Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning: a symposium to

Mark BrayN.V. Varghese

Directions in educational planningReport on an IIEP Symposium

Research papers IIEP

International Institutefor Educational Planning

Th e book

During the past few decades, the nature of educational planning has shift ed signifi cantly. Th e 1960s, when IIEP was created, were a period of optimism and strong belief in the role of the state in promoting economic growth and development. Educational planning had diff erent emphases and interpretations in diff erent contexts, but generally relied on grand models focusing on macro-planning. Since that time, contexts have changed. Today the fi eld is also defi ned by decentralized approaches, non-government funding, and cross-national forces in the context of globalization. IIEP has been playing a lead role in contributing to conceptual issues, developing methodologies, and facilitating capacity development. In 2008, the Institute organized a symposium in honour of Françoise Caillods to discuss the changing context and contents of educational planning. Th e Symposium refl ected on continuities and changes in the past and looked ahead to the anticipated future of educational planning. Th is book is a report based on the deliberations in the Symposium.

Th e authors

Mark Bray is Director of UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). His 1999 book on the shadow education system, also published by IIEP, was the fi rst of its kind and has been widely cited. His subsequent work on the theme has provided much matter for the present book. Mark Bray has also published extensively in the fi elds of comparative education, and administration and fi nancing of education.

N.V. Varghese, Professor and former Head of the Educational Planning Unit at the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) in New Delhi, is currently Head of the Governance and Management in Education Unit at the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP/UNESCO) in Paris. He has published books and articles in the areas of educational planning, fi nancing and quality of education.





The views and opinions expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of UNESCO, IIEP or UNICEF. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this review do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO, IIEP or UNICEF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

The publication costs of this study have been covered through a grant-in-aid offered by UNESCO and by voluntary contributions made by several Member States of UNESCO, a list of which will be found at the end of the volume.

Published by:

International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP)7-9 rue Eugène Delacroix, 75116 Paris, [email protected]

Cover design: IIEPTypesetting: Linéale ProductionPrinted in IIEP’s printshopiiep/web/doc/2010/01

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.iiep.unesco.org

5

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 7

List of acronyms 9

Preface 11

Report on the Symposium Mark Bray and N.V. Varghese 131. The symposium 132. Approaches to education and to planning 143. Trends in educational planning 17

3.1 Macro- and national-level plans 173.2 Educational planning at decentralized levels 193.3 Educational planning at local levels 213.4 Institutional plans 22

4. Current concerns in educational planning 235. Capacity development for educational planning 276. Postscript 28

References 29

Reports on the working groups 37Group 1. Macro-planning and micro-planning Michaela Martin, Igor Kitaev and Mioko Saito 39Group 2. Education, poverty and development Anton De Grauwe 47Group 3. Financing educational development Serge Péano 57Annexes 671. Symposium programme 672. Symposium participants 713. Symposium papers 76


7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is based on the discussions and deliberations of the Symposium organized in honour of the work of Françoise Caillods who, after nearly four decades of service, retired in 2008. The Symposium was an opportunity to refl ect on developments in educational planning in the past, analyze changes in the present, and learn lessons for the future.

The organization of the Symposium was possible thanks to the support we received from various people. In particular, we would like to thank: • Françoise Caillods, Deputy Director of IIEP, for her agreement to

organize the Symposium in her honour and for her presence in the Symposium.

• The authors who prepared and presented papers at the Symposium, and the participants of the Symposium for their contributions.

• The rapporteurs of different sessions – Anton De Grauwe, Igor Kitaev, Michaela Martin, Mioko Saito, and Serge Péano – for preparing the reports on each of the thematic areas.

• Florence Appéré for her effi cient handling of the logistics and the follow-up.

• Felicia Wilson for her organizational support, communications with the authors and participants, and her academic contribution.

• Christine Edwards for her assistance during the Symposium and for her support in bringing out this volume.

• Miriam Jones for her translation and editorial work.

Mark Bray and N.V. Varghese


9

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BRC block resource centreCRC cluster resource centreDPEP District Primary Education Programme (India)ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the

CaribbeanEFA Education for AllEMIS educational management information systemsFTI Fast Track InitiativeGIS Geographical Information SystemIIEP International Institution for Educational PlanningILO International Labour Offi ceMDGs Millennium Development GoalsNIEPA National Institute for Educational Planning and

Administration (Nigeria)NUEPA National University of Educational Planning and

Administration (India)OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

DevelopmentPRONADE Programme of Escuela Nueva in ColombiaPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperSACMEQ Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring

Educational QualitySSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme (India)SWAp Sector-wide approach


11

PREFACE

Educational planning has evolved signifi cantly over the decades. IIEP has not only been part of this evolution, but also helped develop methodologies to suit the changing contexts of educational planning and reinforce national capacities to prepare and implement plans. The Institute has organized periodic seminars to assess the magnitude of changes within the context and contents of educational planning. The Symposium on which this volume reports was organized in honour of the work of Francoise Caillods, who played a major role in the evolution of educational planning in the Institute and more broadly during her four-decades-long engagement in the area.

The Symposium provided an opportunity for refl ection and stocktaking on continuities and changes, looking ahead to anticipated futures, and identifying the implications that they hold for IIEP and the wider fi eld. Themes addressed in the Symposium included links and contrasts between macro- and micro-planning; links between education, poverty reduction and development; and issues related to domestic and international fi nancing of education.

The Symposium participants included academics, decision-makers, institutional heads, and practitioners of educational planning from different regions of the world. The Institute received dozens of papers which were presented in plenary and parallel sessions. The deliberations noted the changing contexts of educational planning and the role of the state and markets in the provision of educational services, the evolution of planning techniques, the process of drawing up educational plans, and the changing aid architecture and fi nancing arrangements to support and implement education sector plans. This report on the Symposium summarizes the rich and varied discussions and deliberations.

Mark Bray Director, IIEP


13

REPORT ON THE SYMPOSIUM

A symposium to honour the work of Françoise Caillods

Directions in educational planning3-4 July 2008

1. The symposium

The orientations, objectives, tools and processes of educational planning have evolved signifi cantly during the past four decades. The work of UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), which was established in 1963, has both refl ected and helped to shape this evolution. The principal goal of the Symposium on which this document reports was to assess the nature and the implications of changes in the fi eld, and to identify possible future directions.

The Symposium was organized in honour of the work of Françoise Caillods, Deputy Director of IIEP, who was scheduled to retire shortly after the Symposium, following nearly four decades of service to the Institute and the professionals with which it works. Françoise Caillods has herself played a major role in the shaping of the fi eld of educational planning. Many contributors to the Symposium referred to specifi c dimensions of that role.

The major themes selected for focus in the Symposium were: links between macro-planning and micro-planning; links between education, poverty reduction and development; and issues related to the fi nancing of education in the context of the changing international aid architecture. The call for contributions to the Symposium attracted a very strong response from all parts of the world. The 80 participants in the event included planners in ministries of education, academics, decision-makers, and heads of institutions. Over 30 papers were presented in the plenary and parallel sessions.

The presentations in the Symposium identifi ed some milestones in the work of IIEP. One such milestone was the 1970 publication of the booklet by IIEP’s founding Director, Philip H. Coombs, entitled What is educational planning? Another milestone was the 1989 volume edited


14

Directions in educational planning

by Françoise Caillods entitled The prospects for educational planning. That volume had been prepared as part of IIEP’s commemoration of its 25th anniversary, and in some respects provided a benchmark comparable to that provided by the deliberations in the 2008 Symposium on which this document reports. Among features of the current Symposium were discussions on the changing role of the state in education, the emergence of the private sector, and the Education for All (EFA) movement. Other topics included the roles of bilateral and multilateral agencies in extending support to facilitate the planning and implementation of education programmes in less developed countries.

Among the factors which have shaped the evolution of educational planning over the decades has been the evolution in conceptualisation of education as an investment and as a basic human right. During the 20th century, in many parts of the world the state took increasing responsibility for improving educational opportunities through expanded provision. The state also endeavoured to reduce regional and other disparities, and to improve conditions of teaching. Techniques such as school mapping and micro-level planning have helped governments to reach the least-developed areas and most deprived groups, but both planners and policymakers have increasingly understood that the focus of educational planning cannot be confi ned to the provision of facilities.

In some settings, a major shortcoming in planning processes has arisen from the fact that student learning has been taken for granted on the assumption that creation of facilities for learning was a suffi cient step. Learner achievement surveys have exposed shortcomings in the extent to which attendance in schools has been suffi ciently matched by gains in learning. As a result, many aspects of teaching-learning processes which were not adequately addressed by educational planners have emerged as core concerns. The emphasis on sector-wide approaches, focus on disadvantaged groups, and aid providers’ priority funding for primary education are among the major themes which have helped to shape the fi eld of educational planning. The following sections elaborate on these matters as refl ected in the discussions and papers presented during the Symposium.

2. Approaches to education and to planning

Several leading economists in the 1950s who addressed the nature of development focused on the shortages of capital. This was a strong


15

Report on the Symposium

factor underlying the Marshall Plan through which the USA extended development assistance to Europe in the years following the Second World War, and in due course the approach was extended to other parts of the world through international development assistance. Closer analysis indicated that growth in national income exceeded what could be traditionally attributed to capital investments and labour efforts, and suggested that this difference could be attributed to the augmentation of labour productivity. The work of Schultz (1961), Denison (1962), Becker (1964), and Harbison and Myers (1964) suggested that the ‘residual’ was measurable and that much of it represented improved productivity due to education. Rates of return analysis showed that investing in education commonly generated economic rewards that surpassed those from many other forms of investment. Cost-benefi t analysis and rates of return analysis became important areas of investigation and a basis to shape the nature of investment decisions in education. Economists such as Blaug (1972) not only placed the accumulation of knowledge and skill at the heart of development, but also described investment in education as a key driver of change.

Throughout its history, much of the fi eld of educational planning has been dominated by economists. As a result, investigations and recommendations have commonly centred on the one hand on issues linked to macro-economic concerns of growth and development, and on the other hand on the fi nancing of education. Educational planning emerged as a distinct fi eld at a time when the belief in educational investment as essential for national economic growth (human capital theory) was strong, and the expectations of people who viewed education as a vehicle for upward mobility were rising.

The 1960s brought the emergence of three clearly defi ned but not mutually exclusive strands which provided the framework for educational planning exercises and for funding justifi cations at the national level. They were the social demand approach, the manpower requirements approach, and cost-benefi t analysis (Coombs, 1970). While the social-demand approach viewed educational development independently of economic considerations, the manpower requirements approach aligned education with employment opportunities. Cost-benefi t analysis investigated economic justifi cations for investing in education.

Based on the social demand approach, educational planning exercises at the national levels commonly extrapolated the expected


16


participation rates of school-aged children, especially at the primary education level, and estimated the costs of enrolling them in schools or alternative educational institutions. With universal primary education becoming a policy priority and with fi xed regional or global targets, educational planning as per the social demand (induced or involuntary social demand) approach considers the age group population as the enrolment target to be achieved. These calculations are based more on demographic projections than on the number of children enrolled in primary classes. However, the expected participation rates or stage transition ratios can be relied on when estimating enrolment in successive levels of education.

At the post-compulsory levels of education, the social demand approach seeks to provide enough capacity for all those qualifi ed and willing to enrol in institutions of education and training. This approach was used to plan higher education in the UK. The 1963 Robbins Report, for example, adhered to the principle of social demand as a basis for growth and expansion of higher education.

The manpower planners devoted much time to developing occupation-education matrices linking qualifi cation levels required for different categories of jobs. The assumption of fi xed coeffi cients of production helped to project educational requirements of different categories of jobs in the future, and it aligned itself well with the centralized planning framework of linking education with economic planning.

The cost-benefi t approach, on the other hand, was based on the notion of returns to investment in education compared to similar investments in other sectors of the economy. This approach, centred on human capital theory, provided a powerful framework for analysis and a basis for rational choices between investment options. The approach had a lasting infl uence in the fi eld of economics of education, even though the usefulness of this approach to educational planning was less evident. Rates of return analysis remained infl uential and was widely relied upon to justify an emphasis on investment in primary schooling in poor countries (Psacharopoulos and Woodhall, 1985; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 2004).

The economic interest in education continued even when the major concern in development shifted from growth to growth with equity (Chenery et al., 1974). The fact that economic growth did not seem by itself to create suffi cient reduction in the numbers of people below the


17


poverty line shifted the focus of attention from rates of return to the role of education in reducing poverty and inequalities. This shift in emphasis in turn changed the basic justifi cation for investing in education. The positive infl uence of education to reduce poverty, fertility, inequalities and to improve health, focused on the non-economic role of education. These developments reinforced a rights-based approach to education. The capabilities approaches (Sen, 1999) extended the range further to include freedoms and rights, including the right to access education. The movement placed human development rather than human resource development at the centre of the focus.

3. Trends in educational planning

3.1 Macro- and national-level plans During the 1960s and 1970s, much educational planning took the country as the unit of analysis and policy orientation. The 1980s brought a shift towards decentralization, which was maintained in the 1990s and 2000s and which brought into focus provinces, districts and schools as units for planning. At the same time, national plans have remained important, especially within the international context of the advance towards Education for All.

UNESCO organized a set of regional conferences in the early 1960s which recommended regional targets for achieving universal primary education (Fredriksen, 1981; Diallo, 2008). Much educational planning at the national level during this period was infl uenced by these regional educational targets. Investing in education for national development was recognized as the area of priority, and expanding access to education, especially at the primary level, was the prime focus for public interventions. Educational investment concentrated mainly on creating schooling facilities to improve access. Educational planning was mainly an exercise in projecting enrolments to reach the national and regional targets, together with estimation of the budgetary requirements.

Economic planning was on the ascendancy in the 1960s, especially in the newly independent countries which relied on public investment as the major source of economic growth and social development. Education was considered crucial for economic and social development. Many of the newly independent countries emphasized the importance of literacy, primary education and university education. The economic


18


development plans were prepared by economists from the ministries of economic development and/or planning. The national plans were sectoral in their approach, and each department or ministry took responsibility for preparing its own plans. Education ministries in many countries established planning units which were responsible for preparing educational plans.

When plans were prepared at the national level, particular attention was given to projections of enrolments, teachers and fi nancial requirements. Educational planning at this stage remained mostly a technical exercise in the central ministries of education. At the compulsory levels of education, the plans were based on projections of the expected numbers of children in the school-going age group, and at the post-compulsory levels the projections were based on the expected participation rates. In many countries, planning for post-basic or post-secondary education, especially technical and professional categories, was based on the estimated manpower requirements.

Although this model was very common in the Soviet Union, the Mediterranean Regional Project (Parnes, 1966) popularized the manpower requirements approach to prepare national educational plans in countries which were not centrally planned. This model encountered challenges, especially when the technological changes resulted in the changing composition of jobs, the effect of which could not be fully refl ected in this model. Youth unemployment continued to increase in the 1970s, loosening linkages between education and employment. A more rigid version of workforce planning, known as indicative planning, was adopted wholeheartedly by centralized socialist states that felt that they saw the future clearly and were willing to allocate resources and to direct people to education, training and occupations.

Rates-of-return analysis was relied upon to evaluate the level of investment in education in comparison to other sectors and between different levels within the education sector. Countries which were not aligned to any particular ideological strands and which were open to international trade decided on sectors in which to be internationally competitive and then invested in the education and training considered necessary to create capacity in these sectors. Japan, Singapore and the Republic of Korea seemed to have been particularly successful at this. More generally, planning was based on the idea that projections could be used to anticipate likely and desirable changes in educational


19


demand, and that incremental reforms should be adopted to balance educational outputs with future labour force needs.

One of the continuing concerns of the macro-level plan was on the provision of educational facilities. Educational planning during this period was mainly an exercise in projecting enrolment to reach national targets and to identify budgetary implications.

3.2 Educational planning at decentralized levels The limitations of macro-plans to address locally relevant issues became increasingly evident, and decentralized plans became a more accepted framework for preparing and implementing plans. The economic crisis of the 1980s and the accompanying austerity measures adopted by the state reduced public allocations to education (Lewin, 1987). At the same time, structural adjustment programmes argued for a reduced role of the state and public investment in social sectors such as education. In some countries this also reduced the role of federal governments in education. The locus of decision-making shifted from centralized to decentralized levels, making it more participatory (Bray, 1984, 1996; Varghese, 1996; McGinn and Welch, 1999).

Educational progress took place as a result of the planned investment following from the priority areas identifi ed under different plans in different countries. The development that resulted from investment in earlier plans resulted in widening of at least some disparities (Carron and Ta Ngoc, 1980). Decentralized plans were expected to address the issues related to disparities in a more meaningful way than was possible for national plans. The orientation of planning still remained the provision of facilities. It also implied opening more schools and the provision of more teachers. However, the difference was in terms of targeting the provisions to the hitherto underserved areas. Planning techniques, such as locational planning or school mapping (Hallak, 1977; Caillods et al., 1983), became convenient tools to reduce disparities in the provision of schools.

The methods adopted by school mappers to locate schooling facilities varied. While all relied initially on measuring the physical distances from schools to homes either in the form of circles or hexagons (Hallak, 1977), some later moved to distance matrix methods (Varghese, 1997). In all cases the emphasis on creating facilities in the schools in addition to determining the location of schools was added to the exercise.


20


Two papers in the Symposium (Hite, 2008; Da Costa, 2008) examined the importance of school mapping techniques and the possibilities for widening the scope of their use. Hite elaborated on the use of Geographical Information Systems, which can provide more reliable and convenient tools for spatial analysis. Although school mapping as an exercise is not necessarily associated with decentralized planning, its signifi cance and use as an effective planning tool increases at the decentralized levels.

The move towards decentralized plans changed the roles of government at different levels, as exemplifi ed by the discussion of educational planning in Latin America. In several parts of that region, the centre transferred various responsibilities to sub-national levels while taking on new roles in innovation, technical assistance and evaluation (Poggi, 2008). As a result of this shift, educational management became more polycentric, local governments gained more resources, and institutions became more autonomous. The institutional capacity of the central ministries of education was reduced, and mainly concerned the specifi cation of regulations and the monitoring of progress. The priority in Latin America is no longer confi ned to basic education. Early childhood and post-primary education have become increasingly important.

Parallel developments may be observed in the Caucasus region. The Georgian authorities, for example, have embarked on structural reorganization of the education system through legislative measures, fi nancing arrangements, and revision of curricula (Machabeli and Bregvadze, 2008). The schools have become autonomous legal entities of public law with boards of trustees, and the universities now have elected presidents.

Patterns in India display related features. Decentralization of educational planning with the participation of local governments was initiated seriously in the early 1980s (Prakash, 2008). A 1993 constitutional amendment and the launch of externally-funded education programmes including the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) signifi cantly changed the directions of decentralized planning in education. Planning became focused more on local levels, which permitted wider participation of civil society. One important element was the alteration in resource allocation policy in favour of local targets. The reforms created academic and administrative structures at different levels to sustain planning efforts (Varghese, 1996). These achievements


21


were reinforced with the launch of the national programme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) in 2001. The broad strategies of the SSA include decentralization and a community-based approach to the planning and management of elementary education.

By contrast, educational planning in much of Africa remained centralized until relatively recent times. Countries such as Nigeria (Taiwo, 2008) established national institutions to support plan preparation and develop capabilities at different layers of government. Nigeria, however, is a large country with a well-established federal system. Other countries in Africa have opted more for deconcentrated systems rather than stronger forms of decentralization (Lugaz and De Grauwe, 2006; Balde, 2008; Diallo, 2008).

3.3 Educational planning at local levels The provision for educational facilities, although necessary, in itself does not ensure universalization of basic education. Whether children actually attend school depends on decisions made by families and individuals (Majumdar, 1983). While the planning techniques and public investments were successful with regard to creating facilities, they were not suffi cient to attract children to schools, especially in deprived regions which needed educational progress the most. Many of those who remained non-enrolled were from economically backward localities and disadvantaged groups. Therefore, developments in the next stage of planning pointed to efforts more to generate demand for education at the local levels than to create supply through public investment.

The decentralization efforts supported closer scrutiny of questions related to the demand and supply of education. For example, community participation under the programme of Escuela Nueva in Colombia or PRONADE in Guatemala helped in changing the school schedules to suit local requirements (Lugaz, 2008). In the process, not only were plans localized, but micro-planning became an essential tool. Similarly in the Dominican Republic the process increased participation in plan preparation and implementation (Da Costa, 2008), helping to create programmes that were more inclusive.

In many countries, a move towards decentralized and local-level planning is associated with the development of databases and educational management information systems (EMIS). The scarcity of data to prepare plans at the local level and monitor decentralized plans


22


by the central authorities became evident when the planning process was decentralized and resource decisions became localized. While micro-planning relied on information centring on a school or a village, EMIS became an important instrument to monitor progress and allocate resources by the central authorities to the local levels.

3.4 Institutional plans Much educational planning represents an explicit or implicit attempt to regulate and control learning, regulating who may or may not teach, and authorizing who, individually or as groups, shall have access to various types and levels of schooling (Farrell, 1997). This aspect of the educational process did not always receive adequate attention in the plans and planning processes. Educational planning by convention has rarely given adequate attention to curriculum development and curriculum transactions.

Bringing all children to school is diffi cult in many countries, especially in the case of children in deprived regions and poor households. Ensuring that those who are brought to school acquire basic reading and numerical skills is a further challenge. Studies have shown that some students, even when they remain in the schools for several years, do not acquire adequate reading and numeracy skills.

The focus of attention in educational policy shifted from the provision of facilities to what is happening inside the schools or classrooms – from planning for inputs to process and outputs. Traditional concerns with the provision of inputs have caused many to lose sight of, or simply forget, the ultimate objective of learning. The teaching-learning process and organizing supervision systems and other pedagogical support systems to improve overall school performance assumed importance in planning (De Grauwe, 2008). The focus on learning has also increased the frequency of testing children. Many countries have established national and provincial testing bodies. The Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) is a good example of this development. Much of the newfound attraction was driven by the ‘standards and accountability’ movement.

Institutional plans for both schools and universities became areas of direct intervention for the planners. The concern for quality and learner achievement changed the areas of public investment in education. The Symposium underlined ‘the quiet revolution in


23


schooling’ refl ected through the gradual shift from education and schooling to learning. Successful programmes in alternative school systems are breaking down the traditional distinctions between formal and non-formal, teaching and learning, and programmes for adults or children (Farrell, 2008). The organization and planning of learning is more diffi cult and challenging than planning for schooling and national systems of education.

At the university level, institutional planning has different emphases from that at the school level. The decline in public funding for higher education has required institutions of higher education to mobilize resources for their survival and development. At the school level, the dominant thrust of institutional planning has been improvement in operational effi ciency rather than resource mobilization.

4. Current concerns in educational planning

Most of the discussion on educational planning in the Symposium centred on planning for formal education – schools, teachers, universities, etc. With the spread of education to remote areas and among deprived groups, the need for diversity of modes of delivery of education has become more evident. The focus on basic education as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) placed education in conjunction with economic development and poverty reduction. The number of poor people remains large despite national and international efforts, the need to extend the provision of education through diversifi ed modes to reach the unreached remains evident. Adult literacy and non-formal education programmes are important segments of EFA. These programmes may address not only local issues and concerns, given their fl exibility in conception and implementation, but can also target the poor and help to reach the unreached.

An additional factor which became of increasingly evident signifi cance as the 1990s and the fi rst decade of the 21st century progressed, concerns the impact of HIV and AIDS on education systems (Kelly, 2000; Caillods et al., 2008; Hernes, 2008). Especially devastating has been the impact in much of Africa. Sickness from AIDS has created many ineffi ciencies, and deaths from AIDS have created teacher shortages and orphans. Planners must focus not only on the impact of HIV and AIDS on education systems, but also on ways in which education can be used as an instrument to combat HIV and AIDS.


24


On a broader front, recent case studies from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand (Govinda, 2008) have echoed earlier research to show ways in which economic growth and social development are interdependent and social exclusion and economic poverty are interlinked. Illiteracy is a severe barrier to access to many state-provided social services, and in that sense exclusion from education keeps the poor in a state of poverty. Solutions may require diverse forms of education rather than formal schools which may not be able to attract and retain children in these disadvantaged groups.

One paper in the Symposium argued that what is needed may be ‘alternative systems of schools’ (Farrell, 2008). Some such systems operate within standard Ministry of Education administrative frameworks; others are operated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and still others are ‘mixed models’ operated with various combinations of government, NGOs, and civil society. In almost all cases, these schools fall within what is generally described as ‘community education’, having strong links to the communities in which the learners live. These links take different forms in different places, depending upon local histories and patterns of social organization.

A major issue for all stakeholders concerns the quality of education. Do children learn what they are supposed to learn? In some countries, measures to increase enrolment for example through fee-abolition initiatives have not been accompanied by adequate measures to maintain or improve the quality of primary education. The measures have contributed to overcrowding of classrooms with few learning facilities, and the result is further deterioration of quality which was already inadequate. The focus on learning as opposed to teaching generates important emphases. At times it is inappropriate to use words such as ‘learning’, ‘education’, ‘schooling’ and ‘teaching’ interchangeably. Farrell (2008) suggested that even IIEP might consider the extent to which it is an institute for the planning of learning as opposed to the planning of education.

Also worth noting is the emphasis on the global agenda of the Education for All (EFA) movement, which has been fuelled by international agency support and the two world conferences in Jomtien, Thailand (1990) and Dakar, Senegal (2000). It is interesting to examine how national and donor perceptions have varied. When the national governments have focused on national macro-plans, many funding agencies have supported the project mode of funding. Funding agencies


25


at this stage did not intervene in policy matters and preferred to remain at the project level. When the priority accorded to EFA increased, the donor interest and number of projects in primary education increased. The multiplicity of agencies operating projects in the same sub-sector in the same country created diffi culties in developing a holistic picture of educational development. Educational plans in the process of implementation were seen as a number of projects following the varying formats and reporting arrangements of the donor agencies.

The donor community also realized that the parallel structures obstructed consolidated perspectives and action. They too felt the need to harmonize their efforts. Consequently, sector-wide approaches to planning and aid harmonization to improve aid effectiveness were adopted as underlying principles to extend support to EFA. Donor intervention re-focused on supporting national efforts and plans, and much funding support to the education sector moved from project mode to sector budget support or general budget support. This helped to integrate external interventions and funding with national efforts and plans which covered all levels of education, as well as promoting the national governments’ ownership of the programmes.

Further, to some extent the model of traditional national plans has given way to national EFA action plans. Many countries in Africa remain far from the EFA goals. Primary level enrolment is far from universal, and dropout rates keep these countries further away from their targets. Poverty keeps many children away from schools. Some countries have to rely on external funding to overcome defi ciencies in their own capacity to fi nance educational provision.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) further reinforced the focus on universal primary education. The international community reassessed its own roles leading to a change in the international aid architecture. A series of meetings including the Monterrey conference on fi nancing for development (2002), the Rome meeting on aid harmonization (2003), the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Ghana (2008) helped focus on improving aid effectiveness on the one hand, and on the least developed countries on the other hand (Lehmil, 2008; Third High-Level Forum, 2008).

More specifi cally, the resolutions of the 2000 World Education Forum in Dakar stressed the importance of ‘credible’ written plans as a component in the machinery for delivering fi nancial aid (UNESCO,


26


2000: 37). This component became formalised in the procedures of the Fast Track Initiative (FTI), which was established in 2002, and which provided guidelines on indicators which would help to establish credibility. This mechanism, accompanied by considerable fi nancial resources, has given a considerable boost to the processes of planning at the level of basic education in less developed countries. Among the ironies was the fact that industrialised donor countries seemed to demand written documents labelled as plans of a type which were not produced in their own countries.

Accompanying these requirements were other shifts in the architecture of external aid. Many agencies moved from project mode to a sector-wide approach (SWAp), requiring medium-term expenditure frameworks to assure the necessary long-term support for the preparation and implementation of education sector plans. The focus was increasingly on operational plans which were ready to be implemented if fi nancial support was extended. The infl uence of donor support became very visible at all levels of policymaking and planning.

While most of the above-mentioned changes infl uenced policy and planning at the basic education level, secondary and higher education were less favoured for external support and national funding, although this trend is changing now. A set of papers in the Symposium (Atchoaréna, 2008; Jacinto, 2008; Sanyal, 2008) discussed issues related to education and employment. The labour market is constantly changing, and so are the skills demanded. As the number of people enrolling and graduating from secondary and higher education institutions increase, the rate of unemployment of the educated is also on the increase. While it is necessary that all young people should acquire during their stay in school the general basic and fundamental skills for their labour market and social integration, it is also important that the youth seek alternative avenues for skills training. Even the traditional universities are introducing market-friendly courses.

Universities and institutions of higher education have relied on non-state resources for their survival and expansion. While public universities introduced cost-recovery measures, governments also encouraged private institutions of higher education. Cross-border education, very often in collaboration with private institutions of higher education, became an accepted mode of delivery. Strategic plans at the institutional level became tools for resource mobilization in the public


27


universities and a guide to expand the system in the private institutions. Governments have increasingly come to feel that leaving education and its planning to higher education institutions may not be desirable, and many governments have felt it desirable to prepare strategic plans at the national level for the development of higher education.

5. Capacity development for educational planning

The capacity to plan and manage education and learning remains a challenge in many contexts. The regional and national experiences shared in the Symposium showed that some countries that have moved towards decentralization have not had adequate capacity to plan and manage education at the local and institutional levels. Nevertheless, the progress made in terms of developing educational planning capacities is remarkable.

The discussions indicated two types of progress in the area of capacity development. First, most countries have separate departments or units for educational planning within the Ministry of Education. Second, many countries have some kind of institutional arrangement to train educational planners. The training programmes organized by the National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) in Nigeria (Taiwo, 2008) and the National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) in India (Prakash, 2008) are examples of institutions created to develop planning capacity in the area of education. The challenge is to ensure that training and capacity development activities are continuous and that the persons trained are available for planning purposes.

When planning was centralized and controlled by the central ministries of education, the number of personnel engaged in planning was small and the planning competencies were more statistical and technique-oriented. It was easy to identify and train people, as IIEP had been doing in the 1960s and 1970s. With decentralization, the numbers of people to be trained and the types of skills required have changed. Plan documents, while remaining technical documents, also became symbols of consensus-building and the participatory process.

With learning becoming the core concern, results at the institutional level became more important. The traditional planner’s role became more limited. Academic support to schools and institutions is as important as budgetary allocations. The educational planner at this stage needs more pedagogical orientation than in the earlier situations.


28


In many countries, structures providing academic support to schools and individual teachers have been developed. One of the papers (De Grauwe, 2008) discussed the school-site supervision model as it exists in Scandinavia and in some states of the USA. Similarly, the block resource centres (BRCs) and cluster resource centres (CRCs) in India (Prakash, 2008) extend pedagogical support to teachers at the level of basic education.

The focus of capacity development has tended to be more on individuals and less on institutions (Chung, 2008: 5). Individual contributions can be maximized when their professional skills integrate well with the architecture of the socio-political, institutional and legal framework existing in a country. While the training of individuals can be a good mode of capacity development, the efforts need to go beyond this by focusing on institutions specializing in educational planning and on university departments of education. The Ethiopian case presented by Kelemework (2008) is a clear example of both potential and constraints in this respect. At the same time, new technologies can be harnessed for new

approaches. Electricity supplies may still not reach rural areas in low-income countries, and internet connections are still far from universal. However, the internet is at least available with reasonable reliability in the majority of capital cities and the majority of Ministries of Education. It has thus become possible for IIEP, among other actors, to use it as a tool for distance education to supplement face-to-face interactions. (Göttelmann-Duret and Mählck, 2008)

6. Postscript

A few months after the July 2008 Symposium, major cracks became evident in the international economy. The fi nancial crisis commenced in the USA and then spread worldwide at great speed. The events precipitated a global economic downturn of a magnitude not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

These events were no more foreseen by participants in the Symposium than by other actors around the world. In some respects, however, they underlined messages in the Symposium about the importance of wider economic frameworks as a context for the work of planners. They also highlighted the vulnerability of systems to unexpected shocks. The events showed that in the 21st century the


29


forces of globalization have brought tighter cross-national linkages than had previously been the case, and that repercussions can escalate with great speed. Since the crisis was perceived to have been precipitated by irresponsible behaviour in parts of the private sector, it led to calls for greater government regulation and for a rolling back of the trend of a diminished role for the state. At the same time, ironically, the crisis required governments to allocate considerable resources to bail out the private sector and in particular the banking sector.

For IIEP, the crisis underlined the importance of training planners who can react rapidly and responsibly in changing circumstances but who can also keep a sense of priorities. Among these priorities are the needs of the poor in systems which, if left to themselves, are more likely to serve the middle-income and rich. In turn, these needs demand various value choices as well as technical competence.

The 1960s were characterized by a high degree of optimism, belief in grand models of development, and a general agreement on the desirability of strong state action. Educational planning fl ourished during this period, focusing on macro-planning and relying on national budgets. The context subsequently changed. The role of the state in development was questioned, state funding was reduced, and many non-state actors emerged. As a result, by the fi rst decade of the 21st century the fi eld was also defi ned by decentralized approaches, local plans and concern for improved institutional performance. The global economic crisis brought some fundamental reassessments of the role of the state, and some reversion of the swing of the pendulum in this respect. At the same time, the crisis underlined the extent to which national and sub-national planners must take account of global forces.

References

Atchoaréna, D. 2008. “Au-delà de l’éducation: Le chemin incertain de l’école à l’emploi”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Balde, A. 2008. “Macro planifi cation et micro planifi cation: centralisation et décentralisation”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.


30


Becker, G.S. 1964. Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blaug, M. 1972. An introduction to the economics of education. London: Penguin.

Bray, M. 1984. Educational planning in a decentralised system: The Papua New Guinean experience. Waigani: University of Papua New Guinea Press, and Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Bray, M. 1996. Decentralization of education: Community fi nancing. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Bray, M. 2008. “Evolution in the fi eld of educational planning: Four milestones in the work of IIEP”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Caillods, F. (Ed.) 1989. The prospects for educational planning: a workshop organized by IIEP on the occasion of its XXVth anniversary. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).

Caillods, F., Caselli, J., Porte, G.; Ta Ngoc, C. 1983. School mapping and micro planning: training modules. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Caillods, F., Kelly, M.J.; Tournier, B. 2008. HIV and AIDS: challenges and approaches within the Education Sector. IIEP Brief for Planners. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Carron, G.; Ta Ngoc, C. (Eds.) 1980. Regional disparities in educational development: a controversial issue. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Chang, G.C. 2008. “Strategic planning in education: some concepts and methods”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Chung, F. 2008. “Education, poverty and development”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.


31


Chenery, H., Bowan, I.; Svikhart, B.J. (Eds.) 1974. Redistribution with growth: policies to improve income distribution in developing countries in the context of economic growth. London: Oxford University Press.

Coombs, P.H. 1970. What is educational planning? Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 1, Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Da Costa, I. 2008. “Macro-micro planifi cation: des nouveaux défi s pour l’éducation?”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

De Grauwe, A. 2008. “School supervision and equity”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Denison, E.F. 1962. The sources of economic growth in the United States and the alternatives before us. New York: Committee for Economic Development.

Diallo, A.B. 2008. “La planifi cation de l’éducation dans les pays en développement en Afrique du Sud du Sahara”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Farrell, J. 1997. “A retrospective on educational planning in comparative education”. In: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.277-313.

Farrell, J. 2008. “Educational planning into the future: A refl ection”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Fredriksen, B. 1981. “Progress towards regional targets for universal primary education: a statistical review”. In: International Journal of Educational Development, 1(1): 1-16.

Genevois, I. 2008. “Can and should public private partnerships play a role in education?” Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.


32


Göttelmann-Duret, G.; Mählck, L. 2008. “Capacity development in educational planning: the role of IIEP distance education”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Govinda, R. 2008. “Non-formal education poverty and development”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Hallak, J. 1977. Planning the location of schools: an instrument of educational policy. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Harbison, F.H.; Myers, C.A. 1964. Education, manpower, and economic growth: Strategies of human resource development. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hernes, G. 2008. “Education and epidemics”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Hite, S. 2008. “School mapping and geographical information systems in education micro-planning”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Jacinto, C. 2008. “What can be learned from Latin American strategies in disadvantaged youth training for work? Some thoughts based on research”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Kelemework, T. 2008. “Educational planning and capacity development in Ethiopia”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Kelly, M. 2000. Planning for education in the context of HIV/AIDS. Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 66, Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.


33


Lehmil, L. 2008. “Working towards aid effectiveness: recent policy reforms and practices in education”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Lewin, K. 1987. Education in austerity: options for planners. Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 36, Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Lewin, K. 2008. “Four decades of educational planning: Retrospect and prospect”. Paper presented at the SSymposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Lugaz, C. 2008. “Participation des communautés et accès à l’éducation des groupes défavorisés”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Lugaz, C.; De Grauwe, A. 2006. École et décentralisation: résultats d’une recherche en Afrique francophone de l’Ouest. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Machabeli, G.; Bregvadze, T. 2008. “Capacity development for educational planning in the Caucasus region: Challenges and perspectives”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Majumdar, T. 1983. Investment in education and social choice. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

McGinn, N.; Welch, T. 1999. Decentralization of education: why, when, what and how? Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 64, Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Parnes, H.S. 1966 Forecasting educational needs for economic and social development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Péano, S. 2008. “Les questions fi nancières dans la planifi cation de l’éducation”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.


34


Poggi, M. 2008. “Educational planning in Latin America: New perspectives for traditional issues”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Prakash, V. 2008. “Changing landscape of educational planning in India”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Psacharopoulos, G.; Patrinos, H.A. 2004. “Returns to investment in education: a further update”. In: Education Economics, 12(2): 111-134.

Psacharopoulos, G.; Woodhall, M. 1985. Education for development: an analysis of investment choices. New York: Oxford University Press.

Robbins Report 1963. Higher education: report of the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Offi ce.

Rostow, W.W. 1960. The stages of growth: a non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sanyal, B. 2008. “Education and employment”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Schultz, T.W. 1961. “Investment in human capital”. In: American Economic Review, Vol. 51, pp.1-17. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Sen, A.K. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taiwo, A. 2008. “Capacity development for planning in Nigeria”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.


35


Third High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness 2008. Accra Agenda for Action. Accra: Third High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness.

UNESCO 2000. World education forum, Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April 2000: fi nal report. Paris: UNESCO.

Uyttersprot, I. 2008. “Financing education systems”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Varghese, N.V. 1996. “Decentralization of educational planning in India: the case of the District Primary Education Programme”. In: International Journal of Educational Development, 16(4): 355-365.

Varghese, N.V. 1997. “School mapping”, Module No. 8. In: N.V. Varghese (Ed.) Modules in district planning in education. New Concept (for NIEPA). New Delhi: National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration.

Varghese, N.V. 2008. “State is the problem and state is the solution: Changing orientations in educational planning”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.


REPORTS ON THE WORKING GROUPS

The Symposium had both plenary sessions and working groups. The presentations in the plenary sessions focused on major themes and broad issues, and the working groups addressed more specifi c topics. The themes for the working groups were clustered around:

educational planning; 1. education, poverty and development; and2. education fi nancing. 3.

The following reports summarize the discussions in each group.


39

GROUP 1. MACRO-PLANNING AND MICRO-PLANNING

Michaela Martin, Igor Kitaev and Mioko Saito

Within the Symposium, a cluster of papers focused on issues of macro-planning and micro-planning. Participants noted articulations between the two domains in a range of contexts, and included specifi c commentary on techniques, trends and capacity development. The presentations were rich and varied.

1. Planning techniques and trends

The changing role of the stateEducational planning has undergone major shifts in orientation since the 1960s when educational planning evolved as an important activity at the national level. One area in which the changing perception is very obvious concerns the role of the state. In broad terms, though obviously with variations in different communities, the following shifts have occurred.• During the 1970s, the focus shifted from planning for expansion

and provision of inputs (such as buildings, teachers and textbooks), which was the initial approach used in educational planning, to regional and group disparities and equity.

• During the 1980s, stronger focus was directed to the relationship between education and the labour market.

• During the 1990s, the educational process (teaching and learning, and the concern with learning outcomes) became an important issue. State actors were replaced or supplemented by non-state actors. The period also experienced an important and sometimes dominant role by international donor organizations in national contexts.

• More recently, within the context of the MDGs and poverty reduction, the new millennium has brought renewed focus on the role of the state in planning with the state (ministries of education) and being in charge of organizing the process of coordinating multiple actors (donors, national stakeholders and other ministries).


40


The state, which used to be the main provider and organizer of educational services, was pushed back in importance during the 1980s and 1990s, and the market became a stronger actor. It seems that the role of the state is now being re-emphasised.

Decentralization and participationThe move towards decentralization in planning and management of education was considered to be common in most the regions of the world, but has taken different forms. In Senegal, for example, the move was towards the regionalization of planning and administrative responsibilities. There has been a concurrent move of decentralization to the regions, and delegation of authority to lower levels of the educational administration. In the Caucasus, by contrast, reforms have been more radical and much of the decision-making authority has been transferred to the schools.

The issue of disparities needs to be addressed at both policy and implementation levels. Affi rmative actions, positive discrimination and compensatory programmes are among guiding frameworks to promote equity. However, measures to promote equity have sometimes encountered resistance, which demands sensitization. The decision-makers seldom belong to groups which suffer from discrimination. They are more likely to belong to the elite groups who continue to benefi t from inequalities in society.

The participation of communities in decision-making can improve access to the education of disadvantaged groups. Finding the right way to communicate with local communities may help the authorities to improve school operation. Equity can be signifi cantly enhanced by participation if school boards properly represent the stakeholders, including women.

The discussion also focused on school supervision as an instrument to improve equity. Cultures of organizations can be extremely strong, especially when these organizations are made up of well-qualifi ed professionals and when these professionals have gained access to this organization through having shown respect for this culture. This is very much the case with supervisors, generally chosen from among the teachers who show the greatest respect for rules and regulations. Their profession consists mainly of imposing respect for these same rules. This leads to a strong corporate culture, resistant to reform from the outside.


41

Reports on the working groups

Despite all of the positive impact and long years of experience of introducing decentralization, the following problems seem to persist:• insuffi ciently trained staff at the decentralized level;• inadequate and frequently unreliable information tools;• problems of coordination at the local level of elected representatives

with delegated education authorities;• lack of stakeholder involvement at the decentralized levels.

One diffi culty confronted in many instances is a lack of formalized communication processes between different levels of administrative structures, both upstream and downstream. As a consequence, the decentralization of educational planning in many countries has not been able to become an effective practice to improve the effi ciency of delivery systems in education.

The decentralization process increased the number of actors involved in the process, many of whom are neither trained nor experienced in the new roles. Consequently, it generated an increased demand for training in educational planning at all levels of educational administration. However, the training systems in many countries have not succeeded in responding favourably to these demands.

Tools for educational planningThe main challenge remains to fi nd ways and means that allow for more effective coordination of planning activities at different levels of the education system. The need for reliable information systems to carry out the tasks at the decentralized levels was emphasized during the discussions. Discussions on the use of computerized tools for micro-planning focused on the potential of the Geographical Information System (GIS). Some felt that GIS is only a technical tool, albeit one that can upscale planning work from simply a technical perspective, and that it has the limited potential of changing the nature of the planning process itself, in particular with a view to making it more participative. In most developing countries at present, GIS, when it is used, is mainly a technical tool used by public administration. Decentralization envisages the planning process to be participative and local-specifi c. Doubts were raised about the potential of GIS to broaden the scope for the planning process beyond technical dimensions and to elicit local participation in educational planning and greater stakeholder involvement.


42


It was pointed out during the discussions that strategic planning became commonly accepted during the 1990s in response to the changing context of educational planning. Compared to planning for other socio-economic sectors, planning for education has become more complex. Given their limited fi scal capacities, governments are not able to meet the ever-increasing social demand for education and hence are seeking alternatives to public fi nancing to expand educational provisions. Consequently, non-public institutions have become active in the provision of education in many countries. Planning for education has thus become more complex, involving a multiplicity of providers and agencies – a diversifi ed set of stakeholders. Educational planners need to possess diverse and specialized skills and competences to mediate with the multiple stakeholders. The planning process also involves seeking alternatives before choosing the appropriate strategy for the development of education.

Quality and learner achievements Educational planning has also been affected by an increasing international concern for the quality of education. The focus of research studies and surveys has been on the levels of learner achievement in mathematics and languages and factors infl uencing variations in learner achievement. Questions may be raised about relying on this indicator to assess the quality of education. For example, is student achievement a reliable and suffi cient enough measure of quality of education? What about attitudes and non-cognitive outcomes? The conclusion seems to be that although learner achievement is not a universally-accepted measure of quality of education, it is a commonly accepted measure and helps to monitor quality at the national and institutional levels.

New emphasis on post-primary education EFA efforts showed the basic education level as the priority sector for the planning and fi nancing of education. To some extent, it meant that other types and levels (technical or vocational education and training, pre-school, tertiary) received less attention. However, with the success of universalization of primary education, the secondary and higher levels face more pressure for expansion. This raises the following challenges:


43


• the need to regulate student fl ows and to stream them towards different and appropriate channels at the level of secondary education;

• choices to be made between general secondary curricula and more specialized technical and vocational courses, taking into account employment prospects;

• increased concern with the analysis of employment opportunities and the incomes of graduates of different levels that change over time.

2. Capacity development for educational planning

The discussions indicated that there is renewed interest in educational planning and that it is primarily due to new fi nancing modalities and tools for the development of basic education which re-emphasize planning. For example, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) required by some agencies demand a more inter-sectoral approach to planning, and more horizontal and vertical coordination. Similarly, the new fi nancial modalities also request more reporting (such as annual review exercises) and, as a consequence, planning departments take a reinforced role in monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

In relation to the capacity development agenda, on several occasions, participants alluded to the issue of the ‘professional status of the educational planner’ and asked whether it would be possible to defi ne a corps of knowledge and techniques at the national or international level to be mastered. The chief constraint is that there is great variation of professional realities faced by educational planners from one country to another (depending on administrative contexts, the linkage between planning and decision-making and available tools).

The tension between the provision of formalized learning opportunities and professional mobility (planners leaving their job once they are trained) was also highlighted. Given the above, there is a need to defi ne fl exible opportunities for collaborative learning in educational planning, to stress teamwork and to work with organizations, as is done through the IIEP distance education provision. There is also increased awareness that training should change the workplace behaviour and develop not only individuals, but also institutions (and even possibly systems).


44


3. The practice of educational planning

The practice of educational planning depends on the level of development of education and the focus in educational policy. Regional experiences vary with regard to the focus of policy and planning. In Latin America, social inequality is a major issue and is closely related to the provision of educational facilities and access to education. The probability of success in the education system is higher if one belongs to the top quintile of the population (especially when compared to the lowest quintile). Except at the primary level, which is practically universalized, coverage rates are directly related to the income levels and to the ‘social capital’ of families. Access conditions are signifi cantly higher in urban than in rural areas, and inequalities tend to increase with the level of the educational system (higher secondary and university) and with regard to early childhood education (three and four years old), where access is strongly infl uenced by the social origins of students.

The Symposium had several presentations on the practice of educational planning, and included specifi c focus on Albania, Georgia, Nigeria and Tunisia. Two national case studies on the practice of educational planning were presented as contrasting cases: India in the context of a specialized planning institution, and Ethiopia in the context of no having specialized institution. Since the 1960s, India has moved from a centralized model of planning to a more decentralized and multi-level model with more emphasis on sustainability in the planning capacity. The National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) has had huge responsibilities in capacity development at all levels (including policy formation, information systems, networking, and dissemination. NUEPA trains over 1,600 persons annually all over India (at federal, state and district levels) in addition to personnel from other Asian and African countries.

In Ethiopia, by contrast, a lack of capacity has been recognized by the government and donors. Government efforts in capacity development were not very successful primarily due to the problem of high staff turnover. Although a majority of the trained staff proved to be effective planners, about half of them left the planning position. In some cases, political considerations outweighed qualifi cations and competencies when staff were recruited, and major staff turnover resulted from reshuffl ing of staff, poor work relations, and poor incentives. The country also lacked an adequate institutional structure


45


to provide direct training or the training of trainers on a sustainable basis. It was argued that solutions to the Ethiopian problem lie more with the government than with donors. There is a need for strategic thinking about the reorganization of education; merit-based assignments and the recognition of achievement; the institutionalization of capacity development as part of broader organizational development policies; and improved leadership and work relations.


47

GROUP 2. EDUCATION, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT

Anton De Grauwe

1. Education and economic development: a complex debate

‘Education contributes to development’ is an axiom that is regularly presented to advocate for increased investment in Education for All (EFA). The argument is especially heard in the present context when other priorities such as the food crisis, water scarcity and climate change compete for resources. Yet rapid educational expansion and the lessening of disparities in access to schooling have not been systematically followed by economic development and decreased poverty. Rather, in some cases economic disparities have increased. The most problematic examples come from sub-Saharan Africa.

The regional conferences organized by UNESCO in the early 1960s fi xed the target of universal primary education by 1980. The Addis Ababa Conference of 1961 re-affi rmed this target, and the continent’s leaders committed their countries to reaching universal primary education by 1980. Between 1960 and 1980, education in sub-Saharan Africa achieved impressive expansion. But this expansion did not translate into signifi cant social and economic progress.

It is not so much a lack of effort in the education sector but rather the lack of social progress (in the absence of which women tend to have more children) that explains the failure to achieve EFA. What may be worse in some cases, is that education may have had a negative impact and may have been a source of counter-development. Education systems have been used for racist and other discriminatory purposes. The continued discrimination against girls and women, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, as commented upon by Chung (2008) and by Wilson (2008), pervades both social and education systems. In Latin America, gender discrimination is less evident, but social disparities in which indigenous groups are the main victims remain severe.

The impact of education on development is therefore neither direct nor universal. Nonetheless, research on the importance of human capital in economic development has once again strengthened the arguments to defend the link ‘education–human and economic development–poverty eradication’. Govinda (2008: 2-3) pointed out that historically


48


countries which have invested in education have benefi ted in terms of better economic growth and reduced poverty. He added that: It is now widely accepted that investment in human capital is

one of the important keys to break the poverty cycle. In fact, discourses on poverty articulated in the last ten years, including the now familiar concept of ‘Human Development Index’, have signifi cantly expanded the contours of our understanding of the relationship between education and development. Not only are basic levels of health and education the right of the poor, they are also important in accelerating poverty reduction, as they allow the poor to take advantage of the opportunities created by economic growth. But in many countries, the poor have less physical and economic access to education and health services than the non-poor, resulting in lower rates of utilization and hence worse health and literacy outcomes. There is thus a vicious circle of poverty leading to ill health, malnutrition, and illiteracy, which in turn perpetuate poverty.

Therefore the conclusion to draw from research evidence is not that education does not contribute to economic development, but that it only does so under certain circumstances. Only if human resources are appropriately used will the potential of education be realized. The fact that in many countries the necessary links have not been achieved effectively is refl ected in the persistent unemployment of the educated – a theme which was raised by many speakers in the Symposium. Even in OECD countries, the problem of youth unemployment, including among the well-educated, remains a major concern to policy-makers.

It was pointed out during the Symposium that IIEP’s own research has included focus on the link between education and employment. Sanyal (2008) noted that the fi rst symposium organized by IIEP in 1966 discussed this relationship and asked what educational planners can do to enhance the positive effect of educational development on employment. Françoise Caillods’ early research focused on the same question. Sanyal recalled a project entitled ‘Education, employment and work’ launched in 1975, which aimed to help measure the correlation between education and work and thereby improve the methods used in planning human resources (Hallak and Caillods, 1980).

The paper by Atchoaréna (2008:1) contains data on the extent of youth unemployment. According to the International Labour Offi ce (ILO), Atchoaréna pointed out, in 2005 some 85 million young people


49


were unemployed. This was an increase of nearly 15 per cent compared with a decade earlier. The industrialized countries did not escape this problem, and in the European Union the rate of unemployment among youth was 2.3 times greater than that in the adult population as a whole.

A group of many well-qualifi ed young people with high hopes and dreams of enviable careers could become a source of social unrest if the economy is unable to provide even simple jobs and when their dreams turn into nightmares. None of this is entirely new: the problem of unemployment in Sri Lanka, among other countries, formed the basis of Dore’s well-known (1976) book, The diploma disease. The present situation in Latin America is somewhat reminiscent of Dore’s scenario: the expansion of access to secondary education has rendered a secondary school qualifi cation nearly valueless, and for some countries where higher education reaches a signifi cant number of students, this is now also true for an upper secondary qualifi cation. As Jacinto (2008: 4) pointed out: In Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, over the 1990s, the active

population which completed secondary education alone has been the most affected by the increase of unemployment. Post-secondary education certifi cates seem to be the only real protection against unemployment and the rampant informality. As the job market deterioration has coincided with the expansion of secondary education, secondary degrees no longer guarantee access to decent jobs, even if they are nowadays a requirement.

2. Questions of content and context

The Symposium presentations looked at the broad relationships between education, the world of work and poverty. They did not cover the whole debate, but offered some responses to the question why more education does not automatically translate into greater development. These responses related to the content of education and the context in which it is delivered.

Concerning content, two points came up with some regularity. First, it remains a challenge in many countries to offer science education of high quality, i.e. up-to-date and providing the students not only with knowledge but with the necessary skills while enhancing attitudes of creativity and curiosity. The provision of high-quality science education is diffi cult because it is expensive and demands well-qualifi ed science


50


teachers who are diffi cult to attract. The second content-related point concerns the increased attention given to education for life skills. Some presenters at the Symposium interpreted the shift from skills in general to the less employment-related concept of ‘life skills’ (HIV and AIDS prevention; health education; human rights and social issues; and violence prevention) as an expression of doubt about the education-employment link and as diluting the message that education needs to contribute to economic progress.

Relations between students and teachers in schools, of course, to some extent refl ect power relations in society, and may confi rm rather than diminish socio-economic disparities. Wilson’s (2008) paper on gender-based violence highlighted the extent to which schools in South Africa can confi rm and exacerbate social injustices when teachers become perpetrators of abuse and rely on their positions of power to obtain sexual favours.

Another contextual factor relates to changes in the job market: the fairly straightforward path which allowed students after graduation to enter the job market almost immediately for a steady job no longer exists. Atchoaréna (2008: 3) described this profound change by remarking that today the processes of transition for young people cannot be understood as a linear passage leading from school to work. A signifi cant proportion of young people follow their studies while working; but periods of retraining are more common than before as job security becomes less certain. These changes in the job market structure, accompanied by downsizing of the public service in developing countries, means that graduates need more than simply a degree to get a job. This makes the path from education to work more complex and diffi cult to grasp and control.

The third contextual factor is probably the most important: education is only one of the assets that the poor and disadvantaged need for progress in society and to overcome the disparities of which they suffer. Other assets may, in certain contexts, be more important. Respect for the rule of law, security of property, access to affordable credit, existence of a basic infrastructure or access to markets are in a number of cases better explanations for continued poverty than the lack of education. Chung (2008) emphasized that the signifi cant improvements in educational indicators in sub-Saharan African countries have not been accompanied everywhere by an improvement in human rights. Govinda (2008: 15) stressed that ‘mere acquisition of skills will not


51


do’. Access to fi nancial institutions and availability of credit is critical, and programmes that combine skill building with facilitating access to credit seem to stand out as successful efforts.

Many of these programmes, Govinda added, emphasize the need for the poor to be organized into self-help groups with micro-fi nancing as a critical component. This is not of course a new fi nding. Many studies on the Grameen Bank programme of micro-credit to women in Bangladesh and similar initiatives elsewhere have demonstrated the value of such efforts in improving the economic status and overall quality of life of the people. Even in OECD countries, where there is respect for basic human rights and where the state has put tools in place to help the most disadvantaged, the more elusive access to social capital (which may include networks of personal contacts, access to relevant information, mastery of attitudes which are positively interpreted by future employers and mastery of the ‘correct’ vocabulary) are impediments for many youngsters, and this is one of the core reasons why youth unemployment is still concentrated among the lower social classes. In Latin America, Jacinto observed (2008: 11) that “disadvantaged youth who begin vocational training programmes without having fi nished their secondary education are often lacking in basic ‘transferable’ skills which can be applied to a variety of situations, not only because they dropped out at a certain level, but also because the schools they attended were not good enough”.

Against this background, some Symposium participants felt that the theme of ‘education and employment’, and its implications for educational planning, occupied little space on the international agenda because of the scepticism about the role of education in economic development. This scepticism may also help explain the present emphasis on education as a human right. Indeed, if education is considered a basic human right, then there is less need to defend investing in it for economic reasons. However, what makes education as a human right different from the right to free speech or freedom of religion is evidently that it is expensive and demands heavy investment by the state. Justifying such investment requires judgement in terms of cost-effectiveness, which brings considerations back to the debate about education as a source of economic progress.


52


3. Characteristics of innovative programmes

The Symposium presentations introduced participants to a number of innovative programmes which have been successful in reducing poverty barriers and in linking education more closely to the world of work. Most of these belong to the non-formal education sector or are part of technical and vocational education. They have three distinguishing characteristics. First, the curriculum they attempt to transmit goes beyond theoretical

knowledge or even specifi c technical skills, to include what could be called transversal skills, of more importance in the unsure labour market that graduates will face. In addition to transmitting the basic skills of literacy and mathematics, they attempt to transmit skills in reasoning and relating. Jacinto (2008: 13) identifi ed the combination of technical and personal training as well as social and personal skills as one of the key characteristics of promising strategies:

Many programmes have ... developed modules on livelihood and social skills, consisting of 40 to 200 one-hour training programmes intended to develop skills on interaction and work-related practices and attitudes, the contents of which have even been addressed in widely distributed manuals.... They usually consist in workshops oriented to operative abilities such as how to face interviews, strategies for job seeking, work interview techniques, résumé preparation, and self-esteem. These modules also provide information about labour rights, and profi tability in different professions. It is also intended to support the construction of a self-made career project and the balance of skills.

A second characteristic of these programmes is that the teaching staff are mindful that they are working with disadvantaged youth who may have backgrounds of confl ict and low self-esteem. The teachers therefore tend to be more than just teachers. They offer guidance and counselling, give close and individualized attention, and above all show respect for each and every individual student. More than teachers, they are ‘educators’.

Thirdly, these programmes are more fl exible than traditional schools, with their strict weekly and yearly timetables and their infl exible class structures. The programmes adapt their organization so that it fi ts with the students’ constraints and possibilities. Very important is the


53


attention given to the period immediately following the training, when the graduates are expected to look for jobs. The successful programmes tend to either provide support through job placement services or to integrate this job search period into the training programme. Some examples can be given from both Latin America and Asia.

In Latin America, a recent innovation is the introduction of job placement services, more and more integrated within programme design. As described by Jacinto (2008: 13): In training and employment programmes that introduce these

services, each youth receives support for a period of six months to one year after training. Job placement activities are the responsibility of the training centre. The importance of these services is multiple. In a sense, they provide contacts to youth searching jobs and contribute to match the enterprise’s demands with the youth profi les. Often, they act in the selection process advising both the enterprises and the youngsters. But more than that, these services also intervene at the fi rst stages of youth job insertion. It is known that youngsters sometimes lose their jobs because they ignore the codes, roles and routine practices of their work places and therefore are disappointed with or disappointing to their employer.

Jacinto added that when a job placement service is available, if a trainee loses a job the training centre provides assistance in fi nding a new job. The training centre also tries to fi nd out what caused the redundancy from the previous job, and gives the ex-employee feedback. Assistance may also include additional training to develop skills, knowledge and attitudes which will facilitate the trainee’s goal to obtain and keep a new job.

Similarly, in Asia, according to Govinda (2008: 12) a common feature of the programmes is the long association that the organizations maintain with their participants and the institutional support they offer in the post-training period. One typical example is the Women in Enterprise Development Programme in the Philippines. It offers four kinds of follow-up support to the trainees: (a) fi nancial assistance in the form of credit; (b) marketing assistance through product display facilities and technical assistance in packaging; (c) cooperative formation assistance by helping former trainees to come together under the umbrella of multi-purpose cooperatives; and (d) technical assistance and consultancy on a continued basis for further development.


54


In OECD countries, apprenticeship schemes have traditionally been the most successful in linking education to work and thus in strengthening the relationship between education on the one hand, and individual progress and social development on the other hand. However, as Atchoaréna demonstrated (2008: 5), these schemes are now also faced with the need for reform. Innovative models have generally respected the following principles, which are in line with the three characteristics identifi ed above: • Make learning more attractive and wider in its application, beyond

the traditional trades to the new and expanding sectors;• Modify the age limits for learning in order to permit training that

is less linear in approach in order to serve new categories of young people;

• Make training modular, in order to promote fl exibility and have weight to transversal competencies and encourage both professional mobility and lifelong learning;

• Involve partners in specifi cation of norms and in evaluation of structures and training;

• Construct pathways of learning to higher education and further study.A fi nal characteristic of successful programmes in both developing

and developed countries is more problematic, namely that they remain exceptions and are defi ned mainly by what they are not – they are non-formal and they focus on the dis-advantaged. The challenge is not simply to integrate them into the formal system, by creating pathways and common qualifi cation frameworks, but to change the formal system by adopting some of the above-mentioned characteristics.

4. Education and equity

Underlying the discussion in the Symposium was an even more fundamental challenge: how can education become part of a global social policy focusing on equity and the fi ght against poverty? Education may not on its own lead to development and a decline in poverty, but the same is true of health on its own, or infrastructure, or any other intervention, which does not form part of an integrated development policy. As Govinda (2008: 21) pointed out: merely working with the poor and building their capabilities will

not guarantee poverty alleviation even with the best programmes of income generation. Creating access to public institutions that


55


serve the interests of the people is critical. This is particularly true of providing access to sources of credit and fi nancing. But creating such positive mindset among those who manage such institutions cannot be a one-way process. Success of operations involving support from fi nancial institutions is often dependent on mobilizing and organizing the poor so that they can develop suffi cient confi dence to save, borrow, and invest.

This raises the fi nal issue of the actors responsible for an equity-focused policy. While partnerships are necessary, the design and implementation of such a policy is very much the responsibility of the state. Indeed, as the paper by Genevois (2008) on public–private partnerships pointed out, such mechanisms run the risk of disregarding issues of equity and equality if they are not well-regulated by the public authorities. While efforts by individuals and by partners have their role to play, the state has to make sure that the playing fi eld is level. One way of doing so is to ensure that education contributes to equity. This however demands a capable state which is recognized as a legitimate and development-oriented actor, a state which has the resources and the capacities to offer support to the neediest and to regulate private actors. Unfortunately, the state in the least developed countries is weak, with little outreach in remote regions or among the poorest groups. In some cases, the state has been kidnapped by criminal elites or by thugs mainly interested in personal enrichment. Building effective states which develop equitable policies is in the least developed countries a precondition to developing a sustainable education system that contributes to economic and social development and to reducing poverty.

References

Atchoaréna, D. 2008. “Au-delà de l’éducation : le chemin incertain de l’école à l’emploi”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Chung, F. 2008. “Education, poverty and development”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Dore, R.P. 1976. The diploma disease. Berkeley: University of California Press.


56


Genevois, I. 2008. “Can and should public private partnerships play a role in education?” Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Govinda, R. 2008. “Non-formal education poverty and development”. Paper presented at theSymposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Hallak, J.; Caillods, F. (Eds.) 1980. Education, work and employment. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

International Labour Offi ce 2006. Global employment trends for youth. Geneva: International Labour Offi ce.

Jacinto, C. 2008. “What can be learned from Latin American strategies in disadvantaged youth training for work? Some thoughts based on research”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Sanyal, B.C. 2008. “Education and employment”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.

Wilson, F. 2008. “Girl’s education movement: Pilot study on gender-based violence in South Africa”. Paper presented at the Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, 3-4 July.


57

GROUP 3. FINANCING EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Serge Péano

1. The changing context of educational fi nancing

The Symposium provided an opportunity to consider the changes that have occurred over the last decades in the fi eld of education fi nancing as much as other sectors. The objectives of education have become more broad and ambitious, and the principal challenge facing the sector is to fi nd the necessary resources to allow for quantitative expansion and qualitative improvement of the system.

The debates on fi nancing of education initiated during IIEP’s 25th anniversary in 1988 were infl uenced by the then economic crisis. The solutions suggested therein included better use of the available resources, reducing unit costs, cost sharing between families, local communities and the state, and the need to target basic education and education of disadvantaged groups. The policy options exercised by many governments in the 1990s and 2000s incorporated many of these suggestions.

The context has undoubtedly changed during the last decade as refl ected in increasing economic constraints on public spending on education at a time when larger number of people with greater aspirations are seeking education. The actors involved in providing education have proliferated, planning and management of education have been decentralized, aid modalities have changed, and budgetary reforms are in place. The challenge lies also in establishing better articulation between aspirations, objectives, expenditures and results. • Many countries in the 1980s and 1990s experienced constraints

in public spending, and particularly on education, due to the measures adopted during the structural adjustment programmes. This resulted in degradation of public schooling, even when the focus on basic education to some extent helps in preserving the public education system.

• The concept of Education for All has extended from primary education to basic education. This implied that a larger number of people remain in the education system for longer number of years,


58


there is a greater demand for quality, and greater pressure on other levels of education to expand.

• Education systems are often fi nanced by partnerships between three groups of agents: governments (in particular the central governments); families and communities; and partners in development (multilateral or bilateral cooperation organisms, or NGOs). Families and communities have been encouraged to contribute to school costs through cost-sharing or cost-recovery mechanisms. The private sector has gained ground by offering an alternative, reputed to be of better quality, to a rather urban clientele concerned about the education of their children. However, there have been efforts to lower the economic barrier to education in order to increase access to children from poor families. The UNICEF and World Bank initiative to abolish school fees is one example of such efforts.

• There has also been an increasing tendency to adopt deconcentrated and decentralized management methods. Even if taxation systems remain for the most part national, local actors, civil servants or elected bodies have gradually been given greater autonomy.

• External aid modalities have been drastically changed, from a project approach to a sectoral approach, with the aim of better articulating the efforts of the state with those of their development partners. It is important to note the increased number of planning activities required of governments: strategic poverty reduction frameworks, the Millennium Development Goals, the Education for All goals and action plans. These planning documents are often added to national plans. The necessity to develop medium-term expenditure frameworks and to adopt a general budget has also increased the intricacy of fi nancial planning activities.

• Performance measurements have become a concern for state fi nancing processes. Budgets have been developed according to programme in an effort to link objectives with expenditures. This goes hand in hand with the need to measure the effi ciency of public spending, which also therefore requires linking expenditures with results using performance indicators. As a result of these developments, measuring spending and costs,

anticipating future needs and defi ning adapted fi nancing strategies for greater effi ciency are among the challenges faced today, as previously, in an increasingly diverse and complex environment that is more demanding in terms of needs and performance.


59


2. Financing an expanding system of education

The participants in the Symposium felt that the objectives assigned to education systems have multiplied. Furthermore, compulsory education is now understood as basic education for all, as opposed to just primary education, and covering some post-primary education. Keith Lewin’s paper highlighted the challenge of fi nancing secondary education expansion: “After the Jomtien conference it was clear that, though UPE and,

more generally, EFA was indeed a priority in those countries farthest from its realisation, development required a balanced pattern of educational investment across educational levels.”

“Most obviously rapid growth in access and participation to primary schooling would generate demand for post primary schooling…”

“Without balanced growth in access to secondary transition rates would fall and universal primary completion rates would fail to materialize.”

“But secondary schooling in poor countries was widely expensive both in terms of public costs and to households ...”

“Though the rights-based case to deliver on the right to education for all was unassailable as a principle, in practice it assumed that suffi cient resources would be available (indefi nitely), that growing aid dependence was not a serious concern, and that growth linked to increased knowledge and skill would occur. But in countries where less than 10 per cent of the labour force had completed secondary schooling successfully it was never clear where such growth would come from, what aspects of national educational investment strategy would support increased value added in knowledge intensive sectors of the economy, and what the opportunity costs would be of privileging the completion of the last child of primary schooling over investment at higher levels. Economic growth would not depend on the enrolments of the most marginalized and most excluded children in primary education. Poverty reduction linked to growth as well as redistribution seemed to require more equitable access and participation to post primary educational opportunities and specifi cally to secondary schooling.”

3. Partnerships and development of aid mechanisms

The word ‘partnership’ has become a key word in educational discourses. It includes parents and communities, public and private


60


sectors, and external partnerships. Of all the current preoccupations, the most keenly felt is probably the evolution of aid mechanisms from the project to the sectoral approach to common funds, and the development of budgetary support mechanisms. Contributions from Iris Uyttersprot and from Linda Lehmil showed that these mechanisms should be adapted to individual countries’ contexts and that fl exibility in this area is essential.

The transition from the project approach to budget support mechanisms is laden with service organization and management problems. Traditional projects were managed by project offi ces linked with administrative services, with more qualifi ed and better paid staff and operational resources that refl ected their needs. As the project offi ces disappeared, it became diffi cult for ministries to retain project staff qualifi ed to deal with public operations, while budget support also requires of national ministries the ability to anticipate future trends, strong management, follow-up, and analytical capacities.

Budgetary support should be based on agreed development objectives. It is also essential that both the needs of education system development and partner contributions be anticipated, and that at the national level there is the capacity to initiate dialogue, prepare technical documents and manage the resources available to achieve the development goals.

The implementation of coordination procedures between technical and fi nancial partners and the designation of leaders as privileged collaborators facilitate discussions with partners. But the technical processes bound to these new mechanisms have yet to be fully appropriated by individual countries, which remain too dependent on external consultants. For example, the tools needed to establish medium-term frameworks are rarely elaborated or mastered at the national level. This is why the development of budgetary support mechanisms should go hand in hand with an effort on the part of the partners to develop capacities for planning and management and should not limit itself to mere fi nancial allocation.

Lowering transaction costs linked to these new mechanisms seems to be a complicated issue. It may be reality for donors, but it is less straightforward for the ministries who must ensure a higher level of coordination. This aspect could be the focus of an evaluation, which will probably eventually become a requirement.


61


4. The challenge of collecting information on educational fi nances

Another remark was that dissemination of information on the real costs of education systems remained insuffi cient, and was in some countries limited to state expenditure. Not much has changed in this area, now that cost awareness is the basis of all policy aiming to distribute funds among different benefi ciaries and various education levels.

Education information systems have greatly evolved over the last decades. Computer technology and related databases now make it possible to organize more information. However, progress has been limited in the area of fi nancial data, which often remain restricted to the budgets of ministries responsible for education. Analyzing education by the state is certainly important, but it is not suffi cient to give a complete and realistic picture of national efforts in the area of education and the costs of different levels of education. In some countries covered in the IIEP studies, the share of public expenditure is only 50-60 per cent of the total education expenditure.

This particular situation concerning education expenditure results from the dividing of fi nancial responsibilities. A major proportion of school expenditures is managed externally, either by state services, decentralized bodies or private fi nanciers. The heads of public institutions are therefore unaware of expenditures concerning their school, and thus school census techniques, which are useful for collecting information on pupils, pedagogical organization, staff, buildings or equipment, are of little help regarding information on expenditures.

The recognition of the need for a global perspective of all education-related spending is not a new phenomenon, as can be seen by the study carried out in Senegal by Ta Ngoc Châu and Françoise Caillods (1976). However, in order to obtain comprehensive fi nancial data, rather than a mere global estimation of private expenditures and an evaluation of the total costs by level of education and category of school special, special techniques must be implemented.

Two types of technical response can be relied on: estimation of costs at the school level; or use of national accounts. The fi rst was implemented during the initial decades of IIEP’s establishment. It involves estimating the costs based on a sample of schools by taking into account the human and material resources used. This produced good results. However, it is a rather costly method, diffi cult to articulate with national aggregates and needs to be repeated to update the data.


62


On the other hand it does allow examination of disparities between schools.

National accounts aim to use data or available statistics, to complete them if needed, and to process them in order to set them in a coherent framework. This method aims to create a sectoral account for education which is often referred to as an economic account, a satellite account or just an education account. The advantage of this method is that it is limited to generating fi nancial statistics at the national level. IIEP now prefers this method, particularly as it is gaining importance for national sectoral accounts.

These studies shed light on education fi nancing, aiming to produce a thorough evaluation of expenditures, and to bring together all public and private, national and external funding, for all types of establishments, public and private. This emphasis on thoroughness does have its disadvantages: evaluations can be of varying quality, data can be estimated using statistical information or as a result of observations of samples of schools or families.

An education account is an information system on education expenditure in the sense that it gathers and harmonizes all education fi nancing data in order to provide an organized picture of fi nancing and costs. It is based on a set of statistical or accounting information sources that allow each one to contribute a proportion of the necessary data and integrate them in a general analytical framework which aims to gather and harmonize the fi nancial data collected.

In this way the fi nancial information system can be completed and thus correlate the number of pupils, results and costs, making it possible to calculate indicators, which in turn allows a more thorough analysis of the situation.

5. The challenge of measuring performance

Education economists have always been keen to research effi cient ways of fi nancing and allocating resources that will help make more informed decisions and achieve good results at a lower cost. This concern has triggered much research on the performance of education systems, decentralization of management systems and the autonomy of educational institutions, or the development of mechanisms to give more responsibility to families. Recent trends are in the direction of using performance indicators linked to budget allocation, often related


63


to state budget reforms and to the increasing importance of results-based budgets.

Linking education costs with results obtained in order to measure performance has gained importance. The development of budgets by programme has allowed better articulation between objectives and resource allocation. In the logic of these evaluations, the focus is now on the relation between the resources used, the activities executed and the results achieved.

The question of measuring performance is clearly not only fi nancial. A comprehensive evaluation should focus on the resources allocated, but also on the activities carried out, the deliverables, the results and the impact on the socio-economic situation.

Evaluating the effectiveness of an education system using a limited set of indicators is of both theoretical and practical importance and requires more attention and research. The complexity of the fi eld of education, the diffi culty in measuring output, and the interrelations with other collective and private spheres make it diffi cult to gauge. On a practical level, the development of these indicators can require an improvement in the education information systems, which are currently more focused on the inputs of education systems.

It is becoming common practice to associate performance indicators with budget allocations. Some countries have started to move in this direction, as can be seen in the example of a programme adopted by the Sri Lankan Ministry of Education. In this instance, the fi rst experiences have not been fl awless, but it would nevertheless be interesting to see whether they have had an effect on fund allocation, on the way that the system is managed, and whether it contributed to the development of information systems.

Moving to a different culture of result orientation is not a simple step for institutions that are used to a bureaucratic style of budget management, and there is a risk that the development of performance indicators will be considered as a supplementary bureaucratic activity. The recognition and appropriation of indicators by all actors is a prerequisite if the gauging mechanisms used are to have an effect on the allocation and management of resources.


64


6. Reinforcing capacity to analyze and project fi nancial data

Capacity development for collecting fi nancial data are required at different levels. Collecting information on costs and fi nancing, developing a database, analyzing this data, anticipating future needs and placing them within a global macro-economic perspective, and linking the resources allocated with the results obtained, require specialized skills possessed by those responsible for and engaged in planning in ministries of education.

The changes in the aid modalities, and more specifi cally budgetary support methods, require good management, and the ability to anticipate future needs and to track expenditures in order to enable dialogue and defi ne support programmes as well as creating accountability for the utilization of funds received. It is appropriate to add to this contextual change and the resulting heightened requirements the development of information technology, which has drastically changed the technical work of planners and the tools used to tackle the challenges they face.

One cannot but notice that there is rarely suffi cient capacity to generate and analyze fi nancial data. Educational planners are more often than not concentrated on the issues of school demography and the analysis of physical resources managed by ministries of education, and much less on fi nance issues. Yet the managers of such services are often selected from among the large body of teachers, who are more easily mobilized by ministries of education. These teachers do not possess the required technical capacities to deal with issues related to planning and fi nancing of education.

Project management units that are separate from regular administrative units, are very often better equipped with more qualifi ed personnel and resources. Even these units have not helped in strengthening planning capacity and management of aid. The consequence of this lack of national capacity is that it has created a dependency on external consultants to complete these tasks. This dependency lowers the capacity of ministries to carry out a thorough examination of the systems and to discuss and negotiate the available fi nancial resources.

Developing and reinforcing capacity to analyze expenditures in ministries of education is essential. Capacity development can be facilitated through training and supervision of the professionals throughout the duration of the activities. The desired increased


65


professionalization of planning services can also be done by hiring managers who have appropriate profi les.

References

Caillods, F.; Ngoc Châu, T. 1976. Financement et politique éducative: le cas du Sénégal. Paris: IIEP.


67

ANNEX 1. SYMPOSIUM PROGRAMME

Directions in Educational PlanningA symposium to honour the work of Françoise Caillods

IIEP Paris – 3-4 July 2008

Les orientations de la planifi cation de l’éducationSymposium en l’honneur du travail accompli

par Françoise Caillods

Thursday, 3 July 2008

9.30-10.15 Inaugural session Welcome Mark Bray, IIEP Director

Presentation of the Symposium N.V. Varghese, IIEP

Educational Planning Context Joseph Farrell, Canada Presented by Ken Ross, IIEP

Evolution in the Field of Educational Planning: Four milestones in the work of IIEP Mark Bray, IIEP Director

11.20-12.45 Plenary session – 2 Chair : Claudio de Moura Castro, Brazil Education and epidemics Gudmund Hernes, Norway

La planifi cation de l’éducation dans les pays en développement en Afrique au Sud du Sahara Aïcha Bah Diallo, Guinée

Discussions


Annexes

68

Parallel sessions

Educational planning – Techniques

Chair: Angela Little

• School mapping and geographical information systems in education micro-planningSteven Hite, USA

• Macro – micro planifi cation : des nouveaux défi s pour l’éducation?Isabel Da Costa, IIEP

• Changing orientations in educational planning N.V. Varghese, IIEP

DiscussionsRapporteur: Michaela Martin

Educational planning – Trends

Chair: Ved Prakash

• Strategic planning in education: some concepts and methods Gwang Chol Chang, UNESCO

• Educational planning in Eastern European countries Yael Duthilleul, Uruguay

• Educational planning in Latin America: new perspectives for traditional issues Margarita Poggi, IIEP Buenos Aires

DiscussionsRapporteur: Igor Kitaev

Educational planning – Capacity development

Chair: R.Govinda• Capacity development for

educational planning in the Caucasus Region: challenges and perspectives Giorgi Machabeli, Georgia

• Capacity development in educational planning: the role of IIEP distance education Gabriele Göttelmann and Lars Mählck, IIEP

• Développement des capacités en planifi cationAbdoulaye Balde, Sénégal

DiscussionsRapporteur: Michaela Martin

Educational planning – Relevance, equity and participation

Chair: A. Motivans • Planning for education and

training for the world of workKenneth King, UK

• School supervision and equityAnton De Grauwe, IIEP

• Participation des communautés et accès à l’éducation des groupes défavorisésCandy Lugaz, IIEP

DiscussionsRapporteur: Igor Kitaev

Offi cial cocktail


Annexes

69

Friday 4 July 2008 Plenary session – 3 Introductory remarks

Mark Bray, IIEP Director Chair: I. Gustafsson, Sweden Education, poverty and development

Fay Chung, Zimbabwe Financing education systems

Keith Lewin, UK Discussions

Parallel sessions

Poverty and development

Chair: Aïcha Bah Diallo• L’enseignement des sciences

pour le développement de l’éducationPierre Léna, France

• Non-formal education, poverty and development Rangachar Govinda, India

• Can and should public-private partnerships play a role in education?Ilona Genevois, IIEP

• Gender-based violence in South African schoolsFelicia Wilson, USA

DiscussionsRapporteur: Anton De Grauwe

Financing

Chair: M. Radi• Financing education systems

Iris Uyttersprot, Rwanda• Les questions fi nancières dans

la planifi cation de l’éducationSerge Péano, IIEP

• Working towards Aid effectiveness: Recent policy reforms and practices in educationLinda Lehmil, France

iscussionsRapporteur: Serge Peano


Annexes

70

Poverty and development: Education and employment

Chair: Kenneth King• Education and employment

Bikas C Sanyal, India• Au-delà de l’éducation : le

chemin incertain de l’école à l’emploiDavid Atchoaréna, IIEP

• What can be learned from Latin American strategies in disadvantaged youth training for work? Some thoughts based on researchClaudia Jacinto, IIEP

Discussions Rapporteur: Anton De Grauwe

The practice of educational planning

Chair: Tamas Kozma • Changing Landscape of

Educational Planning in IndiaProf. Ved Prakash, India

• Educational planning and capacity development in EthiopiaTesfaye Kelemework, Ethiopia

DiscussionsRapporteur: Mioko Saïto

Concluding session – Plenary session Reports of the themes Educational Planning: Macro-micro planning

Michaela Martin and Mioko Saïto, IIEP Education, poverty and development

Anton De Grauwe, IIEP Financing education systems

Serge Péano, IIEP Discussions Overall conclusions

N.V. Varghese, IIEP Concluding remarks

Mark Bray, IIEP Director


71

Ms Fadimata Bocar AlaincharCountry Director, Plan Sierra LeoneSierra Leone

Ms Jameela Al Muhairi Knowledge and Human Development Authority of DubaiUAE

Ms Aïcha Bah Diallo Former Deputy Assistant Director-GeneralFormer Deputy Director, Education Sector, UNESCOGuinée

Mr Klaus BahrPresident of the Association for the Promotion of Education (ProEd)Former Director of the former Bureau for Operational Activities and Director of the Division for Policy and Sector Analysis, UNESCO

M. Abdoulaye BaldeChef de la Division de la planifi cation de l’académie de ThièsMinistère de l’Éducation Sénégal

M. Jean-Claude BalmesCoordonnées générales de l’Agence française de développement (AFD)France

ANNEX 2. SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS

Mr Andrey BarkinHead of Policy and PlanningKnowledge and Human Development Authority of DubaiUAE

M. Jean-Pierre BoyerSecrétaire GénéralCommission nationale française auprès de l’UNESCOFrance

Ms Temby CaprioSector Advisor, Basic EducationGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)Germany

Mr Jerald Cavanagh Limerick Institute of TechnologyIreland

Ms Fay King ChungFormer Minister of EducationZimbabwe

Mme Michèle Delaygue Commission nationale française auprès de l’UNESCOFrance

Ms Alexandra DraxlerEducation SpecialistFormer UNESCO staff


Annexes

72

Ms Hallgerd DryssenDeputy Head of the Division for Democratic Governance at SidaSweden

Ms Yael DuthilleulTechnical AdviserCouncil of Europe Development BankFrance

Mme Françoise Du PougetFormer Head of the Documentation Centre, IIEP

Mr Rangachar GovindaSenior FellowNational University of Educational Planning and AdministrationIndia

Mr Ingemar GustafssonGuest ResearcherStockholm University Sweden

Mr Gudmund HernesFormer Minister of EducationFormer IIEP DirectorNorway

Mr Ignacio Javier HernaizChief of the Special Programmes UnitMinistry of EducationArgentina

Mr Steven HiteProfessor of Research Theory and MethodologyBrigham Young University USA

Mr Keith HolmesLecturer in Education and developmentUniversity of Sussex UK

Mr Heikki KokkalaCounsellorPermanent Delegation of Finland to the OECD Finland

Mr Tesfaye KelemeworkUSAID/Ethiopia

Mr Kenneth KingProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Edinburgh UK

Mr Tamás KozmaProgramme DirectorUniversity of Debrecen Faculty of Arts Hungary

Ms Ora W.Y. KwoUniversity of Hong KongHong Kong, China

M. Pierre LénaProfesseur émérite à l’Université Denis DiderotObservatoire de MeudonFrance

Mr Keith LewinDirectorCentre for International EducationUniversity of Sussex UK


Annexes

73

Ms Angela W. LittleProfessor of EducationDepartment of Education and International DevelopmentLondon International Development Centre Institute of Education University of LondonUK

Mr Giorgi MachabeliDirectorInternational Institute for Educating Policy, Planning and ManagementGeorgia

Mr Lars MählckFormer Head, Training Unit, IIEP

Mme Ernestine MehlaCadre, ministère de l’Éducation de baseRépublique du Cameroun

Ms Lorena MorettiResearcher UNESCO ChairUniversity of BergamoItaly

Mr Claudio de Moura CastroPresident Advisory Council of Faculdade PitágorasBrazil

Mr Jostein OsnesDirector GeneralDepartment of Policy Analysis, Lifelong Learning and International AffairsMinistry of Education and Research Norway

Prof. Ved PrakashVice-ChancellorNational University of Educational Planning and Administration India

Mme Josiane RabetokotanyCoordinatriceDépartement du Soutien technique nationalBureau du Projet Education (BPE) Madagascar

Mr German RamaEducation SpecialistFormer National Director of the Public Education System, UruguayFormer Director, Social Development Division, ECLAC-UN France

M. Jean-Pierre RégnierSecrétaire général adjointCommission nationale française auprès de l’UNESCO France

Mr Bikas Sanyal Former Head, Higher Education, IIEP

Mr Chan Ta NgocFormer Senior Programme Co-coordinator, IIEP

Mme Marie Lydia Toto RaharimalalaChargée de mission au Cabinet du MinistreService des relations internationales/Secrétariat général


Annexes

74

Ministère de l’Éducation nationale et de la Recherche scientifi que Madagascar

Ms Iris UyttersprotEducation AdviserDFID/Rwanda

Mr Punit VasuKnowledge and Human Development Authority of DubaiUAE

Ms Maureen WoodhallEmeritus Reader in Education FinanceInstitute of EducationUniversity of LondonUK

Mme Annie VinokurProfesseur émérite ès Sciences économiques Université de Paris XFrance

UNESCO

Mr Tang QianDeputy Assistant Director-General for EducationDirector Executive Offi ce

Mr Mohamed RadiDirector a.i. Division for Education Strategies and Capacity-Building

Mr Albert MotivansHead, Education Indicators and Data analysis SectorUNESCO Institute for Statistics

Ms Dominique AltnerProgramme SpecialistSection for Education Support Strategies

Mr Aaron BenavotSenior Policy AnalystEducation for All Global Monitoring Report Team

Ms Mariela BuonomoResearch Offi cerEducation for All Global Monitoring Report Team

Mr Gwang-Chol ChangProgramme SpecialistSection for Education Support Strategies

Mr Mehboob DadaProgramme Offi cerDivision for Basic EducationSection for Secondary, Technical and Vocational Education

IIEP

Mr Mark BrayDirector

Ms Françoise CaillodsDeputy Director

Mr David AtchoarénaHead, Training and Educational Programmes Unit

Ms Isabel Da CostaProgramme Specialist


Annexes

75

Mr Anton De GrauweProgramme Specialist

Ms Ilona GenevoisAssistant Programme Specialist

Ms Gabriele Göttelmann-DuretProgramme Specialist

Ms Claudia JacintoProgramme Specialist

Mr Igor KitaevProgramme Specialist

Ms Linda LehmilVisiting Fellow

Ms Candy LugazAssistant Programme Specialist

Mr Khalil MahshiHead, Technical Assistance and Sector Planning Unit

M. Youssouf Ario MaïgaStagiaire

Ms Michaela MartinProgramme Specialist

Mr Serge PéanoHead, Costs and Financing Unit

Ms Margarita PoggiHead, IIEP Buenos Aires

Mr Kenneth RossHead, Equity, Access and Quality Unit

Ms Mioko SaïtoProgramme Specialist

Mr N.V. VargheseHead, Governance and Management Unit

Ms Florence AppéréProgramme Assistant

Ms Christine Edwards Programme Assistant

Ms Felicia WilsonFulbright UNESCO Fellow


76

ANNEX 3. SYMPOSIUM PAPERS

Plenary Sessions

Educational planning contextJoseph Farrell, Canada

Evolution in the fi eld of educational planning: four milestones in the work of IIEPMark Bray, IIEP Director

Education and epidemicsGudmund Hernes, Norway

La planifi cation de l’éducation dans les pays en développement en Afrique au Sud du SaharaAïcha Bah Diallo, Guinée

Theme IMacro-planning and micro-planning

School mapping and geographical information systems in education micro-planningSteven Hite, USA

Macro-micro planifi cation: des nouveaux défi s pour l’éducation ?Isabel Da Costa, IIEP

Changing orientations in educational planning N.V. Varghese, IIEP

Strategic planning in education: some concepts and methods Gwang-Chol Chang, UNESCO

Educational planning in Eastern European countries Yael Duthilleul, European Development Bank

Educational planning in Latin America: New perspectives for traditional issues


Annexes

77

Margarita Poggi, IIEPCapacity development for educational planning in the Caucasus Region: challenges and perspectives Giorgi Machabeli, Georgia

Capacity development in educational planning: the role of IIEP distance education Gabriele Göttelmann and Lars Mählck, IIEP

Développement des capacités en planifi cationAbdoulaye Balde, Sénégal

Planning for education and training for the world of workKenneth King, UK

School supervision and equityAnton De Grauwe, IIEP

Participation des communautés et accès à l’éducation des groupes défavorisésCandy Lugaz, IIEP

Changing landscape of educational planning in IndiaProf. Ved Prakash, India

Capacity development for planning in NigeriaTaiwo Ajayi, Nigeria

La planifi cation de l’éducation en TunisieMohsen Ktari, Tunisie

Educational planning and capacity development in EthiopiaTesfaye Kelemework, Ethiopia

Theme IIEducation, poverty and development

L’enseignement des sciences pour le développement de l’éducationPierre Léna, FranceNon-formal education, poverty and development Rangachar Govinda, India


Annexes

78

Can and should public-private partnerships play a role in education?Ilona Genevois, IIEP

Girl’s Education Movement: pilot study on gender-based violence in South AfricaFelicia Wilson, USA

Education and employmentBikas C Sanyal, India

Au-delà de l’éducation : le chemin incertain de l’école à l’emploiDavid Atchoaréna, IIEP

What can be learned from Latin American strategies in disadvantaged youth training for work? Some thoughts based on researchClaudia Jacinto, IIEP

Theme IIIFinancing education systems

Financing education systemsIris Uyttersprot, Rwanda

Les questions fi nancières dans la planifi cation de l’éducationSerge Péano, IIEP

Working towards Aid effectiveness: Recent policy reforms and practices in educationLinda Lehmil, France

Four Decades of educational elanning: Retrospect and erospectKeith Lewin, UK

Symposium SecretariatMark Bray

N.V. VargheseFlorence AppéréFelicia Wilson


IIEP publications and documents

More than 1,200 titles on all aspects of educational planning have been published by the International Institute for Educational Planning. A comprehensive catalogue is available in the following subject categories:

Educational planning and global issuesGeneral studies – global/developmental issues

Administration and management of educationDecentralization – participation – distance education – school mapping – teachers

Economics of educationCosts and fi nancing – employment – international cooperation

Quality of educationEvaluation – innovation – supervision

Different levels of formal educationPrimary to higher education

Alternative strategies for educationLifelong education – non-formal education – disadvantaged groups – gender education

Copies of the Catalogue may be obtained on request from:IIEP, Publications and Communications Unit

[email protected] of new publications and abstracts may be consulted

at the following website: www.iiep.unesco.org


mailto:[email protected]


The International Institute for Educational PlanningThe International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) is an international centre for advanced training and research in the fi eld of educational planning. It was established by UNESCO in 1963 and is fi nanced by UNESCO and by voluntary contributions from Member States. In recent years the following Member States have provided voluntary contributions to the Institute: Australia, Denmark, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

The Institute’s aim is to contribute to the development of education throughout the world, by expanding both knowledge and the supply of competent professionals in the fi eld of educational planning. In this endeavour the Institute co-operates with training and research organizations in Member States. The IIEP Governing Board, which approves the Institute’s programme and budget, consists of a maximum of eight elected members and four members designated by the United Nations Organization and certain of its specialized agencies and institutes.Chairperson: Raymond E. Wanner (USA)

Senior Adviser on UNESCO issues, United Nations Foundation, Washington DC, USA.

Designated Members: Manuel M. Dayrit

Director, Human Resources for Health, Cluster of Evidence and Information for Policy, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.

Carlos LopesAssistant Secretary-General and Executive Director, United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), United Nations, New York, USA.

Jamil SalmiEducation Sector Manager, the World Bank Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Guillermo Sunkel Social Affairs Offi cer (ECLAC), Social Development Division, Santiago, Chile.

Elected Members:Aziza Bennani (Morocco)

Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Morocco to UNESCO. Nina Yefi movna Borevskaya (Russia)

Chief Researcher and Project Head, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Moscow.Birger Fredriksen (Norway)

Consultant on Education Development for the World Bank.Ricardo Henriques (Brazil)

Special Adviser of the President, National Economic and Social Development Bank. Takyiwaa Manuh (Ghana)

Director, Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana.Jean-Jacques Paul (France)

Professor of Economics of Education, Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Bourgogne, Dijon.

Xinsheng Zhang (China) Vice-Minister of Education, China.

Inquiries about the Institute should be addressed to:The Offi ce of the Director, International Institute for Educational Planning,

7-9 rue Eugène Delacroix, 75116 Paris, France




Research papers IIEP


Th e book

During the past few decades, the nature of educational planning has shift ed signifi cantly. Th e 1960s, when IIEP was created, were a period of optimism and strong belief in the role of the state in promoting economic growth and development. Educational planning had diff erent emphases and interpretations in diff erent contexts, but generally relied on grand models focusing on macro-planning. Since that time, contexts have changed. Today the fi eld is also defi ned by decentralized approaches, non-government funding, and cross-national forces in the context of globalization. IIEP has been playing a lead role in contributing to conceptual issues, developing methodologies, and facilitating capacity development. In 2008, the Institute organized a symposium in honour of Françoise Caillods to discuss the changing context and contents of educational planning. Th e Symposium refl ected on continuities and changes in the past and looked ahead to the anticipated future of educational planning. Th is book is a report based on the deliberations in the Symposium.

Th e authors

Mark Bray is Director of UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). His 1999 book on the shadow education system, also published by IIEP, was the fi rst of its kind and has been widely cited. His subsequent work on the theme has provided much matter for the present book. Mark Bray has also published extensively in the fi elds of comparative education, and administration and fi nancing of education.

N.V. Varghese, Professor and former Head of the Educational Planning Unit at the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) in New Delhi, is currently Head of the Governance and Management in Education Unit at the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP/UNESCO) in Paris. He has published books and articles in the areas of educational planning, fi nancing and quality of education.

Documents

Symposium on Directions in Educational Planning: a symposium to