A Comparative Analysis on Universal Primary Education Policy in SubSaharan Africa

1
A Comparative Analysis on Universal Primary
Education Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa

• AA Reflective Meeting, Kampala
• November 17
• Mikiko Nishimura
• Kobe University

2
Presentation Outline

• Background
• Purpose of the project
• Objectives/Targets
• Expected output
• Activities in FY2006 (June 2006-March 2007)

3
Background

• UPE Policy has become popular in many countries
  in SSA for achieving EFA since mid-1990s.
• However, UPE policy severely lacks analytical
  studies on its impacts and challenges.
• Some researchers indicate the uniformity of the
  educational policies in SSA.
• ? There should be studies to examine how these
  seemingly similar policies are responding to the
  capacity and needs of each country.

4
Purpose of the Project

• To analyze how UPE policies have been formed,
  implemented and evaluated in each country
• To identify what kind of administrative and
  financial issues should be raised from a
  comparative perspective and
• To draw policy implications that can have some
  impacts on the current policy and plans.

5
Countries Involved

• Malawi
• Uganda
• Kenya
• Ghana

6
Objectives/Targets

• To create a common comparative analytical
  framework
• To grasp common and unique issues of the UPE
  policies and administrative and financial systems
  for primary education sub-sector
• To strengthen academic exchange between
  researchers in Africa and Asia and
• To produce a joint policy recommendation on UPE
  policies and administrative and financial issues
  for each country as well as the SSA region.

7
Duration of the Research

• June 2006-March 2009
• A fiscal annual evaluation by the Japanese
  Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
  and Technology
• Planning will be based on the Japanese fiscal
  year (April-March)

8
Researchers initially involved
9
Expected Output

• To create a common analytical framework for UPE
  policies in SSA region
• To make a resource book for a systematic
  comparison of UPE policy and financial and
  administrative system in each country
• To produce a joint report on comparative analysis
  of UPE policies and financial and administrative
  system and
• To produce a joint policy recommendation paper.

10
Activities in FY2006 (June 2006-March 2007)

• To create a common comparative analytical
  framework in close collaboration with researchers
  in the AA dialogue project by
• Crystallizing the analytical perspectives on UPE
  policies, considering various historical,
  political, economic, and social backgrounds of
  each country
• Collecting existing materials on educational
  policies in SSA and each country
• Meetings within each country team and
• Discussion with other researchers through AA
  dialogue.

11
Activities in FY2006 (June 2006-March 2007)

• To activate discussion and strengthen the network
  of AA Dialogue Project
• To share experience with other researchers in
  Japan
• Holding a conference in Kobe on 4 March, 2007

12
So far, we have done the following

• Literature review (May-June 2006)
• Formulation of the draft Analytical Framework
  (June-July 2006)
• Discussion on the draft Analytical Framework for
  reviews (July 2006-)
• Meetings in each target country and data
  collection (August 2006-)

13
5 Key Words for the DRAFT Analytical Framework

• Performance Gap
• Financial Gap
• Administrative Gap
• Policy Gap
• Perception Gap

14
Performance Gap

• To identify areas in which primary education
  performance has most challenges in a country from
  the perspectives of access, quality, efficiency,
  equity, and management.

15
Financial Gap

• To identify the financial gap in UPE policy and
  actual funding volume and modalities, using the
  indicative framework.

16
Administrative Gap

• To identify the gap between capacity of the
  government and the actual administrative task in
  implementing UPE.

17
Policy Gap

• To analyze the extent to which there is a gap in
  the UPE policies written in official documents,
  strategies, and the actual implementation on the
  ground.

18
Perception Gap

• To examine how UPE has been perceived by
  stakeholders/beneficiaries such as head teachers,
  teachers, SMCs, parents, and students and
  subsequently find out the gap between the
  intentions of policy makers and those of
  stakeholders/beneficiaries with regard to the UPE
  policy.

19
Schedule for FY2006 (until March 2007)

• Discussion among researchers on the Draft
  Analytical Framework ( 19 January 2007)
• Making country reports according to the Draft
  Analytical Framework (by 20 January)
• Revising Draft Analytical Framework
• Meeting in Japan (25 January)
• Presentation at Japan Education Forum (February)
• Holding a conference in Japan with Japanese
  researchers on 4 March, 2007.

20

• Thank you very much.
• Your participation and comments would be very
  much appreciated!