Reaching the marginalized: EFA global monitoring report, 2010; 2010

010CHAPTER 22Education for All Global Monitoring ReportCountries needto consider thefinancingrequired to reachthose who havebeen left behind52. The financing gapestimate for the literacytarget was half theUS$2 billion annualestimate of the cost ofliteracy programmes inall developing countries –a much larger group thanthe low-income groupused for the othercomponents of theestimate (Van Ravensand Aggio, 2005). It wasalso assumed that thefinancing gap for earlychildhood care andeducation was similarto that for literacy.53. The study coversforty-six of the forty-ninecountries classified bythe World Bank as lowincome as of April 2009.The study excludesSolomon Islands andSao Tome and Principebecause their populationswere below 1 million andthe Democratic People’sRepublic of Koreabecause of lack of data.It includes the Sudanbecause southern Sudanhas a separate educationsystem and can beconsidered low income.Costing the commitmentto Education for All goalsToo often, governments and aid donors haveadopted bold goals at international developmentsummits but failed to put in place the financingmeasures needed to achieve them. How closelyare the Education for All goals aligned withcurrent financing?Several studies have addressed this question.In 2003, the World Bank carried out a detailedanalysis of the financing required to achieveuniversal primary education in low-incomecountries (Bruns et al., 2003). Basing its estimateon assumptions about economic growth, revenuecollection, public spending and aid levels, the studyput the annual financing gap at US$3.6 billion(constant 2000 prices). The first EFA GlobalMonitoring Report 2002 adjusted this estimate formore moderate economic growth, the impact ofHIV and AIDS, and the inclusion of cash-transferprogrammes targeted at girls and poorhouseholds. These adjustments increased theestimated financing gap for universal primaryeducation to US$5.6 billion (constant 2000 prices).The EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007 updatedthis estimate to reflect the fact that aid levelshad been lower than expected. Rough estimateswere also made of additional financing for earlychildhood care and education, and literacy. 52These adjustments produced an annual financinggap estimate in low-income countries ofUS$11 billion (constant 2003 prices) – a figurethat has been widely used as a reference pointby the international community.The costing exercise undertaken for thisReport provides a comprehensive review andreassessment of the financing gap (EPDC andUNESCO, 2009). Using the latest available nationaldata, the study updates the global estimate forlow-income countries. 53 It covers a wider range ofeducation goals than in the 2003 study, recognizingthat Education for All is about more than universalprimary education. Another significant departureis the estimation of costs for reaching the mostmarginalized. Earlier studies assumed the costof extending education to out-of-school childrenwas the same as the average cost of providingeducation to those in school, but this assumptionis flawed. Many children in the most marginalizedgroups live in remote areas and suffer chronicpoverty and extreme gender disadvantage.Reaching these children requires higher levelsof spending, not just on providing schools andteachers but also on supporting demand foreducation.There are strong grounds for factoring in theseadditional costs. Marginalized children have thesame right to education as others and that rightcarries with it a claim on financial resources.Equity in public spending means governmentsmust assess what it takes to deliver equivalentopportunities to children in very differentcircumstances. The fact that marginalized childrenhave benefited less than others from past publicspending reinforces their claim to fairer treatment.Moreover, failure to consider the financing neededto reach those who have been left behind willguarantee that many countries miss theEducation for All targets.Financing gap estimates cannot be consideredin isolation. The same level of financing in twodifferent countries can produce widely divergentresults. Countries vary not just in their individualcost structures, but also in efficiency and equityin public spending on education. Some countriesachieve more for less because they have moreefficient procurement systems, school constructionprogrammes and textbook supply arrangements.National differences in teacher remuneration,the biggest single item in most education budgets,can have an enormous bearing on relative coststructures. The level of equity matters becauseit influences the degree to which increased publicspending translates into advances for the mostmarginalized. For all these reasons, averagecosts vary widely by country. The marginal costsassociated with reaching disadvantaged groupsare likely to depend on factors such as the depthof poverty and structures of inequality.The limitations of global costing exercises have tobe recognized. Such exercises can help establishbroad orders of magnitude for the financingrequired to achieve specified goals. But theycannot substitute for detailed estimates drawn upat the national level. Bottom-up estimates providemuch clearer insights into the financing needed toachieve policy goals. It is a matter of concern that,almost a decade after the World Education Forumin Dakar, governments and donors continue toaddress this task in such a fragmented andhaphazard fashion – an issue taken up further inChapter 4. The estimates for the Education for Allfinancing gaps presented in this Report are basedon the most recent data available (Box 2.26).120