflection.

There is a process for pooling of TA managed by the MOES with agency input and financial support.

Role of Institutions

Existing sector institutions lend support for the project.

Organizational change is stimulated and institutional development plans are prepared.

Institutional reform and change take place. Broad base of institutional capacities for ongoing sector development is created.

Major change in the MOES, but constrained by general limitations on changes in the Public Service.


59

6.0 Conclusions The main conclusions of the Uganda case study are drawn together in this chapter. The intention is not to present new material, but rather to summarize the discussion and results of the previous sections. So doing would depart from the structure of those sections that were each organized around the 3 x 3 grid presented in the evaluation study inception report and discussed briefly in Section 2.1.8 of this study. This is done because many of the major conclusions of the study cut across the various individual sections of that grid. Instead, several major themes or areas of activity that have been identified in the study are singled out and the conclusions grouped under these as headings. The statements in this section are conclusions reached by the evaluation team. The evidence on which they are based is in the previous sections. 6.1 The Uganda Sector-wide Approach as a Modality for External Support Delivery During the period under review, there has been significant evolution in the relationship between funding agencies and the GOU in education. The result is perhaps the most highly developed example of a SWAp in the education sector to be found anywhere. Included within the scope of the SWAp, are the following:

• The strategic framework, derived from Uganda’s PRSP and embodied in ESIP; • The partnership structures of the ESCC and EFAG for coordinated policy dialogue,

agency coordination and harmonization and management of the resulting partnerships; and

• The partnership processes of managing the SWAp as a partnership, embodied in the semi-annual ESR process.

As a strategic framework, ESIP has been an effective guide for all partners. It has provided a clear setting for:

• The planning and implementation of Uganda’s own efforts; • The application of budget support as an external contribution to those efforts; • An “umbrella” under which the planning of individual projects can be integrated; • A continuing and evolving policy dialogue; and • A setting for integrated planning and optimal use of TA.

Coordination and harmonization of agency priorities, procedures and activities have been greatly improved through the ESCC-EFAG structures. Coordination is strong among all external agencies that belong to the EFAG. However, a harmonized approach is only evident among the so-called “inner group” of external agencies who are committed to budget support. Generally, external support agencies – particularly those channelling major contributions through budget support – are satisfied that the semi-annual review process provides them with an acceptable level of monitoring and accountability. Some agencies, however, appear to be experiencing some tension in abandoning a “direct management” approach and express concern that they are losing touch with “grassroots” results. At head office, there may be problems in the loss of the ability to link specific results with their national contributions.


60

An unexpected positive effect of the ESCC-EFAG coordination process has been the willingness of some agencies (CIDA, DFID, EC) to pool their Kampala representation. While this is working well and is cost-effective, the team wonders whether, over the longer term, this reduction in direct engagement will create problems in the knowledge base, relationships and potentially the commitment of the agencies who have no on-site’ continuing representation. The Uganda SWAp does not work as well in the engagement and coordination of NGO-led efforts. Support entering Uganda through NGOs is poorly captured, if at all, by this mechanism and so remains poorly coordinated and only weakly documented. There are clear signals that the administrative burden for the GOU, particularly the Planning Department of MOES has been increased by the shift to budget support. This department appears to be “stretched” to the limit. Some Ugandans feel that the management of the relationship with funding agencies has taken precedence over the management of education itself: an example of process taking priority over product. The new burden of managing semi-annual sector reviews, as well as the tracking of finances and statistics required by external agencies to verify undertakings, has not been matched by PSC approval of extra professional positions. At the same time, it appears that the SWAp mechanism has reduced transaction costs for the external funding agencies providing budget support. Continued monitoring of these issues is needed. 6.2 The Persistence of Project Approaches Since 1996, the modality of ODA disbursement through bilateral and multilateral channels has shifted dramatically from project approaches to budget support, coordinated within the ESIP framework. Nonetheless, a significant number of agencies continue with project support. For some, headquarters policies preclude budget support. Others are “hedging their bets.” Some wish to support priorities outside UPE. In addition, many agencies continue to channel significant resources through their domestic NGOs who, in turn, develop partnerships with Ugandan NGOs for project implementation. Simultaneously, strong messages come from the district and school levels, re-inforced by several citizens on the CRG, that education challenges and needs are not uniform across Uganda. There is no “one size fits all” solution. There is evidently a great nostalgia for locally planned and implemented projects that were more responsive and specialized to meet particular local needs. District officials report feeling “abandoned” by external agencies who formerly dealt directly with the local or district levels of government. Evidently, projects have continuing relevance and value as a quick-response tool for the precise targeting of resources at local problems, as well as piloting innovative approaches and new models of basic education delivery. 6.3 Achieving the Basic Education Goals of the Dakar Framework

Support has overwhelmingly been focused on UPE through the expansion of access to primary schools. Uganda is close to achieving UPE, assuming the momentum generated since 1996 can be maintained. This momentum has been most visible in increased primary school enrolment, and the reduction of both gender disparities and urban-rural inequities in access.


61

This expansion of the public school system has resulted from strong GOU leadership and policies, well supported by an enhanced policy dialogue, TA and increased funding support from external agencies. In spite of the dramatic enrolment increases, ensuring consistent attendance and retention of pupils in the upper grades is still problematic. There is a persistent and disturbing 13% of the primary age cohort who are still not in school. Overall, however, it appears that the target of UPE, if not entirely UPC, is close to being met. The main remaining gap is the need to address retention in the upper primary grades, particularly for rural youth and for girls. The other Ugandan basic education priorities: early childhood, alternative basic education, and FAL have been less well served. Their main support comes through NGOs and through specific bilateral projects. However, recent developments indicate that more strategic and concentrated efforts, led by the MOES, will generate greater progress, chief among these is the October 2002 approval of the Costed Framework for the Education of Disadvantaged (MOES, 2002a). Alternative basic education, through programmes like ABEK, COPE and BEUPA have been successful, although unit costs are high. There is considerable scope for sharing lessons learned with the formal primary school system. The alternative programmes have developed sound approaches for increasing relevance of curricula to disadvantaged groups. Much of what they have piloted could be incorporated, if appropriate flexibility were possible, into the primary curriculum. Retention in the upper grades would surely benefit. Adult literacy has received relatively small resources. External support flows primarily through NGOs. It is also somewhat isolated from the mainstream of basic education due to being managed from a different ministry. Better cooperation between the MOES and the MOGLD, at both the central (policy) and the district (implementation) levels, seems to be desirable. 6.4 Access and Quality in Ugandan Education The quality of teaching and learning in public schools, since the introduction of UPE, has apparently declined. On the basis that UPE enrolment is a necessary but not in itself a sufficient condition for the achievement of UPE, the issue of quality now needs focused attention. This is being supported by the MOES and external partners through the expansion of physical facilities, revision of curriculum, provision of textbooks and other learning materials, and the enhancement of teacher training. The resources devoted to these efforts, however, barely keep pace with the expansion of enrolment. Efforts need to be redoubled. Current support for classroom construction through SFGs, favours the expansion of existing schools over the creation of new schools. This is leading to some primary schools reaching excessive size (in some cases, enrolment of over 3,000 children). As current research suggests that very large schools are detrimental to good learning and to retention of young students, this is troubling. Strategies therefore need to be developed to encourage the creation of new schools. This would include building some link between the local decision mechanisms for awarding SFGs, and school mapping processes in the MOES and in the districts. Increasing the number of schools would also reduce the distance children need to travel to school in rural areas, and thus enhance access. At present there are considerably more teachers than classrooms in the public school system. In the absence of split-shift systems, this suggests that there is considerable inefficiency in the deployment of human resources. Bringing the number of teachers and the number of classrooms


62

into balance, with a reasonable number of students per classroom (not more that 50) would require roughly a doubling of the number of classrooms in Uganda. Support for alternative programmes outside the public schools has been much weaker than for expanding access to public schools. While programmes such as BEUPA, COPE and ABEK have been deemed effective in evaluations, they reach only a small number of the potential target groups, for whom formal schooling is inappropriate or inaccessible. The recent efforts in the ESR process to bring more strategic focus on the education of disadvantaged minorities are a very positive development. The MOES and external partners should place increased emphasis on the provision of professional development for both new and experienced teachers. There is also a need to encourage and facilitate the deployment of teachers to remote rural schools. Terms of service and benefits, particularly the issues surrounding teachers housing in remote areas, need increased attention. The complementary roles of CCT and school inspectors need to be clarified. It is expected that the new ESA can address this challenge and the MOES and external partners should give the matter careful attention in future ESR meetings. Reform of learning assessment procedures, focusing particularly on the positive and negative aspects of the PLE, should be considered in relation to curriculum reform and more generally the enhancement of learning. Completion of primary schooling, and achieving entrance to post-primary institutions, could usefully be separated as distinct goals, with distinct assessment, exit and entrance strategies, incorporating continuous assessment as well as end-of-year examinations. The use of continuous assessment, together with opening up more local flexibility (with suitable monitoring) in the curriculum, could help to address the issues of relevance and retention for rural students in the upper primary grades. At the district level, resources need to be found for more effective monitoring and quality assurance of the enrolment, and financial data provided by schools in relation to UPE grants and SFGs. Again, the role of the new ESA should be watched carefully in the ESR. 6.5 Sustaining the Outcomes of External Support Around 60% of the budget for basic education comes from ODA. This is not a problem provided agencies are prepared to maintain their commitments through the long term − at least until such time as the Uganda economy has expanded sufficiently to generate the necessary government revenue from domestic sources. If external funders now committed to budget support were to withdraw prior to that, it would leave the GOU with an education system beyond its means to support. 6.6 Using Partnerships Effectively The degree and quality of policy dialogue between partners in Uganda (particularly the MOES and the external agencies in the EFAG) is indeed impressive, and is one of the main visible achievements of the past several years.


63

While the strengthened processes of dialogue, coordination and sector support through budget funding are intended by external agencies to “put the GOU in the driver’s seat,” many Ugandans feel that there is still undue control by funding agencies, and that many interventions reflect funding agency priorities rather than intrinsic needs of Ugandan education. There is a strong perception of funding agencies that the processes have achieved government ownership of ESIP. This is less strongly felt by the MOES due to funding conditionalities. Indeed, the very notion of partnership in Uganda seems (not unlike other countries) to be complex – both in the range of stakeholders involved and in the varying perceptions they have of each other. In particular, while funding agencies feel that their partnership with the MOES is one of equality, this perception is often not shared in the MOES. Many Ugandans, as individuals, feel quite acutely that the “power of the chequebook” makes the partnership a very unequal one and that in spite of a much improved partnership mechanism in recent years, this power imbalance remains unchanged. The very success of the EFAG process seems to have engendered a Ugandan perception of the external agencies “ganging up.” Government-NGO partnerships need to be strengthened. NGOs currently feel marginalized in the ESIP processes. Their recent inclusion in the ESR process, along with their own initiative in creating FENU, may help, but these steps − in themselves − likely do not go far enough. NGOs want to be involved in a more active way, at an earlier stage in planning. This process may be strengthened and accelerated by the development of an MOU between the MOES and FENU (acting on behalf of its NGO membership). In turn, the MOES needs better information and the capacity for some coordination of NGO activities to ensure better congruence with government efforts. Some loss of NGO independence might result, and there are dangers in this. No consensus seems to have emerged among the NGOs as to where the proper balance between involvement and independence should lie. In spite of all these problems, in recent years, a growing number of stakeholders across Ugandan society have gained an increased voice and increased confidence. Participatory processes in education now appear to well entrenched.


64


65

7.0 Implications for Policy and Programmes 7.1 Policy at Global and National Level Whether one uses the statistics of the MOES or data from the DHS, it is clear that significant progress, particularly in access to primary education, took place during the period of 1995 to 2002. More recent statistical data suggests that this progress is continuing. The sections above have also described other positive results achieved during the past 12 years, in both the processes of support to basic education and the actual educational achievements. However, identifying the causal relationships between factors that influence this progress is notoriously difficult. It is necessary to consider the relationships between a complex set of events, each of which has its own origins, development and documentation. Some of these reflect the policies and practices of funding agencies, while others reflect policies and practices of the GOU. And there are no simple chains of cause and effect between them. The key policy determinants of the achievements in Ugandan basic education (in approximate order of increasing specificity) include:

• The global EFA process from Jomtien to Dakar (Global); • The Uganda policy environment, beginning with the recommendations of the Education

Policy Review Commission in 1989, followed by the Education for National Integration and Development: Government White Paper on Education (MOES, 1992), and leading to the drafting of the Education Strategic Investment Plan 1998-2003 (MOES, 1998) (GOU);

• The declaration of UPE in 1996 as an expression of the strong national commitment to basic education led by the President of Uganda with its implementation shortly after in 1997 (GOU);

• The increase in the levels of ODA devoted to primary education after 1996 (External agencies);

• The shift by funding agencies from project support to budget support after 1998 (External agencies);

• Decentralization of education in Uganda to the district level (GOU); • Creation of the ESCC and the EFAG, and the mechanism of semi-annual sector reviews

in education as a means of managing the ESIP partnerships (GOU and External Agencies) through coordinated and, in many cases harmonized, approaches; and

• The particular undertakings negotiated between funding agencies and the GOU during the sector reviews (External agencies and GOU).

Unravelling the causal chains that connect these policy developments, and in turn link them to the achievement of results is a complex and perhaps impossible task. This report can only begin to suggest some directions. What the team has observed are complex bidirectional chains of interaction between policies of the funding agencies and policies of the government, and practices of the funding agencies and practices of the government. Each influences the other, and it is their collective interactions that have had the final influence on progress. The shift by many funding agencies to budget support, for example, was driven primarily, it seems, by policy decisions taken in head office. However, the decision to implement that shift in


66

Uganda in particular, reflects two significant factors, cited by agencies, that were Ugandan initiatives:

• Clear messages from the highest levels of authority in the government, which created a strong climate of sustainable national commitment and leadership; and

• The development of an appropriate enabling environment by the GOU itself that raised external agencies’ comfort level about using Uganda as a “test-bed” for the new policy directions.

7.1.1 Policy Implications for External Partners From the perspective just described, a traditional RBM and accountability approach (still used at “head office” as part of official agency procedure by many, if not most of the funding agencies) is clearly inappropriate in a SWAp environment. The pooling of resources, the sharing of responsibility and ownership, and the fungibility of funding all preclude any attempt at a “project logic” based on the provision of various inputs, yielding outputs that, in turn, produce outcomes leading to impacts. There is no longer a simple one-way causal logic from the inputs provided by external agencies to the achievement of specific results. Bilateral funding agencies will need to examine this reality in relation to the specific accountability requirements that their own governments impose on them. For some agencies, this is the principal barrier to their moving towards a budget support modality. A related factor, also connected to national accountability, is the domestic concern that ODA should be visible. Projects with the flag attached have had a particular attractiveness in generating domestic support for ODA. Yet, in moving more fully into a SWAp, funding agencies generally lose this identification with particular products. It is no longer possible to say what their citizens’ contribution paid for, much less attach a flag to it. In Uganda, the team detected some, if not an inordinate amount, of tension between the global policies of the agency generated in head office and the expression of those policies in response to actual needs in that country. For example, Uganda will soon feel the need to shift to increase priority for PPET. This has been driven by the very success of ESIP. Somehow the UPE “bulge” that will be leaving primary school starting in 2004 will have to be accommodated. But shifting resources out of primary education runs counter to the basic education strategies or action plans that many agencies developed in the post Jomtien EFA environment. At the country level it would also represent a change in the strategies and policies agreed to with the GOU in the first phase of ESIP. One current undertaking requires at least 65% of the recurrent education budget to be devoted to the primary sector. There will be pressure from the GOU to reduce this number somewhat. How agencies respond will be an interesting test case of the challenge of balancing global priorities with national needs in the partner country. The PPET issue also illustrates the ambivalence in funding agency policies about the meaning of “sector-wide.” Basic education is not a sector, while education is. The great majority of funding agencies, however, want their support to target only the basic education sub-sector. Over time, it will be necessary to recognize the interconnectedness of all parts of the sector and extend priorities accordingly. Just as success in primary education is now creating problems that have resource implications for secondary schools, the needs of postsecondary education will need to be addressed at some point. Most of the senior officials in the MOES with whom we dealt had pursued advanced study at sometime in the past, often with scholarship support provided through external agencies. Although it was behind our mandate, the team could not help observing that, over the past decade, the next generation following them has far fewer such opportunities. Indeed


67

the building of capacity in Uganda’s own postsecondary institutions has slipped markedly. There are real questions about where the next generation of educational leaders, administrators, curriculum developers, training designers, etc. will come from, unless support for training at this level is substantially increased.

A further policy issue is the funding agency’s degree of involvement. Some agencies such as CIDA and DFID agreed that another agency could provide their representation in Kampala. Over time it is unclear how they will maintain the needed level of knowledge and local engagement that enable them to bring the appropriate level of expertise to exercises such as the sector reviews. The team encountered instances where some agencies were funding their own consultants to conduct evaluations or assessments, based on concerns that the ESR process was not keeping them sufficiently in touch with the grassroots level of implementation. This, however, runs counter to the whole philosophy of the SWAp approach embodied in ESIP. 7.1.2 Policy Implications for the Government of Uganda As we noted above in Section 5.0, there is a real concern that the funding agencies may be having an undue steering effect on policy development by the MOES. Since UPE, and during ESIP, there has clearly been close agreement between the GOU and the group of “like minded” external agencies in EFAG, that basic education and, indeed, primary schooling is the overwhelming priority. It is unclear whether this agreement will continue. The MOES is responsible for the entire sector, and ESIP is intended to be a strategy for the entire sector: primary, secondary, postsecondary, vocational training, early childhood, special needs and non-formal education. MOES officials indicated that the approach to the entire sector will be more balanced in the next phase of ESIP, currently being developed. The GOU will need to exercise due care that the relative priority it assigns to each sub-sector is driven by the realities of the Ugandan situation, and not foremost by the global priorities of funding agencies. Moreover, it needs to be sensitive to the concern that its principal task is to manage basic education, not external support, and convey this forcibly to the funding agencies. A second policy concern relates to the sustainability of the achievements in primary education through ESIP. As noted above, about 60% of financing of basic education comes from external support. This is a high-risk strategy for the GOU. It assumes that the funding agencies will maintain at least the current levels of support for many years to come. Yet, the domestic reality faced by funding agencies is that ODA budgets go up and down (too often down), governments change, and priorities shift. The team heard of one agency that was unwilling to hire any permanent education experts on its staff at headquarters because senior management were not convinced that the agency “will still be in education” in five years time. Yet this agency is currently supplying budget support to basic education in Uganda. The team did not meet anyone who was prepared to make any estimates about the date by which external support to education would no longer be necessary in Uganda. But, evidently, this is not in the near future. It goes well beyond the time span for which funding agencies can make formal financial commitments (usually, at most five years). It seems clear, therefore, that there needs to be at least some recognition, by those agencies committing to budget support, of at least an implicit commitment to stay in for the “long haul.” And more important still, this discussion should take place openly with the GOU. For it is the GOU, in the end, who would be left with an unaffordable education system if external funding were to be prematurely reduced or withdrawn.


68

The team observed that the GOU is acutely aware of this risk and, while in no way downplaying the importance of external support, is proceeding with due caution, particularly on the part of the MOFPED. On occasion, this caution can produce tension between the MOFPED and the MOES. The MOES on the one hand, is acutely aware of the needs of the education system and how additional external finance could be effectively applied. The MOFPED, on the other hand, is concerned about the implications for the GOU’s own budgetary commitments in both the short and longer term, as well as the sustainability of the increased spending levels anticipated. This polarity has been intensified recently as the MOES develops the Uganda proposal for the Education for All Fast Track Initiative (FTI), which would supply considerable new financial resources into primary schooling. 7.2 Programmes at the Global and National Level 7.2.1 Programme Implications for External Partners In entering into a SWAp such as ESIP, funding agencies need to be sensitive to the degree to which they are transferring administrative burdens on to the partner government. The original argument for SWAps included the belief that they lighten the tasks of management, reporting, and accountability, particularly for the developing country partners. The team’s observations in Uganda, however, suggest the opposite. Indeed the semi-annual ESR process may have greater resource implications for the MOES than individual project modalities, where most of the management is external. As noted above, this suggests that the MOES must devote large amounts of staff resources to managing the relationships with external support agencies, rather than to managing education itself. A greater sense of the need to strike an appropriate balance in the sharing of transaction costs would appear to be needed. Without denying the clear advantages of SWAps such as ESIP: ownership and sustainability through mainstreaming, coordination and complementarity of activities, local accountability and engagement, and so on, the downside risks must also be acknowledged. But the risks relate to processes of SWAp management, and thus seem amenable to mitigation. Those agencies not providing budget support should examine, in negotiation with the GOU, whether some modification of current ESR undertakings and other accountability mechanisms could meet their domestic requirements and enable some budget support to begin flowing. All agencies need to re-examine their priorities in relation to the education sector as a whole. Even if they maintain basic education as their priority for support, the implications for other sub-sectors of education need to be clearly understood and incorporated into programme strategies. In particular, two links need to be clearly reflected:

• The downstream implications of improved basic education for higher levels (secondary and tertiary, as well as the labour-market implications; and,

• The dependence of basic education on the tertiary sector for the provision of well trained teachers, administrators, managers, and educational leaders and visionaries.


69

7.2.2 Programme Implications for the Government of Uganda Uganda’s success in basic education to date has been in the area of access. This success has been impressive. Increased attention now needs to be given to the improvement of quality. Paradoxically, some of the same inputs that were used to enhance access will also enhance quality (and conversely), if carefully managed:

• Large primary schools are widely believed to be detrimental to quality (Cotton, 1996; Postlethwaite and Ross, 1992). It follows that the achievement of child-friendly schools and reducing the distances that children need to walk to school will require building more schools, not simply enlarging existing schools. Thus, SFG will need to continue but will also need modification since, to achieve reasonable quality, the total number of classrooms needs to be doubled. Developing a Ugandan concept of an optimal school size range would be useful, along with a more effective school mapping process. It may be that reaching an ideal pupil-to-classroom ratio would best be achieved by doubling the current number of schools, not their size. Note that increasing the number of schools should, on average, reduce the distance to schools − which will also promote access. Innovative models, such as the linking of new satellite classroom clusters to existing schools, may be worth examining;

• Better monitoring of the local use of resources is essential. This means a number of

things and goes well beyond financial accountability. The end result is to improve the quality of teaching and learning, through better trained teachers with improved morale, more and better teaching materials in schools and, critically, efficient deployment of teachers in the situation of insufficient classroom space, which will persist for some years to come. Better teaching and learning are known to reduce absenteeism and dropout rates, and hence improve enrolment indicators; and

• Schools need encouragement to build on the local support of PTAs and SMCs and, more

broadly, the community. The team saw some good examples of such active engagement, where schools were in active partnership with their communities. But this potential remains largely untapped. The level of complaints from district officials and head teachers about the negative impact of “local politicians” suggests the need for an improved and non-partisan dialogue between parliamentarians and MOES officials concerning the best ways to strengthen the provision of education at the local level.

Success in increasing access to primary education has created an “enrolment bulge” of students who will soon be sitting the PLE. This has enormous implications for the individuals involved and for the future of education and its role in society. The next phase of ESIP will need to address this issue and in so doing will achieve greater balance across the various sub-sectors of education than was possible (or desirable) in ESIP. Programmes to increase the provision of post-primary education (such as the components of the recent PPET strategy) will be necessary very soon. At the same time, it is clear that many good students will sit the PLE and yet not get a secondary school place. It would seem helpful, even necessary for the maintenance of quality and morale in the primary schools, to de-link the two achievements of:

• Satisfactory completion of primary school; and • Admission to a post-primary institution.


70

The first (completion of primary school) could be determined by some combination of continuous assessment and end-of-year examinations. Success would be rewarded with a Certificate of Primary Completion. The second (admission to PPET institutions) could be determined by meeting an additional requirement by those who wish to proceed. More generally, the work of the new ESA (MOES, 2002c) should take some of the pressure off the PLE as a tool for measuring the quality of individual schools. Parallel movement towards the increased use of classroom-based continuous assessment, if effectively supported and liked, to recognized and monitored standards will also help. Such measures will require new resources, both to create the necessary capacity in the ESA and to train teachers in alternative methods of assessment. If they are aggressively pursued, however, much of the status and pressure attached to the PLE could, over time, be reduced.


71

ANNEXES Annex 1: Profile of External Support Until 1998, the main mode of delivery of external support to basic education was through discrete, stand-alone projects. These were funded through various mechanisms: concessional loans, primarily by the World Bank, cooperative mechanisms and TA delivered mainly through UN mechanisms, individual projects funded by bilateral funding agencies, and the efforts of NGOs, mainly based in particular districts of Uganda. The ESIP of 1997 now forms the basis on which funding agencies cooperate with the MOES. Initially focused on elementary and secondary education, it is being expanded to incorporate the university sector and thus achieve the breadth of a full sector plan. Improved funding agency coordination and complementarity of interventions is a government goal of increasing importance. The GOU and participating funding agencies have formed the ESCC and the EFAG under which a coordinated approach to budget support, project support and TA is managed. Members jointly participate every six months in the review of educational sector plans and their implementation, and support the government in its management of the process. Some funding agency funds go into a consolidated TA fund managed by the GOU and ultimately, the government hopes that all TA would be funded in this way, rather than through individual funding agency projects. In 1999, building on the PEAP, Uganda was identified as a CDF pilot country and subsequently qualified for the concessional loans and debt relief under the HIPC initiatives of the IMF/World Bank. Pursuant to these agreements, it is one of the first eight countries to complete its PRSP. The PRSP was presented to the funding agency community in May 2000. This has given added impetus to all sectors of social development, including an education reform effort that already had achieved considerable momentum. The GOU is strongly committed to the principles of national (host country) ownership in partnership with the funding community. In particular, this includes agreeing with funding agencies to shift to broader budget support in lieu of a series of discrete projects in separate sectors. The World Bank’s second PRSC of US$150 million is in the approval process. These shared goals of the GOU and the funding agencies are defined and managed through a variety of instruments and structures that include:

• The ESIP 1998 to 2003; • The MTBF; • The Joint Education Sector Reviews (April 1999, October 1999, April 2000, October

2000, April 2001, October 2001, April 2002, October 2002); • Budget support undertakings; • Sector level indicators; • The ESCC; • The EFAG; • The Draft Memorandum for Support to Education in Uganda; and • The Code of Conduct for Education Sector Funding Agencies.


72

These instruments and processes, their relation to the strategies and policies of individual funding agencies, their support for the objectives and strategies of the GOU, and their effectiveness in terms of outcomes achieved, will form a major focus of the case study. A summary of each funding agency, in terms of the level and focus of support is provided below. The table that follows is a modified and updated version of one prepared by the EFAG as part of the Directory of Funding and Technical Assistance Agencies Supporting the Education Sector in Uganda, prior to the Seventh ESR. The original table covered the entire sector, not just basic education and that material was not removed. While the consultants take full responsibility for the new material inserted, they caution that in some cases, the additional information is incomplete, so this table should not be taken as official or definitive. It represents the best information made available to the consultants’ team in Uganda.

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a Se

ptem

ber

2003

Jo

int E

valu

atio

n O

f Ext

erna

l Sup

port

To

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

73

Tab

le 1

1: P

rofil

e of

Ext

erna

l Sup

port

Age

ncie

s

MU

LT

ILA

TE

RA

LS

Fund

ing

Age

ncy

Prio

ritie

s/O

bjec

tives

for

Educ

atio

n in

Uga

nda

Cur

rent

Act

iviti

es a

nd

Impl

emen

ting

Part

ners

C

over

age,

Dur

atio

n an

d Fi

nanc

ial V

alue

of

Ass

ista

nce

(US$

)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

Euro

pean

Uni

on

(EU

) Th

roug

h Eu

rope

an

Com

mis

sion

(E

C) V

ia

Euro

pean

D

evel

opm

ent

Fund

(ED

F)

UPE

is a

maj

or a

rea

of s

uppo

rt D

irect

bud

get s

uppo

rt to

re

curre

nt U

PE c

osts

thro

ugh

STAB

EX

B

udge

t sup

port

to G

OU

th

roug

h S

truct

ural

Adj

ustm

ent

Sup

port

Pro

gram

me

(SA

SP),

whi

ch in

clud

es s

ome

supp

ort

to U

PE

E

arm

arke

d bu

dget

sup

port

for

teac

her d

evel

opm

ent,

clas

sroo

m c

onst

ruct

ion,

di

stric

t and

Cen

tral C

apac

ity

Build

ing

(CC

B)

Eig

hth

EDF

Mic

ro-p

roje

cts

Pro

gram

me

(hea

lth,

educ

atio

n, w

ater

)

1999

/200

0

$14.

9 m

illio

n*

2002

/200

3 $1

.65

mill

ion*

19

99/2

000

$50

milli

on*

2000

/200

1 –

2003

/200

4 $2

8.5

mill

ion*

8

dist

ricts

20

00

$13.

8 m

illio

n*

* Fig

ures

in U

S$ a

re

appr

oxim

ate,

dep

endi

ng o

n ex

chan

ge ra

te a

t tim

e of

ex

pend

iture

The

EC is

cur

rent

ly

prog

ram

min

g th

e N

inth

ED

F. It

is

antic

ipat

ed th

at

educ

atio

n w

ill b

e su

ppor

ted

thro

ugh

gene

ral m

acro

-ec

onom

ic b

udge

t su

ppor

t, w

hich

will

be

partl

y tri

gger

ed b

y pr

ogre

ss in

agr

eed-

upon

crit

ical

in

dica

tors

in th

e ed

ucat

ion

sect

or

Ms.

Ter

ri Ke

lly

Box

524

4 R

wen

zori

Hou

se

5th F

loor

P

lot 1

Lu

mum

ba A

ve.

Kam

pala

Wor

ld B

ank/

IDA

Qua

lity

basi

c ed

ucat

ion

for a

ll,

early

chi

ld d

evel

opm

ent,

adul

t lit

erac

y, c

ompr

ehen

sive

ed

ucat

ion

sect

or d

evel

opm

ent

focu

sing

on

natio

nal p

riorit

ies

in

the

PE

AP

Bud

get s

uppo

rt to

UP

E

(ES

AC)

IDA

5 p

rogr

amm

e su

ppor

t to

Nat

iona

l Prim

ary

Edu

catio

n R

efor

m P

rogr

amm

e in

clud

ing

TDM

S. I

mpl

emen

ted

by th

e M

OE

S (P

roje

ct

Impl

emen

tatio

n U

nit-P

IU)

Sup

port

to E

CD

thro

ugh

the

CH

ILD

pro

ject

. Com

pone

nt

impl

emen

ted

by P

re-P

rimar

y D

epar

tmen

t of M

OE

S

1998

to 2

000

$155

mill

ion

1993

to 2

001

$52.

6 m

illio

n 19

98 to

200

3 $

34 m

illio

n

Con

tinue

d bu

dget

su

ppor

t, fo

cusi

ng o

n a

com

preh

ensi

ve

sect

or p

rogr

amm

e

Mr.

Pau

d M

urph

y R

oom

J10

-069

, 18

18, H

Stre

et

NW

, Was

hing

ton

D.C

., 20

433

US

A

Ms.

Har

riet

Nan

nyon

jo

P.O

. Box

446

3 P

lot 1

, Lu

mum

ba A

ve.

Kam

pala

Sept

embe

r 20

03

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a

Join

t Eva

luat

ion

of E

xter

nal S

uppo

rt to

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

74Fu

ndin

g A

genc

y Pr

iorit

ies/

Obj

ectiv

es fo

r Ed

ucat

ion

in U

gand

a C

urre

nt A

ctiv

ities

and

Im

plem

entin

g Pa

rtne

rs

Cov

erag

e, D

urat

ion

and

Fina

ncia

l Val

ue o

f A

ssis

tanc

e (U

S$)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

C

hild

ren’

s Fu

nd

(UN

ICEF

)

The

Chi

ld F

riend

ly B

asic

E

duca

tion

and

Lear

ning

P

rogr

amm

e, w

hich

is th

e U

NIC

EF-a

ssis

ted

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

mm

e in

Uga

nda

for t

he

perio

d of

200

1 to

200

5, w

ill

oper

ate

with

in th

e U

PE a

nd

ES

IP fr

amew

ork.

The

goa

ls o

f th

e pr

ogra

mm

e ar

e to

: 1.

E

nhan

ce g

ende

r equ

ity a

nd

qual

ity e

duca

tion

2.

Ens

ure

avai

labi

lity

and

acce

ssib

ility

of b

asic

ed

ucat

ion

to e

xclu

ded

and

unre

ache

d gi

rls a

nd b

oys,

gi

rls a

nd b

oys

livin

g in

co

nflic

t-affe

cted

are

as, a

nd

child

labo

urer

s 3.

E

nsur

e yo

ung

girls

and

boy

s up

to 8

yea

rs o

ld a

re a

ble

to

lear

n an

d re

aliz

e th

eir f

ull

grow

th a

nd p

sych

osoc

ial

deve

lopm

ent

4.

Pro

gres

sive

ly fu

lfill

the

right

s of

70%

of p

rimar

y sc

hool

gi

rls a

nd b

oys

to im

prov

ed

sani

tatio

n, h

ygie

ne a

nd s

afe

wat

er, i

n se

lect

ed d

istri

cts,

by

200

5

Tech

nica

l and

fina

ncia

l su

ppor

t as

part

of th

e C

hild

Fr

iend

ly B

asic

Edu

catio

n an

d Le

arni

ng p

rogr

amm

e th

roug

h M

OFP

ED, M

OLG

, MO

ES,

dist

ricts

, mun

icip

al/to

wn

coun

cils

, For

um fo

r Afri

can

Wom

en E

duca

tors

(F

AW

E)/a

llian

ce a

nd 2

6 di

stric

ts. A

reas

of f

ocus

in

clud

e:

1.

Hol

istic

fam

ily/c

omm

unity

-ba

sed

ECC

D to

ens

ure

that

at l

east

60%

of a

ll ch

ildre

n up

to 8

yea

rs o

ld,

in s

elec

ted

dist

ricts

, ac

cess

fam

ily/c

omm

unity

-ba

sed

ECC

D c

are

syst

ems

2.

Pro

mot

ing

girls

’ edu

catio

n an

d qu

ality

thro

ugh

the

conc

ept o

f a c

hild

/girl

-fri

endl

y sc

hool

as

a to

ol

and

as a

nor

mat

ive

goal

3.

C

ompl

emen

tary

bas

ic

educ

atio

n to

ens

ure

the

real

izat

ion

of ri

ghts

to

basi

c ed

ucat

ion

for 4

0% o

f ex

clud

ed a

nd u

nrea

ched

gi

rls a

nd b

oys

and

75%

of

girls

and

boy

s af

fect

ed b

y ar

med

con

flict

4.

S

choo

l san

itatio

n, h

ygie

ne

and

wat

er to

redu

ce g

irls’

dr

opou

t rat

e an

d im

prov

e qu

ality

2001

to 2

005

With

in th

e de

cent

raliz

ed

fram

ewor

k, th

e pr

ogra

mm

e w

ill c

once

ntra

te o

n di

spar

ity

redu

ctio

n A

dvoc

acy,

pol

icy

dial

ogue

, st

rate

gy d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

partn

ersh

ip d

evel

opm

ent,

educ

atio

nal p

lann

ing,

EM

D,

M&

E w

ill b

e ca

rried

out

at t

he

natio

nal l

evel

A

t the

impl

emen

tatio

n le

vel,

the

prog

ram

me

will

targ

et th

e 26

mos

t dis

adva

ntag

ed

dist

ricts

and

com

mun

ities

U

S$1

8,03

5 fo

r Chi

ld F

riend

ly

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

and

Lear

ning

P

rogr

amm

e *A

n ad

ditio

nal U

S$

4.2

mill

ion

will

be

avai

labl

e fro

m th

e S

choo

l San

itatio

n, H

ygie

ne

and

Wat

er p

rogr

amm

e to

re

duce

girl

s’ d

ropo

ut ra

te a

nd

impr

ove

qual

ity

S

ibes

o M

. Lu

swat

a,

Pro

gram

me

Offi

cer,

Edu

catio

n P

.O. B

ox 4

047

Kis

ozi H

ouse

K

ampa

la

Tel.:

256-

41-

2345

91/2

3459

2 Fa

x:25

6-41

-23

5660

/259

146

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a Se

ptem

ber

2003

Jo

int E

valu

atio

n O

f Ext

erna

l Sup

port

To

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

75

BIL

AT

ER

AL

S Fu

ndin

g A

genc

y Pr

iorit

ies/

Obj

ectiv

es fo

r Ed

ucat

ion

in U

gand

a C

urre

nt A

ctiv

ities

and

Im

plem

entin

g Pa

rtne

rs

Cov

erag

e, D

urat

ion

and

Fina

ncia

l Val

ue o

f A

ssis

tanc

e (U

S$)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

Aus

tria

R

egio

nal

Bur

eau

For

Dev

elop

men

t C

oope

ratio

n

Uga

nda

is a

prio

rity

coun

try

but e

duca

tion

is n

ot a

maj

or

area

of s

uppo

rt

Loca

l sch

olar

ship

pr

ogra

mm

e fo

r pos

t-gr

adua

te e

duca

tion

in

Uga

nda,

dis

tanc

e le

arni

ng

and

shor

t cou

rses

. Fo

r the

co

min

g ac

adem

ic y

ear

(inta

ke O

ctob

er 2

000)

, Au

stria

pla

ns to

fina

nce

22

loca

l sch

olar

ship

s an

d di

stan

ce le

arni

ng c

ours

es fo

r st

uden

ts b

ased

in th

e K

isor

o D

istri

ct

US$

130,

000

Supp

ort t

he

educ

atio

n se

ctor

in

Uga

nda

by m

eans

of

ear

mar

ked

budg

et s

uppo

rt fo

r sc

hola

rshi

ps

(fund

ing

avai

labl

e is

un

clea

r at t

his

poin

t)

Kon

stat

in H

uber

, H

ead

of M

issi

on

Bar

bara

Noe

st,

Pro

gram

me

Offi

cer

Jaap

Blo

m,

Pro

gram

me

Man

ager

−

Dec

entra

lizat

ion

Can

adia

n In

tern

atio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t A

genc

y (C

IDA

)

Bas

ic e

duca

tion

with

a fo

cus

on:

• Ex

pand

ing

equi

tabl

e ac

cess

•

Girl

s’ e

duca

tion

• D

isad

vant

aged

chi

ldre

n •

Stre

ngth

enin

g ca

paci

ty a

t th

e di

stric

t lev

el

Fina

ncia

l sup

port

to U

NIC

EF

for t

he im

plem

enta

tion

of

CO

PE

(exp

ires

at th

e en

d of

20

01)

Bud

get s

uppo

rt th

roug

h th

e P

AF

Initi

ally

, CA

N$3

.0 m

illion

in

supp

ort o

f CO

PE

20

01-2

006

CA

N$1

0.65

m

illion

(US

$6.9

milli

on) o

ver

5 ye

ars.

Bud

get s

uppo

rt vi

a th

e P

AF

Fund

s cl

early

ea

rmar

ked

for:

AB

EK

; gen

der a

nd

educ

atio

n; c

apac

ity

deve

lopm

ent

Dan

Tha

kur,

Educ

atio

n S

peci

alis

t Eas

tern

A

frica

and

the

Hor

n P

rogr

am,

Afri

ca a

nd M

iddl

e-E

ast B

ranc

h,

Can

adia

n In

tern

atio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t Ag

ency

20

0 Pr

omen

ade

du P

orta

ge

Hul

l, Q

uebe

c C

anad

a K

1A 0

G4

Tel:

(819

) 997

-10

21

Fax:

(819

) 953

-94

53

Sept

embe

r 20

03

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a

Join

t Eva

luat

ion

of E

xter

nal S

uppo

rt to

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

76Fu

ndin

g A

genc

y Pr

iorit

ies/

Obj

ectiv

es fo

r Ed

ucat

ion

in U

gand

a C

urre

nt A

ctiv

ities

and

Im

plem

entin

g Pa

rtne

rs

Cov

erag

e, D

urat

ion

and

Fina

ncia

l Val

ue o

f A

ssis

tanc

e (U

S$)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

E-m

ail:

dan_

thak

ur@

acdi

-cid

a.gc

.ca

Rep

rese

nted

in

Kam

pala

by

the

EU

offi

ce

Min

istr

y of

Fo

reig

n A

ffairs

, D

anid

a (D

enm

ark)

Hum

an ri

ghts

is o

ne o

f the

fo

ur p

riorit

y ar

eas

for U

gand

a Sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n fo

r dis

able

d ch

ildre

n an

d ch

ildre

n w

ith

lear

ning

diff

icul

ties

has

been

su

ppor

ted

as p

art o

f the

R

ight

s of

the

Chi

ld a

nd R

ight

s of

Dis

able

d P

eopl

e

EA

RS

pro

ject

– E

AR

S

cent

res

supp

ortin

g th

e id

entif

icat

ion

and

asse

ssm

ent o

f chi

ldre

n w

ith

spec

ial n

eeds

and

thei

r in

tegr

atio

n in

to m

ains

tream

sc

hool

, plu

s su

ppor

t for

te

ache

r tra

inin

g in

spe

cial

ne

eds

via

esta

blis

hed

TDM

S

stru

ctur

es

Pro

gram

me

supp

ort t

o U

gand

a N

atio

nal I

nstit

ute

of

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n (U

NIS

E)

for t

each

er tr

aini

ng a

t all

leve

ls in

spe

cial

edu

catio

n

Sinc

e 19

91

12.7

mill

ion

tota

l 10

.9 m

illio

n 19

95-2

000,

plu

s 3.

5 m

illion

200

0 to

200

3 Su

ppor

ted

the

crea

tion

of

EA

RS

cen

tres

in a

ll di

stric

ts

Inte

grat

ion

of E

AR

S

cent

res

into

dis

trict

bu

dget

s an

d m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

s, a

nd

grad

ual w

ithdr

awal

of

ext

erna

l sup

port

Now

pha

sing

out

of

educ

atio

n in

U

gand

a du

e to

Ag

ency

focu

s on

H

uman

R

ight

s/G

over

nanc

e (D

anid

a Pa

rtner

ship

20

00)

Mr.

Hen

ning

N

iels

en

Tel:

256

687

ext.

100

Dep

artm

ent f

or

Inte

rnat

iona

l D

evel

opm

ent

(DIF

ID),

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Inte

rnat

iona

l dev

elop

men

t ta

rget

s in

edu

catio

n:

• U

PE b

y 20

15

• P

rogr

ess

tow

ards

gen

der

equa

lity

by 2

005

• Fu

rther

stre

ngth

enin

g of

th

eSW

Ap/

MTE

F in

ed

ucat

ion

• Im

prov

ed fu

ndin

g ag

ency

co

ordi

natio

n

Bud

get s

uppo

rt to

ES

IP (£

60

milli

on) a

nd te

chni

cal

coop

erat

ion

(£7

milli

on)

PR

ISFA

C P

roje

ct: p

ilotin

g de

cent

raliz

ed s

choo

l co

nstru

ctio

n th

roug

h co

nditi

onal

sch

ool

mec

hani

sm (c

ompl

eted

30

/04/

2000

) S

uppo

rt to

NG

Os

incl

udin

g:

Actio

n Ai

d –

NFE

1998

-200

3

100

mill

ion

budg

et s

uppo

rt 19

98-2

003

12 m

illion

for

tech

nica

l coo

pera

tion-

ES

A;

basi

c le

arni

ng m

ater

ials

; de

cent

ralis

ed s

trate

gic

budg

etin

g; e

duca

tion

plan

ning

1

milli

on fo

r Mub

ende

, Ki

tgum

, Bun

dibu

gyo

0.5

milli

on fo

r Aru

a

1998

-200

3

Tota

l £67

milli

on

budg

et s

uppo

rt to

E

SIP

Rep

rese

nted

in

Kam

pala

by

the

EU

offi

ce

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a Se

ptem

ber

2003

Jo

int E

valu

atio

n O

f Ext

erna

l Sup

port

To

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

77

Fund

ing

Age

ncy

Prio

ritie

s/O

bjec

tives

for

Educ

atio

n in

Uga

nda

Cur

rent

Act

iviti

es a

nd

Impl

emen

ting

Part

ners

C

over

age,

Dur

atio

n an

d Fi

nanc

ial V

alue

of

Ass

ista

nce

(US$

)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

Em

erge

ncy

scho

olin

g an

d ad

ult l

itera

cy (R

EFLE

CT)

(e

ndin

g 20

01)

Save

the

Chi

ldre

n

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

-Wom

en’s

Li

tera

cy (e

nded

200

0)

In S

ervi

ce S

econ

dary

Te

ache

r Edu

catio

n P

roje

ct

(INS

STE

P) m

anag

ed b

y C

entre

for B

ritis

h Te

ache

rs

(CfB

T) (c

ompl

eted

31

/01/

2000

) Te

rtiar

y S

chol

arsh

ips

thro

ugh

Brit

ish

Cou

ncil.

S

uppo

rt fo

r Mic

ro-E

duca

tion

Pro

ject

s th

roug

h B

ritis

h P

artn

ersh

ip S

chem

e (e

nded

20

00)

6 m

illion

199

5-20

00

Emba

ssy

of

Fran

ce

Unt

il no

w -

Fren

ch te

achi

ng;

train

ing

of te

ache

rs

Fren

ch te

achi

ng fo

r pr

ofes

sion

als

• IT

EK

• M

aker

ere

Uni

vers

ity

• U

PK

•

Allia

nce

Fran

çais

e •

Min

istry

of E

duca

tion

• Sc

hola

rshi

ps a

nd

wor

ksho

ps

US$

200,

000

appr

oxim

ate

annu

al b

udge

t R

egio

nal a

nd

bila

tera

l FS

P

proj

ects

Fr

ench

lang

uage

w

ould

not

be

an

excl

usiv

e ai

m

Mr.

Jean

Noe

l Jo

deau

Fr

ench

Em

bass

y E

duca

tion

Adv

iser

Fr

ench

Em

bass

y N

akas

ero,

Lu

mum

ba A

ve.,

Plo

t 16

Kam

pala

E

-mai

l: Je

an-

noel

.jode

au@

dipl

omat

ie.g

ouv.

fr G

erm

an

Tech

nica

l C

oope

ratio

n (G

TZ)

Uga

nda

is a

mai

n fo

cus

coun

try o

f Ger

man

D

evel

opm

ent A

ssis

tanc

e Ba

sic

educ

atio

n fo

r urb

an o

ut-

Basi

c Ed

ucat

ion

in U

rban

P

over

ty A

reas

: thi

s pr

ojec

t as

sist

s th

e M

OE

S a

nd K

CC

in

dev

elop

ing

a no

n-fo

rmal

ap

proa

ch in

clud

ing

1997

-200

3 U

S$

2.75

Mill

ion

for t

he

Kam

pala

Dis

trict

Unt

il 20

07

Els

a M

einz

er,

Prin

cipa

l Te

chni

cal

Adv

isor

, MO

ES

, U

DB

1st fl

oor a

nd

Sept

embe

r 20

03

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a

Join

t Eva

luat

ion

of E

xter

nal S

uppo

rt to

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

78Fu

ndin

g A

genc

y Pr

iorit

ies/

Obj

ectiv

es fo

r Ed

ucat

ion

in U

gand

a C

urre

nt A

ctiv

ities

and

Im

plem

entin

g Pa

rtne

rs

Cov

erag

e, D

urat

ion

and

Fina

ncia

l Val

ue o

f A

ssis

tanc

e (U

S$)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

of-s

choo

l chi

ldre

n an

d vo

catio

nal t

rain

ing

for

empl

oym

ent a

re p

rom

oted

in

orde

r to

redu

ce p

over

ty a

nd

addr

ess

parts

of t

he p

oore

st

popu

latio

n S

peci

al e

mph

asis

is a

lso

give

n to

girl

s.

curr

icul

um a

nd in

stru

ctio

nal

mat

eria

ls d

evel

opm

ent,

inst

ruct

ors’

trai

ning

and

su

ppor

t to

the

educ

atio

n de

partm

ent o

f KC

C, N

GO

s an

d to

50

com

mun

ities

P

rom

otio

n of

Nat

iona

l Vo

catio

nal E

duca

tion

and

Trai

ning

: sup

port

to s

yste

m

deve

lopm

ent o

f the

TV

ET

sub-

sect

or in

col

labo

ratio

n w

ith M

OE

S a

nd th

e pr

ivat

e se

ctor

1991

-200

1 U

S$0.

75 m

illio

n na

tiona

lly

Und

er p

repa

ratio

n

City

Hal

l, 3rd

floo

r K

ampa

la

Mar

iann

e R

eube

r, Pr

inci

pal

Tech

nica

l A

dvis

or, M

OE

S,

UD

B 1

st fl

oor

Kam

pala

Dep

artm

ent o

f Fo

reig

n A

ffairs

, Ire

land

/Irel

and

Aid

Sin

ce J

omtie

n, th

e fo

cus

has

been

on

prim

ary

and

basi

c ed

ucat

ion,

with

par

ticul

ar

atte

ntio

n to

the

need

s of

girl

s an

d ot

her d

isad

vant

aged

gr

oups

Ire

land

Aid

sup

ports

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l DA

C ta

rget

s of

U

PE b

y 20

15 a

nd g

ende

r eq

uity

in e

duca

tion

by 2

005

Irela

nd A

id b

elie

ves

that

co

mm

unity

ow

ners

hip

and

man

agem

ent a

re e

ssen

tial t

o su

stai

ning

qua

lity

and

equi

ty

in e

duca

tion

Irela

nd A

id h

as a

stro

ng

pove

rty fo

cus

Edu

catio

n, p

artic

ular

ly

prim

ary

educ

atio

n, th

e ro

le

of e

duca

tion

for g

irls

and

wom

en in

ach

ievi

ng

sust

aina

ble

natio

nal

econ

omic

and

soc

ial

deve

lopm

ent i

s re

cogn

ized

Fo

cus

has

been

on

prim

ary

educ

atio

n, w

ith p

artic

ular

at

tent

ion

to th

e ne

eds

of

girls

and

oth

er

disa

dvan

tage

d gr

oups

Th

e Ire

land

Aid

Uga

nda

offic

e is

sup

porte

d by

the

Bila

tera

l Aid

div

isio

n fo

r S

outh

ern,

Eas

tern

and

the

Hor

n of

Afri

ca

Irela

nd A

id s

uppo

rts th

e In

tern

atio

nal D

AC

targ

ets

of

UPE

by

2015

and

Gen

der

equi

ty b

y 20

05

N

icol

a Br

enna

n,

Ros

emar

y R

wan

yang

e,

Em

bass

y of

Ire

land

Bo

x 77

91

12 A

caci

a Av

enue

Ko

lolo

K

ampa

la

E-m

ail:

irish

aid@

star

com

.co

.ug

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a Se

ptem

ber

2003

Jo

int E

valu

atio

n O

f Ext

erna

l Sup

port

To

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

79

Fund

ing

Age

ncy

Prio

ritie

s/O

bjec

tives

for

Educ

atio

n in

Uga

nda

Cur

rent

Act

iviti

es a

nd

Impl

emen

ting

Part

ners

C

over

age,

Dur

atio

n an

d Fi

nanc

ial V

alue

of

Ass

ista

nce

(US$

)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

An

educ

atio

nal a

dvis

er,

base

d in

the

Dep

artm

ent’s

S

peci

alis

t sup

port

Uni

t, fu

rther

sup

ports

wor

k on

ed

ucat

ion

Em

bass

y of

Ja

pan

an

d Ja

pan

Inte

rnat

iona

l C

oope

ratio

n A

genc

y (J

ICA

)

Supp

ortin

g hu

man

de

velo

pmen

t thr

ough

ed

ucat

ion,

par

ticul

arly

for g

irls

and

wom

en, i

s a

prio

rity

obje

ctiv

e P

rimar

y sc

hool

con

stru

ctio

n is

a

curre

nt p

riorit

y ac

tivity

in

sub-

Sah

aran

Afri

ca

Pro

visi

on o

f iro

n sh

eets

for

scho

ol c

onst

ruct

ion

thro

ugh

NU

RP

Pro

visi

on o

f edu

catio

n eq

uipm

ent f

or M

aker

ere

Uni

vers

ity, N

akaw

a V

ocat

iona

l Tr

aini

ng

Inst

itute

, Uga

nda

AID

S

Com

mis

sion

and

the

N

atio

nal S

ports

Cou

ncil

Thre

e di

spat

ches

of i

ron

shee

ts s

ince

198

9:

$5.8

mill

ion

Nor

th a

nd N

orth

-Eas

t U

gand

a R

ehab

ilita

tion

and

prov

isio

n of

equ

ipm

ent f

or th

e Fa

culty

of

Sci

ence

at M

aker

ere

Uni

vers

ity 1

990-

1992

: $5

.5 m

illio

n S

uppo

rt fa

cilit

ies

and

equi

pmen

t for

Nak

awa

Voc

atio

nal T

rain

ing

Inst

itute

19

68-1

974

and

1997

-200

4:

$8.1

mill

ion

Con

side

ring

poss

ible

sup

port

for

Pos

t-Prim

ary

Mat

hem

atic

s an

d Sc

ienc

e Ed

ucat

ion

Mr.

Kat

suki

M

orih

ara

Em

bass

y of

Ja

pan

Box

2355

3,

Kam

pala

M

r. N

aoki

Y

oshi

kaw

a,

JIC

A o

ffice

Bo

x 12

162,

K

ampa

la

Net

herla

nds

Emba

ssy

Stru

ctur

al e

radi

catio

n of

illi

tera

cy, g

ende

r and

en

viro

nmen

t via

bas

ic

educ

atio

n In

stitu

tiona

l cap

acity

de

velo

pmen

t

Dire

ct b

udge

t sup

port

to

ES

IP

Cla

ssro

om c

onst

ruct

ion

via

PA

F S

uppo

rt to

TD

MS

in W

est-

Nile

and

rem

aini

ng a

reas

S

uppo

rt to

sev

en d

istri

cts

D

evel

opm

ent p

rogr

amm

es

Fello

wsh

ips

1999

-200

1 $1

3 m

illion

19

99 $

4 m

illio

n 20

00 $

4 m

illio

n 19

98-2

001

$3.7

mill

ion

2000

app

roxi

mat

ely

$1

milli

on

Con

tinue

d su

ppor

t to

MO

ES

prio

rity

activ

ities

E

nhan

ced

supp

ort

to c

lass

room

co

nstru

ctio

n vi

a P

AF

Con

tinue

with

the

arra

ngem

ent

Mr.

Eric

Hilb

erin

k M

r. G

eorg

e Ka

libba

la

Box

7728

K

isoz

i Hou

se

4th F

loor

N

akas

ero

Kam

pala

Sept

embe

r 20

03

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a

Join

t Eva

luat

ion

of E

xter

nal S

uppo

rt to

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

80Fu

ndin

g A

genc

y Pr

iorit

ies/

Obj

ectiv

es fo

r Ed

ucat

ion

in U

gand

a C

urre

nt A

ctiv

ities

and

Im

plem

entin

g Pa

rtne

rs

Cov

erag

e, D

urat

ion

and

Fina

ncia

l Val

ue o

f A

ssis

tanc

e (U

S$)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

1999

/200

0 $1

milli

on

M

inis

try

of

Fore

ign

Affa

irs,

Nor

way

Educ

atio

n is

incr

easi

ngly

a

prio

rity

area

S

uppo

rt to

UN

ICE

F B

asic

Ed

ucat

ion,

Chi

ld C

are

and

Ado

lesc

ents

(BE

CC

AD

) pr

ogra

mm

e S

uppo

rt to

Mak

erer

e U

nive

rsity

dep

artm

ents

of

Fore

stry

and

Agr

icul

ture

–

curri

culu

m re

visi

on, r

esea

rch

and

build

ings

. S

uppo

rt to

Nya

byey

a Fo

rest

ry C

olle

ge (M

OE

S)

Inst

itutio

nal a

nd re

sear

ch

coop

erat

ion

betw

een

Nor

weg

ian

Uni

vers

ities

and

fa

culti

es in

Mak

erer

e U

nive

rsity

R

efug

ee C

ounc

il w

ork

in

Gul

u di

stric

t

1997

-199

8 $1

milli

on

1996

-200

0 $2

milli

on

2000

-200

4 $9

milli

on

1996

-200

0 $2

milli

on

Long

term

coo

pera

tion

$0.5

mill

ion

Cur

rent

cou

ntry

pr

ogra

mm

e is

U

S$11

mill

ion

plus

U

S$4

mill

ion

thro

ugh

NG

Os

such

as

SC

F M

ajor

focu

s on

P

SE

: sup

port

to

Mak

erer

e U

nive

rsity

Har

ald

Kar

isne

s,

Ran

di L

otsb

erg,

E

mba

ssy

of

Nor

way

Bo

x 29

71

Cru

sade

r Hou

se

4th F

loor

3

Por

tal A

venu

e K

ampa

la

USA

ID

B

asic

edu

catio

n is

a p

riorit

y ar

ea, w

ith a

stro

ng

com

mitm

ent t

o un

iver

sal

acce

ss, g

ende

r equ

ity a

nd

qual

ity im

prov

emen

ts a

t the

cl

assr

oom

leve

l

Bud

get s

uppo

rt to

UP

E

Supp

ort t

o U

gand

an P

rimar

y E

duca

tion

Ref

orm

Pro

gram

(S

UP

ER

), in

clud

ing

TDM

S

and

an e

duca

tiona

l res

earc

h co

mpo

nent

Ed

ucat

ion

for D

evel

opm

ent

and

Dem

ocra

cy In

itiat

ive

• C

onne

ctiv

ity fo

r Ed

ucat

ion

Dev

elop

men

t •

Am

bass

ador

’s G

irls’

1993

-200

1 $8

3 m

illion

19

93-2

000

$25

milli

on

Pro

gram

me

supp

ort a

imed

to

fully

cov

er 1

0 ou

t 18

catc

hmen

t are

as, a

nd p

artia

l su

ppor

t to

the

rem

aini

ng

eigh

t cat

chm

ent a

reas

by

Sept

embe

r 199

8 20

00-2

001

$2.5

milli

on

Con

nect

ivity

for E

duca

tion

Dev

elop

men

t whe

reby

four

PT

Cs

and

ITEK

will

be

supp

orte

d to

inte

grat

e ne

w

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gies

in

Not

yet

det

erm

ined

U

SA

ID is

cur

rent

ly

prep

arin

g its

nex

t fiv

e ye

ars’

cou

ntry

st

rate

gy.

Are

as to

sup

port

will

depe

nd o

n G

OU

pr

iorit

ies

and

thos

e w

here

USA

ID h

as a

co

mpa

rativ

e ad

vant

age

Fo

cus

will

be

on

inte

grat

ed e

duca

tion

Mr.

Dav

id B

runs

Se

nior

Edu

catio

n A

dvis

er

Ms.

Sar

ah

May

anja

Ed

ucat

ion

Spe

cial

ist

Box

7856

42

, Nak

aser

o R

d.

Kam

pala

Cou

ntry

Stu

dy R

epor

t — U

gand

a Se

ptem

ber

2003

Jo

int E

valu

atio

n O

f Ext

erna

l Sup

port

To

Bas

ic E

duca

tion

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

81

Fund

ing

Age

ncy

Prio

ritie

s/O

bjec

tives

for

Educ

atio

n in

Uga

nda

Cur

rent

Act

iviti

es a

nd

Impl

emen

ting

Part

ners

C

over

age,

Dur

atio

n an

d Fi

nanc

ial V

alue

of

Ass

ista

nce

(US$

)

Futu

re In

tent

ions

C

onta

ct P

erso

ns

and

Add

ress

es

Scho

lars

hips

and

Men

torin

g pr

ogra

mm

e, to

ena

ble

brig

ht

but n

eedy

girl

s to

com

plet

e se

cond

ary

educ

atio

n

the

train

ing

of te

ache

rs

$380

,000

Th

e A

mba

ssad

or’s

Girl

s’

Scho

lars

hips

and

Men

torin

g pr

ogra

mm

e en

able

d at

leas

t 10

0 br

ight

but

nee

dy

stud

ents

to g

ain

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

and

heal

th

To b

e de

term

ined

de

pend

ing

on th

e su

cces

s of

the

first

ph

ase


82


83

Annex 2: Profile of Basic Education For the GOU, basic education has several areas of focus. Overwhelmingly, however, the main one is UPE. In 1996 the GOU mandated that every family would have free access to primary education for up to four children, at least where possible, two of whom should be girls. (This extra condition reflected a concrete attempt to promote gender equity in primary school access.) Within one year, primary enrolments more than doubled, putting incredible strains on all components of the system: infrastructure and classrooms, supply of teachers, provision of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials, etc. Significant quality issues have thus increased in importance as an immediate consequence of the rapid enrolment rise. These matters will take some years to address, although initial steps are well under way. External funding has thus been focused in large measure on assisting the GOU to meet the needs of primary education, as delivered through the publicly funded school system. Nonetheless, there are other significant areas of basic education, in the broad sense of the Jomtien and Dakar frameworks that receive support:

• Early childhood development programmes, supported by certain NGOs and UNICEF in

particular, especially in rural areas. These are normally linked with community health and nutrition programmes, and basic education for mothers;

• Non-formal programmes or alternative programmes (complementary basic education) for out-of-school youth, designed specifically for the context of certain areas. Sometimes, these take the form of education programmes for urban poor/working children, which feature innovative delivery and schedules, such as BEUPA. Others target particular geographic regions with a high proportion of disadvantaged children (for example, programmes such as COPE, and ABEK in Karamoja); and

• FAL programmes (age 15 and up). These do not lie within the MOES, but are managed through the MOGLSD.

Primary education in Uganda covers seven years from Primary 1 to Primary 7. Standard age cohorts would range from age six to 12. However, it is significant to note that Gross Enrolment Ratios (GERs) are much higher than 100%, indicating a combination of variable starting age of schooling by many pupils and high repetition rates. Thus formal schooling in Primary 1 to Primary 7 includes many children older than 12, as well as children as young as three. While, formerly, all government-supported education was in English, it has been Ugandan policy since 1996 to promote the use of mother-tongue education as an alternative to English in the early grades. Mother-tongue education is further enhanced in the new curriculum, which was published in January 2002. The shift to mother-tongue education however is not without its problems. Parents are not always supportive because access to secondary schooling and higher education is largely dependent on English language ability. As well, the production of instructional materials and multiple languages is difficult and costly, and the assignment of teachers becomes more complex. Nonetheless it appears that the shift to mother-tongue education has advantages that outweigh the difficulties (Klees, Hawley, Byabamazima and Kyeyune, 2002). At the end of Primary 7, children sit the PLE. Success in this examination entitles them to a Primary Leaving Certificate. The students with the highest marks may proceed to secondary school, which, in Uganda and for the purposes of this case study, is not considered part of basic education. As the number of secondary school places is severely limited, for the majority of Uganda’s children, Primary 7 marks the end of their formal schooling.


84

Provision of schooling is highly decentralized, with the administration of individual schools managed by district offices to which financial resources are transferred by the central government in relation to their individual budget requirements. The activities of the district offices are overseen by the MOLG. However, their education administrators report to the MOES. The district offices administer financial grants to individuals schools based on their reported enrolment. Education strategy, policy and planning, curriculum, management of teacher education, and general (but not local) monitoring and evaluation of the education system are conducted centrally within departments of the MOES. The implementation of primary education, and most activities funded through financial support of the GOU’s UPE strategy, are administered through the offices of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the District Education Officer (DEO) in each of the 56 districts. The education section of the district office manages all primary and secondary schools in the district, including the recruitment of teachers, provision of facilities and materials (including construction of new classrooms), budgetary provision and administration (with funding transferred from the centre), and monitoring of individual school performance. Education Indicators This material is based on several sources:

• Data in the EFA 2000 Assessment prepared by the MOES for UNESCO; • Additional data provided to the consultants by the Department of Planning in the MOES,

particularly in the 2000 and 2001 Statistical Summaries published by the MOES; • Data from the 1995 and 2000 DHS; and • Data culled from other reports and evaluations.

While education indicators reveal considerable progress over the past decade, Uganda must continue and even accelerate its performance to achieve the EFA targets. Adult illiteracy remains 26% for males and 50% for females. Estimates of the primary school Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) vary. On the basis of the DHS results of 2000, NER is believed to be approximately 87%, with little gender disparity, in the first five years of schooling. This reflects major improvement on the figures from a few years earlier, through the huge increase in primary enrolments since 1996. This rapid enrolment growth has not been accompanied by commensurate increases in financing, however, so that major questions of educational quality remain to be addressed. Significantly, GERs are much higher than 100%, indicating a combination of late start of schooling by many pupils and high repetition rates. Improving the performance of elementary schools to move older children through more quickly would create additional places for the primary-age cohort. Secondary education is only available to a select few. UNICEF reports GER of 15% (male) and 9% (female), again revealing significant gender disparity. Primary schools: Male Female Total Student enrolment (2001): 3,528,035 3,372,881 6,900,916 Number of teachers (2001) 81,091 45,947 127,038 Government schools 10,368 Non-government schools 1,912


85

Number of primary classrooms in government schools: Completed 44,256 Under construction 25,882

Net intake rate (percentage of the age cohort entering Primary 1): boys 70%, girls 71.5% Primary net enrolment ratio: The Monitoring and Evaluation Branch of the MOES calculates this as: boys: 120%, girls 116%. [N.B.: the MOES is aware of the anomaly in these indicators and attributes it to underestimated population data as well as possible over-reporting of enrolments by some schools. This is to be corrected in the next national census.] Survival rate to Primary 4: Boys 61%, Girls 62% Survival rate to Primary 7: Boys 67%, Girls 59% (this data, of course, reflects the

situation of the smaller, “pre big-bang” cohort, which had significant gender inequity.)

Results of the most recent National Assessment of Primary Education (1999) Percentage of pupils with at least Primary 3 completions who meet national standards for basic learning competencies: 1996 1999

English: 92% 56% Numeracy: 48% 31%

These figures are particularly disturbing as they reflect a significant drop between the previous assessment in 1996 and that in 1999. It would appear that by 1999, two years after the “big bang,” the quality of learning in the early primary grades had eroded significantly. Percentage of primary teachers who hold appropriate certification: men 73%, women 78%. Average pupil-to-classroom ratio: 98:1 (2002 target is 92:1) Average pupil-to-teacher ratio: 58:1 (2002 target is 55:1) Average pupil-to-textbook ratio: 4:1 (based on old textbooks) New textbooks are about to be introduced based on a reformed curriculum with an initial target ratio of 6:1. Current public spending on primary education is 263.1 billion Ugandan shillings (approximately US$146 million), or 2.7% of GDP, and is 67% of total public spending on all levels of education. Note that these national averages conceal significant differences between districts, as mentioned in Section 4.3.2 of this report. Ugandan Education Data Efforts are underway in the Ministry to improve data collection, the checking of the data for accuracy, and the capacity for appropriate data analysis. Up to now, most researchers have cross-checked data with material from household surveys and other sources, and the team expects to do the same where possible (as discussed in Section 4.3.1). Unless otherwise indicated, the source of the following data is the MOES annual Statistical Abstracts.


86

Gross Intake Rate (GIR) The GIR represents new entrants (all ages) in Primary 1 as a percentage of the population of official entry age (6 years old).

Table 12: Gross Intake Rate (GIR)

New Entrants All Ages

Estimated Population Aged 6 Years

GIR (%) (New Ent. / Est. Pop.)

Year

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1990 313,833 269,612 583,445 232,509 233,289 465,798 135 116 125 1991 303,970 264,876 568,846 285,063 290,664 575,727 107 91 99 1992 309,641 254,200 563,841 280,464 278,156 558,620 110 91 101 1993 277,116 243,066 520,182 311,332 318,266 629,598 89 76 83 1994 330,407 298,179 628,226 314,571 320,467 635,038 105 93 99 1995 394,070 351,266 745,336 321,539 324,991 646,530 123 108 115 1996 415,668 381,540 797,208 321,273 319,859 641,132 129 119 124 1997 1,003,220 948,498 1,951,718 334,693 332,992 667,685 300 285 292 1998 802,647 766,941 1,569,588 348,065 346,064 694,129 231 222 226

- - - - - - - - - - 2000 724,125 712,833 1,436,958 376,465 373,995 750,460 192% 191% 192% 2001 751,665 751,826 1,503,491 388,704 385,692 774,396 193% 195% 194% 2002 799,386 813,320 1,612,706 523,028 507,626 1,030,324 153% 160% 157%

Net Intake Rate (NIR) The NIR represents the number of new entrants to Primary 1 of official entry age (six years old), divided by the estimated population of that age. Many of the other six-year-olds not captured in this ratio may well begin school at other ages: a few when younger; the majority at age seven or more. The significant disparity between gross and net intake rates also reflects this indication that children begin school at a broad range of ages.

Table 13: Net Intake Rate (NIR) 1990 to 1995

New Entrants Aged 6 Years Population Aged 6 Years NIR (%) Year Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

1990 83,703 74,652 158,355 232,509 233,289 465,798 26 32 34 1991 96,621 93,012 189,933 285,063 290,664 575,727 34 32 33 1992 103,772 91,791 195,563 280,464 278,156 558,620 37 33 35 1993 85,982 84,183 170,165 311,332 318,266 629,598 28 26 27 1994 119,537 108,959 228,496 314,571 320,467 635,038 38 34 36 1995 112,539 107,247 219,786 321,539 324,991 646,530 35 33 34

- - - - - - - - - - 2000 258,653 263,624 522,277 376,465 373,995 750,460 69% 70.5 70 2001 268,130 275,818 543,948 388,704 385,692 774,396 69% 71.5 70 2002 294,057 306,029 600,086 523,028 507,626 1,030,324 56% 60 58


87

Table 14: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER)

Enrolment Primary 1 to Primary 7

Population Aged 6-12Yyears GER (%) Year

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1990 1,263,585 998,005 2,201,590 1,660,901 1,558,000 3,324,994 77 61 69 1991 1,303,306 1,236,243 2,539,549 1,670,905 1,666,201 3,337,106 78 74 76 1992 1,203,670 1,160,408 2,364,078 1,719,528 1,783,993 3,503,521 70 64 67 1993 1,492,630 1,182,335 2,674,965 1,741,794 1,807,093 3,548,887 85 65 75 1994 1,407,797 1,190,895 2,598,692 1,763,787 1,829,911 3,593,698 79 65 72 1995 1,587,216 1,325,257 2,912,473 1,790,502 1,859,115 3,649,617 86 72 72 1996 1,647,742 1,420,883 3,068,625 1,996,182 1,988,785 3,984,967 86 74 80 1997 2,832,472 2,471,092 5,303,564 2,077,312 2,069,513 4,146,825 137 112 124 1998 2,868,564 2,595,289 5,591,000 2,159,144 2,149,100 4,308,244 129 114 122 1999 3,301,888 2,986,351 6,288,239 2,239,572 2,226,869 4,468,261 147 134 141 2000 3,395,554 3,183,459 6,579,013 2,320,702 2,308,277 4,628,979 146 138 142 2001 3,528,035 3,372,881 6,900,916 2,654,431 2,640,104 5,314,450 133 128 130 2002 3,721,135 3,633,018 7,354,153 2,892,879 2,882,115 5,774,655 129 126 127

Table 15: Net Enrolment Ratio (NER)

Enrolment 6-12 Years Population Aged 6-12 Years NER 6-12 Years (%)

Year

Male Female Total Male Female Total M F Total 1990 966,885 787,556 1,754,221 1,666,994 1,658,000 3,324,994 58 48 53 1991 952,416 849,763 1,802,179 1,670,905 1,666,201 3,337,106 57 51 54 1992 980,131 841,700 1,821,831 1,719,528 1,783,993 3,503,521 57 47 52 1993 908,840 783,837 1,692,677 1,741,794 1,807,093 3,548,887 52 43 48 1994 1,022,997 953,537 1,976,534 1,763,787 1,829,911 3,593,698 58 52 55 1995 1,092,206 988,076 2,080,282 1,790,502 1,859,115 3,649,617 61 53 57 1996 - - - 1,996,182 1,988,785 3,984,969 - - - 1997 1,905,185 1,718,501 3,623,679 2,077,312 2,069,513 4,146,825 92 83 87

- - - - - - - - - - 2000 2,886,480 2,772,585 5,659,065 2,564,030 2,548,716 5,112,746 113 109 111 2001 3,186,217 3,058,837 6,245,054 2,654,431 2,640,104 5,314,450 120 116 118 2002 3,319,404 3,260,435 6,579.839 2,892,870 2,822,115 5,774,665 115 113 114

The apparent anomaly in this data is attributed to inaccurate population data. However, an alternative (or additional) explanation would be the over-reporting of enrolments by schools or districts. Dropout Rates The statistical summary document records the number of dropouts by grade level reported from each district. However, as Dean (2002) notes in his analysis, there are several problems with this data. First, the data tables make no distinction between missing data and a zero dropout rate. This means that a school that does not report is recorded as having zero dropouts. Second, there is no cross-referencing between schools or districts, so that some students recorded as dropouts are actually transfers to another district. Only the absolute number of dropouts (male and female) is recorded, for each grade level and district, but from the enrolment tables it should be possible to compute dropout ratios. Given Dean’s criticism of the data available, this may not be a worthwhile exercise.


88

Table 16: Number and Qualifications of Primary School Teachers

Number of Teachers Teachers who are Certified Year Male Female Male Female 1998 117,655 61,438 44.5% 46% 1999 2000 70,760 39,606 76% 84% 2001 81,091 45,947 73% 78%

Primary Completion Rates and Primary Certificate Examination Results The current statistical digest does not appear to report primary completion rates. This is, however, an important indicator. For 1997, the EFA 2000 Assessment reported survival ratios to grade 5 as 93.5% (boys) and 94.3% (girls). For 2001, a preliminary statistical report puts the 2001 survival rate to Primary 7 as 67% (boys) and 59% (girls). Pass rates on the PLE are reported to be low; we do not yet have comprehensive data. Should this become available it should be possible to compute primary completion rates. However, as the current Primary 7 enrolment reflects pre-UPE intake, these rates can be anticipated to shift dramatically over the next three to four years. Availability of Current Curriculum The curriculum for primary schools has recently undergone a major overhaul and new materials are in the process of being prepared and distributed. For the year 2001, government statistics report the availability of the current curriculum at zero, because they have stopped tracking the availability of the former curriculum, which is becoming obsolete.

Table 17: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Ratio 28:1 32:1 27:1 29:1 31:1 35:1 38:1 58:1 55:1 61:1 59:1 54:1

Table 18: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Ratio 50:1 45:1 41:1 45:1 38:1 39:1 44:1 69:1 78:1 82:1 96:1 100:1(est.)

Pupil-to-Textbook Ratio The statistical digest presents detailed tables for English, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies, by district. This is disaggregated for Primary 1 to Primary 3 and Primary 4 to Primary 7. The summary data (year 2000) is that the pupil-to-textbook ratio for Primary 1 to Primary 3 is 5:1 and for Primary 4 to Primary 7 it is 3:1.


89

Repetition Rates The repetition rate is the proportion of pupils enrolled in a specific grade in a given school year who study the same grade the following school year. The EFA Assessment reported the following repetition rates for 1997:

Table 19: Repetition Rates, by Grade

Grades Primary 1 Primary 2 Primary 3 Primary 4 Primary 5 Primary 6 Primary 7

Average Grade 1 to 5

Total 10.0% 8.5% 6.3% 5.6% 4.2% 3.4% 1.8% 7.1% Male 11.1% 9.7% 7.3% 6.5% 5.0% 4.1% 1.3% 8.1% Female 8.9% 7.2% 5.3% 4.7% 3.5% 2.8% 2.3% 6.0%

A MOES summary document for 2001 reports that overall repetition rates for primary school are 9% for boys and 9.5% for girls. Adult Literacy Rate Data from the 1991 Population and Housing Census revealed that the adult literacy rate was 63% (male) and 45% (female). By 1995 this had risen to 74% (male) and 50% (female) [UNESCO data]. The 1999 rate was 77% (male) and 56% (female) [UNESCO]. Alternatively, the DHS data is as follows:

Table 20: Adult Literacy Rates

DHS: Adult Literacy 1995 2000 Male Literacy 77% 83% Female Literacy 53% 59%

Source: (DHS) The DHS also uncovered a significant urban-rural disparity: according to the 2000 survey for example, female literacy in the northern region is only 34%, while it is 80% in the central region. The regional differences for men are much narrower, falling within a band from 78% to 90% across all regions.


90


91

Annex 3: Details on Methodology Work began in April 2002 with the first visit of the team leader, Dr. John Berry, to Uganda (April 1 to 7). During this first visit detailed plans were developed with the national consultants, initial meetings were held with key stakeholders, particularly in the MOES and the funding agencies, and a short site visit was made to the Wakiso District Office and a TDMS Coordinating Centre (Wampeewo). A stakeholder map was developed and the documentation requirements were assessed. All of this gathering of information proved extremely useful in developing a Draft Terms of Reference Report for the case study. Finally, an initial meeting with the CRG was organized by the MOES, with the support of the Royal Netherlands Embassy. Shortly after this first field mission, the seventh ESR occurred. The MOES invited the national consultants to participate fully in that review, including the regional workshops. Prof. Odaet participated in the Eastern regional workshop (Kumi district), while Mr. Balemesa joined the central workshop in Masaka district. The regional workshops provided the national consultants with a valuable and deeper perception of the education issues pertaining to different districts. In these workshops participants visited individual schools and local offices to assess the situation on the ground and discuss various issues with local stakeholders. During August 2002, the national consultants worked with the CRG to gather comments and suggestions about the draft country TORs, prior to the September Steering Committee meeting. In September 2002, Mr. Balemesa traveled to Canada, along with Mr. John Wood, to participate in the meeting of the ESC along with Dr. Berry. In parallel, a quality assurance workshop was organized for the four country teams. This also afforded an opportunity for detailed inter-team planning that fine-tuned the methodology of the individual case studies to achieve greater coordination and consistency of approach across the four countries. It also allowed detailed group discussions of the links between the document review and the case study methodology. The second field mission took place from September 28 to October 10 and involved the entire team of four consultants. This two-week period constituted the most intense data-gathering component of the study. As well, several days were spent on site visits in four Ugandan districts (details below). Two meetings of the CRG were held, at the beginning and end of the mission. The observations of the CRG members were particularly helpful, as well as their suggestions for additional sources of information and stakeholders or informants to contact. Following this mission, the two national consultants participated in the eighth ESR. This particular review was significant in that there was a general review of the ESIP evaluation, plans for the next phase of ESIP, along with the FTI proposal and plans for PPET. The four consultants collaborated on preparing a document summarizing their key findings up to mid-October. National consultants carried out a substantial number of follow-up meetings with particular informants: in government, in external support agencies and NGOs. These were necessary either because scheduling difficulties precluded a meeting during the second mission, or in other instances to probe more deeply into particular items or gather additional documents. The third and final mission to Uganda by the two international consultants occurred November 15 to 22, 2002. The stakeholder workshop was held November 18, and follow-up meetings were held during the remainder of the week. National consultants gathered some minor additional data, mainly recent EMIS data on education indicators, after the end of the mission.


92

Preparation of this report occurred during January 2003. The team leader wrote the initial draft in consultation with the team leaders of the three other country case studies. Subsequently, the draft was received by the other three members of the team, the country team leaders for the other case studies, the EMG and the Uganda CRG, before submission of a revised draft to the ESC. 3.1 Key Informant Interviews During the period of April to November, 2002, a large number of individuals and representatives of organizations were interviewed in Uganda. Many of these interviews took place during the three field missions of the international consultants. As well, a significant number of interviews were conducted by the national consultants between the various field missions. This additional work added considerably to the knowledge base of this report. A list of all the individuals interviewed, with their affiliation, where appropriate, follows. Representatives from the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES) Hon. Geraldine N. Bitamazire, Minister of State for Education and Sports (Primary Education) Sam Onek, Acting Director of Education Kate N. Tibagwa, Acting Commissioner of Pre-Primary and Primary Education M. A. O. Ocen, Commissioner of Teacher Education Florence Malinga, Commissioner of Planning Negris Onen, Special Needs Education K. Albert Byamugisha, Assistant Commissioner of Planning (Monitoring and Evaluation) Godfrey Dhatemwa, Assistant Commissioner of Planning (Planning and Budget) Joseph Eilor, Principal Education Planner Joseph Muvawala, Planning Department R. Nsumba Lyazi (Assistant Commissioner Secondary Education) Maureen Bakunzi (Principal Policy Analyst II) Resti Muziribi (Ag. Assistant Commissioner for Pre-Primary Education) Alice Ibaale, PIU (Instructional Materials) John Nakabago, PIU (Construction) Sammy Musoke, Organizational Development Specialist Representatives from other ministries and public bodies Ministry of Local Government Ministry of Health Patrick Ocailap, Aid Liaison, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Ec. Dev. Twesime Frederick Tabura, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Ec. Dev. Herbert Baryayebwa, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development Education Service Commission Moses Otyek, Education Standards Agency Dr. Rose Nassali Lukwago, Education Standards Agency Mrs. Sseezi, Public Service Commission Mrs. Gorretta, Ministry of Public Service M.G. Sendyona, Ministry of Public Service External support (funding and/or TA) agencies Josephine Bourne, European Union and DFID Harriet Nannyonjo, World Bank


93

Anastasia Nakazzi, Uganda National Commission for UNESCO Sibeso Luswata, UNICEF David Igulu Wanume, UNICEF World Food Programme Austria (Austrian Development Cooperation) Henning Nielsen, Denmark (Danida) Michael Ward (DFID) Elsa Meinzer, Germany (GTZ) Liz Higgins (Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland/Ireland Aid) Nicola Brennan, Ireland (Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland/Ireland Aid) Rosemary Rwanyange, Ireland (Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland/Ireland Aid) Harman Idema, Netherlands George Kalibbala, Netherlands Catherine Guma, Netherlands Harald Karisnes, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway Randi Lotsberg, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway Sarah Mayanja, USA (USAID) David Bruns, USA (USAID) Dan Thakur, CIDA Representatives from the districts visited during the field work

Arua District: Nicholas Tembo, DEO Arua E. Dribiri, Deputy DEO S. L. Abeti, District Inspector of Schools John Aloro Kenyi, Deputy Principal (P), Arua Primary Teachers College Tom Acam, Deputy Principal (O), Arua Primary Teachers College Stephen Droti, Bursar TDMS, Arua Primary Teachers College Stanley Adrabo, Arua Deputy CAO (Arua Local Government) L Candia, Secretary, Education L Okojia, Chair, Education Committee Kezi Ondama, District Labour Officer Joseph Dhinya, CCT, Arua Hill Raymonde Obiayi, HT, Arua Hill Primary School Isaac Kotoma, HT, Jiako Primary School Mbale District: Stephen Nasasa, Senior Education Officer G W Wopuwa, CAO, Local Government Office John Wanda, Senior Internal Auditor Joseph Mwangala, Senior Finance Officer Peter Wandera, Auditor Patrick, Inspector of Schools Joy Kuteesa Gingo, District Inspector of Schools (SEN) Annette Masmde, (Special Needs Children) Gideon Khawukha, Community-based Service Officer Deo Wandera, Engineer i/c School Facilities Grant Works Clement Bweri, Head Teacher Bumagen Army Public School


94

Mbarara District: Dan Tamwesigire, District Education Officer Edward, Mbabago, Senior Inspector of Schools Lwamafa Rwanyanure Javan, Principal Bishop Stuart Core Primary Teachers College Lydia Kyomunangi, Sr. Assistant Accountant (District Education Officer) Tukahiriwa, Head Teacher, Kafunjo Primary School Julius Muhoozi, Chair, SMC, Kafunjo Primary School Ida Natukunda Barigye, Deputy HT, Rweiziringiro Primary School Ben Byesigwa, Bishop Stuart Core Primary Teachers College Jovia Kyokunda, Head Teacher and Coordinating Centre Tutor Chairperson Sam Asiimwe, Deputy Head Teacher Mukono District: Edward Ssewaryana, District Education Officer Mr. Lwamasaka Prosper, District Iinspector of Schools Silver Ssemakula-Nsaali, District Sports Officer Drake Kasirye, Head Teacher, Kisowera Primary School Peter Kiwendo, Assistant Rehabilitation Office, Kisowera Primary School Annet Nakigudde, Coordinating Centre Tutor Kisowera Regina Nakibule, Pupil Primary 7 Kisowera Primary School Henry Katende, Pupil P7, Kisowera Primary School Ms. Joy Kuteesa Gingo, Head Teacher Buntaba Child Protection Society Angela Namagga, Community Development Officer Ronald Sentamu, HT, Kichwa Primary School James Kiyemba, Asst HT, Kichwa Primary School Cyril M. Bampa, Chair, PTA Kichwa Primary School Damulira Kyeyune, Vice Chairman, Mukono LCV Christine Ampaire, Director, Gender and Community Development Caroline Nantale, Assistant Community Development Officer Wakiso District (during the first mission): Mr. Sekamatte, District Education Officer Marjorie Kalemera, Head Teacher, Wamperewo Primary School Flavia Baguma, Coordinating Centre Tutor Janet Otukol, Coordinating Centre Tutor Grace Nekesa, Coordinating Centre Tutor Stephen Asiata, Head Teacher, Masajja Primary School Representatives of NGOs and national associations Tom Muzoora, ActionAid Philip Twesigye, World Learning Helen O’Reilly, UJCC Gerard Mukasa, UJCC Rev. Canon Grace Kaiso, UJCC S. Kakembo, UMEA Charles Businge, ActionAid Uganda John Baleeta, ADRA John Mafabi, ADRA Ms Farah Ahamed, Aga Khan Foundation


95

Seth Mangare Onguti, Aga Khan Foundation Mr. Fred Mwesji, FENU Mrs. Susan Kajura, FENU Christine Okurut, Norway Save the Children (Redd Barna) Sarah Murungi, World Learning Uganda Inc. Bill Rigby, VOICE International Kate Ewart-Buggs, British Council Executive Secretary of the Uganda Teachers’ Association Association of Principals of Primary Teachers Colleges Aji Kakembo, UMEA Members of the CRG (some overlap with previous lists) Sam Onek, Acting Director of Education, Chairperson Mauren Bakunzi, MOES (Policy) Cristopher Kaddu Buyisi David Ssengendo Joseph Eilor, MOES (Planning Department) Prof. William Senteza Kajubi, Nkumba University Fred Mwesigye, FENU A. S. Kakembo, UMEA George Kalibbala, Netherlands Embassy Rev. W.W Kamukama, Church of Uganda Patrick Kirya, LABE Head Teacher, Nakasero Primary School R. Nusumba-Lyazi, MOES (Secondary Education) Joyce Mpanga, Former Minister of State for Education Gerald Mukasa Uganda Catholic Secretariat Anastasia Nakkazi, National Commission for UNESCO Derek Nkata, DEO, Masindi Moses C. Otyek, Education Standards Agency Muziribi Resty, MOES (Pre-Primary Education) M. G. Sendyona, Ministry of Public Service E. Tuwangye (NGOs in ECD) 3.2 Site Visits As noted above, a brief (half-day) site visit was held during the first field mission, to the DEO’s office in Wakiso district, just outside Kampala. This provided the first opportunity to listen to views of the district of local level about the impact and implementation of decentralization, in the implementation of UPE at the grassroots level. At the Coordinating Centre at a nearby school (Wampeewo), a training session for CCTs was being held, which the consultants were able to observe and engage in extremely useful discussions with several of the tutors who reported both on their experience in TDMS and the challenges facing individual schools and primary teachers. The major site visits took place during the second mission, in October 2002. The consultants split into two teams of two each. Thus, during four or five days, it was possible to spend about two days in each of four districts.

• Dr. Berry and Mr. Balemesa: Arua District and Mukono District. • Prof. Odaet and Mr. Wood: Mbale District and Mbarara District.


96

Each visit typically began with a visit to the CAO and the DEO. Other officials, concerned with financial matters, school inspections, gender, adult education, and non-formal education were also interviewed. Typically, a Primary Teachers College was also visited, a coordinating centre, and several schools. Because of the restrictions on time and travel, the schools tended to be fairly near to the district centre. The team was thus aware that it did not have the opportunity to visit small remote schools, which − in some ways − present the greatest challenges with respect to both access and quality. Nevertheless, the school visits were incredibly useful as a reality check on the various information sources the team had tapped into prior to the site visits. A few photos from the site visits are included in the body of this report. School visits typically began with a discussion with the head teacher, who would explain the particular circumstances of that school, the impact of UPE, and any particular issues or challenges. Where possible the consultants also met with the chair of the PTA or the SMC. The consultants then met with teachers, either individually or in groups, and observed classes in session. The observations and impressions of the school visits had a major influence on the analysis of results in Section 4.3 of this report. The individuals met with are listed in Annex 3.1. The schedule of each site visit is as follows: Arua: October 3-4, 2002 (Balemesa, Berry) DEO’s Office Local Government Office

Labour and Community Development Office Arua Primary Teachers College Arua Hill Primary School Jiako Primary School Mbarara: October 1-2, 2002 (Odaet, Wood) DEO’s Office Kafunjo Primary School Rweiziringiro Primary School Bishop Stuart Core Primary Teachers College Mbale: October 3-4, 2002 (Odaet, Wood) DEO’s office Local Government Office Auditor General’s Office Bumagen Army Primary School Mukono: October 1-2, 2002 (Balemesa, Berry) DEO’s office Local Government office Gender and Community Development Office Kisowera Primary School Buntaba Primary School Kichwa Primary School Wakiso: April 5, 2002 (Balemesa, Berry) DEO’s Office Wamperewo Primary School Wamperewo Coordinating Centre (TDMS)


97

3.3 Stakeholder Workshop The stakeholder workshop was held on November 18 at the Equatoria Hotel in Kampala. Approximately 65 people had been invited through the MOES, drawn from the following groups:

• Ministry of Education Officials; • Representatives of other Ministries and Agencies of the GOU:

• Education Service Commission; • Education Standards Agency; • Finance; • Planning and Economic Development; • Gender Labour and Social Development; • Health; • Local Government; and • Public Service;

• External Support Agencies (both financial donors and TA providers); • National Associations and NGOs; and • Members of the CRG.

Organization of the workshop was supported by the MOES and facilitated by the Kampala firm of MSE Consultants Ltd. A document on key preliminary findings of the Uganda evaluation had been circulated to all invitees prior to the workshop. Approximately 40 people actually attended. Participation was very strong from educators who had been invited from the districts involved in the site visits, and from representatives of NGOs and national associations. It was moderately good from the MOES and other GOU representatives, but very weak from the funding agencies. The workshop was opened by Mr. Sam Onek, the Acting Director of Education, with Mr. Abel Ojoo, President of MSE Consultants in the Chair. After some background remarks about the Joint Evaluation by Prof. Joel Samoff (speaking on behalf of the Evaluation Management Group and the Steering Committee), the consultant team presented the findings to the participants. Detailed discussion, organized around the three areas of enquiry (External Support, Basic Education, and Partnerships) followed for the rest of the day. For each area, the initial-findings document provided a set of framing questions (identical to those used in Sections 3.4 and 5.0 of this report). Participants were divided into four groups, each of which prepared a short written report and presented a summary of their discussions to the closing plenary. One of the consultants worked with each group as a resource person, but the groups selected their own chairperson and rapporteur.


98

3.4 Documents The original documents, a set of documents underlying the Uganda case study, were gathered as part of the overall work on the document review component of the evaluation. As well, in advance of the first field mission, some Internet searches of library work produced a core set of reference materials about Ugandan education and the work of some donors in Uganda. During the first field mission a more elaborate framework for the identification and selection of relevant documents was developed. This focused on three distinct types of documentation:

• GOU documents, and reports commissioned by the MOES; • Documents of individual external support agencies, or studies commissioned by them;

and • Reports and documents of individual NGOs.

As well, several meetings were held with officials in both MOFPED (regarding financial data), and the Planning Department of MOES (regarding EMIS) data. In both cases the officials were extremely helpful in generating specific reports from their datasets, in response to the requests of the evaluation team. The office of DFID and subsequently, that of the European Union (as coordinator of the EFAG) was helpful in providing copies of the reports and comments related to the work of the EFAG and the ESR. Documentation gathered focused mainly on the period after the beginning of ESIP (1998). The coordinated work of the MOES and the donor community has created a strong archive of material since that date. The situation prior to 1998 was quite different. Most donor agencies appeared to have virtually no corporate memory of events before ESIP, and documentation was extremely scarce. In the MOES and NGOs, there was a stronger sense of personal memory, but documents were again hard to come by. Many existed only in single copies. In a number of instances, although the existence of a document was well-known, no one seemed to be able to find a copy of it. It will be noticed, as a result, that with the exception of a small number of key documents, our bibliography for the case study (Annex 5) consists mainly of documents from the period of 1998 to 2002. Many of these documents are available electronically. The use of digital technology will, it appears, make the preservation of an adequate archive of documentation much easier in the future, both for the GOU and for external support agencies.


99

Annex 4: Comments on the Draft Case Study Report from the Country Reference Group The following comments were provided by individual members of the Uganda CRG in response to the initial draft of this case study report. The Acting Director of Education consolidated them into a single document. The consolidated comments were then sent to the team leader. These comments were very helpful in subsequent revisions of the report. The team leader’s response to each comment is added here in italics. General Comments The first draft of the document shows a more in depth study and the group agrees with many of the findings and conclusions, both in the background study and the annexes. This not withstanding, the following gaps were noted/observed: • Lack of clarity on how citizens influence basic education and its implication on funding;

We have strengthened the material on local involvement and consultation. However, the team had no information on how citizen’s input influences external funding decisions, other than discussions in the semi-annual ESR meetings.

• Lack of clarity on how education can be made relevant to Uganda – to districts, to

communities – when policies are still strongly influenced by funding agencies;

We have addressed this primarily through the issue of improving retention rates in upper primary grades through the provision of more flexible and locally relevant curriculum. However, we have also noted that the “standardization” made explicit through the PLE – with one examination for the entire country – is a major obstacle.

• How equity and quality in basic education can be maintained with expanded enrolment and

obviously limited funds from whatever source; This is a huge question that the study addresses in several ways: flexible curricula, as just noted, changes in the way in which SFG money is allocated, to encourage the building of more small schools, better monitoring and supervision. But no single, clear answer has emerged and the team feels that, in all likelihood, none is available.

• The report says there is no longer a need for spending funds on convincing parents to send

children to school. It is felt we still need to do so, especially to make parents keep their girls in school;

The response of the CRG is noted in the text and the discussion in the report is now more carefully nuanced.


100

• The report had not adequately picked up the concern expressed in the Jomtien declaration, which recognizes that basic education includes both formal primary and non-formal education; and

The material on non-formal education (particularly ABEK, BEUPA, and COPE, as well as community schools), has been considerably expanded.

• There is no emphasis on how rural education can be funded to bridge the gap between rural

and urban areas, which is a major shortcoming of this study.

The team has no information about funding mechanisms that could address urban-rural disparities beyond what is already in place. However, the discussion on the disparity issue in the report has been expanded both to highlight progress in reducing disparity in access, to note the continuing problems in rural retention, and the link between the increase in private schools in urban areas and the need to provide more funds to rural schools.

Other Comments • Judging by the number of people and groups interviewed, and the site visits, the consultants

have consulted widely. However, their main respondents have been Government officials both at local and national level. Input by the beneficiaries of the education system – such as students and the public at large – was rather limited;

We agree with this observation. There were limited opportunities for discussion with students and parents (usually SMC members) during the field work. The main input from civil society was through discussions with NGOs and representatives of the religious foundations.

• The stakeholders workshop had a strong representation from Government but very weak

representation from funding agencies;

Agreed. We comment on this fact in the report. • Though there is evidence of a more in-depth study since the last report, there is no evidence

that Uganda has addressed education as a basic right and yet, on the ground, there is clear indication that this is our ultimate goal in the near future; The leadership of President Museveni in affirming the right of every child in Uganda to primary schooling is acknowledged in the report. The team, and the report, stress that achievement of UPE is one of the ultimate goals (and one to which Uganda is relatively close to achieving). It is our impression that the right to education is well recognized in Uganda. Since UPE, this right is understood to a high degree at the local level.

• The Government White Paper on Education accepted by Cabinet and Parliament has been a

guide to the provision of education, but not the “blueprint” – and departure from it has not been fully explained;

The team does not fully understand this remark as there was a clear message that the approach to basic education after the 1992 was an iterative and evolving one. In the final draft, we have spelled out the ESR process more completely in an attempt to explain how the MOES, other Ugandan stakeholders, and external agencies work together in a structured policy and planning dialogue process.


101

• Review of the education sector’s performance should involve the officials, both from the districts and the national level, and beneficiaries;

The final draft includes an expanded description of the ESA and how it will work at the regional level in cooperation with district inspectorates.

• External support has often entered through the centre and then been remitted to districts and

other levels. This has undermined genuine decentralization;

This is an interesting and new observation. The process through which budget support passes from external agencies into MOFPED and then is remitted to district offices is described in the report. It is fundamental to the processes of external support and the team doubts that the role of the central government as a conduit for external funding could be removed. The only other process is local-level projects, and the advantages, as well as the drawbacks of these approaches now have an expanded discussion in the final draft.

• Policy making is still to be centralized;

Agreed, and the team believes that, to a large extent, this is inevitable. The report notes, however, the mechanisms used in the ESR process to gather input and involvement from the district level

• Uniform programmes supported externally undermine the addressing of unique local needs;

We would question the use of the word “undermine” here, but there is an important issue here. See some of the above comments about the need for flexibility and local relevance. The issue is also discussed in the report on the context of the relative virtues of budget support and project modalities.

• Issues of retention and its implications have not been adequately addressed;

This discussion in the report has now been expanded.

• Assessment and evaluation in education was not fully addressed, neither was the

examinations board represented as stakeholders;

Unfortunately, the team did not make contact with the examinations board. This is a regrettable oversight. Nonetheless, in the final draft, issues related to assessment are discussed in greater detail that the earlier draft.

• Too many conditionalities shifts the focus to meeting limited donor demands rather than on relevant and practical issues in the sector; and

This is an ongoing issue that we discuss. The problem is that “conditionalities” are to some degree inevitable, because funding agencies are constrained by domestic requirements and accountabilities and have to ensure that these are met. The issue is to determine when does “reasonable accountability” become “too much conditionality.” The report discusses the reality that “ownership” takes on different meanings depending on who holds the cheque book!


102

• The study has relied heavily on literature and information from Government sources.

True. The extensive meetings with non-government stakeholders and the field work outside Kampala were the main tools used by the team in an attempt to hear other voices and reflect a balanced perspective.


103

Annex 5: Bibliography ActionAid. (2000). Annual report 1999. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid. ActionAid. (2001a). Annual report 2000. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid. ActionAid. (2001b). Country Strategy Paper II: 2001-2005. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid. ActionAid. (2002). Annual Report 2001. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid. ADRA. (2001a). Annual report 2001. Kampala, Uganda: ADRA. ADRA. (2001b). Education project phase II: Final report. Kampala, Uganda: ADRA. ADRA. (2001c). Strategic plan 2001-2005. Kampala, Uganda: ADRA. ADRA. (2002a). End of programme report on ADRA Uganda teacher education programme.

Kampala, Uganda: ADRA. ADRA. (2002b). Functional adult literacy (Leaflet). Kampala, Uganda: ADRA. Aga Khan Foundation. (1999). Annual Report, 1998-99. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation. Aga Khan Foundation. (2001). Annual Report, 2000-2001. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation. Aga Khan Foundation. (2001a). Project briefs: School improvement programme in East Africa &

Madrasa pre-school education programme East Africa. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation. Aga Khan Foundation. (undated). Uganda (Leaflet/Posters). Bentall, C., Peart, E., Carr-Hill, R., & Cox, A. (2001). Education for All 2000 assessment

thematic studies: Funding agency contributions to Education For All. Paris: UNESCO. British Development Division in Eastern Africa. (1996). Non-governmental organisations (Ngos)

– National coordinating bodies and donors in the education sector in Uganda: A mapping consultancy report. Kampala, Uganda.

Business Synergies. (2003). Evaluation of impact of UPE implementation: Final draft report.

Kampala, Uganda. Canadian International Development Agency. (2001). Uganda: Education Sector Programme.

Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency. Carr-Hill, R.A. (Ed.). (2001). Adult literacy programs in Uganda. Washington DC: The World

Bank, Africa Region Human Development Series.


104

Casteel, V. & Roebuck, M. (2000). The Education Standards Agency: A report to the Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.

Collins, T. & Higgins, L. (2000). Sector wide approaches with a focus on partnership, Seminar

Report. Dublin: Ireland Aid. Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate and student performance. Northwest Regional

Educational Laboratory Close-up No. 20. Evanston. Available at http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html

Dean, D. (2002). Investigating school drop-out in Uganda (Report prepared for DFID Kampala). Department for International Development. (1999). Uganda: Country strategy paper 1999.

London & Kampala: Department for International Development. Dewees, A. (2000). An economic analysis of the COPE program in Uganda: Current costs and

recommendations for meeting the educational needs of disadvantaged children. Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF.

Directory of funding and technical assistance agencies supporting the education sector in

Uganda., (undated). Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE). (2002). Listen to us – It’s time to act.

Kampala, Uganda: Forum for African Women Educationalists. Foster, Brown, Norton, & Naschold. (2000). The status of sector wide approaches. Dublin:

Ireland Aid. Ireland Aid. (1997). PAEG Document on Support for the Rwenzori Area, Kampala. Ireland Aid. (2000). Priority country education profile: Uganda (Draft). Kampala, Uganda:

Ireland Aid. Ireland Aid. (2001). PAEG presentation for education sector support programme 2001 – 2003.

Kampala, Uganda. Klees, S., Hawley, J., Byabamazima, V. & Kyeyune, R. (2002). Findings report: The status of

disadvantaged children in Uganda (Report prepared by UNESCO for the Ministry of Education and Sports). Kampala, Uganda.

Letshabo, K. (2002). Evaluation of breakthrough to literacy in Luganda, Alur and Dhophadhola.

Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF. Lewin, K. (2002). Options for post-primary education and training in Uganda: Increasing

access, equity and efficiency within sustainable budgets. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.

Luswata, S. (2002). Early childhood development: Best practice in Masaka district. Kampala,

Uganda: UNICEF.


105

Mercer, M., Gosparini, P., Orivel, F. & Kayonga, S. (2000). Evaluation of EC support to the education sector in ACP Countries, Country report: Uganda.

Ministry of Education & Sports. (1992). Education for National Integration and Development:

Government White Paper on Education. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.

Ministry of Education & Sports. (1997). Complementary Opportunity for Primary Education

Programme (COPE). Interim Review: Final Report. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.

Ministry of Education & Sports. (1998). Education Strategic Investment Plan 1998-2003.

Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2000a). Uganda: EFA 2000 Assessment Country report. Paris:

UNESCO. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2000b). HIV/AIDs Plan for the Ministry of Education and

Sports (200/1 – 2005/6) (Draft Report). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.

Ministry of Education & Sports. (2001). Statistical Abstract 2000. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of

Education and Sports. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002a). Costed framework for the education of the

disadvantaged. Kampala, Uganda: MOES Task Force. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002b). Education For All Fast Track Initiative (Country

Proposal). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002c). Education Standards Agency profile (ESA). Kampala,

Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002d). Statistical Abstract 2001. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry

of Education and Sports. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002e). Education Sector Medium term Budget Framework

Paper for the financial year 2003/04-2005/06. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.

Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002f, December). Education Sector Six Monthly Report:

Medium term Budget Framework. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports. Ministry of Education & Sports. (2003). Draft national implementation framework: Ministry of

education strategic plan 2003 to 2007. Kampala, Uganda: Strategic Plan Secretariat, Ministry of Education and Sports.


106

Ministry of Education and Sports (various years). Sector Review Reports. Review #1: April 1999 Review #2: October 1999 Review #3: April 2000 Review #4: October 2000 Review #5: April 2001 Review #6: October 2001 Review #7: April 2002 Review #8: October 2002

Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development. (2001). Poverty eradication action

plan [2001 – 2003] (Volume 1). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.

Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development. (2002a). Summary of background to

the budget 2002/03: Uganda poverty reduction strategy paper: Progress report 2002. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.

Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development. (2002b). Poverty monitoring and

evaluation strategy. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.

Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development in collaboration with World Bank Mission in

Uganda, (1999). Report of the evaluation of functional adult literacy programme in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda.

Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development in collaboration with World Food Programme

in Uganda. (2000). Needs assessment survey for functional adult literacy in Karamoja. Kampala, Uganda.

Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development. (2002). National adult literacy strategic

investment plan (NALSIP) - 2002-2006. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development.

Okidi, J.A. & Mugambe, G.K. (2002). An overview of chronic poverty & development policy in

Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Economic Policy Research Centre, Makerere University. Pfaffe, C., Hyde, K., Koch, K. & Meijerink, S. (2002). Mid-term review of the Education Sector

Investment Plan (ESIP) in Uganda (Draft Report). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education & Sports.

Postlethwaite, T. N. & Ross, K. N. (1992). Effective schools in reading: Implications for

educational planners: An exploratory study. ERIC Research Report ED360614. The Dakar framework for action: Education for All: Meeting our collective commitments (Adopted

by the World Education Forum Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April 2000). (2000). Paris: UNESCO


107

Uganda AIDS Commission. (2000). Scaling up the HIV/AIDs and orphans response to accelerate poverty reduction in Uganda 2001/1 – 2005/6. Kampala, Uganda: Uganda AIDS Commission.

UNAIDS. (2002). Epidemiological fact sheets of HIV/AIDs and sexually transmitted infections:

Uganda 2002 update. (2002). Geneva: UNAIDS, UNICEF & WHO. UNESCO. (2002a). EFA Global Monitoring Report: Is the World on Track? Paris: UNESCO UNESCO. (2002b). Uganda and UNESCO. Uganda National Commission for UNESCO &

Editions Afrique Oceanie. UNICEF. (2001a). UNICEF country programme Uganda 2001-2005, master plan of operations

with programme plans of operations. Kampala, Uganda. UNICEF. (2001b). UNICEF country programme progress report 2001. UNICEF. (undated a). A community approach to primary education: The COPE programme in

Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF. UNICEF. (undated b). Guidelines for the CFS checklist. Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF. USAID. (1992). Country program strategic plan, Uganda 1992 to 1996. Kampala, Uganda. USAID. (1995). USAID strategic framework and indicators 1995 to 1996. Washington D.C. USAID. (1996). Tracking of public expenditure on primary education and primary health care.

Kampala, Uganda: Economic Policy Research Centre and Management Systems and Economic Consultants Limited.

USAID. (1999). DHS education data for decision-making. Kampala, Uganda: USAID. USAID. (2000). USAID strategy working document: Quality primary education for girls.

Kampala, Uganda: USAID. USAID. (2001a). Uganda DHS Ed data survey 2001. Entebbe, Uganda: Uganda Bureau of

Statistics and USAID. USAID. (2001b). Education Strategic Investment Program review, final report: Basic Education

Policy Support (BEPS) Activity. Kampala, Uganda: USAID and Creative Associates International, Washington.

World Bank. (1993). Primary education and teacher development project (World Bank Project

Approval Memorandum). Washington DC. World Bank. (1998). Do budgets really matter? Evidence from public spending on education and

health in Uganda (World Bank, Research Paper). Washington DC. World Bank. (2002a). Uganda second poverty reduction support credit (Project Appraisal

Memo). Washington DC.


108

World Bank. (2002b). World Bank CDF evaluation: Uganda case study. Washington DC. World Bank. (2002c). Achieving universal primary education in Uganda: The “Big Bang”

approach (World Bank Education Notes). Washington DC. World Bank. (2002d). Uganda: Policy, participation, people (World Bank Findings Report).

Washington DC. World Learning Uganda. (2002). Community action to support education (CASE) Project.

Kampala, Uganda: World Learning Uganda. Wright, C, & Govinda, R. (1994). Three years after Jomtien: EFA in the Eastern & Southern

Africa Region. Paris: UNESCO − International Institute for Educational Planning.

LLooccaall SSoolluuttiioonnss ttoo GGlloobbaall CChhaalllleennggeess::

TToowwaarrddss EEffffeeccttiivvee PPaarrttnneerrsshhiipp iinn BBaassiicc EEdduuccaattiioonn

UUGGAANNDDAA



Local Solutions to G

lobal Ch

alleng

es: Toward

s Effective Partnersh

ip in B

asic Education

- Coun

try Study R

eport Ug

and

a


Local Solutions to Global Challenges: Towards Effective ...Ernesto Schiefelbein Bolivia Study Anne...

Documents

Transcript of Local Solutions to Global Challenges: Towards Effective ...Ernesto Schiefelbein Bolivia Study Anne...