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

010CHAPTER 42Education for All Global Monitoring ReportInconsistencyand ambiguityhavecharacterizedthe Fast Trackapproach tofinancing gaps28. The basis for thebenchmarks has alsobeen criticized. They arebased on averages foreach indicator for tencountries identified asgood performers in thedrive towards universalprimary completion. Infact, however, the levelsof the indicators divergedconsiderably across theten countries.29. For example, whileMozambique targetsuniversal primaryeducation by 2015,Burkina Faso targets a70% net enrolment rate,a more realistic targetgiven the country’ssituation.Tackling gaps in planning and financeThe FTI’s core business plan, drawn up in 2002,involved tackling planning gaps in three key areas– policy development, data and capacity – andmobilizing additional aid to close financing gaps(World Bank, 2002b). Four key objectives wereestablished (FTI Secretariat, 2004):increasing aid for basic education by providingsustained, predictable and flexible financialsupport to countries demonstrating acommitment and capacity to accelerateprogress;improving aid efficiency and cutting transactioncosts by coordinating and harmonizing donorsupport behind sector-wide education strategies;respecting country ownership by aligning aidwith national priorities and policies;establishing clear benchmarks for thedevelopment of credible and sustainableeducation plans.The establishment through the FTI of a unifiedprocess through which donors could harmonizeactivities behind country-owned plans linked theinitiative to the broad goals set out in the 2005Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. In practice,however, implementation of FTI planning andfinancing processes has undermined donorcoordination, raised transaction costs andweakened aid effectiveness in some countries.A restricted approach to financingThe FTI gave donors an opportunity to developan ambitious new approach to aid financing.With financing gaps identified as major obstaclesto universal primary completion by 2015, nationalplanning processes could have been used todevelop credible, consistent estimates of thecost of removing those obstacles. Unfortunately,inconsistency and ambiguity have characterizedthe Fast Track approach to financing gaps.One problem is the Indicative Framework, aseries of benchmarks used to calculate the costsof national plans and associated financing gaps.The indicators included give prominence to overallspending on primary education, average class size,average teacher salaries, spending on inputs otherthan teacher salaries, and the rate of repetition.Benchmarks for each indicator were established,based on World Bank research that identifiedcountries making good progress towards universalprimary completion. The benchmarks wereintended to be adapted to country circumstances(Bruns et al., 2003). Some commentators believethe Indicative Framework has created a consistentset of relevant and appropriate benchmarks thathave been applied in a fashion consistent with theprinciples of country ownership (Bermingham,2009a). Others, however, have questioned the weakparticipation of developing countries and donorsin designing the framework, and whether theindicators and benchmarks are appropriate, notablyin areas such as teacher remuneration (Carr-Hill,2009; Rose, 2005). 28 Some have argued that theIndicative Framework could be construed as a newform of policy conditionality (King and Rose, 2005).National education plans submitted for Fast Trackendorsement point to varied approaches towardscosting measures to achieve the EFA goals inpractice. There is little consistency in approach– and the links to international targets are oftenunclear. Some national plans are not gearedtowards achievement of universal primarycompletion by 2015. 29 Moreover, the vast majorityof plans lack credible estimates – in many cases,any estimates – of the cost of reachingmarginalized groups (Bennell, 2009).Factors unrelated to achievement of the 2015 goalsappear to have weighed heavily in approaches toestimating financing gaps. The approaches seemto be influenced in part by recipient governmentexpectations of the amount of funding they can hopeto receive. Donor considerations of affordabilityfor their own aid budgets also appear to outweighstructured assessment of the financing requiredto achieve specific targets. This has contributedto what one commentator calls a ‘systematicdownward bias’ in local donor groups’ estimationof national financing gaps (Sperling, 2008, p. 4).Assessments of countries’ ability to absorb moreaid also play a key role in donor calculations(Dom, 2009; Rawle, 2009). The capacity of aidrecipients to use development assistance effectivelyis an important concern. However, constraints inthis area have to be examined in the light of thetechnical and financing requirements for increasingcapacity over time. If inability to absorb aid is aproblem, then the solution has to come in part fromdirecting aid towards building absorptive capacity.The problem in current FTI approaches is that thecriteria donors use to assess absorptive capacity250