Education sector reform: The Ugandan experience

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0738-0593/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ije

$This article

an extensive bib�CorrespondE-mail addr

International Journal of Educational Development 28 (2008) 268–285

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Education sector reform: The Ugandan experience$

Alan Pennya,�, Michael Wardb, Tony Readc, Hazel Binesd

a112 Cosawes Park, TRURO, Cornwall, TR3 7QT, UKbDFID, Palace Street, London

cIE Partners, Barley Row, Chiswick, LondondDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, UK

Abstract

In 1998 the Government of Uganda (GoU) began implementing an ambitious reform programme called the Education

Strategic Investment Plan (ESIP) in order to effect Universal Primary Education (UPE). This paper offers a perspective on

how the GoU has met the challenge of financing education reform, addressed the need to improve the quality of basic

education and increased access and equity while improving efficiency at primary and post-primary levels of education. The

development model described in this paper privileges good governance and donor co-operation within a Sector Wide

Approach. Important lessons have been learned in Uganda including the need for political commitment to universal

primary education within a clear conception of whole sector reform. However, the discourse of SWAPs tends to function

primarily in the formal sphere and not at the level of the experience of most teachers, pupils and their families, yet it is at

this level that national education policies have to be mediated in practice. More attention needs to be given in education

sector reform to the processes as well as the context of change.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Uganda; Education reform; Sector wide approaches; Donor co-operation

1. Introduction

Between 1997 and 2004 the shape of educationdevelopment in Uganda changed significantly. Thisarticle offers a perspective on how political commit-ment to universal primary education, combinedwith a relatively clear and rational conception ofreform and the provision of generous externalfinancial support, assisted Uganda during thisperiod in making significant progress towardsachieving the education-related Millennium Devel-

e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

dudev.2007.04.004

draws on Ward et al. (2006). The book contains

liography.

ing author.

ess: [email protected] (A. Penny).

opment Goals (MDGs) and the Dakar EducationFor All (EFA) goals. Drawing on the authors’experiences of working in Uganda, and moregenerally in development over a number of years,it also considers whether and how the Ugandanexperience can offer lessons for other countries inthe light of the current international developmentpolicy framework for education.

In the context of this paper, the key elements ofthis policy framework which are considered to beparticularly relevant comprise the focus on educa-tion’s role in poverty reduction, in the context ofglobalisation, through achievement of the educa-tion-related MDGs of Universal Primary Education(UPE) and gender parity in primary and secondaryeducation. This latter is a focus which has been

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.04.004

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Penny et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 28 (2008) 268–285 269

somewhat belatedly extended through a growingrecognition of the need for reform and expansion ofpost-primary education and training (DFID, 2004,2006; Robertson et al., 2007; World Bank, 2002,2005). Alongside this policy agenda, there has beenan increased concern with good governance andwith the effectiveness of development assistance,including the impact of government and donorfunding on education outcomes (Al Samarrai, 2005;DFID, 2006; Foster, 2004a, b; Roberts, 2003). Mostrecently, as some progress has been made towardsachieving the MDGs in many countries, awarenesshas increased of the need both to maintain anddevelop the quality of education (UNESCO, 2004;Lewin and Stuart, 2003) and redress ongoinginequalities of access, particularly in highly popu-lated countries with less effective or more complexgovernments and/or in those states affected byconflict (DFID, 2006; UNESCO, 2005).1

These issues resonate with the Uganda experiencein a number of ways, raising questions as to whythere have been so few comprehensive reviews ofsector reform over significant periods of change indeveloping countries. Most research and publica-tions focus on particular issues and themes. How-ever, given that the Ugandan experience illustratesboth the inter-relatedness of change and theimportance of political commitment to an overallsector framework, the authors hope that this articlewill encourage more comparative studies of sectorreform as a whole, grounding international policyissues in particularities of context to examine theireffectiveness, implications and problems.

This article will now consider the Ugandanexperience in more detail. It will argue that fourcritical factors led to reform and progress within theeducation sector, namely:

�

1

art

lea

del

pro

Ed

nee

nee

political commitment to reform, especially toUPE and decentralisation;
� facilitative/coordinated institutional and finan-
cial frameworks;
� a comprehensive approach to UPE (access,
quality and financing);

Although conflict in Uganda is not addressed in detail in this

icle, conflict has been ongoing in many parts of Uganda for at

st the past 20 years and has affected both GoU policies and the

ivery of education reform. Large areas of the north have severe

blems in providing any kind of education and the last

ucation Sector Review (2005) was deeply concerned with the

d to find education strategies for meeting the educational

ds in these areas.

�
early engagement with the reform of post-primary education and training.
The article will then conclude with insights gained,including in relation to current international policyconcerns.

2. Key features of education sector reform in Uganda

2.1. Background and challenges

Unlike other newly independent countries in sub-Saharan Africa during the 1960s, Uganda did notexperience similar educational expansion and asAppleton has pointed out, the gross primary schoolenrolment ratio of around 50% in 1980 waseffectively the same as that in 1960 (Appleton,2001, p. 395). By contrast, other sub-SaharanAfrican countries for which data are availableincreased their gross primary school enrolmentratios from an average of 43.2% in 1960 to 79.5%by 1980 (World Bank, 2001, p. 8). Following theoverthrow of the Amin dictatorship in the mid-1970s, Uganda began to catch up with the rest of thecontinent and attained a gross primary enrolmentrate of 73% by 1985 (Appleton, 2001, p. 395). Duemainly to the cost of primary education to parentsthese rates remained relatively constant until 1995,the period immediately prior to the launch of theGoU’s Universal Primary Education (UPE) policy.

In 1998 the Government of Uganda (GoU) beganimplementing an ambitious programme of educa-tional reform, the Education Strategic InvestmentPlan (ESIP) (GoU-MoEs, 1998). It had beensparked off by President Museveni’s election cam-paign promise in 1996 to provide free primaryeducation for up to four children in every family.The technical analysis and consultation that under-pinned the ESIP not only set a national frameworkfor education planning and budgeting but alsoconstituted a breakthrough in relations between theGoU, civil society and its development partners.

However, when fee free primary education wasannounced in 1996, the GoU immediately facedfour key challenges as ever-increasing numbers ofchildren began accessing an already over-burdenededucation system. These were:

�
financing education reform; � improving the quality of primary education; � funding access and equity in primary education;
and

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Penny et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 28 (2008) 268–285270

�
increasing access, equity and efficiency at post-primary levels of education and training withinsustainable budgets.
Each of these challenges will now be discussed.

2.1.1. Financing and institutional frameworks

A key challenge for the GoU in implementing thereforms was to mobilise sufficient resources to payfor them. In a highly aid-dependent context, the roleof external financing and the effective coordinationof funding agencies were critical. The GoU’sresponse to the problem of education funding andaid management was to develop a Sector WideApproach (SWAp) within the framework of theMinistry of Education and Sports’ (MoES) ESIP:1998–2003. The SWAp incorporated alternativemechanisms for aid delivery, including sectorbudget support, with a particular accent onstrategies designed to increase local leadership andachieve greater integration of development partnerand government effort.

At the time, SWAps were new and oftencontentious approach for supporting educationaldevelopment. However, it had already been recog-nised that traditional project modalities were notdelivering the development intended and an alter-native was required. The Education SWAp inUganda focused greater attention on budget per-formance, intra-sectoral linkages, outcomes andservice quality by giving greater weight to improv-ing the policy, budgetary and institutional frame-work for effective government-funding agencypartnership, including enhanced national leadershipand ownership of reform plans and improvedmechanisms for joint government-developmentpartner dialogue and performance review.2

2It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider the merits and

demerits of budget support. The underlying hypothesis behind

budget support is that more predictable funding, together with

more sustainable and coordinated policy dialogue in support of

the Country’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and a

Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), together with

targeted technical assistance, will facilitate more meaningful and

objective planning processes. Budget allocations can in turn be

more reliable, transparent and pro-poor. If budget allocations

feed through into expenditure, and there are accompanying

systems to track spending and to provide accessible information

to the public and their political representatives, this in turn will

start to change people’s expectations. People might start to

believe in government and government systems, and begin to see

that government can deliver public services of reasonable quality

(see also Foster, 2004a, b; Lister et al., 2006).

At the end of the ESIP funding agreement in 2002a common budget support funding modality wasintroduced. It had been in preparation since 2000 andfunding agencies had been using their separatebilateral funding modalities to provide budgetsupport for ESIP up to this point. Through thefunding modality, funds are channelled directly intoUganda’s national treasury to finance governmentexpenditures (see Fig. 1 at Appendix). Budget supportis linked to a few critical outputs and outcomesrelated to financial commitment, fiduciary assurance,increased equitable access and improved quality andservice delivery. Under it, there were fewer pre-defined activities agreed between the developmentpartners and the government and a greater focus onoutcomes and the strategic frameworks necessary forachieving these was developed. The rationale was thatwith the development and implementation of budgetsupport modalities, many of the traditional problemsof donor coordination would disappear, as indeedthey did, as only one programme in education, thegovernment’s ESIP, was supported. During thisperiod Uganda also began benefiting from theHeavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC)which contributed to an increased education budgetand to a policy dialogue that was markedly differentto that which existed under project support.

A number of positive outcomes have accrued forUganda’s education sector from developing sectorbudget support. The most obvious is the availabilityof increased financial support, especially for recur-rent spending. It has also led to a more coherent andcomprehensive approach to aid management. Theinstitutional arrangements developed by the GoUcreated a forum within which decision-makingcould take place in the context of a hard budgetconstraint. Sector reviews and budget workinggroups became a fundamental part of the govern-ment’s broader education planning and budgetingprocesses within the framework of the ESIP and theMedium Term Budget Framework (MTBF). TheMTBF is used now as a planning and budgetingtool in all Ugandan ministries and agencies,projecting expenditures on key activities and reven-ues from the main sources for every sub-sector overa three-year period. By projecting priorities for thebudget in the medium term, ministries are in a betterposition to manage their sectors. This also illustratesanother crucial element, namely the influence androle of the Ugandan Treasury, which after havingundertaken reforms of its own, introduced a MediumTerm Expenditure Framework process which has


required ‘buy-in’ by the various line ministries andchanged stakeholders’ perceptions of the reforms.

Another outcome of introducing budget supporthas been a change in the relationship between theGoU and its development partners as the Govern-ment has increasingly taken ownership of the policyand budget process through a strengthening of theMinistry of Finance, Planning and EconomicDevelopment (MoFPED), MoES, the Cabinet andParliament as drivers of public resource allocations.At the same time, the donors’ financial aid has beencombined with policy advice and technical assis-tance in support of all of the reforms discussed inthis article, but in the context of key changes inmindset and approach, most notably moving awayfrom a project-based development vision to aSWAp reform process and ultimately to a budgetsupport funding modality on the part of the GoUand the development partners.

There are also other important lessons. First, itwas important for the participating agencies (theGoU and development partners) to agree andrecord the rules of the SWAp process and fundingmechanisms early in the evolution of the process.The MTBF is an indispensable tool for thedevelopment of a successful SWAp and generalbudget support. So is the development of aneffective and reliable Education Management In-formation System (EMIS) and associated baselines.The reports generated by EMIS provide the contextand basis for the policy dialogue and are anessential part of the means for sector monitoringand decision-making.

Second, it has been important to manage expecta-tions (on both sides of the partnership) and to reduceunrealistic demands for reform and implementationon the Ugandan Government in line with availablecapacity. For example, the GoU agreed to 58undertakings to be achieved within six months atthe first Education Sector Review (ESR) in April1999 but by the time of the sixth ESR in April 2002the number of undertakings had been reduced to six.Donors also needed to appreciate that no matter howtechnically good and well-defined the strategy, withclear goals and targets, rational and transparentdecision-making cannot be guaranteed in deeplypoliticised contexts, especially where personal andvertical links between patrons and clients continuepurposively and profitably to hold sway.

Third, development experience shows that thepolitical economy matters. Education reform is apolitical process rather than a purely technical one.

Politics makes a difference. It is not possible toseparate technical education reforms from the widergovernance environment required to make themwork and the political system in which they areembedded (Crossley et al., 2005; Clemens, 2004;Leggett, 2001; Teskey, 2005; Ward et al., 2006).Activities in one sector may have broader influenceacross other sectors. In Uganda the MoES hasacknowledged that state activities still continue to beused for some personal gain, boundaries betweenpublic and private spheres are difficult to define andthat this does have to be addressed. Teskey (2005)talks of creating ‘‘islands of excellence’’, whilstarguing that ‘‘wholesale improvements in the institu-tional quality of the state are difficult to bring aboutthrough organisational (sector) change alone. Eachorganisation is only as good as the wider institutionalenvironment—the rules of the game—in which itoperates’’ (p. 5). This has also been argued in a recentDANIDA paper which concludes that technicalsolutions may not always be developmentally thebest and that the political context usually sets thelimits for what is technically feasible. Effectiveeducation reforms are those that are technicallysound, administratively and financially possible andpolitically feasible. Boesen and Therkildsen’s (2004)arguments regarding the contrast between technicaland political approaches are summarised below.

Contrasting technical and political approaches:

F
unctional-rationaldimension
Pd
oliticalimension
Main unit ofanalysis

Ta
he organisations an entity withcertain functionalrequirements;focus on task-and-work system
Sssfas

ubgroups withelf-interest, inhifting coalitions;ocus on powernd loyaltyystems

What drivingforces areemphasised?

Aai

sense of normsnd coherence,ntrinsicmotivation

Sri

anctions andewards, extrinsicncentives

Which imageof man isassumed?

Ect

mployeesoncerned withhe organisation’sinterests

Ics

ndividualsoncerned withelf-interests

Throughparticipative

Tc
hrough internalonflict and


How doeschangehappen?

rjfi

easoning andoint learning,nding the best

technical solution

external pressure,coalition building,finding thepowerful agentswho can forcepositive andnegative capacitychange

What willchangeefforts focuson?

Istc

nternal systems,tructures, skills,echnology,ommunication

Changeincentives, firefoes and hirefriends, buildclient andperformancepressure

‘‘Emotionaltone’’ of theanalysis

N
aı̈ve Cynical
As we shall see, in two areas of the Ugandaneducation reforms especially, the Schools’ FacilitiesGrant, and textbook selection and procurement,through the judicious development and implemen-tation of technically feasible solutions based onfocused institutional reforms, clearer boundariesbetween the private and public spheres were created.

Fourth, for development partners especially, itwas a priority to get the institutional architectureright for development partner coordination,although it took more time than was anticipatedto do this. Crises in the relationship were inevitablebut were generally positive and hastened reform.

2.1.2. Improving the quality of primary education

The second major challenge faced by the GoU/MoES concerned the need to improve the quality ofprimary education. Five specific areas have been thefocus of reform over the last ten years:

�
primary curriculum development; � the language of instruction policy for the lower
primary sub-sector;
� the provision of basic learning materials; � primary teacher development; � establishing and maintaining education stan-
dards.

2.1.2.1. Primary curriculum development. The firststages of the reform of the primary schoolcurriculum did not augur well for the reformprocess overall. The 2000/2002 primary school

curriculum that was introduced between 2000 and2002 had been eight years in the making (from 1992to 2000), and what was finally produced failed tosecure the ownership of the MoES and the majorstakeholders. It comprised four core subjects(language, mathematics, science and social studies)and eight other subjects, but nowhere did it paysufficient attention to listening, speaking, readingand writing skills, and indeed any transferable skills,especially in the first three years of primary school.The failure to address literacy and numeracyspecifically had severe implications for raising levelsof achievement. In addition, as discussed below,local language policy remained vague and encour-aged the use of languages without orthographiesand supporting literature, whilst local languageteaching was given insufficient support and gui-dance (UNESCO-UIS, 2005).

The curriculum also had high cost implicationsand was introduced into schools without adequateteacher training, with insufficient new learning andteaching materials and with no overall implementa-tion plan, no budget and no department orindividual with specific line management responsi-bility for its launch. Finally, the introduction ofcontinuous assessment, which was supposed tosupport key aspects of the curriculum, was delayedand had still not been introduced by 2005.

On the positive side, the institutional structurescreated to support the SWAp facilitated theidentification of these issues and the MoES and itsmain partners intervened when it became clear thatstudent performance in basic literacy and numeracyskills were continuing to decline. The subsequentPrimary Curriculum Review in 2004 generated agreat deal of debate on every aspect of thecurriculum and syllabuses. It reviewed a range ofalternative remedial approaches and finally pro-vided the scrutiny, debate, constructive discussionand ownership that should have taken place in1999/2000.

2.1.2.2. The Language of Instruction (LOI) Policy

for the lower primary grades. It is generally recog-nised that children will learn faster and achievemore if early education is conducted in a familiarlanguage. However, if language and literacy in thelocal language are badly taught by teachers withlittle formal training in either the local languageitself or in its teaching, or if local language learningis not well supported by appropriate learning andteaching materials, this can undermine progress


towards basic literacy, the development of learningin other subjects and the later acquisition of literacyin English and thus effective access to education inupper primary grades and in secondary school.

Uganda has many possible LOI. In 1989 theEducation Policy Review Commission identified 25main Ugandan languages.3 The 1999 NationalCurriculum Development Centre (NCDC) circularentitled Teaching of Mother Tongue in Primary4

identified 63 main Ugandan languages and thisnumber is currently confirmed by the Institute ofLanguages at Makerere University, Kampala(MUK). It is clear that Uganda has not developedan additional 38 local languages over a period of 10years. Instead, it seems that larger language groupshave begun to break down into smaller and moredistinct local variants and dialects. However, withinthis diverse linguistic environment there are anumber of larger generalised language groups thatcould serve as regional LOIs (in the form of MainArea Languages (MALs)) for an estimated 80–90%of the population. These are:

�

3

4

5

rea

in

Lu

bot

effe

(re

and

Ma6

atin

num

Bu

Ru

the

res

est

and

Luganda,
� Ateso (including Ngakaramajong and its var-
iants),
� Luo (including Acholi, Alur, Langi and Doped-
hola5),
� Lugbara, � Runyakitara.6
On the basis of the above and assuming that Atesoand Ngakarimajong are two languages, Luo is threelanguages and Runyakitara is two languages, then

P. 28, paragraph 3.6.1.

Circular Reference CD/P/MT/14 of 30 September 1999.

Breakthrough To Literacy was forced to develop different

ders for Alur Luo (used in Nebbi) and Dopedhola Luo (used

Tororo) because of significant reported differences in the two

o variants, which prevented a common book being used by

h language groups. There are those who argue that Luo is now

ctively three variant languages as follows—Acholi/Langi

ported to be mutually comprehensible), Alur and Dophedhola

that it is no longer possible to conceive of Luo as a single

in Area Language.

An artificial regional language invented by MUK, incorpor-

g Runyoro, Rutoro, Runyankore and Rukiga and also a

ber of other minor local variants such as Banyabindi and

sangora. Many in the south-west perceive the attempt to install

nyakitara as a regional language as an attempt to re-establish

historic Banyoro influence in the region, and thus are deeply

istant. There seems to be much greater support for the

ablishment of two language groupings—Runyankore/Rukiga

Runyoro/Rutoro.

the number of MALs is now probably around ninerather than the five listed above.

All of the above languages have access to someforms of established orthographies, which weregenerally formalised and approved in the 1940s,1950s and 1960s, although variant orthographiesmay now be needed for MALs such as Luo, Atesoand Runyakitara, which may now be in the processof linguistic fragmentation. Other regional languagepossibilities are:

�

7

spe

but

est

sch

app

con

ma

to

Lukhonzo,7

�
Lusoga, � Lunyole, � Kupsubiny (in Kapchorwa District).
Most of the other languages currently in use asLOIs are clearly Languages of Limited Extent withno orthographies, no trained teachers and an almostcomplete absence of a supportive children’s litera-ture.

The challenge facing educational policy makers inUganda was whether it was preferable to use anarea/regional local language not favoured by a localcommunity but for which there were trainedteachers, a known orthography and reading books,textbooks and a background literature, or to use acommunity-favoured minority local language with-out such support. The selection of a local languageis also not just a pedagogic issue but has significantcultural and political implications, particularlywhere there are a number of different, and some-times rival, language possibilities. There are alsofinancial implications, given that the use of toomany local languages fractionalises print runs andincreases costs of essential learning materials. It alsomakes the supply, training and deployment ofteachers more complex and expensive.

No significant progress had been made by 2006 inresolving the local language issue owing to technicaland political barriers which raises serious questionsabout the development of strategies to improve the

Also known as Kikonzo, which some local language

cialists regard as part of the Runyakitara language group,

which the District authorities in Kasese have recently

ablished as the local language for Kasese District primary

ools. The recently formed Kikonzo Language Board has

roved a recently developed orthography in 2003 and has

tracted a Kampala-based publisher to produce course

terials in Uganda using deductions from school UPE grants

finance the procurement costs.


quality of education, especially in those areas whereone of the main area languages is not in use. It alsohas implications for the successful development oflearning and teaching materials.

2.1.2.3. The provision of basic learning materials.

Despite the delays outlined above in relation tocurriculum and language policy, progress in devel-oping basic learning materials has been one of themore significant aspects of the reform process. Aselsewhere in Africa, for many years in Ugandatextbook publishing, printing and distribution was apoorly performing state monopoly. It was con-trolled by the National Curriculum DevelopmentCentre (NCDC), which saw itself not simply as acurriculum development organisation but also as anoriginator and approver of core textbook manu-scripts and other teaching and learning materials.From the mid-1980s the major source of instruc-tional materials (IM) funding for primary schoolscame from funding agencies who helped to establisha new national textbook policy in 1993. It was basedon the principles of competition from aMoES list ofapproved textbooks, school-based choice and selec-tion using annual school-based purchasing powerallocations from the government, and the fullinvolvement of private sector publishers as thesource of textbooks.

The introduction of UPE in 1997 doubledprimary enrolments and caused a worsening ratioof textbooks to pupils, as available funding did notkeep pace with the increase in demand. Followingwide consultation, the MoES launched the Instruc-tional Materials Reform Programme in December2000 within the ESIP framework. The new systemhad the following characteristics:

�
A competitive evaluation and approval systemwas introduced with a limitation of three on thenumber of textbooks to be approved for eachsubject and grade. � Price was one of the main criteria in evaluation
(40% of all evaluation marks) and there wereminimum content thresholds for conformity tocurriculum requirements and for content/presen-tation. Minimum physical production specifica-tions are compulsory for all textbook titlesapproved for use in Ugandan schools in orderto achieve the target textbook life in the class-room.
� Publishers of approved textbooks are required,
as a condition of approval, to sign a legally

binding contract that stipulates the mutuallyaccepted terms and conditions of approval,including fixed discounts off submitted pricesaccording to the quantity ordered by schools andagreed limitations on price increases during theperiod of approval.

A Technical Handbook and the MoES’s BidEvaluation Management Guidelines supported theagreed documents produced.

The reformed textbook evaluation and approvalprocess was used for the first time at the end of 2000for both non-book materials and lower primarytextbooks and teachers’ guides. However, develop-ing and getting approval of the current textbooksystem, which is based on these principles, did notoccur without considerable opposition as vestedinterests were being attacked. Crucial in the changeswas the eventual recognition that a thriving privatesector publishing industry, a national network ofprivate booksellers and policies that give schools theauthority and resources to choose for themselvesbetween competing series or titles offered bypublishers not only benefited education but alsothe Ugandan economy. The introduction of atransparent competitive tendering process resultedin a reduction in the unit costs of primary textbooksof approximately 60%. This represented an approx-imate 250% increase in school purchasing power fortextbooks and enabled textbook: pupil ratios toimprove at a faster rate than anticipated, leaving theGoU and its partners more confident that a pupil:textbook ratio of close to 1:1 could be achieved inall classrooms over the next three years within theexisting resource envelope.

As mentioned earlier, the instructional materialsreforms squarely attacked the vested financialinterests of publishers and others associated withthe book industry, and, as a consequence, thereform tested to the full the Government’s institu-tional structures, in particular those concerned withjustice, good governance and accountability. Byputting its textbook evaluation and approval systemat the centre of the process and attempting to ensurethat the system was watertight, well managed, openand transparent, the MoES brought enormousbenefits to the education sector. Moreover, theability of the funding agencies to discuss openlywith Government unpleasant issues related to theprocurement of textbooks and to agree a wayforward has been instrumental in achieving success.Other countries considering following Uganda’s

ARTICLE IN PRESS

8See Crossley et al. (2005) for similar analysis in relation to

Kenya, and Lewin et al. (2004) on teacher education reform in a

number of African countries. Improvements in teacher quality

also need to address motivation and incentives issues related to

salary and working conditions (Bennell and Akyeampong , 2006).

A. Penny et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 28 (2008) 268–285 275

lead in this area should note the extent to whichstaffing continuity, both within government institu-tions and funding agencies’ representatives, con-tributed to a consistent approach.

2.1.2.4. Primary teacher development. As elsewherein Africa, the challenge for Uganda continues to bethe development of affordable and effective me-chanisms to ensure that primary school teachers arecommitted, motivated and have the professionalskills and ethics to provide quality teaching andlearning for every student . While the quantitativegains in the Ugandan education system have beenimpressive, they have not been matched by im-provements in learning outcomes. Indeed, NationalAssessment of Progress in Education (NAPE) testresults show a deterioration in student performance.As a consequence of these poor results and, indeed,of UPE itself, the role of primary teachers has comeunder intense scrutiny, with numerous demands fora critical review of the impact of UPE on bothstudent and teacher performance.

Uganda’s strategy for improving the quality ofteaching and learning has focused on improvementsto the Teacher Development and ManagementSystem (TDMS) which was originally launched in1994 as a USAID funded project but became acentral part of the ESIP following the introductionof UPE. It was intended to increase access to qualitylearning opportunities for students and teachers andto improve school management and instructionalquality, through a training delivery system based onoutreach departments in 23 Primary TeachersColleges (PTCs) which in turn established a networkof 540 co-ordinating centres and tutors for clustersof about 18 schools.

The Primary Teacher Development and Manage-ment Plan (PTDMP), implemented from 2004, isthe successor to the TDMS. It is concerned withcontinuous professional development and improv-ing quality in schools through increasing the entryqualification to PTCs and developing the teachertraining programmes which focus on better subjectknowledge and more practical skills. The PTDMP isalso concerned with developing accountability,efficient inspection and supervision, strengtheningthe roles and functions of PTAs and SMCs anddeveloping the role of the head teacher. Otherimportant features are its focus on the developmentof a career structure for primary teachers and thedevelopment of quality assurance within teachereducation.

It is too early to assess the impact of the PTDMP.However, it faces a number of challenges. Muchpre-service teacher training continues to be inade-quate, whilst in-service training often does notdeliver what is intended. Latest reports on teachertraining and improving the quality of teaching andlearning in Uganda suggest that if the quality ofteaching and learning is to rise there has to becoherence and consistency within the system as awhole, including between policy and administrativereform, and changes in training, teaching andlearning. Otherwise, not only will the reforms befrustrated but traditionally conducted training andresearch, and their parent institutions, will becomeincreasingly irrelevant to the reform agenda and toteachers themselves.8

2.1.2.5. Establishing and maintaining education stan-

dards. Alongside reforms of curriculum learningmaterials and teacher development, the MoES sawthe importance of establishing an effective andsustainable inspection and support service toteachers and schools. Until 1989, the inspection ofprimary schools was managed on a regional basiswhilst secondary school and teacher training in-spection was headquarters (MoES) based. The finalreport on the post-constitutional reform restructur-ing of the MoES document of 1998 by the Ministryof Public Service (MoPS) recommended the estab-lishment of an Education Standards Agency (ESA)to replace the MoES Inspectorate. The ESA beganits operations in July 2001, although its early workwas constrained by delays in staffing and inade-quate resourcing.

The ESA’s work is set out in a five year mediumterm plan incorporating a three year rollingprogramme. National programmes for inspections,setting out numbers and types of inspections to beundertaken at each educational level, the types andfrequencies of reports, together with the uses to bemade of reports, are described on a three yearbasis and confirmed annually. They are confirmedin the Annual Performance Contract between theESA and the Government. The key components ofthe inspection approach include a predeterminedstructure of Quality Indicators (QIs), a focus on


evidence, an emphasis on reporting both strengthsand weaknesses, and encouraging self-evaluation onthe part of the institution and its head teacher orprincipal. The intended approach represents amajor shift in the inspection of schools away fromthe previous focus on the institution and educa-tional inputs, such as teachers, books and facilitiesto outcomes in terms of improved teaching andlearning. However, the former are not neglected asthey are covered in specific indicators and in theprofile.

The ESA’s key tasks to date have included:

�
the development, testing and refinement ofquality indicators; � organisation of a National Inspections Pro-
gramme (NIP) (including the development ofinstruments, procedures, inspection models, se-lection of associate assessors and training,implementation and reporting);
� developing costing and workload models for
inspections;
� development of partnerships with other educa-
tion institutions and agencies;
� establishment of the Education Standards
Agency (ESA) database systems with links tothe EMIS;
�
9The rate of exchange used is Ush 3250 to £1 // Ush 1705 to $1.

establishing a set of inspection procedures andinspection instruments.

The ESA is a new agency, yet within its first twoyears of operation it has begun to demonstrate thatit is possible to undertake inspections beyondchecking minimum standards alone. However,much will depend on adequate resourcing especiallyto resource inspections in outlying areas. Thechallenge is to widen the ESA’s mandate to holdprofessional development providers, and the gov-ernment who resource it, to account. There is alsoan on-going need to develop further a combinationof in-depth supervision and inspection side by sidewith a greatly enhanced programme of shortinspection visits by the district inspectorate toensure regular staff attendance, the required staff/pupil contact hours and good standards of schoolmanagement, administration and teaching/learning.

2.1.3. Funding access and equity in primary

education

So far it has been argued that reform of primaryeducation in Uganda has been based on politicalcommitment to UPE, sufficient financing, partnership

between government and donors, and a comprehen-sive (albeit not always successful) approach todeveloping quality. Complementary challenges hadto be addressed, however, and these included how tofund the provision of fee-free primary education to allschool age children in the population, how toimprove decentralised school and community capa-city to manage their own affairs and finally, how toenhance the quality of primary education.

Two main modalities were developed and em-ployed:

�
UPE capitation grant; and � School facilities grant.
Each will now be briefly discussed.

2.1.3.1. UPE capitation grant. The UPE capitationgrant has two objectives:

�
increasing equitable access to basic education byremoving the burden of school fees from theparents; � enhancing the quality of primary education by
providing schools with the basic operationalresources necessary to run the school andsupport teaching and learning.

Steps taken by the GoU to provide fee-freeeducation to all primary school age children in thepopulation began with the recognition of both theimportance of primary education for social andeconomic development and the problems of accesscaused by cost sharing. The UPE policy does notmake primary education free, however. There is stilla financial requirement on families to provide theirchildren with writing materials, uniforms andlunches. The GoU pays for the costs of tuition feesand basic school operational costs, at an annual rateof Ush 5000 per pupil for classes P1 to P3 and Ush8100 per pupil for classes P4 to P7.9 Theseexpenditures are in addition to the contributionthat GoU already makes in the payment of teachers’salaries, the provision of instructional materials, theconstruction of school facilities and, in some cases,the construction of teachers’ houses. Tuition feesare paid to schools by the GoU in the form of acapitation grant in nine monthly payments eachschool year.


The UPE capitation funds are channelled by thecentral Government (Treasury) to the local govern-ments (Districts and Municipalities) in the form ofconditional grants which then have to be utilised inaccordance with guidelines that have been drawn upby the Ministry of Finance, Planning and EconomicDevelopment (MoFPED) in coordination with theMoES. A planning and budgeting cycle is inoperation and the planning and implementation ofthe UPE conditional grant is managed within thisframework.

However, the supply chain for UPE funds is quitelengthy and involves a number of different actors.Analysis of the flow of funds, mainly through aseries of public expenditure tracking studies, revealsthat although over 90% of the released funds arereaching the primary schools, there are significantdelays of as much as 90 days in some districts. Thisunpredictability in the receipt of funds makes itdifficult for schools to manage both their planningand the management and use of the grant.

There has also been a problem in establishingreliable data on individual school enrolments, whichhas affected the efficiency of the grant (UgandaBureau of Statistics, 2001). The EMIS (establishedby the MoES in 2000) carries out an Annual SchoolCensus (ASC). As yet the problem of the dualpurpose of ASC statistics, namely monitoringenrolment and the derivation of budgets, whichgives head teachers an incentive to inflate enrol-ments in their ASC returns, has not yet been solved.

However, once received, public expendituretracking studies reveal that schools’ expendituresare mostly in line with the UPE guidelines, with theexception of co-curricular activities, where spendingis below the limit, and administration, wherespending is above the limit (though other fieldexperiences and surveys suggest that expenditureson instructional materials are also below the limit)(Smith, 2004). There are also indications that thepurchasing power value of the funds is declining andthis will have an obvious impact on the quality ofthe education provided. Nevertheless, the mainpurposes of the grant, namely to ensure thatprimary education is fee free, has been achievedand there have been some improvements in thequality of provision.

2.1.3.2. School facilities grant. The school facilitiesgrant (SFG) for primary schools was designed toassist the most needy school communities tocomplete unfinished classrooms and/or to build

new classrooms. It also included plans for thesupply of furniture, the construction of latrines andthe construction of teachers’ houses. The SFGmodality began as a pilot in eight districts in 1998and, following an independent evaluation of thepilots in March 1999 and a review of the variousother ongoing classroom construction programmes,it became the sole modality in the country forconstructing school facilities using governmentfunds.

Since July 1999 the GoU has spent approximatelyUsh 45 billion (US$26.4 million) at an average unitcost of approximately US$ 2500.00 per classroommillion (see footnote 5) on constructing primaryschool facilities through the SFG. These expendi-tures had resulted in the construction or completionof approximately 29,000 classrooms by 2004,together with the provision of classroom furniture,latrines and stores for instructional materials acrossthe country. The SFG has transformed the land-scape of Uganda, with almost every parish in thecountry receiving at least two new classrooms.

As with the UPE Grant, the SFG funding ischannelled to Districts/Municipalities as a condi-tional grant, under specific guidelines and regula-tions, and is overseen by the MoES underprocedures outlined in its technical handbook.School communities, represented by School Man-agement Committees (SMCs), are responsible forpreparing applications, contracting, and dailysupervision of construction work, as well as makingpayments to the contractor under the guidance ofthe District Engineer.

Proponents of the SFG argue that evidence of itssuccess can be seen in the number of school facilitiesconstructed and that together with the capitationgrant and the abolition of school fees it has led to asignificant growth in the number of childrenaccessing and staying on for education (GoU-MoES, 2000a–c, 2001a, b, 2004a–c).

Key features of the SFG are that each stake-holder is included in an output-oriented processwhich requires commitment and co-operation be-tween all levels of public administration. Coreindispensable tasks and responsibilities are deter-mined and fixed, leaving space for local initiative togrow. Clear eligibility/priority criteria, within aparticipatory framework and the development ofdue processes through the implementation ofstraightforward procedures, clear standards andmonitoring processes, have increased people’s con-fidence in the system. These have made it difficult

ARTICLE IN PRESS

10The report went on to state that the promotion of political

pluralism would encourage competing political groupings to

force members to resign in order to preserve the reputation of the

group.

A. Penny et al. / International Journal of Educational Development 28 (2008) 268–285278

for districts to attempt to select any but the mostneedy and the poorest communities as beneficiariesor, indeed, for individuals to gain through corruptpractice. Information on SFG is available to all.At any point, anyone can know which school ordistrict has received how much for which type ofactivity and how successful the district/school hasbeen. Enhanced transparency, accurate informationand accountability are all features of the SFG,whilst community participation is mainly based ontaking responsibility rather than cash or kindcontribution.

Critics of the SFG, including some governmentofficials and politicians, argue that although theSFG system is working, certain issues still need tobe addressed. First, very few of the 72 Districts arefully compliant with the procedures and designs asper the guidelines and technical handbooks. Second,it has proved difficult to deal with non-compliantDistricts, institutions and individuals without af-fecting the school children being served in thelocality involved. Third, the MoES has yet to acceptthe idea that other authorities can manage fundsallocated to education effectively, be it at central orlocal level, and it has not effectively supported localor District management. Fourth, there is a widelyperceived need for external supervision and mon-itoring of the processes of school and contractorperformance and payment to ensure compliancewith what is set out in the guidelines (GoU-MoES,2000a–c, 2001a, b, 2004a–c).

It is evident that tensions between national policyand local autonomy, including the centre’s per-ceived need for national control over the system,and desire for political (beneficiary) influence orfinancial benefit (procurement/payment of services)have therefore affected the implementation of theSFG. Compliance can be sought through eitherparticipatory processes or the existing legal frame-work to enforce sanctions against mismanagement.However, in both areas this will involve a change ofculture and will take time. It will only be when thebenefits of legitimate action outweigh the risks ofillegitimate action that the practices embodied in theSFG guidelines will become accepted and ‘normal’.The issue of corruption was publicly aired in twosignificant GoU reports; the report of the thenoutgoing Inspector General of Government (IGG)(November, 2004) and the Auditor General’s 2004report. In the former the IGG stated that whileevidence against office-holders is often inadequateto sustain a criminal case, the political leadership

could achieve greater impact by insisting on theresignation of offenders.10

These issues notwithstanding, the aims of theSFG have been met in the best situations. Nation-ally, all school communities have functioningSMCs, and the SFG had produced over 29,000classrooms by 2004. However, as identified above,the quality and effectiveness of the SFG processremain variable.

2.1.4. Increasing access, equity and efficiency at

post-primary levels of education and training within

sustainable budgets

As noted in the introduction to this article, animportant feature of education sector reform inUganda has been the early engagement with post-primary education and training (PPET). This isparticularly notable given the international policyfocus on UPE, often to the detriment of botheconomic growth and human capacity needs indeveloping countries (Lewin, 2005; Palmer et al.,2006). In Uganda, policy on PPET was developed asa natural consequence of the UPE strategy. It wasrecognised soon after 1996 that increasing numbersof pupils reaching P7 (the final year of primaryschooling) would increase the demand for places insecondary education. The challenge that had to beaddressed was how to plan effectively for increasingaccess, equity and efficiency at post-primary levelsof education and training within sustainable bud-gets. For these reasons the GoU and its develop-ment partners began a process of examining howaccess to PPET in Uganda could be expanded inequitable and efficient ways.

A five stage approach to the planning process wasagreed. First, a series of studies was commissionedand developed to look at various aspects of theproblem. Second, reports from the various studieswere disseminated to a group of key stakeholdersand, with the facilitation of an international PPETfinancing specialist, a set of options for expandingaccess, based on specially designed projections andfinancing models, was developed (MoES, 2002).Third, these options were then discussed furtherwith a wider set of stakeholders and gaps inknowledge were identified and filled. In the fourthstage, the fully developed and costed policy options


were used as the basis for a national consultationand consensus-building exercise, culminating in anational policy forum during which policy andfinancing decisions were made. Finally, the agreedpolicy and financing decisions were translated into astrategic plan of action and included within thegovernment’s education Medium Term BudgetFramework (MTBF). The aim was for the policydecisions to be implemented from July 2003, thebeginning of the financial year.

The approach to PPET planning was thereforeneither top down nor bottom up; instead, the taskforce comprising senior and middle managers hadto mediate internal and external forces working onthe problem. Four key learning activities wereapplied in this process: shared, creative problemsolving; identifying and implementing methodolo-gies and tools to address the problems identified;formal and informal experimentation using aprojection model developed by the MoES with theassistance of an international specialist; and draw-ing upon expertise from the outside, not justconsultants, but also participants from other lineministries, local government and education institu-tions, representatives of employers and otherstakeholders.

In analysing the process, it is possible to identifythe crucial institutional and political characteristicswhich enabled this to happen. These were:

�
A fairly coherent and cohesive political executivewith a well-defined vision of where to take thecountry, at least in terms of poverty eradication. � A political executive committed to legitimising
decisions made through a consultative process.
� Appropriate involvement of civil society, the
private sector and the legislature in the decision-making forum.
� A forum available which used an established
planning tool, the MTBF, as well as data fromthe Education Sector Review. This ensured thatdecision-making occurred with a clear under-standing of the resources available and withinsector expenditure ceilings over the mediumterm. Policies therefore had to compete witheach other within projected funding realities.
� Devolved responsibility to the MoES for budget
formulation.
� Capacity at the centre for assessing the appro-
priateness of decisions against the overall strate-gic policy objectives of the government and theirfinancial implications over the life of the planned

period, including estimating the cost of existingand planned policies over the medium term.
� A coherent and comprehensive approach to
education aid management with the strategicpolicy priorities of the government being, for themost part, the drivers of decisions that involveaid financing.

To support these institutional arrangements, thegovernment and its education development partnersrecognised and met the need for information on thecost of existing and proposed government PPETpolicies over the medium and longer term, theoutput and outcome information on each of thesepolicies, and the cost, output and outcome informa-tion for new policy proposals as they were devel-oped. The attempt at major change benefited fromthe application of a purpose-built model forprojecting the future implications of various policiesand strategies. PPET provision was projected over10 years using the purpose-built model. Thisconsisted of eight interlinked matrices of datareflecting different elements of the system. Theseuse a variety of algorithms to generate flows ofpupils and associate these with a range of keyparameters such as pupil:teacher ratios, teacherdemand, teachers’ salaries, non-teaching staff andnon-salary costs. These were used to generatetransition rates, gross enrolment rates, and recur-rent and development costs which were thenaggregated. The model was developed with the bestinput data then available from a range of sources,including the reports of the inter-related studies. Asbetter baseline data became available the model wasupdated.

In the first stage of developing policy options, themodel was configured for a baseline stage. This tookknown and realistic policy intentions into accountand introduced a variety of activities designed toincrease access, equity and efficiency. The modelwas iterated with an MTBF envelope whichassumed a growth rate of 6.5%. Conversely, ifgrowth was 5% or less and the share of theeducation budget allocated to PPET fell, then lesswould be achieved.

The model also built awareness of the resourceconstraints involved and assisted in showing how tomanage this. The projection model was also a vitaltool in overcoming obstacles associated with deeplyentrenched in-house knowledge and positions.

Various studies (Appleton, 2001; Keating, 2001;Wood et al., 1999) have shown that post-primary

ARTICLE IN PRESS

11See Ball (1994) re-‘‘texts’’ and their links to policy generation

and implementation. Although Ball’s conceptualisations were

developed in relation to UK education reform, the discussion is

very relevant to points made in this article.12See Lewin (2005) and Palmer et al. (2006).


educational services in Uganda are in demand andare valued. However, the key policy question, whichin turn reflects the wider debate about PPET inAfrica (Lewin, 2004), was what form PPET shouldtake. There remain legitimate arguments about therelevance and utility of Uganda’s post-primaryschool system. It has an outdated and overloadedcurriculum dominated by examinations and certifi-cation which shape learning and teaching tonarrowly defined outcomes (Uganda National Ex-aminations Board, 2002). The examination systemespecially promotes the prevalence of didacticteacher-centred pedagogy. These indicate the needfor curriculum reform, creative innovations inlearning and teaching and assessment systems thatcapture valued learning outcomes. However, theydo not necessarily lead to a case for a radicallydifferent system of PPET which could feasiblyreplace the existing school system for which thereis much demand. The Uganda experience doesillustrate an effective process for developingPPET, however. In addition it shows that argu-ments that investment at post-primary level doesnot directly contribute to reducing poverty arefragile. Nor are they generally believed by the poor,who sacrifice disproportionate amounts of theirincome to participate in post-primary education orby elites, as evidenced by their willingness to financeboth private schooling and the costs of tertiaryeducation.

3. Discussion

Samoff (2001) has pointed out that simplifyingfindings (‘‘lessons learned’’) in order to generalisemay lead to stating the obvious rather thandeveloping useful guides to action (Samoff, 2001,p. 16). Consequently this discussion will focus onhow experience in Uganda can be used to illustratesome critical issues, to suggest certain insights thatcould guide country governments, developmentpartners and other stakeholders, and to contributeto wider understanding of the processes of educa-tion reform in developing countries.

First, this article illustrates how a new model ofreform is evolving in Uganda’s education sector,one which incorporates a restructured frameworkfor managing interaction between the governmentand funding and technical assistance agencies andthe government and key stakeholders within thecountry. The model has focused developmentsupport on changes that both central and local

governments have generally agreed needed to occur.In other words, as a rule, structures, systems andapproaches generally should reflect national prefer-ences for reform (see also Higgins and Rwanyange,2005). This is especially the case in Uganda whereeducation reforms supported by development part-ners have mostly been technically sound, adminis-tratively possible and politically feasible. This hasmeant that over the past seven years in Uganda,funding and technical assistance agencies have beenencouraged to avoid promoting agency preferencesin the interests of nurturing country-led policies andprogrammes. The broader implication of this is thatwhat has been achieved is what the GoU itselfwanted, and that funding partners should increas-ingly focus on higher level policy dialogue, informedas required by technical support. The need for thelatter does not mean that funding partners shouldwithdraw technical support and advice in favour ofpolicy dialogue alone, although it should berecognised that where they are provided through aproject modality and through off-budget funding, asin the case of current USAID funding, adverseeffects are likely (Higgins and Rwanyange, 2005,footnote 2).

Unfortunately this approach is not always ad-hered to in the wider international policy arena. Keypolicy ‘‘texts’’11 can be used to hold implicit, orexplicit, sway in policy dialogue and in relation toboth technical solutions and finance. For example,it can be suggested that the focus on the centrality ofUPE over the last decade, although important andagreed internationally, has been prioritised to theexclusion of country governments’ concerns, forboth political and economic reasons, with improv-ing quality and post-primary education.12 There isan urgent need to re-balance policy decision-makinginternationally, to ensure that country governmentsachieve their own objectives as well as the latestpolicy paradigm of the international agencies, andto recognise that the appearance of consensusarising from international agreements and confer-ences can conceal contests over the meaning andpurpose of education itself.

Second, targets and other measures of progresscan also be problematic. The case of Uganda


illustrates how commitment to international targetscan be positively made by governments andprogress subsequently achieved. In Uganda, by2003, the primary gross enrolment rate was over100% with gender parity at 0.98 (UNESCO, 2005).However Uganda also demonstrates even with alargely effective state, a sector-wide approach andgenerous education financing, and despite theprovision of more learning materials and improve-ments in school provision and facilities, the qualityof teaching and learning may continue to be lowand inequities in access and outcomes remain.Expectations need to be realistic, especially where,as noted earlier in relation to LOI policy, certainissues are both complex and politically charged.Reform will almost inevitably be partial and notnecessarily lessened by technical solutions in theform of yet more new innovations and panaceas.More complex understanding of the reform processis needed, including the need for conceptions ofissues like quality which attend more to being fit forpurpose with curricula and pedagogies more appro-priate to particular contexts.13

Third, sustainability is also critical. As noted byDFID (2006), families have to find some of the costsof primary education even when tuition is free. Thecost to governments of mitigating strategies, yetmore UPE investment and a reasonable investmentin PPET will continue to be high and requiresubstantial ongoing funding agency support. Moreattention should be given to the need to balancevarious investment options, the implications ofcontinued dependency on external funding and therealities, and rationales, of individual and familydemand for education.14 This is particularly im-

13For a critical review of the content and impact of donor-

driven targets and expectations, see Clemens (2004), Jansen

(2005) and Smith (2005). As noted by these commentators, and

others, technical support may also be problematic when it does

not engage with context, capacity and the need for deep and

sustained change. More evaluation of current approaches, and

their match to context, is required (see also Verspoor, 2003;

World Bank, 2006).14As noted in DFID (2006), there is a need to focus on the

factors which exclude poor people and disadvantaged groups

from public services, and develop interventions and incentives

accordingly, including social protection transfers. These must

also acknowledge that family investment decisions in relation to

education are related to both the perceived relevance of primary

education (e.g. curriculum content, quality of education pro-

vided) against other needs/opportunity costs, and the opportu-

nity prospects of post-primary access. The concomitant

expenditure in education budgets will require long term donor

commitments, and thus long-term dependency on aid.

portant as recent trends in the percentage share ofprimary education expenditure reveals a rise insalary expenditure from 61.5% in 1998/99 to aprojected 76.8% in 2006/7, and a decline in theprovision of funding for instructional materialsfrom 9.1% to 2.9% for the same period without acorresponding rise in quality.15 Whilst these changescan be explained; for example, schools have built uptextbook stocks over the past six years, of greaterconcern is the decline in the amount of disbursablefunding in school hands, a key factor in generatingcommunity accountability.

Targets for progress can also lead to unintendedconsequences. It is widely recognised that theexpansion of UPE has had an impact on quality(UNESCO, 2004), due in part to funding tending tofollow, rather than precede, expansion. The rela-tionship between achievement and socio-economicclass may mean that increased enrolment frompoorer quintiles may have an effect on overallstudent performance (Al Samarrai, 2005). Theintroduction of UPE in Uganda also increased thenumber of parents sending their children to privateschools, fearing (rightly) a further drop in quality inovercrowded state schools. Policy intentions, suchas the wish to increase both choice and equity, canbecome incompatible, and progress in one issue canlead to difficulties in relation to another.

Fourth, although argued as central in the DFIDWhite Paper (2006) and elsewhere (e.g. World Bank,2003), the issues of ‘‘governance’’ and ‘‘effectivestates’’ need careful consideration. The Ugandandevelopment model privileges ‘‘good governance’’,by which is understood transparent, accountable,democratic government processes. The GoU isresponsible for creating a supportive environmentfor community and individual initiatives andpartnerships to plan and manage their own affairsmore effectively, thereby reducing dependence andincreasing capability. However, educational policy-making inevitably reflects conflict and incoherencewithin a state as well as ideological disputes overand struggles for control of the meaning anddefinition of education. As illustrated earlier inrelation to quality and school financing reform inUganda, decentralisation can sharpen as well as

15A relatively recent UNESCO study on teacher attendance

(2005) covering the period 2000–2003 revealed that 30% of

Ugandan primary school teachers are absent from school at

anyone time, leaving Uganda heading the international league

table of absenteeism.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

17Whilst the authors are not entirely persuaded by the thesis

presented by Chabal and Daloz (1999), their analysis is

compelling and deserves serious consideration. They especially

caution against historically unrealistic expectations of the

development potential in Africa within the timescales develop-

ment agencies normally operate. In a wide-ranging study entitled

Africa Works, they argue that in much of sub-Saharan Africa

individual rationality is essentially based on communal logic and

that the logic of any action lies in what it induces by way of

expectations of reciprocity between the parties involved. Their

thesis is that Africa is on a fundamentally different development

path to that assumed by Western development partners, and

argues that this derives from a different logic from that of

classical economic development. The authors argue that exploit-


mitigate tensions, particularly where institutionalchange is slow. Decentralisation can improve servicedelivery but also increase spatial and social in-equity.16 The processes of change, drawing onparticular capacities in particular contexts need tobe understood, especially by development partners.

Certainly, the development partners in Ugandahave learnt both a certain degree of caution and theneed to engage more fully with the politics andprocesses of change. There is a sense of frustrationin some quarters that the anticipated outcomes fromthe considerable investments made so far in theeducation sector are not as great as had beenexpected, especially with regards to improvedquality of teaching and learning. The Ugandanexperience reveals that ‘‘grand plans’’ like the ESIPare generally insensitive to personal and individualreasons for change and reform (GoU-MoES, 2005).Yet it is to individuals and the institutions theyinhabit that the task of realising reform falls,whether these are globally negotiated educationpolicies or national level ones. All have to bemediated in practice at the national and local level.Moreover, if one acknowledges that the language ofSWAps (Harley, 2005), programme and budgetsupport is that of technical rationality and thatthese aid modalities and approaches tend tofunction primarily in the formal sphere and not atthe level of the experience of most teachers andpupils, let alone directly in their families, then itshould not be surprising that change is slow andthat the reforms may generate a high degree ofsuspicion, if not scepticism.

Both overt and covert political agendas andstructures of influence and power lessen the impactof the technical development discourse in whichfunding agencies frequently engage. Added to this,for many ministry officials (and politicians too)there is an inordinate faith in proclamation,especially when this is in written form. There is astrange assumption that once a directive or plan orstrategy is on paper, and has been affirmed by anauthority, action and outcomes will ‘‘automati-cally’’ follow. They will not. ‘‘Programmes workthrough their subjects’ liabilities’’ (Pawson and

16As acknowledged in World Bank (2004), the disadvantages,

as well as the benefits, of decentralisation need more considera-

tion, especially when linked to marketisation/privatisation. A

variety of factors, including local vested interests and weak

institutional capacity, need to be tackled to both improve

accountability and overcome (or indeed avoid increases in) both

spatial and social inequity.

Tilley, 1997, p. 36) by people co-operating andchoosing to make them work. As Reimers andMcGinn (1997, p. 190) remind us, it is essential torecognise that the key guides are democraticdialogue, empowerment, time, persistence andpatience, as:

education systems are not machines but arenasfor conflict, and that what education systems doreflects how people construct their roles regard-ing these systems, and that it is people who canfacilitate the development of knowledge andsustained organisational learning.

Finally, the potential for high stakes conflictbetween development partner and recipient shouldnot be ignored, especially if the partnership has nottaken sufficient account of the possibility thatUgandan society might be basing its educationagenda on very different values, processes andpriorities to those understood by developmentpartners. The cultural aspects of change are toooften neglected. It can be argued that in much ofsub-Saharan Africa, individual rationality is essen-tially based on communal logic, which prioritisesreciprocity between the parties involved. This canhave significant implications for the negotiation andimplementation of educational development initia-tives.17 Such aspects of change, and the processesinvolved in policy dialogue and implementation,place a premium on people’s knowledge, judgement,and planning, teamwork, research, communicationand other skills. The presence of such capacities in

ing disorder or ‘‘instrumentalising disorder’’ is in fact a different

kind of order which is perfectly rational within its own terms. If

the thesis is accepted, such cultural differences will have

significant implications for the negotiation and implementation

of development initiatives. Furthermore, such differences may

help explain the aversion to institutionalising reform practices,

and, indeed, may be an obstacle to development as currently

conceived by the majority of funding partners.


the partnership between Government and fundingagency partners is therefore critical to the develop-ment and evaluation of reform to ensure it remainsa fresh and dynamic process.

4. Conclusion: agenda for further research

This article has illustrated the complex agenda andprocesses of education sector reform and the need formore long- term studies and comprehensive accounts.Although the quality of research upon which ESIPwas constructed was generally good, a strong case canbe made for more qualitative research on the intrinsicexperience of the SWAp and the budget supportfunding modality, both within the education sectorand across other sectors. For example, it is generallyacknowledged that the impact of reforms which havetaken place in the MoFPED were significant andshaped much that has been set in place within theMoES, but what wider impact have reforms anddevelopment in the education sector had on othersectors? What horizontal lessons have been learnt? It

F. W

Proje

G. GoU own

revenues (and

general budget

support)

A. Budget

support

UK

B. Budget

support

Dutch

C. Budget

Support

EC

A. Budget

Support

Ireland

E. Other

budget

support

Funding

Agencies

Holding A/C ‘Education

Budget Support

Account’

GoU

Cons

Acco

U

F.

Iris

F

Fig. 1. Education budge

would be valuable to undertake more research on thedynamics between the various stakeholders involvedin SWAp and budget support processes.

It would also be valuable to look at the longer termimpact on reform of critical policy aspects such asdemand for education from more disadvantagedgroups, improvements in learning outcomes and therelationship between increased and changing PPETand the labour market. Reform is too often under-taken with the current policy agenda in mind, ratherthan on the basis of longer term experience.Comparative studies of developments in, for example,Tanzania, Ghana, Rwanda and Zambia, to name fourcurrent examples where SWAps and budget supportmodalities are being developed and implemented,would also add to the institutional knowledge of thegovernments concerned and of their developmentpartners. A better balance between thematic issuesand comprehensive studies could do much to makereform, and investment, more effective in future.

Specifically, it would be timely for a progressreview of what has happened to the education

orld Bank

ct Funding

PEDTP(ED18(A))

TDMS

olidated

unt

TDMS IV & V

(ED18(B)

Primary classroom

construction/Conditional

Grant to DistrictsPrimary classroom

construction/MoES

ED11(E)

Instr. Materials

ED11(F)

District Capacity

Building (ED27(B)

Rehabilitation 2ary

school ED12(A)

Central Capacity

Building ED27(C)

Education Sector

Planning ED27(A)

SAID,

Dutch &

h Project

unding

t support account.


reform vision and process since 1998 (and why?).Particular issues might encompass:

1.
The impact of the current dominance of USAIDon ESIP policy and implementation, largelythrough the use of its own continued large scaleproject support and TA budget.
2.
The serious slow down in primary curriculumreform and implementation.
3.
Continued lack of progress in LOI policy. 4. Serious under-funding of learning materials in
support of the new curriculum (exactly the sameproblem occurred with the introduction of the2000/2002 curriculum). Although there are now11 LOIs there is far less money for learning andteaching materials than in previous years whenthere was only English.

5.
The lack of focus on genuine PPET reform.
Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribu-tion made to their understanding by teachers,community groups and district education staff inUganda, the staff of international developmentagencies, funding and technical assistance agencies,universities, and NGOs. We are particularly in-debted to Mr Francis Lubanga, Permanent Secre-tary, MoES, Ms Alice Ibale, previously AssistantCommissioner, Instructional Materials Unit,MoES, Mr George Kalibbala, Education Officerat the Royal Netherlands Embassy and Ms Rosem-ary Rwanyanga, Irish Aid. The authors also grate-fully acknowledge the contribution of DFID insupporting the preparation, development and pro-duction of the book upon which this paper is based.The views expressed in this paper do not necessarilyrepresent those of DFID.

Appendix

The example of the education MTBF planningcycle is shown in Fig. 1.

References

Al Samarrai, S., 2005. Financing Primary Education for All:

Public Expenditure and Education Outcomes in Africa.

DFID, London.

Appleton, S., 2001. What can we expect from universal primary

education. In: Reinikka, R., Collier, P. (Eds.), Uganda’s

Recovery: The Role of Farms, Firms and Government. The

World Bank, Washington.

Ball, S.J., 1994. Education Reform. Open University Press,

Milton Keynes.

Bennell, P., Akyeampong, K., 2006. Aspects of Teacher

Motivation in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. DFID,

London.

Boesen, N., Therkildsen, O., 2004. Between Naivety and

Cynicism: A Pragmatic Approach to Donor Support for

Public Sector Capacity Building. DANIDA, Copenhagen.

Chabal, P., Daloz, J.P., 1999. Africa Works: The Use of Disorder

as Political Instrument. James Currey and Indiana University

Press, Oxford and Indiana.

Clemens, M.A., 2004. The Long Walk to School: International

Education Goals in Historical Perspective, Working Paper

No. 37. Centre for Global Development, Washington, DC.

Crossley, M., Herriot, A., Mwirotsi, M., Waudo, J., Holmes, K.,

Juma, M., 2005. Research and Evaluation for Educational

Development: Learning from the PRISM Experience in

Kenya. Symposium Books, Oxford.

DFID, 2004. Children Out of School. DFID, London.

DFID, 2006. Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance

Work for the Poor. A White Paper on International

Development. DFID, London.

Foster, M., 2004a. Accounting for Donor Contributions to

Education for All: How Should Finance be Provided? How

Should it be Monitored? World Bank, Washington, DC.

Foster, M., 2004b. Linking Budget Support to Progress Towards

Education MDGs and EFA Goals. DFID, London.

GoU-MoES, 1998. Guidelines on Policy, Roles and Responsi-

bilities of Stakeholders in the Implementation of Universal

Primary Education (UPE). MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2000a. School Facilities Grant (SFG) for Primary

Schools. Planning an Implementation Guidelines for District

and Urban Councils. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2000b. Teachers and the Payroll: A Survey of

Government-Aided Primary Schools. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2000c. Universal Primary Education (UPE) Capita-

tion Grant Planning and Implementation Guidelines for

District and Urban Councils. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2001a. Universal Primary Education (UPE) Capi-

tation Grant. Planning and Implementation Guidelines for

District and Urban Councils. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2001b. School Facilities Grant (SFG) for Primary

Schools. Planning and Implementation Guidelines for District

and Urban Councils. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2004a, June. Education Sector Strategic Plan

2004–2015. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2004b, November. 11th Education Sector Review

(ESR): Final Aide-Memoire. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2004c, December. Education sector Medium Term

Budget framework Paper for the Financial Years 2005/6 and

2007/8. MoES, Kampala.

GoU-MoES, 2005, January. Papers from the National Workshop

on Levels of Competency in Literacy and Numeracy for

Primary Schools. Colline Hotel, Mukono, 4–7 January, 2005.

MoES, Kampala.

Harley, K., 2005. Learning from logframes: reflections on three

development projects in East and Southern Africa. Compare,

vol. 35. Taylor and Francis, London.

Higgins, L., Rwanyange, R., 2005. Ownership in the education

reform process in Uganda. Compare 35 (1), 7–26.


Jansen, J.D., 2005. Targeting education: the politics of perfor-

mance and the prospects of ‘‘Education for All’’. Interna-

tional Journal of Educational Development 25, 368–380.

Keating, J., 2001. Firm Demand for Post Primary Qualifications.

Report to the Secondary Education Commission. World

Bank, MoES, Kampala, Washington, DC.

Leggett, I., 2001. Uganda, an Oxfam Country Profile. Fountain

Publishers, Kampala.

Lewin, K., Stuart, J., 2003. The Multi-Site Teacher Education

Research Project (MUSTER) Report. DFID, London.

Lewin, K.M., 2005. Planning post-primary education: taking

targets to task. International Journal of Educational Devel-

opment 25, 408–422.

Lister, et al., 2006. Evaluation of Budget Support in Uganda.

DFID, London.

Palmer, R., Wedgewood, R., Hayman, R., King, K., Thin, T.,

2006. Educating out of Poverty? A Synthesis Report on

Ghana, India, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and South Africa.

DFID, London.

Pawson, R., Tilley, N., 1997. Realistic Evaluation. Sage Publica-

tions, London.

Reimers, F., McGinn, N., 1997. Informed Dialogue: Using

Research to Shape Education Policy Around the World.

Praeger, Westport.

Roberts, J., 2003. Poverty Reduction Outcomes in Education and

Health, Public Expenditure and Aid. ODI Working Paper 10-

add. ODI, London.

Robertson, S., et al., 2007. Globalisation and Education

(provisional title). DFID, London, in press.

Samoff, J., 2001. When Progress is Process: Evaluating Aid to

Basic Education. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Smith, H., 2005. Ownership and capacity: do current donor

approaches help or hinder the achievement of international

and national targets for education? International Journal of

Educational Development 25, 445–455.

Smith, I., 2004. Financial Tracking. Royal Netherlands Embassy,

Kampala, unpublished report.

Teskey, G., 2005. Capacity Building and State Building: Issues,

Evidence and Implications for DFID. DFID Governance and

Social Development Group, DFID, London, unpublished paper.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2001. Uganda Demographic

Household Survey—Education Data. GoU, Kampala.

Uganda National Examinations Board, 2002. A Study of School

Quality in Secondary Schools and Equivalent Grades in

Technical/Vocational Schools in Uganda. GoU, Kampala.

UNESCO, 2004. Education for All: The Quality Imperative

(2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report). UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO, 2005. Education for All: Literacy for Life (2006 EFA

Global Monitoring Report). UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO-UIS, 2005. Children Out of School: Measuring

Exclusion from Primary Education. UIS, Montreal.

Verspoor, A., 2003. The challenge of learning: improving the

quality of basic education. ADEA Journal 5 (4).

Ward, M., Penny, A., Read, A., (2006). Education reform in

Uganda 1997–2004 reflections on policy, partnership, strategy

and implementation. Researching the Issues Series. DFID,

London.

World Bank, 2002. Constructing Knowledge Societies: New

Challenges for Tertiary Education. The World Bank,

Washington, DC.

World Bank, 2003. Making Services Work for Poor People,

World Development Report 2004. The World Bank, Wa-

shington, DC.

World Bank, 2005. Expanding Opportunities and Building

Competencies for Young People: A New Agenda for

Secondary Education. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank (Independent Evaluation Group), 2006. From

Schooling Access to Learning Outcomes: An Unfinished

Agenda: An Evaluation of World Bank Support to Primary,

Education. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Documents

Education sector reform: The Ugandan experience