Content uploaded by John C. Weidman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John C. Weidman on Jul 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
By John C. Weidman and
Robin DePietro-Jurand, Ph.D.
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art
Knowledge in Education
A Guide to Education Project Design Based on
a Comprehensive Literature and Project Review
Decentralization
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
2
INTRODUCTION TO DECENTRALIZATION IN EDUCATION
Decentralization is a common theme in discussions concerning political, social,
and economic reforms. Nonetheless, although often characterized as essential to
strengthening democratization, cultural and indigenous rights, local accountability,
and local governance, decentralization does not necessarily result in greater
eciencies, empowerment, transparency, civic engagement, or poverty reduction
(World Bank, 2011).
Decentralization has become popular in the education sector because many
governments have experienced problems providing centralized education services,
including nancial ineciencies, inadequate management capacity, lack of
transparent decision making, and poor quality and access to education services
(King and Cordeiro-Guerra, 2005). e hope is that decentralization will result in
educational improvements. While the promises surrounding early decentralization
eorts were enticing—better and more ecient education reecting local priorities—
the reality of implementation has been uneven in terms of benets. Nonetheless,
while it is known that decentralization does not necessarily lead to improved quality
of education and learning outcomes for children, it remains an important tool for
education reform in developing and industrialized countries because it can:
• Accelerate economic development by modernizing institutions;
• Increase management eciency at central, regional and local levels;
• Reallocate nancial responsibility from the center to the regions;
• Promote democratization;
• Increase local control;
• Control and/or balance power centers, such as teachers’ unions and political
parties; and
• Enhance quality of services.
ere are three generally recognized forms of decentralization: deconcentration,
devolution, and delegation of authority and resources. Education systems typically lie
somewhere along a “decentralization continuum” and may encompass elements of all
three forms of decentralization depending upon the choices governments make, what
governments choose to decentralize, and what the goals are for decentralization. Each
form of decentralization is described briey below.
1. Deconcentration is the reorganization of decision making within the ministry
of education and the bureaucracy. In a deconcentrated system, the central
3
Education Decentralization
government retains full responsibility, but
administration is handled by regional or
district oces. Deconcentration of the
education system may be the rst step taken
by governments in eorts to decentralize.
Education systems in Armenia, Chile, and
Tanzania have elements of deconcentration.
2. Devolution is the permanent transfer of
decision-making responsibilities in education
from the central government to lower
levels of government such as provinces,
municipalities, and districts. One example is
Chile, where the central government provides
90 percent of education funds on a per
capita basis but has transferred responsibility
for providing education to the municipal
governments (Winkler and Gershberg,
2003).
3. Delegation, or school autonomy, is
the administrative or legal transfer of
responsibilities to elected or appointed school
governing bodies such as school councils,
school management committees, and school
governing boards. Schools in El Salvador,
where communities manage schools, hire
and re teachers, maintain infrastructure
and raise additional funds, are an example of
autonomous schools.
Decentralization initiatives within these three
types may be directed at providing education
services, funding, or both. e reasons for
decentralizing education services may include:
• Empowering under-represented populations;
• Increasing system-wide accountability and
eciency;
• Improving access to and quality of education;
and
Along the Decentralization Continuum
Deconcentration: In Armenia, the central
government nances all recurrent costs
through a transfer of funds to school
boards; in Chile, the responsibility for pro-
viding and partly nancing education was
transferred from the central government
to municipal governments with the central
government retaining responsibility for as-
sessing student performance; in Tanza-
nia, funds are disbursed directly from the
central treasury to regional ministry ofces
who deposit funds into school bank ac-
counts. School expenditures must comply
with central government regulations.
Devolution: In Argentina, responsibility
for nancing and providing basic educa-
tion was transferred from the central to
the provincial governments. The central
government role changed from oversight
and control to support for education reform
efforts. In Mexico, the central govern-
ment sets national norms and standards,
establishes the national curriculum and
approves regional curricula. States are
responsible for labor relations, school
management and implementation of na-
tional reform efforts.
Delegation: The Nicaraguan Autonomous
School Program is unique in the degree
of control given to parents in allocating
school resources. Much of schools’ discre-
tionary spending is raised through school
charges and school-based commercial
activities. In El Salvador, schools are man-
aged by communities who are responsible
for hiring and ring teachers, maintaining
infrastructure and raising additional funds.
Sources: Winkler and Gershberg, 2003;
Republic of Tanzania, 2005; Gershberg
and Meade, 2003.
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
4
• Enhancing resources through support to schools from communities, parents, and
the private sector.
Table 1. Dimensions of Decentralization (by type of decentralization)
Type of
Decentralization
Dimensions of Decentralization
Administrative Fiscal Political
Deconcentration Managerial
decisions and
managerial
accountability
are transferred to
regional oces of
central government
and the MOE.
Regional managers
are given greater
authority to
allocate and
reallocate budgets.
Regional, elected
bodies are created
to advise regional
managers.
Devolution Education sector
managers are
appointed by
elected ocials
at the local or
regional level.
Sub-national
governments are
given power to
allocate education
spending and,
in some cases,
to determine
spending levels (by
raising revenues).
Elected regional
or local ocials
are ultimately
accountable both
to voters and to
sources of nance
for the delivery of
schooling.
Delegation School principals
and/or school
councils are
empowered to
make personnel,
curriculum, and
some spending
decisions.
School principals
and/or school
councils receive
government
funding and can
allocate spending
and raise revenues
locally.
School councils
are elected or
appointed,
sometimes with
power to name
school principals.
Source: 2003. Winkler and Gershburg
Transferring responsibility and authority for the delivery of education services to
local or provincial governments may result in increased accountability and eciency
by shortening the distance between parent and policymaker or policymaker and the
school. It may also strengthen parental demand for greater quality or improve the
capacity of managers to implement programs.
5
Education Decentralization
Driving the decision to decentralize funding may be expectations of:
• Improved eciency;
• Reduced costs;
• Increased quality; and
• Enhanced accountability to parents and other education stakeholders.
With decentralized funding, the central government usually retains some authority,
such as the hiring and deployment of teachers, determining expenditures per pupil,
and teacher pay scales.
In this paper, the denition of decentralization is the devolution of authority
from central government agencies to actors at the lower levels of management or
delegation of responsibilities to schools. Table 1 highlights the administrative, scal,
and political dimensions of education decentralization by type of decentralization.
REFORMS ACCOMPANYING DECENTRALIZATION IN EDUCATION
Decentralization is not a panacea for improving educational quality and
outcomes and, as noted in the introduction, these factors may not even be driving
decentralization eorts. No matter the underlying reasons, a number of specic
reforms typically accompany education decentralization. ese include creating an
enabling political and legal framework, downsizing the central education ministry,
strengthening sub-national government capacity, establishing local nancing,
supporting stakeholder participation, and balancing autonomy with accountability.
Enabling political and legal framework. e ecient division of responsibilities
among dierent levels of government requires explicit and transparent rules
dening who has authority and who will be held accountable. Legislation needs to
describe the role and tasks at each level of government; set limits on the authority
and responsibilities at each level; and specify coordination mechanisms among the
dierent levels to facilitate decentralized decision making.
Downsizing the central education administration. An important element of
education decentralization is downsizing the central education administration to
eliminate extra layers of bureaucracy by moving decision making and resources to
local governments and/or schools. Hand in hand with the reduced size of the central
government is a change in its role from implementer to facilitator, providing timely
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
6
support (targeted technical assistance, data analysis, strategic planning, etc.) to local
governments and schools.
Strengthening sub-national government capacity. Managers at the sub-national
levels (provincial, regional, etc.), need the skills to plan, implement, manage, and
evaluate education policies, strategies, and programs. Simply transferring authority
and nancial resources to these levels to implement decentralized initiatives will
not have the desired impact unless lower-level managers also have the human and
physical capacity to do the work. Improving managerial capacity and systems
can be facilitated through a combination of personnel development, information
technology, and modied organizational structures that t local conditions.
Local nancing. Another common element of decentralization is increased local
nancing. Adequate funding for sub-national levels of government is essential
for decentralization eorts to be successful. Some countries retain tight nancial
control at the central ministry (Tanzania) while others (El Salvador) do not.
Depending on government decisions and local management capacity, nancial
packages can be tailored to local capacity and may include a combination of sources
such as direct government funds, competitive grants, and fundraising. It is critical
that decentralized nancing systems develop nancial control and monitoring
mechanisms for transparency and accountability.
Supporting stakeholder participation. ere is widespread agreement that
stakeholder buy-in and participation are essential elements of decentralization. is
is sometimes achieved by introducing school-based management (SBM). SBM results
in greater school autonomy and shifts decision making to teachers, parents, and
communities. e rationale for SBM is that the key to improved education systems
is the engagement of those most directly aected by management and nancing
decisions. In any case, a community that is actively engaged with the education
system improves the likelihood that decentralization eorts will be successful.
Balancing autonomy with accountability. Maintaining transparency and
accountability is another element essential to improving the performance of
decentralized education systems. For education decentralization to work, each level
of the system must be accountable to those who fund its programs and activities
and to those who benet from them. In other words, there must be a reliable system
of accountability at each decentralized level for all stakeholders. Political and legal
oversight is key to promoting accountability.
7
Education Decentralization
TIPS FOR DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE
DECENTRALIZATION PROGRAMS
Education decentralization is an increasingly important element in the delivery of
education services in client countries. Yet, there is a lack of knowledge about how to
conceptualize and design sustainable decentralization programs. e nal section of
this paper provides practical guidance on how to eectively conceive of and design
programs and projects that include decentralization as one element for improved
education. It does not provide tips on how to design discrete project activities, but
rather focuses on preparing successful requests for proposals for education programs
that are demand driven, educationally sound, and socially and politically viable.
Several elements have been identied as crucial to the design of an education
decentralization project that meets the stated objectives (Hanson, 1997; USAID,
2011). It is important to note that because countries vary in their political,
economic, and social makeup, the impact of a decentralization strategy introduced in
one country is not necessarily predictive of what will happen in another; and lessons
learned from implementing decentralization
will vary depending on what is driving the
decision to decentralize (Hanson, 1997).
Generally speaking, decentralization programs
will be more eective if the following features
are incorporated into the program design:
Devote time to analyze the current system
and to dene the responsibilities of all
stakeholders. When designing a reform
strategy and the subsequent education
decentralization program, it is critical to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of
the existing system and to address them in
program conceptualization and design. Some
areas where assessments should be carried out
include management eciency, evaluation
capacity, eectiveness of information systems
and budgeting, research productivity, the
adequacy of the curriculum, the quality
of classroom teaching and learning, and
Build on the existing system.
The Decentralized Basic Education
Program 1 (DBE1) in Indonesia helped to
facilitate transparent, constructive rela-
tionships and communication between
stakeholders, including national and dis-
trict governments, civil society, the private
sector, NGOs, and the broader community.
Using existing data, DBE 1 focused on
providing more effective decentralized
education management and governance at
the school and district levels. DBE1 helped
schools create a wide range of reports for
use by the Ministry, schools and communi-
ties that improved transparency and ac-
countability, and improved planning efforts
without overburdening the schools.
For more information see http://www.dbe-
usaid.org and http://indonesia.usaid.gov/
en/programs/education
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
8
community involvement. Once the analyses are complete, responsibilities and
authority should be outlined and essential training should be incorporated into the
design to create the capacity to implement the nancial and technical aspects of
decentralization.
Understand the driving force behind decentralization. If a program is to have the
desired impact on the reform eort, it must distinguish between stated and unstated
goals as well as recognize the importance of each goal to stakeholders. Developing an
eective decentralized education program in an environment of diering stakeholder
missions and goals and varying public opinion, can be a challenge. Understanding
the interests driving decentralization and planning the program accordingly are keys
to successfully integrating these disparate goals
and achieving meaningful and measurable
results.
Create a common vision for reform. is
is essential if collaboration, rather than
conict, is to become the driving force behind
decentralization actions. For Education
Ministries and schools that have not had a
history of working collaboratively, developing a
common vision for decentralization may serve
as the foundation for a collaborative culture.
To this end, it is important to initiate an open
ow of ideas and information and engage key
actors in program design and implementation
from the beginning.
Develop a clear and realistic plan for
implementation. e program’s decentralization plan should specify the crucial
and sometimes dicult preliminary steps before authority is transferred. ese
steps include training regional and local leadership; modifying and dening lines of
authority and decision-making roles; and developing nancing mechanisms at the
national, regional, and local levels so that each actor can eectively and eciently
carry out assigned tasks, such as curriculum development and school maintenance.
Successful decentralization requires that national and sub-national levels of
government be restructured and that they be willing to share power. Even with
changes in laws and regulations, some central ministry of education ocials may
Politically driven decentralization
Education decentralization in Ethiopia
took place as part of a wider government
decentralization effort. After the end of
the civil war, decentralization of educa-
tion served to give voice and power to the
country’s largest ethnic groups and pre-
vent further discord. Since ethnic groups
were located by regions, decentralization
to the regional level of government was a
natural t for reform. Other examples of
politically driven education decentralization
may be found in the Philippines, Spain,
and Sudan.
Source: Gershberg & Winkler, 2003; Bray,
2003.
9
Education Decentralization
be reluctant to relinquish their authority to
sub-national ocials and schools. “While
power sharing rarely poses a challenge
to implementation, it does require a
culture change at the center from one of
control to one of facilitation and support.
Furthermore, while decentralization to sub
national governments does not in itself
empower parents, decentralization of real
decision making power to schools or school
councils can signicantly increase parental
participation in schools which is linked to
improved school performance” (USAID,
2011). erefore, during the design phase,
consultation with all levels of government
is essential to foster buy-in and ensure
sustainability.
Decentralization is a long, evolutionary
process that can take a decade or longer to
fully implement. Furthermore, the short-
term impact may be dicult to measure.
Decentralization often begins with a legal
step—a new law or decree—that outlines
the reform followed by implementation
regulations and the transfer of authority to
sub-national levels, communities, and schools. e speed with which this process
occurs depends on political will and capacity at the dierent levels. Some regions may
be better prepared to take on the responsibilities of decentralization while others may
need more extensive support and time to fully implement initiatives.
Program design should recognize and take into account the long timeframe needed
to measure program impact. For this reason, the initial focus should be on specic
program outcomes or on the intermediate results of a program or project. While it
is important to have a vision of desired long-term change, the relatively short-term
horizon of most programs and projects (three to ve years) makes management and
meaningful evaluation of outcomes challenging. erefore, management for results
across all levels of the education system, with a consistent focus on building capacity
of local stakeholders, partnerships, and collaboration, is required.
Create a common vision and plan for
decentralization.
In Peru, the USAID-funded Innovations
in Decentralization and Active Schools
(AprenDes) project enhanced policy and
institutional frameworks by strengthening
decentralized management of primary ed-
ucation. It also worked to improve learning,
promote participation and foster democrat-
ic behavior in multi-grade schools. At the
national level, working with the Ministry of
Education, the National Education Council,
the ofce of the Presidency of the Council
of Ministers, the National Assembly of
Regional Governments, and other civil so-
ciety organizations, AprenDes helped draft
the National Education Plan and a new law
that outlined responsibilities under decen-
tralization. At the regional level, AprenDes
worked to convert educational policy to
practice by assisting in the development of
medium-term education plans and the de-
sign of Public Investment Projects focused
on delivering higher quality education.
Source: Bernbaum, Herrera & Schielel-
bein. 2010.
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
10
Hold implementers accountable. Education eciency and eectiveness in
decentralized systems are more likely to be achieved if those charged with providing
the services—regional and local governments and schools—are given the authority
to implement reforms and are held accountable. Accountability requires an
explicit delineation of authority and responsibilities, clear lines of communication,
and transparent information about expected results. ese elements should be
incorporated into program and project conceptualization and design.
Transfer of nancial authority is critical to success. Decentralization of central
funding mechanisms is critical to success, but is often the last function to be
decentralized. If local governments or schools have the authority to make decisions,
but are unable to execute them due to lack of funds, implementation can slow down
or stop.
Several best practices have been identied to guide the decentralization of nancing
to local levels or schools and should be built into the design of a project. First,
decentralization should not transfer nancial responsibility to regions and local
schools that do not have the necessary resources to fund the new responsibilities.
Second, funds should be provided by central authorities in the form of block grants
so that each region can establish its own funding priorities. ird, funding should
be balanced between rich and poor regions to promote fairness. Fourth, regional
governments must be able to raise funds to contribute to the development of their
educational systems beyond government funding. Fifth and nally, nancial transfers
to sub-national and school levels require good monitoring systems to track the ow
of funds and to ensure accountability and eciency in their use.
Ethiopia Improving Quality of Primary Education Program
Ethiopia has been working to improve educational quality, equity, and access to its rapidly
expanding and decentralizing education sector since 1995. From the start, emphasis was
placed on securing buy-in and cooperation from all stakeholders at all levels, working with
them to develop solid long-range and annual plans with well structured follow-up mecha-
nisms aligned with the Ministry of Education’s General Education Quality Improvement
Program. Achievements have included building the capacity of woreda education ofcers,
school principals, and Kebele Education and Training Board members; establishing a Per-
sonnel Management Information System and training participants in how to collect, enter,
and use data for decision making; and strengthening the Management Information System
at regional State Education Bureaus and the Ministry of Education.
Source: USAID, 2010.
11
Education Decentralization
CONCLUSION
e USAID Education Strategy for 2011-2015, Education, Opportunity through
Learning “calls for Missions to embrace the U.S. Global Development Policy
principles of selectivity, focus, country responsibility, division of labor, and
innovation in their program design and development. […] It also rearms principles
related to evaluation, sustainability, gender equity and public private partnerships”
(USAID, 2011).
While decentralization is not specically mentioned in the USAID Education
Strategy, its elements are clearly expressed under the rubric of sustainability. e
sustainability principle seeks to achieve sustainable development outcomes through:
• Strengthening public education through building the capacity of national- and
community-level public sector institutions to provide and fund education;
• Developing policies on curriculum, employment, professionalization, and
nancing; and
• Forming networks of government, parents, community organizations, and the
private sector.
Spain – two decades to successfully decentralize.
In January, 2000 Spain completed its 20-year the transfer of educational decision-making
authority to all 17 of its autonomous communities (regional governments). As the functions
carried out by the central government were transferred to the regions, the funds to carry
out the activities were also transferred in the form of unrestricted block grants. Additional
sources of income for education include service fees, property taxes, the Inter-territorial
Compensation Fund (FCI), and direct borrowing. The decentralized autonomous communi-
ties establish their own public expenditure budget priorities. As a result, some regions fund
education at a much higher level than others.
No doubt there were numerous contributing factors to the shifts of educational expenditures
in both the centralized and decentralized regions (e.g., student population growth, regional
economic development). But the likelihood is that the ability to set public expenditure priori-
ties in the decentralized regions accounted for a signicant measure of the educational
spending uctuations in those regions.
Source: Hanson, 2000.
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
12
rough its sustainability principle, USAID is harmonizing and rationalizing
elements of decentralization that have proven eective at improving eciency,
transparency, accountability, and sometimes the quality of education when
implemented in concert.
13
Education Decentralization
REFERENCES
Astiz, M. F., A. W. Wiseman & D.P. Baker. (2002). “Slouching towards
Decentralization: Consequences of Globalization for Curricular Control in National
Education Systems.” Comparative Education Review, 46 (No. 1), 66–88.
Bernbaum, M. (2011). EQUIP2 Lessons Learned in Education: Decentralization.
Washington, D.C.: USAID, EQUIP2, FHI 360.
Bernbaum, Marcia, Jose Rivero Herrera & Ernesto Schielelbein. (2010). Evaluation
of USAID/Peru’s Education program: AprenDes amd CETT‐ANDINO. Washington,
D.C.: United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Bray, Mark. (2003). “Control of Education: Issues and Tensions in Centralization
and Decentralization.” In R.F. Arnove & C.A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative Education:
e Dialectic of the Global and the Local. second edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littleeld.
Cohen. J. (2004). Linking Decentralization and School Quality Improvement.
Washington, DC: USAID, Educational Quality Improvement Project 2 (EQUIP2),
FHI 360.
FHI 360. (2010). Improving Quality of Primary Education program (USAID/IQPEP)
in Ethiopia. Year Two Implementation Pan 1. July 2010 – June 2011. Washington,
D.C.: Ethiopia IQPEP and FHI 360.
Ford, J. (1999). “Rationale for Decentralization?” In Litvack, J. & J. Seddon. (Eds.),
Decentralization Brieng Notes. World Bank Institute Working Papers. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.
Gershberg, Alec I. and Ben Meade. (2003). Parental Contributions, School-level
Finances, and Decentralization: An Analysis of Nicaraguan Autonomous School Budgets.
New York, NY: Community Development Research Center, Milano Graduate School
of Management and Urban Policy, New School University.
Hanson, E. Mark. (2000). “Democratization and Educational Decentralization in
Spain: A Twenty Year Struggle for Reform.” Country Studies, Education Reform and
Management Publication Series, Vol. 1(3).
EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series
14
Hanson, E. Mark. (1997). Education Decentralization: Issues and Challenges.
Occasional Paper no. 9. Chile Partnerships for revitalization in the Americas.
King, E. & S. Cordeiro-Guerra. (2005). “Education Reforms in East Asia: Policy,
Process, and Impact.” In East Asia Decentralizes: Making Local Government Work.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
McGinn, N. F. & T. Welsh. (1999). Decentralization of Education: Why, When, What
and How? IIEP Fundamentals of Educational Planning Series – 64. Paris, France:
UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
Reinikka, R. & N. Smith. (2004). Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys in Education.
Paris, France: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
Rivarola, M. & B. Fuller. (1999). “Nicaragua’s Experiment to Decentralize Schools:
Contrasting Views of Parents, Teachers, and Directors.” Comparative Education
Review, Vol. 43(4), 489–521.
Rondinelli, D. A. (1999). “What is Decentralization?” In Litvack, J. & J. Seddon
(Eds.), Decentralization Brieng Notes. World Bank Institute Working Papers.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
United Republic of Tanzania. 2005. Decentralization for Service Delivery in Tanzania.
A paper presented by D.M.S. Mmari, Permanent Secretary, President’s Oce,
Regional Administration and Local Government, United Republic of Tanzania, at the
conference on Building Capacity for the Education Sector in Africa. Oslo, Norway
October 12th – 14th 2005.
USAID. (2011). Education Opportunity through learning, USAID Education Strategy:
2011–2015. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
Winkler, D. R. and A.I. Gershberg. (2003). Education Decentralization in Africa: A
review of recent policy and practice. Washington, D.C.: e World Bank.
Winkler, D. R. (2005). Public Expenditure Tracking in Education. EQUIP2 Policy
Brief. Washington, D.C.: USAID, EQUIP2, FHI 360.
Winkler, D. R. & B. Yeo. (2007a). Does Decentralization Impact Education Quality?
EQUIP2 Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: USAID, EQUIP2, FHI 360.
15
Education Decentralization
Winkler, D. R. & B. Yeo. (2007b). Identifying the Impact of Education
Decentralization on the Quality of Education. EQUIP2 Working Paper. Washington,
D.C.: USAID, EQUIP2, FHI 360.
World Bank. (2009). Accountability, Governance, and Quality of Decentralized
Education in Africa: Retrieved on 27 April 2011 from http://go.worldbank.org/
DTZ6EO7I50.
is paper was written for EQUIP2 by John C. Weidman (Professor, Administrative and Policy
Studies Department, University of Pittsburgh) and Robin DePietro-Jurand (FHI 360), 2011.
e EQUIP2 State-of-the-Art Knowledge Series: Guides to Education Project Design Based on
Comprehensive Literature and Project Reviews. Other topics in this series include:
• Opportunity to Learn
• Policy Dialogue
• School Report Cards
• Secondary Education
• Teacher Professional Development
EQUIP2: Educational Policy, Systems Development, and Management is one of three USAID-
funded Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreements under the umbrella heading Educational
Quality Improvement Program (EQUIP). As a Leader with Associates mechanism, EQUIP2
accommodates buy-in awards from USAID bureaus and missions to support the goal of building
education quality at the national, sub-national, and cross-community levels.
FHI 360 is the lead organization for the global EQUIP2 partnership of education and development
organizations, universities, and research institutions. e partnership includes fteen major
organizations and an expanding network of regional and national associates throughout the world:
Aga Khan Foundation, American Institutes for Research, CARE, Center for Collaboration and
the Future of Schooling, East-West Center, Education Development Center, International Rescue
Committee, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation, Michigan State University, Mississippi Consortium
for International Development, ORC Macro, Research Triangle Institute, University of Minnesota,
University of Pittsburgh Institute of International Studies in Education, Women’s Commission for
Refugee Women and Children.
For more information about EQUIP2, please contact:
USAID
Patrick Collins
EGAT/ED/BE, USAID Washington
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20532
Tel: 202-712-4151
Email: pcollins@usaid.gov
FHI 360
Audrey-marie Schuh Moore
EQUIP2 Project Director
1825 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: 202-884-8187
Email: aumoore@fhi360.org
Web: www.equip123.net
Measuring School Eectiveness: Ethiopia
16
is paper was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement No.
GDG-A-00-03-00008-00. e contents are the responsibility of FHI 360 through the Educational
Quality Improvement Program 2 (EQUIP2) and do not necessarily reect the views of USAID or the
United States Government.
