MEMO

To:                             UK House of Commons International Development Committee

From:                            Rebecca Winthrop, Center for Universal Education, The Brookings Institution

RE:                            Inquiry on DfID’s Work on Education

Date:                            September 15, 2016

Thank you for reaching out for input on your important inquiry on DfID’s global education work.  I have for the past 20 years been working in the field of global education and had occasion to work with colleagues from DfID over the past fifteen years in a number of different capacities, including in the global policy sphere.  Below are my main observations and experiences about DfID’s work in education.  I would be more than happy to talk further on the phone (US mobile: 202-256-6159) or elaborate on key points if it is of use to your work.

• DfID Leadership is a strong and positive projection of UK’s voice on the global stage.  DfID is perhaps the most respected bi-lateral voice in the global education space.  This is for several reasons. 
• First, as a separate department, DfID has the strength and position within the UK government to take development seriously.  Global education, as one of the priorities within DfID, has benefited enormously from this. 
• Second, DfID takes its policy work very seriously, it has skilled experts leading its work, including its education work, and provides strong thought leadership in the global education policy space. 
• Third, as such it rarely has its priorities distorted by other foreign policy agendas (trade, security) and is one of the best, if not the best, bi-lateral agencies in terms of effectively delivering on its mission to improve development, focusing on the groups and places that are most in need. 
• Fourth, DfID engages multi-laterally at a senior level.  In this way it has a strong influence and leadership in the education sector.  Other bi-laterals often are not as strong, prepared, or deeply engaged in multi-lateral mechanisms for education.  For example, DfID’s engagement in the Global Partnership for Education have been highly influential in terms of crafting a stronger mechanism and platform for global coordination of country support for the poorest countries. 

• DfID is highly focused on spending it’s funding well.  DfID is very focused on ensuring its funding is used well.  It has very detailed processes for procurement and monitoring and evaluation.  This is all positive.  However, I wonder if it might be more effective if it would reweight the balance it has between oversight and agility.  DfID’s oversight procedures can be quite onerous and in some cases may limit its ability to be flexible and agile.  For example:
• Very onerous procurement mechanisms to disburse small amounts of low risk funding limits ability to be innovative and flexible.
• Extremely detailed monitoring and evaluation requirements can put too much of a burden on partners (undercutting their ability to effectively deliver on the program).

• DfID’s program priorities focus on key needs.  DfID has focused to date on important areas of need in global education but in moving to the SDGs might want to consider adding on additional areas.  For example:
• Current areas: There are a number of current areas of DfID focus that are important and should continue because they align quite closely with key needs in global education, including children affected by armed conflict, poor and marginalized girls, sec learning, and developing strong education systems.
• New areas to consider: In addition to these areas of focus, which remain important, DfID might consider expanding its scope to look more in depth on issues such as 21st century skills (what are the types of skills and competencies needed for the changing world that young people will inhabit in the future), early childhood, and interconnections with other sectors (e.g. health, climate).  Note, on this last point, two of my team members had a specific suggestion around DfID’s ability to focus on education and climate change intersections (see below).

Contribution by two other CUE Team members, Christina Kwuak and Ellen Chigwanda, on the topic of Climate Change and Education:

As DFID continues to work to eliminate inequalities in access and quality of education, it is imperative that DFID take into serious consideration the negative impact that climate change and weather-related disasters, including drought, have on the progress made to help marginalized and vulnerable girls get to and stay in school. Indeed, emerging evidence points to climate change as a “threat multiplier” that will not only upend much of the gains and investments made by DFID’s work in girls’ education in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa, but also adds to and exacerbates the list of long-standing barriers that girls already face in their homes and in society. To illustrate, families are more likely to engage in coping mechanisms that negatively impact their daughters. In Botswana during the drought, for example, 70 percent of young people taken out of school were girls. Girls also carried an increased burden to complete regular household chores: more than half of girls in Botswana spent more time and travelled longer distances to fetch water during the drought, taking time away from their studies or from attending school. In other cases, families facing extreme hardship due to weather-related disasters are more likely to marry their daughters off early in order to secure a much-needed bride price or to ease household distribution of scarce resources.

Not only must DFID ensure its educational programs and interventions take into consideration the increased risks posed by climate change on program outcomes and program beneficiaries; DFID must also ensure its educational programs are designed to specifically address, adapt to, and mitigate against these risks, especially for the most marginalized and vulnerable populations, including girls.