How are we doing and how we get it right for ... - unesdoc - Unesco

ED/EFA/MRT/2015/PI/30

Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015

Education for All 2000-2015: achievements and challenges

How are we doing and how we get it right for children? Sheila Manji and Caroline Arnold with Saima Gowani (statistical analysis and graphs) And Kathy Bartlett Kenya, Tanzania and Chile case studies Venita Kaul Shipra Sharma Aparajita Bhargarh Chaudhary Sandeep Sharma India case study 2015 This paper was commissioned by the Education for All Global Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2015 report. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015, Education for All 2000-2015: achievements and challenges” For further information, please contact [email protected]

How are we doing and how do we get it right for children? Evolution of the roles of the public and private sector in Early Childhood Care and Education in efforts to achieve EFA Goal 1 Background Paper no.1.3 for EFA GMR 2015

Authors: Sheila Manji and Caroline Arnold with Saima Gowani (statistical analysis and graphs) And Kathy Bartlett Kenya, Tanzania and Chile case studies Venita Kaul Shipra Sharma Aparajita Bhargarh Chaudhary Sandeep Sharma India case study

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Part I: THE NUMBERS AND POLICY MAKING ..................................................................... 2 THE NUMBERS ...................................................................................................................... 2 Global and regional trends .................................................................................................. 2 Who are these 170 million children enrolled in pre-primary?......................................... 4 The changing and mixed landscape in ECCE provision ................................................ 6 POLICY MAKING FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD ........................................................................ 9 Part II: REFLECTIONS ON CURRENT STATUS .................................................................. 12 Private Provision - Lack of adequate attention and analysis .............................................. 12 Complexity and the difficulty obtaining data ................................................................ 12 The public versus private debate and the evolution of the roles of government and the private sector .............................................................................................................. 13 1) Rights and the “Public Good” ........................................................................ 14 2) Who private provision serves – choice and marginalization ........................... 14 3) Quality, effectiveness and efficiency.............................................................. 16 Part III: Conclusions and Recommendations for post 2015 ............................................. 17 Key recommendations moving forward to the post-2015 era ............................................. 19 ANNEXES : TABLES ............................................................................................................ 21 Annex 1: Changes in Wealth Quintiles........................................................................ 21 Annex 2: Changes in per cent of enrolments in private institutions, 1999-2011 (UIS database) ................................................................................................................... 22 Annex 3: SABER-ECD Framework – Results from 13 countries ................................. 24 ANNEXES: CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................. 25 Annex 4: Case Study - India ....................................................................................... 26 Annex 5: Case Study - Kenya ..................................................................................... 38 Annex 6: Case Study - Tanzania ................................................................................ 44 Annex 7: Case Study - Chile ....................................................................................... 50 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 53

2

How are we doing and how do we get it right for children? Evolution of the roles of the public and private sector in Early Childhood Care and Education in efforts to achieve EFA Goal 1

INTRODUCTION In this paper, we will be reviewing progress against Education for All (EFA) Goal 1 1 and examining key factors that have both contributed to and obstructed achievements since 2000. The World Declaration on Education for All (Jomtien, 19902) emphasized the importance of partnerships “between government and non-government organisations, the private sector, local communities, religious groups and families” in ensuring that all children have access to quality educational opportunities. The commitments to creative new partnerships to achieve Education for All (EFA) goals received even stronger emphasis in Dakar (2000). In the case of early childhood care and education (ECCE)3 such partnerships are, without doubt, absolutely essential. UNESCO defines as “private” any educational institute that is controlled and managed by a non-government organization (e.g. religious group, association, enterprise) or if its governing body consists mainly of members not selected by a public agency (UNESCO, 2014a). We have assumed that countries use the UNESCO definition of “private education” when they send in data to UIS though we recognise that in practice there is likely to be variation. In this paper, the UNESCO definition is used - private means “non-state,” non-state and private are used interchangeably. We think it important to begin with some definitions: 

The public sector is funded, managed, and regulated by government with services designed to be available to all, universally or according to need, as a “public good.”



The private sector by contrast is owned by individuals, businesses, or corporations and is concerned with markets. Access to goods and services is according to ability to pay rather than according to need or entitlement.



The not-for-profit or civil society sector is different to both. Centrally concerned with the notion of a good society, it not only provides and advocates for services but also can act as both a bulwark and a watchdog concerning both government and the private sector.

This paper examines the following questions: 1

Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children. 2 World Conference on Education for All, Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 1990. 3 This paper uses the term Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) in line with the terminology used in EFA Goal 1. Other related terms and definitions exist including Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD), Early Childhood Development (ECD), Early Childhood Education (ECE), Early Childhood Education, Care and Development (ECECD) and Early Childhood Education and Development (ECED).

1

1. To what extent have we been successful in increasing access to quality early childhood provision – particularly for disadvantaged children in low and middle-income countries? 2. How have the roles of state and non-state (civil society and private enterprise) sectors in early childhood education provision evolved – or not evolved – in recent years (and particularly since 2000)? What has driven this? 3. What are the implications of the current status (provision and policies) for addressing challenges related to a post-2015 agenda? What should the roles of state and nonstate partners be? EFA Goal 1 aims to ensure access to comprehensive quality services for children birth to 8 years. Unfortunately, no targets were initially set for this goal and as time went on, this goal became synonymous with expanding pre-primary education (or preschool) only moving attention away from services for children under the age of three. While no target was initially set to measure success at attaining this goal, the GMR has set 80% pre-primary education gross enrolment ratio as an indicative target for 2015. The decision to do so narrows the scope of interest for this goal. As a result, the availability of services, information, and data for children birth to 3 years is both limited and difficult to understand making it problematic to analyse within the scope of this paper. Some government’s exclusive focus on one or two preprimary years (often attached to primary school) further decreases attention to provision that is outside the realm of preschool. Here, we use data that is available within UIS and other sources for pre-primary education, albeit acknowledging that this data is not entirely reliable given a) the different age ranges used across countries and b) the large percentage of private provision that is not registered and therefore not counted. We will also use case studies from selected, mostly low-income countries to better understand the dynamics underlying the numbers and the evolution in policy development and provision.

Part I: THE NUMBERS AND POLICY MAKING THE NUMBERS We begin with an analysis of the size and scope of pre-primary provision between 1999 and 2011. We shed light on trends globally, by region, by socioeconomic status, and finally by public and private provision. Global and regional trends Between 1999 and 2011, the global pre-primary GER increased from 33% to 50% equating to nearly 60 million more children (generally 3 to 6 years) benefitting from an early childhood education programme. Developing countries made significant progress overall (53 million children) increasing the pre-primary GER from 27% to 45%. However, most of these children were in middle income countries (49 million as compared to 5 million in low income). The greatest gains have been in South and West Asia (28 million children) and East Asia (10 million children). Not much has changed with respect to the ranking of regions (see Figure 1). 2

Those who reached the fewest children in 1999 continued to do so in 2011 (e.g., Arab States and Sub-Saharan Africa) while those who served the most in 1999 continued to expand access and remained on top in 2011 (e.g., Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean). Figure 1. Pre-Primary Gross Enrolment Ratios 1999 versus 2011. Pre-Primary GER (%)

80

73 54

60

72

62

51

50 39

32

40 22 20

19

23 15

10

18

0

Latin Central and East Asia and South and Central Asia Arab States Sub-Saharan America and Eastern the Pacific West Asia Africa the Europe 1999 2011 Caribbean

While the global picture looks positive, some countries are making progress faster than others. A closer look at changes by country suggests most have made noteworthy progress (e.g., Chile, Ghana, Mexico, Thailand, Mongolia, Nepal, and South Africa). However, there is negligible progress in some countries (e.g., Yemen, TYR Macedonia Tajikistan, Mali, Burkina Faso, Uzbekistan, Sierra Leone), and decrease in a few (Guyana, Bermuda, Estonia). Except for the Latin American and the Caribbean region, most countries within each region have shown progress between 1999 and 2011. However, the rate of progress for countries within the same region varies considerably. Take for example the East Asia and the Pacific region (see Figure 2). In 1999, Myanmar had the lowest pre-primary GER (2%) and while it made some progress, it continued to lag behind all other countries in the region in 2011 (9%). Conversely, Vietnam experienced rapid progress starting at a base of 40 per cent and increasing to 72 per cent between 1999 and 2011. Those countries which were struggling to ensure access to ECCE in 1999, continued to do so in 2011. While there is consistent progress across most countries in the region, progress is not equal.

Pre-Primary GER (%)

Figure 2. Changes in Pre-Primary Gross Enrolment Ratios East Asia and the Pacific 19992011. 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1999 2005 2011

Country

3

Progress in the Latin American and the Caribbean region has been less consistent as compared with the other regions (see Figure 3). Argentina, Mexico, and Chile made great strides between 1999 and 2011 (57 to 74, 70 to 99, 76 to 112) while Guyana which had attained 100 per cent in 1999 declined to 63 per cent over the same period. Bermuda also is showing signs of declining enrolments (56 to 43). Figure 3. Changes in Pre-Primary Gross Enrolment Ratios Latin America and the Caribbean 1999-2011.4

Pre-Primary GER (%)

120 100 80 60

1999

40

2011

20 0 Paraguay Bermuda Colombia Guyana Argentina Suriname Mexico

Cuba

Chile

Country

Global and regional pre-primary GERs are useful but need to be unpacked. Each country is progressing at its own rate – a better understanding of why some are progressing more quickly than others and why others show no progress will be captured more fully in the discussion below. Who are these 170 million children enrolled in pre-primary? According to the 2011 EFA GMR, urban children are twice as likely as rural children to participate in preschool programmes, and children from the top 20 per cent of households are twice as likely to be in preschool as children from the bottom 20 per cent (UNESCO 2011). Despite the overall gains in numbers, the poorest children are still being left behind. The World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE)5 provides preschool attendance data for countries across different dimensions (e.g., wealth, gender, religion, and ethnicity). A close look at a sample of 23 countries for which country wealth index and preschool attendance data were available indicates an even worse situation, and, most depressingly, one that has not improved. We analysed changes in pre-primary GER for the bottom 20 per cent and top 20 per cent over time. In this data set, children from the wealthiest households were, on average, three times more likely to be enrolled in pre-primary than children in the poorest households. This ratio did not change between the first and second years compared. While more children were participating in preschool programmes, overall the 3:1 ratio remained constant. The countries in the sample can be grouped into three categories: countries where the gap between the richest and poorest is closing (nine countries), countries where the gap is widening (seven countries), and countries where both the rich and poor have benefitted equally so in fact the gap remains the same (seven countries). Figure four shows examples of 4 5

Paraguay and Suriname are 2001 figures (not 1999). www.education-inequalities.org

4

countries where the gap between the rich and poor has closed, widened, or stayed the same. A complete list of the 23 countries surveyed is provided in Annex 1. Figure 4. Percentage of children participating in pre-primary, richest versus poorest6 (red line richest quintile, blue poorest) Gap between the rich and the poor is closing: Swaziland 100%

100%

Suriname

Ghana 100%

80%

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

20%

0%

0%

0%

80% 60% 40%

2000

Year

2006

2000 2006 2010 Year

2010

Gap between the rich and the poor is widening: TFYR Macedonia Lao PDR

100%

100%

100%

80%

80%

60%

60%

60%

40%

40%

40%

20%

20%

20%

Cameroon

0% 2000

2005 Year 2011

2011

80%

0%

0%

Year

2006 Year

2011

2000

2006 Year

Gap between the rich and the poor is staying the same: 100%

Vietnam 100%

Albania

100%

80%

80%

80%

60%

60%

60%

40%

40%

40%

20%

20%

20%

0%

0%

0%

2000

Year

2010

2000

Year

2005

Belize

2006

Year

2011

Of the nine countries where the gap is closing, five countries have historical data on the percentage of private provision. In four countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Suriname) there was a decrease of 2 to 4 percentage points between 1999 and 2011. Togo experienced a decrease of 17 percentage points during the same period. While historical information is not available for Swaziland, in 2011 the percentage of private provision

6

www.education-inequalities.org; see Annex 1 for full data table

5

was 100% making it difficult then to conclude that the poorest children only benefit when access is provided by the public sector. Of the seven countries where the gap between the rich and poor is widening, only two countries have historical data on the percentage of private enrolments. In both countries, the percentage of children enrolled in private institutions increased between 1999 and 2011 (Cameroon 4 percentage points, Lao PDR 6 percentage points). In 2011, the percentage of private provision in five of the seven countries ranged from as low as 15% (Bosnia and Herzegovina) to 77% (Gambia). The presence of the private sector in these countries seems to create inequitable access to pre-primary education. Of the seven countries where the gap between the rich and poor remain the same, only four countries have historical data. In two cases, the percentage of private provision increased (Guinea-Bissau, Guyana) and in two cases, the percentage of private provision decreased (Burundi, Vietnam). Overall, within and across the three groupings, there is no clear link between who is benefitting and any change in the percentage of private provision. Nevertheless, despite progress in many countries, the poorest children remain at a disadvantage. While we know that the children most in need are likely to experience the greatest gains from ECCE programmes (Barnett, 1995) these children are being left behind. The reasons for failing to reach this group are many (i.e. social exclusion, financing, political will, poor planning). Below we focus on two of the key drivers for this unfortunate trend - ECCE provision and policy. The changing and mixed landscape in ECCE provision Of the 170 million children enrolled in pre-primary globally, the EFA GMR 2013/14 estimates that the proportion of enrolment in private institutions is 33%, an increase from 27% in 1999. In developing countries, the proportion of children enrolled in private institutions is 49% (up from 47% in 1999) and in low-income countries alone this rises to 55%. Thus, private providers play an extremely significant and increasing role in ECCE provision. There has been movement both up and down within regions over the last decade. According to the EFA GMR 2013/14, private provision as a percentage of total enrolment in the Arab states has decreased from 88% in 1999 to 71% in 2011). This might be a result of increases in the proportion of children enrolled in public preschools in Algeria, Jordan and Qatar and the possible closure of private centres due to conflict in the region. At present, the Arab States remains the region with the greatest private provision but as conflict continues to prevail in the region, will those private institutions remain, or will they fold? In the case of Algeria, where the percentage of total enrolment through private provision is the lowest in the region (12%), the pre-primary GER has reached 75% (up from 2% in 1999). In 2004, the Algerian government introduced a pre-primary curriculum and set a target of 80% pre-primary enrolment by 2010 (UNESCO, 2014b, pg. 48). Algeria demonstrates the benefit and need for the public sector to play a more active role in the region. In the Latin American and the Caribbean region, the 2013/14 EFA GMR reports a slight decrease (from 34% to 30%) in the percentage of children enrolled in private institutions. However, the percentage of children enrolled in private institutions is 80 per cent for the Caribbean alone. A survey of 16 countries reported a total of 4,462 early childhood institutions (birth to preschool) of which only 19 per cent are government owned (UNESCO 2010, LAC 6

Regional Report p119). The remaining 81 per cent are private (22%), faith-based (3%), and community (55%). As per current data reporting, children enrolled in these non-government centres would be included in the count of children enrolled in private institutions. However, in many of these countries the governments provide subsidies to some of the community and private institutions. Hence, the line between public and private becomes blurred (UNESCO 2010, LAC Regional Report p119). All of the other regions saw an increase in the proportion of children enrolled in private institutions resulting in just less than 50% in South and West Asia and just over 50% in East Asia and the Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa. At the other end of the spectrum are Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe where the proportion of children enrolled in private institutions remains at 2-3% (up only 1-2% from 1999). In 2011, there were nine countries where 100 per cent of the enrolments are through private providers (Bahrain, Palestine, Samoa, Anguilla, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Uganda). The pre-primary GER varies greatly across these countries from as low as 11 per cent (Rwanda) to as high as 80 per cent (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). Uganda’s ECCE policy makes it clear that there will be no public provision of ECCE services. Instead, all provision should be provided via private actors. The pre-primary GER in 2011 was a dismal 14 per cent. Substantial investment from the public sector is required if there is to be an increase in the pre-primary GER. A closer look at 73 low and middle-income countries for which enrolment data was available in 1999 and 2011 show three patterns (see Figure 5). 1. Public and private expanded equally resulting in little change in the proportion of children enrolled in private institutions (33 countries). Examples of countries: Indonesia, Ecuador, Cameroon, Lebanon, Romania 2. Public provision expanded more rapidly than private. Enrolments in private have stayed the same or declined but public provision has continued to grow over the same time period (19 countries) Examples of countries: Vietnam, South Africa, Angola, Jordan, Ecuador 3. Private provision expanded more rapidly than public. Enrolments in private continued to rise while enrolments in public stayed the same or declined. (21 countries) Examples of countries; United Arab Emirates, Chile, Kenya, Slovakia, Jamaica Of all of the countries surveyed, Kenya had the greatest increase in private provision (see Kenya case for more details).

7

Figure 5. Changes in the Percentage of Children Enrolled in Public and Private Pre-Primary Programmes, 1999 and 20117. (blue public, red private) Pattern 1: Public and private expanded equally Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Cameroon

China, Macao Special Administrative Region

100% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1999

2011

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1999

2011

1999

2011

Pattern 2: Public expanded more rapidly than private. Angola

Malaysia

Colombia

100%

100%

100%

80%

80%

80%

60%

60%

60%

40%

40%

40%

20%

20%

20%

0%

0% 1999

2011

0% 1999

2011

1999

2011

Pattern 3: Private expanded more rapidly than public. Poland

Chile

Kenya

100%

100%

100%

80%

80%

80%

60%

60%

60%

40%

40%

40%

20%

20%

20%

0%

0% 1999

2011

0% 2002

2011

1999

2011

Based on the reluctance of small private providers to register in many countries (for fear of being closed down if they fail to meet “standards” which government centres themselves often fail to meet) it is presumed that there is still massive under-reporting with respect to private provision. Even with the gaps in data, it is evident that the landscape for ECCE provision is varied and requires the commitment of both public and private actors. It would be valuable to be able to examine the extent to which increases in coverage correlated with the existence and implementation of clear policies. Unfortunately, the lack of systematically available 7

Data table provided in Annex 2

8

information on ECCE policies makes this impossible and emphasizes the importance of such an exercise. In the next section, we turn to the evolution of policies to support ECCE and note here that the role of public and private actors is significantly undernoted in policies and therefore requires further attention.

POLICY MAKING FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD Increasingly countries are developing ECCE policies, passing legislation, and developing strategic plans. ECCE requires a multisectoral perspective and as such, the trend has been to develop multisectoral ECCE policies that encompass the holistic needs of children birth to 8 years. Education, health, and social sectors are collaborating more than ever before to ensure the development of holistic early childhood policies. The development of these multisectoral ECCE policies are fraught with complexities which either delay policy development (e.g., policy development took 10 years in Ghana, the integrated early childhood development policy in Tanzania was suddenly abolished) or make it difficult to implement because of a mismatch with sectoral realities, lack of clarity regarding governance, or inadequate financing. Thus, while the number of ECCE policies is on the rise the translation of these documents into practical plans is often lacking. There is often a lack of clarity regarding who should be the provider and funder. While governments are clear that the regulatory function belongs to them, in practice, governments in low-income countries are often challenged to provide adequate oversight of public provision, let alone reaching private provision that may often be neither registered nor mapped. The benefit of ECCE policies in terms of positive outcomes for young children remains to be seen in all too many countries. In countries where policies are still either, completely lacking or not implemented the private sector steps in to fill the gap. Take for example the 13 countries where The Systems Approach for Better Education Results – Early Childhood Development (SABER-ECD) framework developed by the Human Development Department of the World Bank has been carried out. The SABER-ECD framework provides an integrated assessment of how the overall policy environment affects young children’s development. Figure 6 describes the three policy goals and nine policy levers that make up the SABER-ECD analytical framework. For each policy goal and policy lever, the countries level of development ranges from less developed (or “latent”) to fully developed (or “advanced”). Comparisons of the 13 countries surveyed to date shows that while there is variation most are ‘emerging’8. Figure 6. SABER-ECD Analytical Framework

8

See Annex 3

9

The pre-primary GERs for these 13 countries vary from 7 to 113 per cent (see Annex). While there has been overall progress with respect to ECCE policy development, this has not consistently translated into positive outcomes for children. The SABER-ECD country reports promote reflection on how countries respond to similar challenges regarding early childhood and prompt countries to continue refining. ECCE policies vary greatly with respect to governance, quality, and financing. Many policies have been difficult to implement because of a problem in one or all three areas. In SubSaharan Africa for example, ECCE lacks coordination and organization. Some 19 SSA countries have ECCE policies and another 20 are in the process of developing them (UNESCO-BREDA 2010). In 70% of the cases, the education ministries deal more with the 3-6 year age cohort and focus even more on the primary education aspect, ignoring the health and nutrition components that are vital for holistic ECCE. The ministries of social affairs focus more on the community aspects and management of 0 to 3 year olds. An institutional and administrative consultation body has worked well in Ghana and Mauritius. Similar structures are needed across the region (UNESCO-BREDA 2010). Governance - the allocation of responsibility within and across levels of government and between public and private providers – is critical in determining whether ECCE services meet a range of policy considerations: quality standards; affordability, demand, cost-effectiveness, and equity goals. There is great variation on three dimensions of governance: administrative organization/responsibilities at national level; decentralization; and the role of private actors. In countries where a lead agency or a coordinating body with decision-making power is identified the challenges are fewer and progress is faster (e.g., Jamaica, Ghana). In addition to the development of multisectoral ECCE policies or national plans, there has been an increasing trend to include at least 1-year of compulsory pre-primary education as part of basic education. Pre-primary education policy may be part of the broader multisectoral ECCE policy or part of the overall education plan. The number of countries with at least 1-year of compulsory pre-primary has risen significantly over the last 15 years and this is one of the clear emerging trends, however precise figures have proved elusive. Despite considerable effort, it has proved impossible for now to develop a comprehensive table detailing the status of ECCE policies and laws across low and middle-income countries. This is something which is a clear need and worthy of support by a multi-lateral. Overall, access to pre-primary education is increasing but the rate of access varies considerably by country and in many countries fails to reach the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children. Box 1 summarizes the situation for the most vulnerable children in five countries: Ghana, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Togo, and Vietnam. The individual stories of these five countries could be replicated across all low and middle-income countries. While indeed, globally, there have been improvements with respect to access and ECCE policy (better in some places than others), the changing landscape of ECCE provision requires a concerted focus on how the post-2015 agenda will ensure these young children are not further left behind.

10

Box 1. A comparison of access rates for children from the wealthiest and poorest quintiles In 2006, Ghanaian children from the wealthiest households were four times more likely to attend pre-primary than their poorest peers. In 2011, the wealthiest children were only twice as likely to be attending pre-primary. In the same period, the pre-primary GER doubled (from 52% to 114%) and the per cent of enrolments in private institutions decreased to 22%. In this case, widespread public expansion was prompted by the passing of a multisectoral ECCE policy in 2004 that mandated 2 years of pre-primary education as part of basic education. This positive policy shift greatly benefited the poorest children. Similarly, in Kazakhstan public expansion has helped close the gap between the richest and poorest children. Kazakhstan was the first Central Asian country to include 1-year compulsory pre-primary education (law passed in 1999) after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Between 1999 and 2011, the rate of expansion in public institutions outpaced private enrolments. By 2011, the number of children enrolled in public institutions had tripled. Whereas the wealthiest child was twelve times more likely to be enrolled in 2006, they were only three times more likely to be enrolled in 2010. Conversely, in Tajikistan, despite having a system that is almost entirely public the poorest and remote children are worse off. Preschool attendance is four times greater for urban children than rural children (McLean, 2010) and at least 20 times greater for the wealthiest children than the poorest children (UNESCO 2011, World Bank, 2013a). However, Ministry of Education’s adoption for national rollout of an alternative approach pioneered by the Aga Khan Foundation has the potential to transform this situation. Enrolment rates rose from 9% to 34% between 2009 and 2013 in the most remote rural and impoverished region of the country. Use of under-utilized classrooms in primary schools, training and professional development support from the government Institutes of Professional Development and contributions from communities to support operational costs keeps the model inexpensive. The MoE intends to absorb at least one teacher salary per preschool as soon as possible. In Togo, the rate of public provision expansion was double that of private between 1999 and 2011. Unfortunately, public expansion benefitted the wealthiest children more than the poorest children. In 2000, children from the wealthiest households were six times more likely to participate in a pre-primary programme than a child from the poorest household (UNICEF, 2000b). Ten years later, the gap had only narrowed slightly with children from the wealthiest households being five times more likely than the poorest children (UNICEF et al., 2010). While pre-primary education is part of basic education, the ECCE policy is under development. This policy will need to prioritize reaching the most marginalized. In 2000, children from the wealthiest households in Vietnam were twice as likely to participate in a pre-primary programme as children in the poorest households (UNICEF, 2000c). Ten years later the same holds true, despite an increase in the pre-primary GER (40% to 73% between 1999 and 2011) (UNESCO, 2014b). Enrolment in public institutions nearly doubled (from 1.1 million to 2.1 million) while enrolments in private institutions went down by 51,000 children. Public expansion benefited everyone, including the most disadvantaged. According to Resolution No. 05/2005/NQ-CP, preschool education in Vietnam is the responsibility of the Government, family and society as a whole. The EFA National Action Plan includes as one of its goals increased access for ethnic minorities and disadvantaged children (UNESCO-IBE, 2006).

11

Part II: REFLECTIONS ON CURRENT STATUS Private Provision - Lack of adequate attention and analysis EFA reports have given inadequate attention to the issue of private/ non-state ECCE, which is represented by both for profit and not for profit private facilities. Why is this when we know that around half (and likely significantly more) of the children enrolled in early childhood programmes in developing countries are in private provision. The 2007 ECCE focussed EFA GMR (UNESCO, 2007) dedicates just a few pages to any analysis of private provision and its appropriate role. The 2007 report and subsequent GMRs do at least routinely include columns giving the per cent of the total enrolments that are “private” and data on private providers has improved since 1991 when less than half of the countries reported data on the percentage of private provision. However, there is no disaggregating within this and therefore no way of telling which type of non-state provider is delivering the service. This lack of disaggregation within private needs to be addressed urgently. At present NGOs who often deliberately target the most marginalized groups are lumped together with the emerging chains of for-profit preschools from which investors make tidy profits. The values and aims of the not-for-profit and the for-profit groups are fundamentally different as are likely outcomes. Given that EFA Goal 1 is explicitly concerned with expanding and improving ECCE especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, it seems unfortunate to have NGOs/not-for-profit in the same category at all. Might a more useful disaggregation might be public/ civil society/ private? Complexity and the difficulty obtaining data Much of the lack of attention to private/non-state provision stems quite simply from the difficulties of defining the sector and in obtaining data (let alone comparable data). Private providers range from civil society organizations such as NGOs, churches, mosques, and community organizations to profit-making companies, and in size from individual street traders to multinational corporations. Private/Non-state provision thus covers a very diverse mix of players, and in many developing countries, a majority of both the low cost private for profit and NGO/community preschools are not registered and never are counted. While certainly there has been significant expansion of ECCE provision since 1999 just how much it has expanded to the most vulnerable is harder to assess. While the data available through UIS and other sources indicates that private provision is growing in many countries at a modest pace it seems likely that a great deal of the private providers are not registered and therefore are simply not counted, and that it is in fact far more significant than it appears in the official data. The Optimus Foundation studies would seem to support this. These formative studies in low-income peri-urban areas of 4 major African cities revealed both high enrolment rates of 3-6 year-olds (93% in Accra, 87% in Lagos, 84% in Nairobi 71% in Soweto) and that except in Soweto the private sector is completely dominant accounting for 91% of preschool enrolments in Accra, 83% in Lagos, 94% in Nairobi. The South African government has a major commitment to ECCE – but even in Soweto 56% of pre-schoolers are in private provision. It is difficult to gauge how many children are being served, by whom, where, let alone how well (UBS Optimus Foundation 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b). 12

Adding to the dilemma, significant numbers of preschools in many countries operate across public and private lines, blurring the traditional definitions and categorizations. Where does the ECCE provision that has substantial inputs from both government and communities fit and thus get ‘counted’? At what stage does a preschool that starts to obtain government support (e.g. perhaps first for a roof and learning materials and then for some teachers’ salaries) get included as a government preschool? What are the ways in which private for profit preschools are starting to receive government subsidies? The answers to such questions vary greatly from one country to another. The public versus private debate and the evolution of the roles of government and the private sector While for a long time private education was in the main ignored - being regarded either as serving the elite (and therefore irrelevant for universal EFA goals/ MDGs) or as being the domain of CSOs serving particular target groups - this has all changed over the last few years. There is now plenty of attention, both political and scholarly, to private education at national and international levels and a slew of often-contradictory studies have emerged over the last few years. However, these have mostly focussed on primary education with only a few giving attention specifically to ECCE such as the Young Lives studies (Woodhead and Streuli, 2013). It is not only the significant expansion of private provision across all levels of education that has driven this. It is also the fundamental changes taking place in the nature of education under conditions of de-regulation, de-centralization, de-nationalisation, privatisation, competitive tendering, and increasing agenda setting by commercial interests.9 The public versus private debate revolves around whether private provision helps achieve or impedes the goals of EFA and MDGs. It has been fuelled as much by political ideology as by evidence. The whole area is highly contested.10 On the one side, private ECCE provision can be seen as a positive expression of neo-liberalism with competitive market processes promising choice, effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. On the other side, expansion of private services (especially unregulated ones) are seen as incompatible with the equity principles which are central to EFA, risking increases in disparities and marginalization. Of course, within the private for profit sector there is a vast range – in terms of values and intent and actual opportunities for children. The local woman who sets up a small day-care / preschool in her home, is strongly connected to all the children and families who use it and makes a small living out of it is very different from the chain of low-cost for-profit preschools whose bottom line is the financial return. In the following sections, we briefly unpack these arguments around:   

Rights and the “Public Good” Who private provision serves – choice and marginalization Quality, effectiveness and efficiency

9

The Privatization in Education Research Initiative (www.periglobal.org) has sought to open up the overall discussion as a response to the changing dynamics of education, particularly the growing tide of privatized education across the world. (see also Education, Privatization and Social Justice ( OSF)). 10 (see for example the Oxfam blogs: Kevin Watkins versus Justin Sandefur and the APPG debate: Michael Barber versus Keith Lewin.)

13

1) Rights and the “Public Good” Education is a “public good” with benefits not only to individuals, but also to society at large. It is also a fundamental right as enshrined in Human Rights Conventions. Article 28 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that these education opportunities should be free at primary level and the Moscow ECCE conference sought to extend this to include ECCE. Governments thus are obligated to ensure that all children have access to education that helps them to develop to their full potential, and prepares them to contribute to their families, communities, and society as a whole. However, since the 1990s a reframing of education by economists focussed on human capital development for economic growth has become increasingly hegemonic. Direct provision by the state usually takes the form of ECCE centres or preschool classes within a primary school - funded, run, and managed by the government. There are numerous reasons why governments may choose to provide education services themselves rather than rely on private providers. These may include the reasonable assumption that for-profit providers will put profits ahead of quality and access for marginalized groups; that NGOs may not have the capacity to work at scale; and that impoverished communities cannot afford to organize education for their children. The difficulties with direct service provision by the State often have to do with the bureaucratic and centralized nature of large systems, which in many countries results in difficulties in reaching the most marginalized, responding to the needs of communities, being accountable and transparent, or providing quality services. Wariness around private provision stems fundamentally from the fear that “too much” private involvement will result in inappropriate influence of private sector profit motives and the state abrogating its responsibilities, countering the efforts that international agencies and in-country civil society groups have made in advocating for public services. Another risk is that if key stakeholders are not “invested” in the system, then quality deteriorates. As one report states, “Targeting essential services at poor people in place of universal public provision, while it might seem cheaper in the short term, often results in wealthier groups withdrawing financial and political support for public services where they see no benefit to themselves” (Oxfam International, 2006, p.81). This then results in the « pauperization » of the public system, as indeed has already happened in most low-income countries. Government support and investment to ensure access to ECCE especially for the most disadvantaged is critical. It is important, however, not to confuse the State meeting its obligations, setting standards and ensuring quality with government running the whole show on its own. What is needed is ECCE provision that works for children and their families in the diverse circumstances in which they live. Successful systems vary widely. Highly centralized systems tightly controlled by government can indeed provide excellent developmental supports for children; Cuba being the prime example. New Zealand’s highly successful ECCE system is funded and regulated by government but actual provision is by a mix of community groups and businesses. 2) Who private provision serves – choice and marginalization Analysis of non-state roles in ECCE was in the past characterized as centring around two very different types of provision: (a) NGOs ensuring education for under-served groups who may be missed by the state system; and (b) elite, high quality private institutions for those who can 14

afford them. While these are indeed two ends of the spectrum, the situation is far more complex. The notion that private preschools are servicing the needs of a small minority of wealthy parents is misplaced. A lower cost private sector has emerged to meet the demands of poorer households and is rapidly expanding across many developing countries, especially in urban areas. In many instances, it is assumed that private provision has arisen in response to state failure to provide services – and is thus the only option. This is indeed often the case. In the Optimus studies already referred to, public provision in the four low-income peri-urban areas was only available in Soweto. Private providers flourish in a situation of decreased government support, financial cutbacks, and decentralization. This diversification has both encouraged innovation and increased inequities (UNESCO, 2007: 176). The growth of private early childhood services is also part of a wider trend of families being willing to pay and make sacrifices in order to send their children to private primary schools in preference to government schools in the belief that this will lead to higher achievement and increased opportunities for their children (Woodhead, Frost and James, 2013). Some of the research (Tooley and Dixon, 2005) presented the “choice” available through low-cost private provision as something of a panacea. More recently research has raised serious concerns about which groups actually have such a choice and access these low-fee private preschools and schools and the extent to which private provision remains out of reach of the poorest and most marginalised (Juneja, 2010; Harma, 2009). Interestingly an excellent report on marketbased solutions across a range of sectors from the consulting company Deloitte raises some similar questions about the viability of private ECCE for the poorest (Koh and Irfan, 2014). While private preschools are numerous in urban areas, this is much less the case in rural areas. Affordability is an even more significant factor, with the poorest families priced out of the market wherever they live. As Harma says, poverty “is still a bar to the majority” (Harma 2009, 2011) and the access disparities graph (see figure 4) is confirmation of this. UNICEF’s End of Decade Notes on EFA (2012) points out the fact that 99% of provision in Indonesia is private may account for the huge variations in enrolment across provinces, considering many poor families cannot afford the relatively high costs associated with private centres. The Optimus Foundation Studies paint a slightly different picture. In the 4-city studies, even children from the poorest quintile have high rates of participation in private preschools (84% in Accra, 77% in Nairobi, 73% in Lagos. Only in Soweto was poverty a major access barrier). Many families, including very poor families, are opting out of public schools and choosing alternatives, especially when there are costs associated with participating in the public system. However, it is clear from a raft of studies that where children from very poor families are attending private schools or preschools this is a major financial burden for the families often resulting in considerable hardships. Every dollar spent on preschool fees is a dollar less for food, healthcare, and shelter. When families end up taking loans (for example against future harvests) which they cannot afford to cover fees they can become plunged further into debt and poverty. (Rolleston and Adefeso, 2012). Even in a wealthy country like the Netherlands, market-driven approaches can be problematic for poor families. In 2005, the Netherlands moved from subsidizing providers to subsidizing families to purchase services. This shift from a supply driven to a demand driven approach has resulted in concerns over reduced access for families with fewer resources, and over service gaps in rural and low-income areas that are less profitable and more challenging for providers (ILO, 2012).

15

In contrast, civil society organisations are well known for developing models that can be very effective in reaching extremely disadvantaged groups. Families and communities are usually of necessity closely engaged in the whole endeavour and this is often an empowering experience for parents who may have previously had little contact with education. Misgivings remain in some quarters that this sort of NGO provision, which often responds to failures of the public system to reach the most marginalized children, risks diverting attention away from efforts to make the formal system more inclusive. We argue that in order to ensure disadvantaged children’s rights now, rather than in some distant future when the public sector reaches all children, a two-pronged strategy used by many NGOs may be most appropriate. This involves NGOs continuing with direct provision for extremely disadvantaged groups, while also working with government for mainstreaming. 3) Quality, effectiveness and efficiency Almost all parents, including the poorest, are acutely concerned about the quality of services. There is a notable willingness amongst the poorest to make sacrifices for, what they perceive to be good quality education. However, perceptions of what “good quality” means may be at odds with our understanding of developmentally appropriate practice. Parents from any socioeconomic background are often happy to see their young children sitting quietly at a desk rather than being engaged in activities that would actually support their overall development and learning. How do we ensure a balance so that, while avoiding a downward extension of Grade 1, parents’ expectations are satisfied? The decisions of families around which service to use, or whether to send their children at all, relate to interlinked factors, including perceived relevance of the curriculum and fit with their value systems (Tawil, 2006; Coulibaly, et al 2007). In East Africa, for instance, the Madrasa Early Childhood Programme was initiated to address local Muslim leaders and parents’ desire to ensure their children had access to quality preschools, which also integrated aspects related to Islam and local Swahili culture (Bartlett, 2003). As with other levels of education, proponents of private ECCE argue that market-driven approaches encourage competition and innovation, increase efficiency and offer good quality. Both the lack and low quality of government ECCE provision are cited as the main reasons for the mushrooming of private centres in many countries. Parents cite lack of accountability in the public system as their main reason for choosing private options. On the other side, there is an assumption that private preschools provide a level of quality, which is worse than public ECCE services - particularly where teachers in private preschools receive limited pre-service training, and are poorly paid. In contrast to the situation with primary provision, there has been a notable lack of research comparing the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of public and private early childhood provision – a gap that needs to be filled. The Optimus studies however provide some striking insights into the dire quality of the private preschools they observed. They were not developmentally appropriate, there were a lack of materials for children to interact with, and were very formal and academic, children doing formal lessons in rows. In Accra, these young children spend 41 hours a week in preschool, 45% have exams for 3 year-olds, and 90% have exams for 6 year-olds. Only in Soweto is the quality better. Almost all preschools were geared to learning through play, appropriate materials were available for children’s use, and the schedule was much richer and more varied. Interestingly, the 62% of centres, which are 16

registered with government, were notably better – higher teacher salaries, more materials, and higher quality of programme. The study authors do not raise this point but we note that in South Africa there has been long engagement of both civil society and government in preprimary education. The government therefore has well-developed standards and is better able to play the regulatory role which is so vital in a mixed public/ private system. The reality is that children from the poorest families are likely to go to the worst preschools – so not only are families often making sacrifices they can ill-afford it may often be for the sake of opportunities for their children which may actually be damaging. There is insufficient robust data comparing the relative quality of public and private provision that reaches the poor, but it is likely that the range of what is on offer in low-cost private feepaying schools goes from the remarkable to the horrifying – just as in public or NGO systems. Ignoring the current and potential future contribution of non-state provision to achieving EFA Goal 1 because of perceptions of quality may be a disservice to poor families. Instead, there should be renewed efforts to compare quality across different types of provision, and systems must ensure that ECCE is of an acceptable standard – in private and public schools alike. However, the challenge with low-cost private-for-profit preschools is that they are all too often not part of a system. Whereas community/NGO preschools usually have professional support from a back office and public ECCE offerings have, however imperfect, a system of supervision and support the private-for-profit sector will often have nothing. This makes it even more critical to bring the private system under a regulatory framework and ensure quality standards. Only then will access mean that children are benefitting from a safe and supportive environment in which their interactions with teachers, other children and play and learning materials are nurturing their overall development. Regulating standards is always a thorny issue. The focus is often on indicators of structural quality (building quality, room size, teacher/ child ratio etc.). However, it is the indicators of process quality that are fundamental - the warmth and inclusiveness of interactions, teacher responsiveness, the opportunities for play etc. Indeed Love’s research (1996) indicates that these process indicators are associated more strongly with children’s well-being than are the structural indicators. This is encouraging for the many working in situations where resource constraints make some of the structural features hard to address (Arnold, 2004).

Part III: Conclusions and Recommendations for post 2015 There have indeed been significant gains since 1990 when the big achievement was including attention to young children as EFA goal number one. ECCE is firmly on the map; the demand is there; the majority of low and middle-income countries now either have or are developing ECCE policies; provision is increasing almost everywhere and fast in quite a large number of countries. Still far too little investment has been made and little achieved for the poorest and most marginalized children – the very ones identified in the goal as being the target. We know that investment in young children is critical for national development. We know that, based on the incontrovertible evidence regarding the returns, a logical step for governments would be to view ECCE as a vital public service, like primary schools, and ensure that it is either free or affordable for all. We also know that this will be a long time coming. It is clear that both public and private provision will continue to be important in the vast majority of countries, developed and developing alike. The private sector (both for-profit and CSOs) 17

brings an ability to be nimble, creative and responsive in ways which are difficult for any state apparatus due to its sheer size. A key question therefore is how can policies and the implementation of these policies capitalize on those advantages and at the same time ensure that services a) reach the marginalized (without plunging them into further indebtedness) and b) are of adequate quality. This remains the great challenge. In situations of extreme poverty, it is likely to be extremely difficult, and often impossible, for market solutions to deliver provision that is beneficial for children’s wellbeing. Indeed market-driven models risk reinforcing or even amplifying the very disparities that fuel cycles of intergenerational poverty (Woodhead and Streuli, 2013).We should not only look at this as a problem regarding for-profit providers. It is a major challenge for CSOs also. Attempts to avoid dependence on external funding and ensure long-term financial sustainability of community-based ECCE programmes often mean that salaries are very low (and the best teachers then move on to other opportunities-often in schools) and the money available for ensuring an adequate supply of learning materials and ongoing professional development support is extremely limited. The fact is that if we are to meet our obligations to the most disadvantaged children who will benefit most from ECCE this cannot be done at scale without active government engagement and financing. The sooner we are clear about this the better. Of course, many low-income communities have achieved extraordinary things for their young children. However, most often this has been following years of capacity-building support from and with CSOs. The private sector is not an alternative to quality public services and well-regulated public-private partnerships. Lower income countries can achieve high coverage. It is a matter of political will and commitment. In Figure 7, the pre-primary net enrolment ratio for countries in one region is plotted against GDP per capita. Figure 7. Being poor doesn’t mean you can’t invest in young children

The task of government policy-makers is to find the best balance of roles to achieve national education objectives in an inclusive, rational and efficient manner, utilizing all of the resources available, regardless of whether actual provision is mostly delivered by the state or not. This balance will vary among countries, and must be based on the specific country context. It may 18

change and evolve over time. Standards must be met in public and private ECCE alike. At the heart of it is the accountability of all stakeholders and the creation of a culture in which all parties are committed to make a difference and identify solutions that work for education systems, families and, most importantly, all children. The key point, therefore, may be government commitment and active engagement, rather than necessarily doing it all. Governments can play a variety of roles, including directly providing education services; developing appropriate policies ensuring equity and quality, regulation, oversight and accountability of all involved (public and private); providing finance to the nonstate sector; and providing information to parents on provision available. A pluralist system, which includes, in addition to government provision, non-state, demand-responsive centres that deliver quality education could provide significant added value. However, good governance and very deliberate efforts to ensure that marginalized children are reached are indispensable. Good governance is fragile or simply non-existent in many countries. While it is vital to invest in these processes and build the capacity of the public sector to be accountable to its citizens, there is a critical need to also invest in strong civil society institutions – such as mass media, research, policy and higher education institutions, non-governmental organizations and institutions, professional associations, cultural organizations. Their contributions are needed to achieve the substance of EFA goals. These actors are important not only for their ability to advocate, build capacity and deliver services, but also for the part the best of these can play in contributing to good governance and pluralism. The countries that are lagging behind in their progress towards achieving EFA Goal 1 are characterized by extreme poverty, conflict or lack of political will. In many extremely impoverished countries, the requisite government investments are impossibility without massive investments from the international community. As a share of total aid to education, the majority of bi-lateral donors allocate less than 0.5% to ECCE. This is extraordinary given the rates of return both financial and human. Key recommendations moving forward to the post-2015 era 1. An early childhood Goal: Young children’s wellbeing and overall development must be highlighted in the post-2015 agenda as a central goal underpinning progress towards meeting sustainable development goals across the board. The proposed measurable and actionable goal is: Reduce by half the number of children under 5 who fail to reach their developmental potential. (Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development: A Transformative Solution reducing poverty and inequality through a post-2015 ECD Goal). 2. Reaching disadvantaged and marginalized children: This must be a top priority for the international community, national governments, and civil society so that by 2025 the disparities between rich and poor, rural and urban, in access to decent quality services have decreased by at least half. There needs to be acknowledgement that reaching these children will often be more difficult and will have higher associated costs. How this is best done – by the public system, by non-state providers or through a combination needs serious attention and research.

19

3. Finance: Donors must massively increase support for ECCE, as must national governments, civil society, and the private sector. Households will no doubt continue to make significant contributions. 4. Policy: Policies must establish national goals and objectives, a comprehensive multisectoral and multi-partner framework, key strategies to achieve access and quality (such as training structures, supervision, and support systems), data requirements, and funding allocations. Non-state/private provision must be placed clearly within country plans with a negotiated role for each type of provider based on what makes sense in the country context. A central clearinghouse for all ECD policies is needed. This would summarize which countries have at least 1-year pre-primary as part of basic education, which countries have policies for the different age groups, etc. 5. Quality, Professional Development, and Regulation: Expanding access must go handin-hand with attention to quality. Governments must meet their crucial responsibilities for licensing and regulating ECCE services. Equally important is support for these services through pre-service training and on-going professional development. These need to offer flexible pathways to accreditation in order to ensure that local teachers in disadvantaged areas are not excluded from the early childhood profession. 7. Evidence-based decision-making to ensure both quality and reach: Decisions regarding funding allocations, appropriate roles for different players etc. must be based on evidence of what works best in promoting access for disadvantaged children, quality services, and positive outcomes for children and their families. One aspect of this is the need for better reporting and disaggregation of private sector data. Data needs to be disaggregated not only as public/ private. The private data needs to disaggregate by CSO/ private for-profit. Strengthening research will allow assessment of the relative strengths of different players and it will be particularly important to analyse more complex partnerships between the different private and public actors.

20

ANNEXES : TABLES Annex 1: Changes in Wealth Quintiles First Time Period Country Albania Belize Bosnia and Herzegovina Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic D. R. Congo Gambia Ghana Guinea-Bissau Guyana Iraq Kazakhstan Lao PDR Serbia Sierra Leone Suriname Swaziland Tajikistan TFYR Macedonia Togo Trinidad and Tobago Viet Nam Average of all countries

Year

Second Time Period

Quintile Quintile 1 5

Year

Quintile Quintile 1 5

Ratio Rich / Poor First Last Period Period

2000 2006 2000

12% 18% 4%

24% 59% 13%

2005 2011 2011

25% 17% 4%

62% 58% 27%

2.04 3.38 3.11

2.45 3.41 6.16

2000 2000 2000

3% 12% 1%

8% 42% 9%

2005 2006 2006

3% 3% 4%

10% 56% 18%

2.70 3.50 9.00

3.24 18.67 4.50

2000 2000 2006 2000 2000 2000 2006 2000 2005 2000 2000 2000 2000 2005

1% 11% 24% 4% 28% 0% 4% 3% 11% 5% 15% 5% 2% 1%

10% 31% 88% 23% 52% 10% 44% 7% 63% 31% 70% 41% 13% 25%

2010 2005 2011 2006 2006 2011 2010 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2005 2011

2% 8% 42% 4% 35% 1% 19% 6% 21% 5% 16% 36% 1% 1%

17% 42% 96% 23% 77% 10% 60% 67% 73% 41% 61% 50% 29% 56%

10.00 2.84 3.70 5.80 1.88 25.10 12.39 2.30 5.85 6.18 4.67 8.09 7.40 17.94

8.50 5.34 2.27 6.14 2.17 8.52 3.11 11.27 3.42 7.67 3.72 1.39 20.12 38.01

2000 2000

5% 75%

27% 82%

2010 2006

11% 66%

49% 89%

5.68 1.10

4.55 1.36

2000

28% 12%

43% 35%

2010

59% 17%

90% 50%

1.54 3.02

1.52 2.96

21

Annex 2: Changes in per cent of enrolments in private institutions, 1999-2011 (UIS database) Group 1: Less than 5% change in % private Country Argentina Brazil Bulgaria China, Macao Special Administrative Region Costa Rica Czech Republic Estonia Ghana Hungary Indonesia Japan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lebanon Lithuania Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Mongolia Nicaragua Palestine Panama Paraguay Romania Seychelles Slovakia Slovenia Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Turkey Ukraine Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

1999 28% 28% 0% 94% 15% 2% 1% 26% 3% 99% 65% 10% 1% 1% 78% 0% 19% 85% 9% 4% 17% 100% 23% 29% 1% 5% 0% 1% 67% 19% 6% 0% 20%

2011 32% 28% 1% 97% 13% 2% 3% 22% 6% 97% 70% 5% 3% 3% 82% 1% 18% 81% 14% 7% 16% 100% 19% 31% 2% 10% 4% 3% 71% 20% 9% 1% 18%

22

Group 2: More than 5% decrease in % private Country Angola Aruba Burundi Colombia Congo Côte d'Ivoire Ecuador El Salvador Eritrea Jordan Malaysia Myanmar Niger Philippines Senegal South Africa Sudan 1 Togo Viet Nam

1999 59% 83% 49% 45% 85% 46% 39% 22% 97% 100% 49% 90% 33% 47% 68% 26% 90% 53% 49%

Group 3: More than 5% increase in % private Country 1999 Australia 63% Benin 20% Brunei Darussalam 66% Burkina Faso 34% Cameroon 57% Cook Islands 25% Croatia 5% Dominican Republic 45% Equatorial Guinea 37% Guatemala 22% Guinea-Bissau 60% Guyana 1% Iran (Islamic Republic of) 16% Jamaica 88% Kenya 10% Kuwait 24% Lao People's Democratic Republic 18% Peru 15% Poland 3% United Arab Emirates 68% Yemen 37%

2011 1% 73% 34% 28% 73% 40% 33% 16% 52% 83% 35% 61% 15% 37% 45% 5% 25% 34% 33%

2011 75% 26% 74% 76% 61% 34% 14% 57% 53% 15% 84% 7% 25% 92% 38% 43% 24% 27% 15% 80% 45%

23

Annex 3: SABER-ECD Framework – Results from 13 countries

Country

Establishing an Enabling Environment

Implementing Widely

Monitoring and Assuring Quality

Pre-primary GER (2011)

Jamaica

Established

Established

Established

113%

Vanuatu

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

59%

Colombia

Established

Emerging

Emerging

49%

Samoa

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

43%

Armenia

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

43%

Kyrgyz Republic

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

21%

Nigeria

Emerging

Emerging

Latent

14%

Uganda

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

14%

Tajikistan

Emerging

Emerging

Emerging

9%

Sierra Leone

Latent

Latent

Latent

7%

Liberia

Latent

Emerging

Latent

N/A

Tonga

Emerging

EstablishedEstablished

Latent

N/A

24

ANNEXES: CASE STUDIES India, Kenya, Tanzania, Chile

25

Annex 4: India case study

Annex 4: Case Study - India Introduction India is the world’s largest democracy with its federal structure comprised of 28 states and 7 union territories and a population of 1.2 billion (Census, 2011), with estimated 70 million children between 3 to 6 years (MWCD, 2011). Its challenges stem from its phenomenal scale and from its wide diversity of population, with co-existence of 2000 ethnic groups, 29 official languages, (and many dialects) and all religions of the world represented in the country. India has perhaps the world’s largest public sponsored integrated programme for children below 6 years known as the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), which provides a package of six services, of which one is non-formal preschool education (PSE) for 3 to 6 year olds. This is delivered along with other services through 1.3 million ECCE centers (MWCD, 2013) across the country, known as Anganwadi centres, which are run by a local woman worker and a helper. In principle, through this package of services access to preschool education may be considered almost universalized in India. In practice in a large number of cases, community perceives the centers as only feeding centers. Available data on enrollment and participation in ECE indicates that about 64.5 percent 3 year olds and 76.3 percent 4 year olds in rural India are attending preschools or Anganwadis (ASER,2013). This excludes the urban for which there is no data and which if estimated can significantly enhance the percentage of children attending ECE programmes. Policy Shifts and Resulting Challenges Historically, ECCE as a subject was allocated to Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) as per the government’s business rules. It was thus seen as a part of elementary education and included in the National Policy on Education (1986) as an area of priority. Post Jomtien (2000) with international assistance coming into India for Basic Education Projects, ECCE which was included as Goal 1, got a spurt under the Bihar Education Project (BEP) and the District Primary Education programme (DPEP) with several innovations including attaching/relocating preschools and Anganwadi centres to primary schools and synchronizing their timings to facilitate older girls’ participation in school. These initiatives elicited promising results in terms of establishing Anganwadi centres or ECCE centers as sites for play based early childhood education, which were otherwise considered largely nutrition programmes. However, with the transfer of the subject of ECCE to the newly created Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) in 2006, all models of ECCE other than Anganwadi centres were closed down to avoid duplication of public provision. This resulted in Anganwadi centres, with its standardized design, becoming the sole model for ECCE in the public sector, despite its pre-school education component being weak, and this approach curbed the possibility of innovation and exploration of new models, especially given India’s diversity. Since 2002, the MHRD under its Education for All programme (SSA) supported quality improvement initiatives in ECCE for capacity building and curriculum development, through an innovations’ grant to states that opted for it, to be implemented in convergence with ICDS

26

Annex 4: India case study (Figure 1). However, in 2013 with withdrawal of this grant, possibly due to financial constraints as also the ownership issue, there was an initial set back in the states.

With the shift in priority, MHRD’s recent legislation, the Right to Education (RTE), 2009 making Elementary education a fundamental right of every child, initially omitted children below 6 years from its ambit thus reversing the Constitutional commitment (1950). Subsequently, in response to civil society advocacy it included an enabling clause (Clause 11) indicating that states will make all endeavor to provide for preschool education for children above 3 years until they complete 6 years of age” which remained at the level of ‘endeavour’ and not a justifiable right. Further, on demand from the states, MHRD constituted a high-level committee to consider feasibility of extending RTE to children from 3 to 6 years in 2012-13, but its report was not pursued. Concurrently, MWCD asserted its ownership of the subject by formulating the National Policy on ECCE, which was approved and notified in 2013. This was accompanied by a National Curriculum Framework and Quality Standards for ECCE. As a follow up to this major policy initiative, the MWCD has initiated an exercise for all states to develop and pilot their ECE curriculum in the ICDS contexts with the support of some technical institutions. UNICEF, with its revived focus on ECE has played an important supportive role in this context. The recently restructured ICDS too makes a clear statement regarding converting all Anganwadi centres into ‘vibrant ECCE centers” (National ECCE Policy, 2013). A trend analysis of child budgeting from 1998 to 2014 (Figure 2) indicates a consistent incline, with clearly identifiable spurts from around 2003-04 and subsequently in 2010-11, which could be associated with the introduction of the EFA related centrally sponsored scheme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and later the enactment of the Right to Education (2009), which was implemented from 2010. However, the major part of this expanding budget provision for children has consistently continued to be in favour of the Education sector (Figure 2). However, under the budgetary head of innovative activities under SSA, there was a specific provision for ECCE which was well utilized by many states (Figure 1); however over the last few years, with a policy to avoid duplication of provisions with Ministry of Women and Child Development, this support has been gradually reduced and is currently not available at all.

27

Annex 4: India case study

A corresponding trend is also visible in the shift in the recent budgetary provisions for child development of which ICDS is the major component. There is a visible spurt in the year 2005-06, which possibly came into effect when the Department of Women and Child Development was upgraded to a Ministry (Figure 3). Another gain is evident in 2011-12 when ICDS was restructured and Government of India introduced the draft Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) policy (Figure 3).

A significant development in 2014-15, after the approval of the ECCE Policy (2013) is that for the first time, the MWCD budget estimates have a specific provision for ECCE, to the tune of 124 million USD. The annual budgetary provisions for ECCE in the XIIth five year plan (20122017) for ICDS reflect continuity in this commitment to support ECCE (Table 1).

28

Annex 4: India case study

The focus of the budgetary allocation for ECE in restructured ICDS is primarily on quality and community awareness. Specific budgetary allocation has been made for pre-school kits, printing of activity books and to celebrate ECCE day every month with the community members. These specific provisions are supplemented with provision for training in ECE and for IEC in the overall ICDS budget. Comparative Trends in public and private provisioning for ECCE The major public provision in ECCE is the ICDS with some states and Municipal Corporations having traditionally supported preschool sections in schools. The shift in ownership and impact of the policy discouraging duplication of facilities has resulted in a steady decline in ECE provisions in the school system from 2006 onwards (Figure 4) while correspondingly, the ICDS provisioning has seen a consistent expansion since 2002 ,with an exponential 36.2 percentage increase between 2006 to 2008. This has been almost coterminus with the up gradation of the Department of Women and Child Development to Ministry of Women and Child Development (Figure 5). A similar spurt is also visible in 2011, possibly due to restructuring and up-gradation of ICDS to a mission mode, for universalization of these services for children.

29

Annex 4: India case study

The other major provider of ECCE is the private sector which has seen concurrent expansion since the late nineties. This has been possibly facilitated by a sharp decline in the population below poverty line and opening up of the Indian economy (Figure 6). This steep rise interestingly is seen in both urban and rural areas, contradicting the view that this is an urban phenomenon (Figure 7). It is also likely that in the absence of reliable data on private provisions due to absence of any regulatory mechanisms, this trend may yet be a gross under estimation. Findings from the longitudinal Indian Early Childhood Education Impact Study (IECEI, 2013), which is being carried out in three states of the country (Andhra Pradesh, Assam and Rajasthan) covering 13,868 children below 6 years, also demonstrates an increasing preference for private preschools over .the ICDS, however there are distinct state wise differences (Figure 8).

30

Annex 4: India case study

The trend analysis of the number of public, private and Anganwadi centres since 2007 indicates an exponential 54.4 percent and 35.1 percent increase in the number of Anganwadi centres and private primary schools respectively, whereas the number of Government provisioning has increased by 6.3 percent (Figure 9). It may be noted that this analysis is constrained by data limitations, as there is undoubtedly significant under reporting in case of the private sector, as the non-recognized provisioning (low budget private schools) have not been taken into account; whereas these make up the major part of the private sector provision in rural and the tribal areas of the country. The data sets for Anganwadi centres and schools have been taken from two different sources Ministry of Women and Child Development and District Information System for Education (DISE) respectively, which may affect the reliability of the comparison While there is no specific data on pre primary classes in private schools, the IECEI study, indicates that almost all private primary schools (recognized and non-recognized) running in the randomly selected sites in 3 states had pre primary classes as well (IECEI, 2013).

31

Annex 4: India case study

Region wise variations in provision are however seen in private sector provisions (Figure 10), which could be linked to state policies which may vary in terms of promotion of the private sector. Northern and the southern regions show expansion in the private sector whereas in the eastern and the north-eastern part of the country Anganwadi Centres have doubled since 2007, due to increase in the public provisioning and the number of private schools indicate a decline. Again this needs to be treated with caution due to the phenomenon of ‘under reporting’ (Figure 11).

32

Annex 4: India case study

33

Annex 4: India case study

An interesting trend that is observable over time is a shift in demand and parental choice from government provision to private provisions by age. Although ICDS preschool component is for 3 to 6 year olds, 23 states have 5 years as the official entry age for primary school thus creating an overlap. The trend analysis indicates that instead of 3 to 6 year olds 34

Annex 4: India case study as planned, currently more children below 4 years are coming to Anganwadi centres. In addition, over the years the proportion of children attending Anganwadis have decreased and parents of children over 4 years are demonstrating a preference for private schooling or even sitting un-enrolled in government schools (Figure 12). In terms of social factors related to parental choice, the recent IECEI study, which analyzed social indicators related to participation trends in ECE programs in three states (Andhra Pradesh, Assam and Rajasthan) on a sub-sample of 2323 four year olds, demonstrates a significant preference of the higher socio-economic status families in the rural sector for private schooling. Significant factors associated with private school preference that emerge are higher assets index and higher mothers’ education levels (Figure 13 & 14).

35

Annex 4: India case study

Although private provisioning for preschools is expanding at phenomenal pace, the quality of preschool experience the children are getting in both private preschools and anganwadi centres is far from satisfactory (IECEI, 2013). Among other factors, quality of teachers emerges as a significant factor. However, a national level study by CECED indicates inequitable distribution of Teacher Training Institutions across states (Figure 15) and inadequate quality control despite this stage of teacher education being a part of the regulatory framework of the National Council of Teacher Education. Pre-primary Teacher education institutions are largely in the private sector. The critical issue is lack of regulation in the ECE sector, which allows untrained teachers to also be recruited, thus undermining the importance of teacher preparation. This laissez faire situation leads to a large number of untrained women getting recruited as teachers. The Anganwadi teachers too are expected to deliver Early Childhood Education in diverse and challenging socio-linguistic contexts, with inadequate preparation. With a large number of untrained or poorly trained teachers in the system, the quality of preschool education offered to children across sectors leaves much to be desired leading to poor school readiness outcomes (IECEI, 2013).

36

Annex 4: India case study

Conclusions As the global discourse is now moving towards advocacy for inclusion of ECCE as a priority in the post 2015 agenda, India appears fairly well poised in terms of an expanding access and demand, and an enabling policy framework to meet the challenge. At the national level the advocacy from civil society is now shifting to bringing ECCE into a rights’ perspective, either as an extension of the RTE or as a more holistic right to ECD. Policies for promoting private sector participation are being introduced with every private school required to enroll 25 percent children from economically disadvantaged communities under the RTE. A policy decision is being taken for private enterprises to earmark 2 percent of their income for corporate social responsibility and promote public private partnership. The significant challenges that remain are those of instituting measures for creating parental awareness, regulating quality, and strengthening institutional capacity including both human and institutional resource and establishing a reliable database for ECE, with a clear focus on outcomes.

37

Annex 5: Kenya case study

Annex 5: Case Study - Kenya Historical Context for Early Childhood Provision in Kenya Kenya is known for its early uptake and promotion of early childhood programs (especially preschool provision) after independence (1963) in SSA. Preschool education provision goes back to the 1940s where provision was outside the state system and focused on European and Asian children (Kipkorir & Njenga, 1993). Independence opened up new opportunities with a significant driving force being President Kenyatta’s call for harambee – or participatory, ‘self-help’ nation building which was undertaken with significant local community (private) inputs (human, material, financial resources) across the country. The use of harambee extended to the field of early childhood education and care gaining traction in the 1970s. As noted in a study by Lokshin et al (2000)., from the World Bank, the proportion of children in ECCE centres was minimal in the 1960s but had grown to over 20,000 centres serving over 1 million children by 1995 (p3).By 1999 the number of centres had grown to 23, 6970. By the early 1990s, harambee had played a critical role in the GoK’s intent to reach Kenyan children – including those from poorer families/communities. A 1993 report for an EFA gathering in Delhi, Kipkorir and Njenjga stated that over 75% of the preschools in the country had been started and were financed and managed by communities, many inspired by the harambee movement. At the same time, an estimated 30% of all Kenyan 3-6 year olds were enrolled in preschools (ibid) - significantly different than most other SSA countries at the time. In 2005, a UNESCO report stated that the country’s GER in pre-primary education was 40% in 2001, which was higher than the median of sub-Saharan African (5.8%) and developing (35%) countries. As of 2011, pre-primary GER is 51% according to UNESCO 2011 and 66% according to the Kenya Bureau of Statistics. In addition, there is a policy commitment that all primary schools should have an attached preschool and that all children 3-6 years of age should attend preschool as part of their ‘basic education system’. While preschool education is essentially seen as compulsory, attached preschools are neither fully (if at all) funded by the newly devolved local county government bodies nor by the national government budget leaving parents or local groups to finance ECCE services. This hampers access to the poorest and those living in the most remote areas while on the other hand sustaining the de facto public-private-community ‘partnerships’ that were promoted under harambee. Roles and Responsibilities of ECD Stakeholders Initially, the early childhood programmes came under the Ministry of Culture and Social Services, however by 1980, it had transferred to the oversight by the Ministry of Education (MoE) and within that, the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) played an important role. The MoE/KIE’s responsibility over the years has been for policy development, curriculum development, some basic training for selected preschool teachers annually and quality oversight through its NACECE and DICECE system. The significant costs for the construction, maintenance and other critical operational costs (teachers’ salaries, learning and teaching materials) have been left to parents, the broader community and other key stakeholders. These ‘other’ stakeholders included faith-based 38

Annex 5: Kenya case study organisations, community based organisations, and NGOs. Important to note here is that the sharing of roles and responsibilities are consistently outlined in different policy documents and guidelines over the years (Kipkorir & Njenga: 1993, GoK ECD Framework 2006). From the start, ECCE was seen as partnership between the state, families and communities, and other local civil society organizations. International donor agencies and INGOs also have brought in important financial resources since the 1970s, though amounts and level of interest have gone through vicissitudes over the years. Part of the intention of this community-based system was meant to enable parents and communities ownership of their children’s early education. While they funded essentially all local costs, they were the decision makers in terms of setting fees, identifying and paying preschool teachers, establishing any feeding programs for the children, etc. Early NACECE/DICECE efforts also included encouraging local communities to contextualise the NACECE curriculum framework to local cultural realities. Some INGOs and donor agencies worked with NACECE/DICECEs and local communities to support this localization and promotion of community-based preschool programming (Bernard van Leer Foundation, Aga Khan Foundation, UNICEF). In terms of actual budget commitments and financing, ECCE provision has, as noted above, relied heavily on non-state financing and participation for establishing and expanding its ECCE services. In terms of GoK financial allocations, in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, the GoK budget for ECCE was below 0.1% of the overall education budget (UNESCO 2005). During the 1990s, there was some increase to around 1% of the national budget within the MOE. Early in the 2000s, expenditure on pre-primary had increased to over 2% before being reduced to 0.1% in 2006 (UNESCO 2005)11. Between 2008 and 2011, the overall Education budget (as a per cent of the total GoK budget) decreased from 16.5% to 13.5% and while there was no breakdown for ECCE – it is probably fair to assume ECCE financing possibly stayed the same or decreased as well. (Kenya Bureau of Statistics 2012). Also in 2006, the Government of Kenya approved a more holistic ECD Framework aiming to acknowledge and draw upon other sectors in support of young children (0-6yrs). A few years later, a Free Primary Education (FPE) policy was approved and guaranteed free education accessing the 2010 Kenya Constitution. Additional legislation – not yet fully implemented – requires all primary schools to have attached preschool classes (Bidwell et al., 2013, p6). Yet, according to the 2005 UNESCO report and data from SABER (Tanzania country report), many, if not the vast majority, of these attached preschool classrooms continue to receive financial contributions from parents (through fees). The ongoing mix of financing is not surprising given the limited budget allocated by the Government. It is critical to track this into the future given recent devolution to local government where priorities are meant to more closely reflect inputs from a range of local stakeholders, including parents. This may or may not result in more support to ECCE services but it will mean the need for strengthening the advocacy and organization of demand of services for the poorest communities and families. The combination of the Free Primary Education (FPE) policy and then subsequently the policy requiring attached preschool classes within primary schools created confusion on the ground in terms of how the policies were and continue to be understood and implemented 11

Primary education expenditure was also reduced between 2003- 2006 (by approx. 10%). Spending in tertiary education had increased 4.5% since 2003.

39

Annex 5: Kenya case study across Kenya. A UNESCO report (2005) which focused on Kenya’s ECCE policies and programming written in the months following the approval of FPE and as it was first being implemented identified a number of emerging problems. They noted there were several reports of parents enrolling their children below 6 years of age to avoid paying for preschool and that of a number of preschools were close to collapsing due to loss of students in the first months after FPE. Not surprisingly, parents also questioned why they should pay preschool fees at all with FPE in place. Declines in pre-primary enrolment were especially noted in disadvantaged regions such as North Eastern Province and among poor families. In other places, children who were older than 6 years of age were denied entry to Grade One if they had not gone through preschool education. At times, the latter seemed to reflect a way for head teachers to curb to some degree even higher numbers of Grade One classes. There is also the question of whether there is preferential treatment for children going into Grade One who have come from the attached preschools as opposed to other locally operated private or community preschools.

Inequities In the 2012 Kenya Facts and Figures report by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, GER for 2011 (noted as provisional data) is 65.6% while NER for pre-primary is 52.4%. This level of provision situates Kenya at the top end for SSA and on an international level is on par with other middle-income countries. What these general statistics do not provide is a more nuanced understanding in terms of which children access ECCE. Similar to what happens with primary provision, there are dramatic differences between rural and urban areas and across the different provinces and districts in Kenya. These disparities were highlighted in a 2005 UNESCO report where it was noted that middle and upper class children benefitted the most from ECCE. Drawing on MICs data from 2000, the report noted that while 29.5% of children with mothers having secondary education were enrolled in ECCE provision, only 10.7% of children whose mothers had primary and 12.4% of children whose mothers had no schooling were enrolled in ECCE. A more recent study on private preschool provision in Kenya – while focused on a Nairobi slum – includes important broader analysis related to the increasing numbers of private preschools across the country, the stark differences in access in rural and urban areas and within slum versus other ‘regular’ urban areas. The report mentions that government reports state that ECCE NER stood around 50% in 2010, which on the face of it looks positive. However, in fact the overall number hides worrying disparities given that provision in urban areas is at around 75% while it is only 25% for rural students (UBS Optimus, 2013a)). The same report highlights the huge gap between demand and supply for ECCE and that as demand has grown so have fees. Nonetheless, participation rates in ECCE services was high for the families sampled in a poor urban slum area of Nairobi, (over 80% for those living in informal dwellings as compared to 94% for those in more formal dwellings). The study also found that poorer families sent their children to preschool, but were not always able to them to the preschool they viewed as having better quality. Bidwell et al., (2013) found that 41% of 3–6 year-olds in the slum area sampled lived in households with daily income of less than 2.50 US dollars ppp per capita, and 11% came 40

Annex 5: Kenya case study under 1.25 US dollars ppp per capita. Preschool-related costs average 18 US dollars per month per child (12% of self-reported household income).

Private vs Public Provision Looking more closely at public and private provision of ECCE between 1999 and 2011, while public provision stayed approximately the same at around 1.2 million children, private provision increased six fold from 124,000 to 727,000 children (UIS database). The lack of growth in the public sector almost certainly affects poorer children’s access. Looking at Kenya within a broader context, a report for BREDA (2010) notes that Nairobi had more children enrolled in ECCE when compared to other countries with similar poverty levels. In countries like Ethiopia, Gambia, Lesotho, and Botswana, more than 80% of ECCE programmes are private compared to South Africa with 6% and Sao Tome and Principe where only 1% are private. The excitement and pride of the early harambee efforts in promoting community preschools appear to not have kept pace over the years due to other policy priorities, budget limitations and lack of political will. It is clear that certain geographic areas struggle the most and have not made much progress to expand access. The NE province is one example but in general, remote rural areas and the poorest of communities are the least well served in terms of equitable access to some basic quality ECCE. Regardless of where children live, poverty is a barrier. As highlighted in the Bidwell et al., study (2013), private provision looks set to continue to gain ground, which also could increase inequities given the still large numbers of families struggling economically across the country. Inequities are likely to continue to grow in terms of access for children living in remote, rural areas unless more efforts are undertaken.

Inequity of Quality Provision Beyond access inequity, areas across Kenya there are serious inequities related to the quality of ECCE experiences. Both the UNESCO report (2005) and the more recent Bidwell et al., study (2013) note that Kenya’s ECCE system is negatively influenced by the common downward trend of formal, teacher centric classrooms and a serious lack of relevant teaching and learning resources for both preschool teachers as well as for the children (UNESCO, 2012, p. 7). Parents also push for more academic preparation of their children as they look at the increasingly competitive school system in the country (Bidwell et al., 2013). There have been changes in expected levels of qualifications of ECCE teachers and physical/safety requirements for ECCE centres over the years. Whereas earlier teachers might have only a primary education level (or less), the current requirement is at least a Grade 10 pass along with specific training in ECCE. The growth in public and private ECCE provision mean more demand for ECCE training programmes. Unfortunately, limited budget allocation has kept the more traditional DICECE trainings somewhat restricted. At the same time, non-state/private sector involvement has increased to meet accommodate the need for expanded training and professional development options (initial and in-service) for ECCE teachers. 41

Annex 5: Kenya case study

Competition for qualified ECCE teachers is most visible in urban areas amongst preschools that need to hire teachers (who may or may not be trained). Both state and non-state tertiary, vocational and other post-secondary training institutions have created a number of new programmes – from certificate and diploma through to graduate level degrees. One example is the Madrasa Early Childhood Programme, Kenya (MECP,K) which is a nonstate actor with 30 years of experience in ECCE programming, curriculum development, community engagement, and ECCE teacher training experience as well as training of trainers, school management committee members, etc. MECP K offers an example of how non-state actors can and are working hand in hand with government institutions (particularly at local and regional levels) to test models for quality ECCE relevant to local context but also to collaborate on joint training for ECCE workers and create new courses to meet the growing demand. While initially focused on creating a culturally appropriate ECCE program to marginalized, poor Muslim communities in the 1980s it has evolved and grown into a training and resource institution focused on ECCE in Kenya (and Uganda, Zanzibar). Local DICECE trainers have regularly called upon MECP K training staff to supplement their numbers for preschool teacher in-service training over the years. The local DICECEs and MECP K staff have also collaborated on pilot initiatives to address the early transition of children entering Grade One in public primary schools (Evans and Bartlett, 2008). Interestingly, while the MECP has provided technical support to DICECEs, it is not until recently that it has been able to make progress on gaining formal accreditation. This is partially because the Government has also been evolving and clarifying the expected standards under the changing policies and growing demand. Part of MECP’s challenge – similar to other non-state ECCE providers that offer training - also has been to ensure their own trainers met the evolving requirements for formal education. Their years of professional experience as ECCE trainers are not always recognised and, like many other working ECCE professionals, the MECP trainers needed to find courses that they could take in the evenings or weekends. These types of courses have been increasing in recent years in Kenya. This is not necessarily the case in other countries – even though they too need to build a professional development system for ECCE in order to keep pace with growing demands. Given new policies to promote ECCE provision within countries that may not have a wellestablished training and professional development structure, non-state actors like MECP can serve as key partners both to increase ECCE services in poor/disadvantaged communities and through collaborating with government in delivery of initial and in-service training programmes for ECCE teachers. For countries like Kenya – with more than half of children in ECCE provision yet continually challenged to reach the poorest children – it would seem to make sense to promote and work with such non-state training institutions. In sum, since independence and the creation of its early childhood programming, Kenya has looked to the private/non-state sector for the promotion and financial support of local preschools and to assist in training future generations of ECCE professionals. While the vast majority of the ECCE centres started out as community-based (through harambee) in recent years the growth has been in privately owned preschools (whether low to high cost). This is despite having the policy for attaching a preschool to all primary schools in place and reflects again the important point of ensuring funding for the new policies rather than depending on the ability of local parents and communities to cover many/all of the operating costs. The 42

Annex 5: Kenya case study national and district structures (NACECE, DICECEs) have played the primary role of policy development and refinement, curriculum and materials development, monitoring and supervision as part of the quality oversight role and has undertaken research related to the evolving ECCD services and needs on the ground. In addition, local authorities (county, municipality, town/city councils) have also supported local preschools – a growing trend in the last few years given the new decentralization of Kenya. However, provision for poorer children and those living in remote rural or under-served urban slum areas remains challenging despite significant demand from parents. Current trends indicate private provision as opposed to community-based provision is growing. Again, this is likely related to the fact that poor communities have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to sustain their harambee community preschools over time without a range of financial and other supports that have historically been difficult given the limited budget and human resource capacity of the government system. Non-state actors have emerged – with at least some (difficult to say how many due to lack of data) focused on working with marginalized communities. Many of these have been financially supported by international donors and INGOs. Opportunities with devolution in Kenya for such non-state actors are now there – but it is still early days. As already noted, it is critically important under the new devolution to ensure that tracking of funding going to ECCE is actually possible and consistently done, that this information be made available and that support is directed to poor communities to ensure they are organized and able to advocate for support for ECCE for their children using devolved funding. Further, what remains critical is leadership with financial backing by government though this does not necessarily mean government needs to implement itself. Indeed given availability of non-state actors in ECCE provision and training and devolution it might be useful to identify ways to encourage more collaboration to ensure those working with poorer families have needed training and support and can improve quality.

43

Annex 6: Tanzania case study

Annex 6: Case Study - Tanzania Introduction The United Republic of Tanzania comprises both the mainland and the islands of Zanzibar. Zanzibar while part of the United Republic of Tanzania is semi-autonomous with its own Government, legislative assembly, and Executive (headed by the President of Zanzibar) and its own Judicial System. Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar each have their own key ministries including for education. The attainment of universal primary enrolment and improving completion and achievement rates has received considerable attention over the last couple of decades. The private sector was largely nationalized after independence but education provision began to open up to non-state actors in the 1980s and into the 1990s. While great strides towards universal primary education were achieved in the years following independence this was not sustained and between 1985 and 2000 the NER fell from 67.6% to 57% leading eventually to renewed focus on universal primary education supported by the international donor community (UIS Database). Mtahabwa’s review of the extent to which ECCE has been included within key policy documents (2010) states that the United Republic of Tanzania was an early signature (1991) on the Convention of the Rights to the Child and a subsequent African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child established by the Organization of African Unity (1999). Mtahabwa also describes a series of other policy documents developed since then which together show a mix of supportive statements along with exclusion. The Makweta Commission (1982) highlighted early childhood education as a crucial factor but it resulted in little actual change on the ground. Over ten years later (1995) two years of pre-primary education was formalised and included in the basic education system for 5 and 6 year olds (primary starts at age 7) (Mtahabwa 2010). The pre-primary policy required primary schools to have at least one pre-primary classroom attached. Still it remains non-compulsory (World Bank SABER, 2012). It was not until the development of the 2005 National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty that ECCE was included and indeed called for the development of an intersectoral policy framework for early childhood development (ibid). The ECD network mentioned below played an important critical advocacy role as the 2005 document was being prepared. Considerable advocacy and work was undertaken after 2005 leading to a national conference in early 2012 where a draft Intersectoral Early Childhood Development (IECD) policy was debated and discussed with high-level participation by Ministers and other senior Ministry officials, international donors and local civil society partners involved in ECCE including the Tanzania ECD network. The IECDP was designed as a holistic policy that includes the sectors of education, health, nutrition and social and child protection. The Ministry of Community Development, Gender and Children (MCDGC) was designated as the coordinating ministry for ECD in Tanzania and focal points were established in other key ministries (Education, Social Welfare, Finance, Prime Minister’s office amongst others). While MCDGC is the designated coordinating ministry for the government, it had no specific budget allocation or dedicated ECD staff (World Bank SABER, 2012) and as of April 2014, the comprehensive ECD policy had not yet been approved. 44

Annex 6: Tanzania case study

Similar to other African countries, civil society organisations (including faith-based organizations) and other private sector players have been a key driver for ECCE services on the mainland and the islands. The Tanzania Early Childhood Development Network (TECDEN) is a national umbrella organization for ECD in Tanzania. The network has members in 14 out of 30 regions in Tanzania mainland and Zanzibar and it has participated on the National ECD Secretariat as the civil society representative (World Bank SABER, 2012). As already noted, the presence of important policies such as two years of free pre-primary education, does not always or immediately translate to the needed implementation and financing. Although all public primary schools must have at least one pre-primary classroom, the lack of available classrooms at the school level along with the ongoing practice of asking parents to pay fees continue to constrain universal pre-primary enrolment (World Bank SABER, 2012). Moreover there is a serious shortage of certified pre-primary teachers. In 2006 for example over 90% of pre-primary teachers did not have the requisite certificates (Mtahabwa 2010). Nonetheless, demand is significant and has led to serious overcrowding of classrooms that affects negatively the quality of the ECCE experience for young children. Who Accesses Pre-Primary? Coverage has slowly expanded in the last 15 or so years – according the UNESCO GMR 2013/2014 report, GER was 35% compared to 23.9% in 2002 (van Ravens 2009 Draft)). While pre-primary education is part of basic education (though not compulsory) challenges remain.As mentioned, all public primary schools are supposed to have an attached preprimary class yet van Ravens, in his report on costing and financing integrated ECCE provision, (2009 draft) highlights the fact that there were significant numbers of under-age children (five- six year olds) enrolled at the primary level. The presence of under-age children was particularly problematic in urban Dar es Salaam where 75% of 6 yr. olds and over 60% of 5 year olds were reported to be in primary school (ibid). This compared to a national average at the time of around 35% of the five- six year olds and 40% of the six year olds in primary education (ibid). Very likely this relates to the limited numbers of children that can be put into the attached preschool classes as well as the fact that there remains an expectation of fee payments of some sorts for a number of these attached preschool classes. It may also be related to the larger numbers of working parents (especially mothers) in urban areas and their need for childcare that is more than half day. Interestingly, at the same time, large numbers of over-age children are also found preschool classrooms, a problem noted in the Zanzibar education plan (ZEDP 2008/2009 draft) which indicates that only 29.4 % of 7 year olds actually start school at the right age (ZEDP 2008/9 draft). Analysis suggests that urban, better-educated and wealthier families are much more likely to enrol their children in pre-primary classes as compared to poorer and more remote districts and families disadvantaged, similar to many other low-income countries mentioned in this paper. Van Ravens’ analysis found a strong correlation between pre-primary enrolment and average per capita GDP of regions with Kigoma and Morogoro far behind at 20% and 25% respectively (van Ravens report 2009). He also estimated that 20% of costs for pre-primary operations were contributed by communities (ibid: p43) and strongly cautioned that additional 45

Annex 6: Tanzania case study funding would be needed for any real increases, particularly for poor rural areas. The SABER report also notes that many public schools ask families to pay fees to cover children’s school supplies, uniforms, meals, transport, and medical services though this probably varies greatly and is in fact hard to track in concrete terms (ibid). The Saber report also highlights that existing attached classes have troublingly high teacher child ratios (100 children) impeding quality of the experience. Nonetheless, capitation grants to primary schools include children enrolled in pre-primary classes however whether and what proportion of the capitation grant funds actually go towards pre-primary classrooms is not clear. There is a similar problem with funds being allocated in a fair proportion towards lower primary classes (also with very high numbers of children) as compared to the upper primary grades. Public – Private Provision According to available analysis, there seems to be a minimal but continued increase over the years in terms of the private sector share of overall enrolment. Van Ravens notes that private sector share was 5.3% in 2009 up from 2% a few years earlier (UNESCO, 2006:252 in van Ravens 2009 draft). The 2012 GMR reports a similar 5% private provision. The share of private is small, yet the SABER report (2012, p15) indicates that the rate of change for public vs private between 2005 and 2010 was very different. While enrolment increased 42 per cent in public pre-primary schools, it increased 191 per cent in non-state pre-primary schools. Significantly, the same report highlights that while private sector share remains small for preprimary classes, ECCE provision for children below 5 years of age would go up dramatically since provision below 5 years of age is essentially all non-state (ibid). Zanzibar Highlight Both Tanzania but especially Zanzibar have significant if not majority Muslim populations and quranic schools can be found in most villages and urban areas. Quranic education has been present for centuries since Islam was first introduced to the region. Quranic schools, supported and operated by local communities, typically have children from primary school age and older but many accept children from the age of 3 or 4 years old. Thus, historically, Muslim children have started their religious education as pre-schoolers. Zanzibar’s Ministry of Education has, to varying degrees, considered this as its preschool policies and systems have evolved over the last 30 years. A 1994 report entitled ‘The Situation of Preschool and Quranic School Education in Zanzibar’ by the Ministry of Education/UNICEF Zanzibar, was the first of its kind helping to establish a baseline of sorts in terms of what was happening with young children early education (Ministry of Education, 1994b). The report provides insight into the issues and discussions related to ECCE at the time. Two later reports demonstrate changes over time: one is a mapping of preschools across the Zanzibar islands in 2009 by the Madrasa Resource Centre, Zanzibar in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT). The second includes data on preschool provision and is part of a larger assessment of a donor-funded programme (Downie & Mwaura, 2010). Together, these reports reveal interesting and useful trends and issues; all three disaggregate ownership of preschools, going beyond the public versus private division. Only the 1994 report includes quranic schools serving preschool age children. 46

Annex 6: Tanzania case study

In 1994, only 65 preschools were found, two-thirds (63%) of which were in the urban area of Unguja. The fewest were found in Micheweni district (3%) where high rates of malnutrition were also reported. In addition, 831 quranic schools were identified and, significantly, were spread across the five districts of the two islands making up Zanzibar (p3). The 1994 report mentions that preschools had been expanding in the previous 4-5 years once the Ministry of Education allowed individuals and private organizations to open up centres (this was also true on mainland Tanzania). Of the 65 preschools, over 78% were operated/owned by non-state actors. These included 23 owned by individuals, 15 run by the Tanzania Parents Association and another 13 labelled as ‘other’ (the ‘other’ category appears to be another form of non-state provision). Only 12 (18%) were public sector centres and run by either the Ministry of education (11) or the Dept. of Social Welfare (1). In terms of enrolment, the total recorded was 9,104 and of this total, 55% were girls, 75% were enrolled in non-state preschools and 20% were older than 8 years of age (ibid). 86% of the 65 preschools charged fees of which 47% were considered very low fees and 11% were classified as high fees. Most preschools operated between 4 to 5 hrs. each day and 71% of all preschools were registered. In contrast to the 9,104 children in the preschools between 3-8yrs old, there were 36,060 children (3-8yrs) enrolled in quranic schools (note: The report does not calculate GER or NER). Beyond the longer historic presence of quranic schools, they were spread across all parts of the islands and rarely charged fees. Unsurprisingly, a recommendation was to use quranic schools as ‘alternative institutions’ to each basic literacy and numeracy skills given their widespread nature. The 2008 report (ZMRC, 2008) notes that a 2006 Educational Policy stipulated that all preschool aged children should have access to preschool education, and yet only 21,696 (20%) of four to six year olds were attending a public or private/community preschool. It further noted that most children in poor rural communities had less access to any ECCE centre, also highlighted in 1994. The 2008 mapping exercise looked to see which districts were furthest behind and thus needed more support/attention with the aim of encouraging action. The 2008 mapping and the 2010 Downie & Mwaura assessment both worked closely with the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT) and relevant staff involved in monitoring statistics. There are differences in terms of numbers reported between the reports, the 2010 report will be used below given its later publication. Types of preschools: The 2008 mapping uses public, private, and community though notes the use of these terms was not consistent across districts. The 2010 review further disaggregates the categories into four: public, private, ZMRC and RISE. ZMRC and RISE are both community based ECCE settings: ZMRC was established 1989/1990 to support communities to establish and operate their own community preschools and as such provides initial and ongoing professional development of ECCE teachers. ZMRC has been funded and supported by Aga Khan Foundation since its inception and has received funding from a range of other donor agencies. The report notes RISE was established by EDC and funded by USAID/MoEVT and had been operating for around 3 years. It piloted and expanded the use of radio instruction led preschool provision across Zanzibar islands in spaces available in 47

Annex 6: Tanzania case study communities. The 2010 report also disaggregates preschool classes located within primary schools from independent centres (whether public or private). Summary of provision (Downie & Mwaura, 2010, p8) MOEVT RISE MRCZ Private 31 121 84 189

Total 425

As can be noted from the above, the 189 private schools and 205 community-based preschools (RISE and MRCZ) far outnumber the 31 government preschools. The same Downie & Mwaura report noted that private provision seems to be increasing at a strong pace with a bias in urban areas with 140 of the 189 schools were located in the heavily urban areas of Unguja. MRCZ’s 84 preschool settings were spread throughout both Unguja and Pemba islands and RISE’s 121 settings seemed to have been targeted to specific districts that had fewer numbers of other providers. The 2010 report identified 56 attached preschool classrooms, 52 of which were in private schools. Between 1994 and 2010, the number of preschools increased by 6.5% with essentially all attributed to private and community-based provision. Whereas in 1994, 18% were public preschools, this had decreased to over 7%. Private provision was 44% and the combined community provision of ZMRC and RISE was 48% (all % numbers rounded). Nonetheless, in 2009, just over 25% of eligible children were enrolled in preschool. Clear from the above analysis is 1. The role of the private and community ECCE provision has been important in Zanzibar, yet nearly 75% eligible children remain out of preschool provision 2. There are likely to be hundreds more preschool age children in quranic schools given findings from the 1994) which are not included in these calculations. 3. Increased government investment will be critical for any significant expansion of ECCE provision 4. There is a history of NGO- Government collaboration (RISE, ZMRC) concerning expanding provision, innovating new models, and training/professional development of ECCE professionals that can be built upon and strengthened. Indeed this is happening under a newly funded program involving ZMRC, AKF, Dubai Cares and the government of Zanzibar. Conclusions The mixed attention to ECCE within policies over the years and the ongoing lack of or limited budget and implementation planning has seriously hampered equitable access and quality of ECCE services across the country. The country’s improved GER is 33% - an improvement over earlier years but given significant gaps for the poorest and remote rural areas – more is needed and must go beyond access alone. Quality of ECCE services is critical if it is to have the promised impacts in the longer-term.

48

Annex 6: Tanzania case study This mix of policies and their implementation (or not) is not unique to the United Republic of Tanzania. Other countries in SSA and beyond have made noteworthy and important policies advances over the last decade or more. Beyond policy approval countries need to translate these into doable implementation plans that have the needed financing. It is here despite the often-initial excitement around new policies where countries have failed their youngest children and families. Matahabwa’s review of ECCE policies highlights this clearly – it is the combination of shortcomings in resource allocation, capacity building and a clear implementation plan. Following on from the previous point, and related to Zanzibar specifically, the Downie & Mwaura report highlighted a number of concerns and questions encountered during their assessment with regards to the implementation of the education policy dealing with the mandatory two years of preschool education as part of the primary education system (2010). These included the logistical problem and reality of implementation – if only 25% of eligible children were currently attending preschool – how would expansion actually happen. What might be the role of different stakeholders? Government clearly had a leadership role – but others were active in the ECCE space (ZMRC, private sector and communities). Moreover, linking new preschool classrooms to existing elementary schools added to the confusion since it was not clear if new preschool classes would be the responsibility of the government and be staffed by government paid teachers, nor was it clear how the government might look to existing ECCE provision, especially the non-profit/community based sector struggling to survive financially but clearly providing services in demand by parents. There are promising collaborations between civil society actors and the government – often assisted with funding from international donors (Dubai Cares, CIDA/AKDN). Beyond provision of ECCE, collaboration with and drawing on the non-state sector may have particular promise with regards to addressing gaps in the areas of capacity-building of ECCE staff at different levels and joint efforts to ensure the attached pre-primary classes and other non-state ECCE services around primary schools have access to basic materials for children to use in their learning and for professional development. The 2012 SABER report notes that the established requirements for ECCE professionals may be overly rigid and limit opportunities to scale access to ECCE more broadly – particularly in rural areas. This is a concern in fact that is echoed across the region even though it is a desirable goal to improve quality standards. The history of the East African Madrasa programme and of other similar community focused ECCE services also suggests it is important for governments to consider specific categories such as community-based/not-for-profit (which might be faith based or other local CBO sponsored ECCE providers) to allow it to track more carefully how provision changes and evolves over time. In addition, at least some of the not-for-profit providers could potentially be key collaborators with governments in future (as we see elsewhere such as Chile). This would require that costs for registration might also be lower than for-profit centres.

49

Annex 7: Chile Case Study

Annex 7: Case Study - Chile Introduction Chile has seen real progress in terms of comprehensive ECCE policies, increased budget allocation and coverage of ECCE for 0-6 year olds over the last few decades, starting after democracy returned to Chile in 1990 (Cortezar, 2011). In particular, and similar to the region, there is strong participation at the pre-primary. UNESCO’s GMR 2013/2014 highlights that whereas the GER for pre-primary education in Chile was 76% in 1999, by 2011 it was 112% (the adjusted NER was 93% in 2011). A special article from the Economist (Watson, 2012) on ECCE states that in Chile between 2006 and 2009, the number of preschools increased from 781 to 4,300 resulting in preschool attendance of around 85% of four-year olds, and 90% of five-year olds. According to data from the World Bank’s SABER database (World Bank Columbia SABER report, 2013b), Chile’s GER for more comprehensive ECCE services for 0-6 year olds was fairly flat between 2002 to 2009 hovering between 50% and just below 60% (ibid). In 2006, however, ECCE became a public policy priority (Araujo et al., 2013) leading to an expansion of services that covered 93% of children under 2 years of age coming from families that were in the lowest two income quintiles and whose mothers worked, studied or were seeking employment and therefore required institutional child care. In 2009 a new Education Law was passed for non-compulsory ECCE for 0-5 year olds in the country providing further momentum to the sector (UNESCO 2010, Araujo et al., 2013). This new law provided for the establishment of an Intersectoral Social Protection System and included an institutionalised comprehensive early childhood care system entitled “Chile Crece Contigo.” This national programme (Crece Contigo) was designed for children registered with the public health system beginning with the first prenatal visit and extending through to when they enter the school system at Kindergarten level (4 year olds). According to the 2010 UNESCO report, 70% (863,800) of all children in the age group were benefitting. In addition, this national program guaranteed free access to a range of care and education services for children considered at risk. The cost per participant per year was US$165.13 – a considerable commitment by the State. The two main providers on the public side - JUNJI and the Integra Foundation - offer ECCE services for children from the ages of three months to four years. Together they account for about 50% of preschool places in Chile (Watson, 2012). Inequities Even with the improvements in coverage and ongoing political commitments to ECCE in Chile, inequities continue to persist (UNESCO 2010, Araujo 2013). Two key issues here relate to (i) quality of ECCE services across the country – with fully private ECCE centres having the advantage and (ii) access for younger children. As with studies in other countries, tackling inequities in provision (access and quality) is critical given the longer-term implications of ECCE services on children’s overall development and well-being. A study from Chile comparing scores on a national standardized test given to 8th grade children found a significant difference Spanish language and Mathematics scores when comparing children with and without preschool experience. 50

Annex 7: Chile Case Study Unsurprisingly, children with preschool experience scored higher in both subject areas than those who had not (Mella & Reveco, 2000 in UNESCO 2010). While there is essentially universal access now for 5 year olds in Chile, this is not the case for younger the children. Cortezar (2011) using national data highlights that in Chile only 22% of the 2 and 3-year-olds of the poorest two income quintiles participate in ECCE in comparison to 38 % of the richest income quintile (MIDEPLAN, 2006). Public versus Private ECCE provision The Chilean educational system has a centralized governance structure and a decentralized administration. While the Ministry of Education leads on the development and setting of standards, as well as curricular guidelines and policies for all educational levels, municipalities (local government) and private organizations lead on implementation which means that early childhood programmes in Chile are either publicly funded, privately funded or a mix. For the latter, those providing services within the remit of the national ECCE programs receive subsidies from the national budget (Araujo et al., 2013, Cortezar). Chile 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Public Private 1999 2011

Araujo et al (2013) indicate that two large national ECCE programmes (JUNJI and INTEGRA) provide 100% of operating costs transferred to the selected implementing NGOs, religious congregations, and municipalities and that private sector offering in Chile accounts for less than 10% nationally. In other words, ECCE funding for these target ‘pro-poor’ programmes comes from the State but provision/delivery has significant non-state participation. The IADB report (Araujo et al, 2013) notes that those who intend to deliver services are expected to meet agreed standards and guidelines and in some cases submit a competitive bid to become an implementing agency. None of the nationally funded ECCE programmes (which largely target the most vulnerable) requires parents to make payments for services.

Discussion Within the Latin American region, ECCE has been highlighted as essential to long term development by leading economists in the region (Vargas Baron, 2009.). Several Latin American countries have made real progress in reaching more children through national programmes in ECCE. In the case of Chile various national level programmes also have clearly identified coordination and financing mechanisms. Also critically, the advances made

51

Annex 7: Chile Case Study seem to tie clearly with stronger political support and leadership including specific laws and budget allocation that work to guarantee coverage, especially for the poorest families. Notwithstanding these considerable strides in access, inequities remain – including in relation to access to quality programmes and for younger children. This is a similar problem of many wealthier nations. Still, putting into place quality ECCE is important if children and societies are to benefit into the future. Chile’s efforts to engage pro-actively with a range of non-state actors – while surely having challenges – has important lessons for other nations trying to expand access and yet still largely depending on public providers that may be ill equipped, insufficient in numbers or non-existent. These forms of public-private partnerships need to be tracked carefully over time – most specifically in terms of the extent to which (if at all) the most vulnerable children and families are reached and with adequate quality of ECCE. Secondly, and linked to this first point, the political leadership and commitment to both put into place policies as well as the needed funding appear to have made a significant difference in terms of being able to reach some of the most marginalised families and children.

52

REFERENCES All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Education for All. (2012). A Debate on Donor Support to Low Cost Private Schools as a Strategy to Increase Educational Participation in Developing Countries. http://www.periglobal.org/sites/periglobal.org/files/notes%20from%20appg%20debate%20on %20low%20cost%20private%20schools%20-%20final%20181212.pdf (Accessed May 30, 2014). Araujo, M. C., Lopez-Boo, F., and Puyana, J.M. 2013. Overview of Early Childhood Development Services in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC, InterAmerican Development Bank. Arnold, C. Positioning ECCD in the 21st Century: The Coordinators’ Notebook: An International resource for early childhood development. Vol. 28. Istanbul: Consultative Group’s Annual Consultation, 2004. ASER. (2006-13). Assessment Survey Evaluation Research Reports. ASER Centre: New Delhi. Barnett, S. 1995. Long-term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes. The Future of Children, Vol. 5, No. 3. Retrieved from: http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/05_03_01.pdf Bartlett, K. 2003. The Madrasa Early Childhood Programme in East Africa. Geneva, Aga Khan Foundation. Center for Early Childhood Education and Development (CECED), Ambedkar University, Delhi. (2013). Quality and Diversity across early childhood education. (Unpublished). Center for Early Childhood Education and Development, Ambedkar University, Delhi and National Council of Teacher Education. (2012). Preparing Teachers for Early Childhood Education. New Delhi, India. Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development. Early Childhood Development in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/Transformative%20Solution%20%20ECD%20Post-2015.pdf (Accessed May 30, 2014) Cortezar-Valdes, A. 2011. Long-term effects of early childhood education on academic achievement in Chile. Dissertation published by Teachers College, Columbia University. DAI/A 73-05. Coulibaly, N., Mellouki, M., Guindo, P., and Naparé, H. 2007. Les Choix Éducatifs: Dynamics des Décisions des Families de la région de Mopti, Mali. Unpublished. Downie, B. K., and Mwaura, P. 2010. Zanzibar Teacher Upgrading by Radio [ZTUR]: Building Capacity for Preschool Teaching. A Status Assessment and Recommendations for Teacher Training Programming. Washington DC, Education Development Centre. Evans, J. and K. Bartlett (2008). The Madrasa Early Childhood Programme: 25 Years of Experience. Belgium: Rosseels Printing Company. Retrieved from: http://www.akdn.org/publications/2008_madrasa.pdf 53

GOI (Government of India). (1986). National Policy on Education (NPE). New Delhi: GOI. ___. . (2013). Status Report on the ICDS. New Delhi: GOI. GOI (Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs). (2011). Census 2011 – Provisional Population Total, India. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/l9GlP GOI (Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development). (2009). The Right to Education (RTE). New Delhi: GOI. GOI (Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development). (2013). The National Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Policy. New Delhi: GOI. GOI (Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development). (2006- 2012). Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Annual Report. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/8aLrC GOI (Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development). (2007- 2012). Working Group on Development of Children for the Eleventh Five Year Plan -A Report. Retrieved on April 15, 2012 from http://goo.gl/JzFKG Härmä, J. 2009. Can choice promote Education for All? Evidence from growth in private primary schooling in India. Compare, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 151–65. ___. 2011. Study of Private Schools in Lagos. Abuja, UK Department for International Development –Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria. (Report, LG303.) International Labour Organization. 2012. Right Beginnings: Early Childhood Education and Educators. Report for discussion at the Global Dialogue Forum on Conditions of Personnel in Early Childhood Education 22-23 February 2012. Geneva, International Labour Organization. Juneja, N., 2010. Access to What? Access, Diversity and Participation in India’s schools. Brighton, UK, Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity, University of Sussex. (CREATE Pathways to Access, Research Monograph, 32.) Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Kenya Facts and Figures. Nairobi, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Kipkorir, L.I. & Njenga, A.W. 1993. A Case Study of early Childhood Care and Education in Kenya. Paper prepared for the EFA Forum 1993, New Delhi, 9-10 September 1993. Koh, H. and Irfan, A. (2014). Market-Based Solutions: The Unfulfilled Promise. http://philanthropynews.alliancemagazine.org/2014/04/02/market-based-solutions-theunfulfilled-promise/ (Accessed May 30, 2014). Lokshin, Michael M., Glinskaya, Elena, Garcia, Marito. 2000. The Effect of Early Childhood Development Programs on Women’s Labor Force Participation and Older Children’s Schooling in Kenya. Policy Research Report on Gender and Development, Working Paper Series No. 15, July 2000. Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Love, J. M. 1997. Quality in Child Care Centres. Early Childhood Research and Policy Briefs, Vol. 1, Issue 1. ED 417 827.

54

MacPherson, I., Robertson, S., and Walford, G. (Eds.) (2014) Education, Privatisation, and Social Justice. Oxford, U.K., Symposium Books. Madrasa Resource Center. 2009. A Survey Report on Preschool Education in Zanzibar. A Report on the Mapping of Preschool Education, Zanzibar Islands. Unpublished Report. McLean, H. 2010. Laying the First Bricks True: A Situation Analysis of Early Learning in Tajikistan. Tajikistan, UNICEF. MIDEPLAN. (2006). Encuesta de caracterizacion socio-economica nacional - CASEN educacion. [Survey of socio-economic characterization- CASEN education]. Retrieved from http://www.mideplan.cl/casen/pag_publicaciones.html Ministry of Education. 1994a. The Situation of Early Childhood Education in Tanzania: The Case of Temeke District. A Draft Report Prepared for UNESCO Dar-es-Salam. Dar-esSalam, UNESCO. _____. 1994b. The Situation of Preschool and Quranic School Education in Zanzibar. Zanzibar, UNICEF. Mtahabwa, L. 2010. Provision of Pre-primary Education as a Basic Right in Tanzania: Reflections from Policy Documents. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol. 11, No. 4. Oxfam International. 2006. In the Public Interest: Health, Education and Water and Sanitation for All. Oxford, Oxfam International in association with Wateraid. Republic of Kenya. (2006). National Early Childhood Development Policy Framework. Nairobi: Government Printer. Revolutionary Govermnet of Zanzibar, Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. 2007. Zanzibar Education Development Programme (ZEDP) 2008/2009 – 2015/2016. Draft 3. Zanzibar, MOEVT. Rolleston, C. and Adefeso-Olateju, M. 2012. ‘De Facto Privatisation of Basic Education in Africa: A Market Response to Government Failure? A Comparative Study of the Cases of Ghana and Nigeria’ Education Support Programme. New York: Open Society Foundation. (Working Paper Series, 44.) Sandefur, J. (2012). Waiting for Superman in Lahore: Do Poor People Need Private Schools? Oxfam, Duncan Green http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/waiting-for-superman-inlahore-do-poor-people-need-private-schools-guest-post-by-justin-sandefur/ Tawil, S. 2006. Qur’anic Education and Social Change in Northern Morocco: Perspectives from Chefchaouen. The Comparative Education Review Special Issue on Islam and Education – Myths and Truths, Vol. 50, No.3, pp. 496-517. Tooley, J. and Dixon, P. 2005. Private Education Is Good For The Poor: a study of private schools serving the poor in low-income countries. Washington, D.C., Cato Institute.

55

UBS Optimus Foundation. 2013a. What’s Going on with Nairobi’s Preschools? Preliminary Findings. Research Paper, October 2013, Issue 1. ___. 2013b. Exploring Early Education Programs in Peri-urban Settings in Africa: Summary findings from Johannesburg, South Africa. Research paper, December 2013, Issue 2. ___. 2014a. Exploring Early Education Programs in Peri-urban Settings in Africa: Summary findings from Accra, Ghana. Research paper, January 2014, Issue 3. ___. 2014b. Exploring Early Education Programs in Peri-urban Settings in Africa: Summary findings from Lagos, Nigeria. Research paper, February 2014, Issue 4. UNESCO. 2000. The Dakar Framework for Action. Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments, Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April, 2000. Paris, UNESCO. ___. 2005. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: The Quality Imperative. Paris, UNESCO. ___. 2006. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006: Literacy for Life. Paris, UNESCO. ___. 2007. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007: Strong Foundations. Paris, UNESCO. ___. 2010. Early Childhood Care and Education Regional Report: Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago, UNESCO. ___. 2011. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011: The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. Paris, UNESCO. ___. 2012. Education for All Global Monitoring Report Policy Paper 03: Expanding equitable early childhood care and education is an urgent need. Paris, UNESCO. ___. 2014a. Instruction Manual: Survey of Fomal Education. Montreal, UNESCO. ___. 2014b. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/2014: Teaching and Learning: Achieving quality for all. Paris, UNESCO. UNESCO-BREDA. 2010. Early Childhood Care and Education Regional Report: Africa. Dakar, UNESCO-BREDA. UNESCO Institute of Statistics. 2014. UIS Data Centre. Data release from January 2014. Montreal, UIS. UNESCO-IBE. 2006. Vietnam: Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Programmes. Country profile prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007. Geneva, UNESCO-IBE. UNICEF. 2000. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Kenya Country Report 2000. Retrieved from: http://www.childinfo.org/files/kenyatables.pdf ___. 2000b. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys National Reports Togo 2000. Retrieved from: http://www.childinfo.org/files/togotables.pdf ___. 2000c. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys National Reports Vietnam 2000. Retrieved from: http://www.childinfo.org/files/vietnamtables.pdf 56

___. 2012. Asia-Pacific End of Decade Notes on Education for All: EFA Goal 1: Early Childhood Care and Education. Bangkok, UNICEF. UNICEF/ Ministère auprès du Président de la République, chargé de la Planification, du Développement et de l’Aménagement du Territoire. 2010. Suivi de la situation des Enquête par grappes à indicateurs multiples enfants et des femmes. Togo, UNICEF. Van Ravens, J., 2010. Financing ECD in Tanzania: Cost and Financing Scenarios to Support the Implementation of the Integrated ECD Policy of Tanzania. UNICEF Office, Dar es Salaam. Vargas-Baron, E. 2009. Going to Scale: Early Childhood Development in Latin America. Designing successful and sustainable ECD programs with national-level coverage. The RISE Institute. Watkins, K. (2012). Holding out for the super-Voucher: Kevin Watkins Responds to Justin Sandefur on Private vs. Public Education. Oxfam, Duncan Green. http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/holding-out-for-the-super-voucher-kevin-watkins-responds-tojustin-sandefur-on-private-v-public-education/ Watson, J. 2012. Starting Well: Benchmarking Early Education Across the World. Hong Kong, Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved from: http://www.economistinsights.com/leadership-talent-innovation/analysis/starting-well WIDE. 2014. The World Inequality Database on Education. Retrieved from: www.education-inequalities.org. Woodhead, M., Frost, M., and James, Z. 2013. Does growth in private schooling contribute to Education for All? Evidence from a longitudinal, two-cohort study in Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal for Educational Development, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 65-73. Woodhead, M. & Streuli, N. 2013. Early Education for All: Is there a Role for the Private Sector? Britto, P., Engle, P., and Super, C. (eds). Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and its Impact on Global Policy. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press, pp. 308328. World Bank. 2012. Tanzania: Early Childhood Development SABER Country Report, 2012. Retrieved from: http://wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/CountryReports/ECD/ SABER_ECD_Tanzania_CR_Final_2012.pdf ___. 2013a. What Matters Most for Early Childhood Development: A Framework Paper. (SABER Working Paper, 5.) ___. 2013b. Columbia: Early Childhood Development. SABER Country Report, 2013. Retrieved from: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/08/05/000356161_2 0130805155435/Rendered/PDF/799290WP0SABER0Box0379795B00PUBLIC0.pdf

57