Government and non-state sector collaboration to reach EFA

The Education For All (EFA) agenda and Millennium Development Goals emphasise increasing access to basic education. Non-state providers could possibly contribute to expanding access to education. In what ways do states collaborate with these providers to ensure that poor children are not denied access to education?

Basic education is viewed bymost involved in education provision as the responsibility of the state and, onthe whole, governments are the main provider of primary education. However,non-state providers can and do play a role in increasing access for childrenwho are not served by state primary schools.

A study by the Centre forInternational Education at the University of Sussexin the UK explores experience of collaboration betweennon-state providers and governments on policy discussions, regulation,facilitation and contracting with the aim of supporting provision of basiceducation to poor children in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa. Non-state providers examined in the study includeprivate providers – including those formally registered, and those which remainunregistered (often charging relatively low fees); non-government organisations(NGOs); and philanthropic organisations. It examines cases of formalprivate-public partnerships, as well as of umbrella associations of different non-stateproviders engaging with the state.

The research notes that, inthe countries studied, there are few examples of governments proactivelysupporting non-state provision of education to the poor. The most common formof government-initiated involvement with non-state providers tends to be onmatters of regulation and registration. It is more likely that non-stateproviders instigate involvement with goverments either to seek assistance withresources or to influence policy. It is also evident that in many situationsnon-state providers are functioning independently of governments.

The study finds that:

• Governments andnon-state providers are most likely to collaborate closely when they engage ondifferent levels. For example, where government regulates, this can lead tonon-state involvement in policy discussions to influence criteria forregulation. 
• However, such policydialogue can result in mistrust and possibly antagonism amongst ‘partners’.
• Non-stateproviders are increasingly coming together through umbrella associations to challengerestrictive government practices and influence policy more generally.
• Such associationsoften favour the more established non-state providers serving the elite. Thiscan be at the expense of more informal non-state providers that serve the poor.

The research recommends that inorder to support the target of education for all, the complexity of differentforms of collaboration among diverse non-state providers, and between non-stateproviders and governments, must be recognised. There must also be a movetowards genuine, ongoing ‘real’ policy dialogue if such collaboration is tobenefit the poor.