The Power of Persistence: Education System ... - EQUIP123.net

CP engagement with the MOE (through the JAR) is more consultative. Donor
resource contribution and structural adjustment and HIPC strictures gave CPs s
significant negotiating leverage in the first decade of the reform period; Zambia’s
improving economy and the development of a more robust SWAp appeared to
support the emergence of strengthened Zambian institutions and vocalization of
MOE priorities.
Debates over the range of education issues in the reform agenda between
key actors over the allocation of scarce resources in the GRZ’s most publicly
visible Ministry are a regular feature of the CP-MOE relationship. Conflicting
priorities between CPs and the MOE; CP concerns about MOE capacity,
transparency, accountability, over-centralization and management; and in some
cases, genuine disagreement, remain a characteristic of relationships between
the MOE and the CPs. This dynamic of tension between the MOE and CPs
has supported innovative change within the system, but also led to periods of
mistrust and enmity. One actor notes, “I can’t think of anything major that has
moved without the CPs pushing. Because I think the MOE is, quite frankly,
overwhelmed.” Some voices within the MOE indicate that the preponderant
focus by CPs on basic education in the past decade has seen the deterioration
of other sub-sectors.
USAID become involved in the country’s education sector in the late 1990s with
interventions supporting the inclusion into the education sector of Zambia’s
most disadvantaged groups and strengthening MOE policy and planning
and EMIS. USAID engagement has evolved to provide targeted support to
policy development and capacity building support on community schools and
decentralization. USAID acknowledged that the increased donor coordination in
the SWAp was beneficial, if time consuming, but expressed significant concern on
the forward movement on decentralization.
USAID’s approach to supporting the education program through project
funding illustrates some of the challenges and choices faced by cooperating
partners in Zambia. USAID project activities support objectives outlined in the
BESSIP, MOESP and the FNDP, but are still unpopular with other cooperating
partners who prefer pooled funding. Project support allows USAID more
control over the successful completion of activities that directly reach target
beneficiaries with meaningful educational services as well and support home
office reporting requirements. The activities, such as those supporting IRI and
SHN can be completed in concert with MOE initiatives and departments, but
may not necessarily be managed through them. In doing so, these activities
SECTION 2: lESSONS fROM COUNTRY CASE STUdIES
125