The Power of Persistence: Education System ... - EQUIP123.net
The Power of Persistence: Education System ... - EQUIP123.net
The Power of Persistence: Education System ... - EQUIP123.net
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Ownership<br />
It is a central tenet <strong>of</strong> development, captured in the Paris Declaration, that<br />
countries must own the reforms if they are to be sustainable. This is usually<br />
defined as having the Ministry <strong>of</strong> <strong>Education</strong> in agreement about the programs,<br />
ideally in concert with some societal consultation. However, as we have seen in<br />
the cases, ownership at the top is not sufficient for changing behavior throughout<br />
the system; it is only the starting point. Each <strong>of</strong> the key actors in the system—the<br />
national ministry staff, regional education <strong>of</strong>ficers, and school staff—must also<br />
be on board with the changes that directly affect them. Perhaps the most critical<br />
point for ownership is at the level <strong>of</strong> school, classroom, and district, where the<br />
“rubber meets the road” in actions that affect student learning. In countries where<br />
the major reform is a form <strong>of</strong> decentralization, the ownership issue is even more<br />
complex because the primary decision maker—say, a MOE—is not the single<br />
starting point. In a genuine decentralized system, the actors with responsibilities<br />
at all levels need to have a voice and ownership in the changes. Although all<br />
decentralization is ultimately top-down as those with power make the decision to<br />
decentralize, it is not sufficient for only those at the top buy-in to the system.<br />
Deep commitment is generally a function <strong>of</strong> individuals rather than institutions.<br />
Deep commitment and ownership are not transferred with the signed agreement<br />
from the last person in <strong>of</strong>fice, but must be generated anew with each new person<br />
assuming responsibilities.<br />
<strong>The</strong> case studies clearly demonstrate the importance <strong>of</strong> ownership and leadership,<br />
and how fragile these are at an institutional level. <strong>The</strong> leadership transitions<br />
in Nicaragua showed how quickly reforms that were a driving passion and<br />
central goal <strong>of</strong> one leader could lose focus with new leadership. <strong>The</strong> El Salvador<br />
experience demonstrates both the strengths and limitations <strong>of</strong> consensusdriven<br />
reforms. <strong>The</strong> strengthened ownership at the school level in Namibia and<br />
Nicaragua was developed through intensive and on-going engagement at the<br />
school, district, and regional levels. <strong>The</strong>se projects did not focus on skills transfer<br />
through training, but rather on capacity development through peer training<br />
and reflection, frequent district and school level engagement, and collaborative<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the program activities. This resulted in social webs <strong>of</strong> support for<br />
emerging standards <strong>of</strong> behavior and performance that absorbed and integrated<br />
new people rather than being dependent on individuals.<br />
<strong>The</strong> experiences <strong>of</strong> developing deep ownership at both the top and school<br />
levels reflect the same lesson. In both cases, the emphasis is on the process <strong>of</strong><br />
engagement, and the establishment <strong>of</strong> structures that reinforce and validate that<br />
engagement over time. In system terms, it creates reinforcing feedback loops.<br />
150<br />
SECTION 3: SUMMARY fINdINGS ANd CONClUSIONS