Our Approach

EPG is a non-profit consultancy that supports governments in low- and middle-income countries to shape and strengthen their education systems. Contents

Active projects Past projects

Introduction

Section I. Our Work

Section II. Our Story

Section III. Situating Our Work Within the Global Education Landscape

Section IV. Conceptual Framework for Doing Development Differently

Section V. Our Approach

Section VI. Our Values

Bibliography

04

06

08

12

18

20

22

260302

Education Partnerships Group (EPG) is a non-profit consultancy that supports governments in low- and middle-income countries to shape and strengthen their education systems. At the heart of our approach is the belief that governments are best placed to make decisions about their country.Founded in 2015 as an international venture of the UK-based charity, Ark, EPG focused initially on supporting governments to design and establish Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), and strengthen aspects of their education systems that would enable the success of these partnerships, such as accountability and school improvement mechanisms. Since then, our work has expanded to the policy process more broadly and we now provide wide-ranging support to partner governments across three areas: generating and using research to inform policy; supporting the design and development of policy; and supporting the piloting and scaling of policy reform initiatives.

This document describes our journey to this point. It situates our work within the wider global education landscape, as governments in low- and middle-income countries seek to deliver uniformly high learning outcomes within education systems designed to expand access to education, rather than measure and improve learning. It outlines how a history of flawed technical assistance programmes have imposed technocratic, context-free solutions misaligned with national priorities or the capacity for implementation.

IntroductionPrimarily this document seeks to articulate how this history, and the ideas of a growing group of movements and organisations seeking to ‘do development differently’, have informed EPG’s own approach to supporting governments and working towards incremental and sustainable education reforms globally. We recognise that how we work is as important as what we do and therefore commit to:

Moreover, as we work in a sector that is inherently rooted in colonialism and white supremacy, we commit to being an anti-racist organisation and regularly confronting the question of what role we play in dismantling the status quo.

In articulating our thinking and commitments in this document, we hope to:

1. Allow government partners and funders to situate our work within the broader global landscape and understand our perspective and approach;

2. Clarify our approach to working in partnership with governments, and hold ourselves accountable for executing our work in line with this approach.

Understanding Local Context

Supporting System Strengthening

Ensuring Learning and Adaptation

Building Strong Partnerships

04 05

Our Work

Many of the governments we work with wish to strengthen the culture and practice of making evidence-based decisions. Where new research is needed to inform policy, we either undertake the research ourselves, or facilitate governments to commission it, while providing oversight and quality assurance. Once the research is complete, the real work begins. We continue working with government to ensure that it informs both policy and implementation.

Governments operate within broader legislative and policy environments that provide guiding frameworks for education service delivery. We work in partnership with governments to review, design, and prioritise policies that together ensure a coherent system for education delivery. We place an emphasis on thinking about how exactly policies will be implemented in practice, outlining clear roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities for all actors involved in implementation. We work with governments to ensure long-term affordability over the lifetime of the policy and build in regular monitoring and review mechanisms to assess progress and make changes.

We work alongside governments to design, implement and monitor multi-phase policy pilots. We prioritise regular consultation with implementers in the design and testing phase to make sure the pilot is realistic and feasible in practice; cyclical learning and adaptation to ensure the pilot is responsive to the needs of the context; and training and capacity building to establish confidence in the new approach. We work closely with the government to evaluate pilots to understand their potential for scale and assist them to plan and implement careful expansion if appropriate.

Generating and using research to inform policy

Supporting the design and development of policy

Supporting the piloting and scaling of policy reform initiatives

1.

2.

3.

Our Vision

Governments in low- and middle-income countries are equipped to ensure that every child goes to school and learns.

Our Mission

We partner with governments in low- and middle-income countries to shape and strengthen their education systems. We believe that supporting government to design and implement contextually-relevant and evidence-based public policy is the best way to drive sustainable progress towards achieving quality education for all.

What we do

We are experts in the policy process, and we assist governments to identify and implement solutions across three critical stages. Depending on government priorities, we may work on one specific stage of this policy process, a combination of two stages, or across all three:

Section I

0706

Education Partnerships Group (EPG) was founded in 2015 as an international venture of the UK-based charity, Ark. Ark was established to improve the life chances of children in the UK and internationally. Their early work focused on health, education and child protection.

In 2016, EPG established an office in Cape Town to support EPG’s partnership with the Western Cape Government.

Today, Ark runs a network of academy schools (known as Ark Schools) in the UK, which strives to close the achievement gap between children from disadvantaged and more affluent backgrounds. Academies are government funded but independent of local government control. When they were first established, they represented a new type of partnership between government and the non-state education sector in the UK.

International interest in the Ark Schools model spurred requests to provide advice to governments and school operators all over the world on establishing partnerships between the state and the non-state education sector, and Ark had already started engagements in India and Uganda to this end. In early 2015, a small team of London-based staff within Ark set up the ‘Public-Private Partnership Practice’ (PPP Practice) to respond to these requests.

The PPP Practice evolved into EPG. For the first two years, EPG’s work focused heavily on supporting governments to design and establish PPPs similar to the academies model in the UK. The first twelve months saw EPG operate entirely out of its London headquarters, with technical support flown into the countries where EPG was supporting governments. It quickly became clear that, to be effective government partners, locally based staff were needed to lead the day-to-day operations and liaise with Ministry of Education staff.

South Africa

Liberia

Côte d’Ivoire GhanaIndia

South Africa

UgandaUganda

NEW COUNTRY ENGAGEMENT IN:

NEW COUNTRY ENGAGEMENT IN:

NEW COUNTRY ENGAGEMENT IN:FURTHER WORK

ADDED IN:

FURTHER WORK ADDED IN:

FURTHER WORK ADDED IN:

2016

2017Through 2017, EPG’s focus remained on partnerships between the state and non-state sector, but its assistance broadened to support governments to look across the whole education system and strengthen the aspects that enable them to establish, regulate and monitor successful partnerships, such as accountability and school improvement mechanisms.

In 2017 and 2018, locally based programme management staff were hired in Uganda, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Kenya.

Our StorySection II

2015

08 09

In 2018, EPG welcomed a new CEO and the organisation’s approach to supporting governments to shape and strengthen their education systems further evolved. It had become clear that EPG could not advise governments on strengthening just one aspect of a larger, more complex system without engaging with how it would interact with and affect functionality across the system. The scope of EPG’s support began to focus more on the policy process and less on any particular policy area. During this period, EPG also began developing its own independent brand and operations from Ark, whilst still operationally and legally part of the larger organisation.

EPG became increasingly interested in how to provide technical assistance differently, given the serious flaws in the standard model of policy support to governments in low- and middle-income countries. EPG is committed to building trusted, long-term relationships with government that allow us to work on the core of the system: policies that define the roles, responsibilities, relationships, and accountabilities of all the different actors involved.

Today, EPG provides a wide range of support to governments, across three areas: generating and using research to inform policy; supporting the design and development of policy; and supporting the piloting and scaling of policy reform initiatives.

EPG commits to moving away from a centralised headquarters to a networked model of regional hub offices and staff embedded in Ministries of Education in partner countries. In 2019 and 2020 additional programme staff were hired in Sierra Leone, Ghana, Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire and EPG began exploring the establishment of East and West Africa Regional Hub offices, in addition to its existing Cape Town office.

Ethiopia

Cambodia

Zambia

Cambodia

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

Ghana

Côte d’Ivoire

Sierra Leone

Ghana

South Africa

NEW COUNTRY ENGAGEMENT IN:

NEW COUNTRY ENGAGEMENT IN:

NEW COUNTRY ENGAGEMENT IN:

FURTHER WORK ADDED IN:

FURTHER WORK ADDED IN:

FURTHER WORK ADDED IN:

2020

2021

2018

2019

10 11

Section III

Situating Our Work Within the Global Education LandscapeEPG exists to support governments to shape and strengthen their education systems so that every child can go to school and learn. Within the global education landscape, the support we provide to our government partners is sometimes described as ‘technical assistance’.1 We recognise, however, that the practice of providing technical assistance to governments in low- and middle-income countries has a complicated and problematic history based in colonial rule, and also cannot be divorced from the structure of the international aid architecture and issues of racism in international development. At EPG, we are striving to deliver support that departs from the standard models of technical assistance that have emerged in the last three decades. To understand why and how we intend to do this, it is necessary to situate our work within the wider global education landscape, as well as against the history of technical assistance programmes in international development.

1 Defined by Cox & Norrington-Davies (2019) as “knowledge-based assistance to governments intended to shape policies and institutions, support implementation, and build organisational capacity”, p.ii

The challenge of providing quality education for all children

In recent decades, governments around the world have made huge progress in expanding access to education, with more children enrolled in formal schooling than ever before. Supported by a string of global initiatives that set targets for expanding access to schooling (such as Education For All, Universal Primary Education, and the Millennium Development Goals), rapid increases to net enrolment in low- and middle-income countries has greatly outpaced the historic performance of today’s high-income countries.2

Despite the gains in access, evidence shows that being in school does not equate to learning.3 Roughly half of all students are progressing through school without acquiring the foundational skills they need4 and millions of children are leaving primary education without basic literacy and numeracy skills.5 According to data from UNICEF, of the world’s 694 million children of primary school age, 387 million are failing to achieve a minimum level of learning.6 Addressing this is widely acknowledged to be an urgent priority for the global education sector, without which a generation of children globally will not have the opportunity to realise their potential.

The explanation for these poor learning outcomes is still a matter of debate due to the complex nature of systemic failures.7 It is clear that as international and domestic resources poured into expanding access, education systems evolved to measure this expansion by counting inputs (such as number of schools and classrooms built, number of children enrolled, number of teachers recruited, and so on). The effectiveness of these systems, however, depends not just on quantity of resources (both human and financial), but on how effectively these resources are used to deliver learning. Since the majority of education systems in low- and middle-income countries have been incentivised to measure access, they are understandably coherent only around the achievement of enrolment targets. 8 In order to produce uniformly high learning outcomes, system-wide reform is required to refocus on learning quality in addition to access. 9 This is why, at EPG, we focus on the whole system, and work to enable governments to implement the complex reforms needed to make learning a reality for all children.

2 The World Bank (2018), p.43 UNICEF (2020); The World Bank (2018)4 The World Bank (2019), p.85 The World Bank (2018), p.716 Ibid.7 Crouch, L., & Rolleston, C. (2015), p.18 Pritchett, L. (2015), p.19 Ibid. 1312

The rise of technical assistance programmes

Technical assistance programmes emerged largely in response to the failure of structural adjustment loans from international finance institutions to low- and middle-income countries during the 1980s, intended to stimulate economic gains. Rooted in the belief that market competition would drive development, these loans required borrowing countries to implement economic reforms focused predominantly on market liberalisation to increase private investment and global competition. As this pressure to reform was driven by international institutions rather than governments themselves, the foundations of sovereign states and their legitimacy was challenged, thereby eroding their power.10 To meet the loan obligations, borrowing countries squeezed spending on social sectors such as education and health. Far from being a success, structural adjustment programs failed to deliver development and poverty levels increased. 11

In the 1990s, the international finance institutions were forced to review their reform agendas. They instituted programmes of technical assistance focused on building more accountable and transparent state institutions capable of designing and implementing public policy. These programmes started to be included as mandatory components of development loans and aid packages. However, they have often been designed with little regard for local context,12 replicating “best practice” from high-income countries, rather than designing bespoke solutions to local challenges suitable for existing government capability.13 These approaches have been criticised for demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of how institutions function and how change happens.14

10 Hirschmann, D. (1993)11 Brinkerhoff, D., & Brinkerhoff, J. (2015), p. 22312 Timmis, H. (2018); Denney et al. (2017)13 Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2012)14 Booth, D. (2014)

The role of aid in creating government ‘capability traps’

Concurrently to the development of technical assistance programmes, and driven by requirements to demonstrate impact, international finance institutions and other funders also began attaching increasingly rigid conditions to how aid is spent. These conditions are often not aligned to recipient government priorities and yet many countries rely on aid to supplement their national budgets.15 In addition, aid disbursements are frequently volatile, and often conditional on the creation of new policies but not their implementation. A common prerequisite to release funding is the completion of new plans or frameworks, without demonstrated improvements in performance. Such strategies produce systems that look like those of high-income countries but do not and cannot perform like them.16

Pritchett, Woolcock and Andrews (2012) describe these conditions as leading to ‘capability traps’, in which governments adopt ‘reforms’ to ensure ongoing flows of external financing and legitimacy, while state capability stagnates or even deteriorates.17 Encouraged (and sometimes mandated) by the aid architecture, governments can be left with many of the characteristics of a high-capacity system, but without the functionality. Governments are then left ‘stuck’ in conditions of low productivity, as reform initiatives fail to achieve sustained improvements in performance despite a never-ending stream of institutional or policy reforms. Ultimately, these rigid funding requirements can undermine state ownership, overcomplicate domestic budget and policy processes, prevent the effective use of resources, and harm any incentives to build state capability.

15 Rodrik, D. (2008), p.6116 This phenomenon has been dubbed ‘isomorphic mimicry’ by Pritchett, L.,

Woolcock, M., & Andrews, M. (2010)17 Pritchett L., Woolcock M., & Andrews M. (2012)

1514

Challenging the impact of technical assistance programmes

International aid continues to fund technical assistance despite little demonstrated impact for the amount of money spent. The standard model has been criticised for resting on simplistic assumptions about systems and pursuing technical solutions to what are often political challenges.20 Moreover, technical assistance has been repeatedly accused of reflecting donor reform agendas rather than national priorities, and bringing in international ‘experts’ who substitute local capacity and misunderstand or ignore local context. 21

These critiques cannot be divorced from the issue of racism in international development. As a sector that is inherently rooted in colonialism and white supremacy, racism in international development goes hand-in-hand with the systemic structures of power, financing, and decision-making embedded in the international aid architecture. However, despite a wealth of published critiques and analysis on the role of international aid in creating ‘capability traps’ in low- and middle-income countries, the issue of racism is rarely acknowledged or addressed directly, though it profoundly shapes both policy and practice.22 According to Sriprakash et al. (2020), this silence falls against a backdrop of “a much longer history of political struggles against racial domination by anti-colonial and indigenous activists” that has recently culminated in important community-led movements such as Black Lives Matter.23

Although EPG operates within this context, we know that support needs to be provided differently if it is going to lead to meaningful and sustainable reform. It is crucial for us to regularly confront the question of our role in dismantling the status quo and challenging racism. We also know that, even if provided differently, technical assistance cannot by itself hope to solve all problems. However, we believe that partnerships can be meaningfully co-created with governments who have a genuine desire to undertake system-wide reforms – partnerships that account for context and respect the technical expertise already housed within government institutions and other local partners. It is from this foundation that EPG has designed our approach to ‘doing development differently’ that we hope to develop and iterate as we continue to work in close partnership with governments around the world to shape and strengthen their education systems.

20 Cox, M., & Norrington-Davies, G. (2019), p.ii21 Ibid., p. iii22 Sriprakash et al. (2020)23 Ibid.

The centrality of political economy dynamics to reform initiatives

It is remarkable that context-free, off-the-shelf approaches to technical assistance have persisted for so long given that they do not reflect how policy reform actually works in practice. In all contexts, policy change is a function not just of technical solutions but political will, cultural norms, history, institutional design, personal relationships, and a host of other contextual variables. Election cycles, the short time horizons of politicians, and the relative power of different stakeholders all affect whether a government invests in reform, and how effectively policies are designed and implemented.

This is especially true for the education sector. Bruns and Schneider (2016) observe that “major education reform is almost always a highly charged and politicised process. What gets implemented – and its impact – depends as much or more on the politics of the reform process, as the technical design of the reform.”18 Over the last three decades, candidates running in national elections in the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries have pledged some combination of free quality primary and secondary education for all. The focus on expanding access to education has proved popular, given its potential to provide tangible results to voters, and the opportunities it creates to distribute new jobs and contracts.19 Later stage quality reforms have proven much more complex and often contentious. For instance, efforts to increase teacher accountability are often strongly resisted by unions who see such policies as an attack on their members and represent powerful voting blocks that politicians want to keep on side. This results in governments investing in reforms that focus on more and better infrastructure (such as building more schools) and more and better inputs to education (such as building toilets or distributing teaching-learning materials) rather than reforms focused on improving quality.

18 Bruns, B., & Schneider, B. (2016), p.419 Grindle, M. (2004), p.6

16 17

Section IV

Conceptual Framework for Doing Development Differently EPG is not the only organisation dissatisfied with the current model of technical assistance. Over the past decade, ideas about how to ‘do development differently’ have emerged. These approaches recognise that systems are complex and institutional reform is messy, unpredictable, prone to setbacks, and does not occur in a vacuum. They propose a deeper understanding of institutional challenges as the interplay between power, politics, and resource constraints, rather than just resource constraints alone. Ultimately, these new ways of thinking forgo the pursuit of predetermined global ‘solutions’ in favour of flexible, adaptive and iterative approaches to identifying what will work in each context.

These approaches have been given a variety of different labels, but three articulations most applicable to EPG’s work are:

1 The overarching umbrella of doing development differently24

2 The application of systems thinking25

3 The framework of problem-driven iterative adaptation.26

Both doing development differently and problem-driven iterative adaptation propose a series of principles focusing on solving locally-defined problems with locally-led solutions, instead of transplanting pre-packaged ‘best practice’ solutions to assumed problems. Their principles encourage experimentation, entrepreneurial behaviour, and positive deviance to arrive at solutions, with iterative feedback loops that facilitate rapid learning and adjustment.27

Systems thinking focuses on considering the interactions between different parts of complex systems, and understanding how the many interconnected actors and relationships, with their own values, interests and incentives, engage with each other.28 Following on from this, it considers the behaviours required to operate effectively within these systems, such as: more iterative and adaptive planning based on learning and experimentation; focusing on context-specific solutions; co-creating approaches alongside local stakeholders and experts; and involving multiple, varied stakeholders in order to build a deeper, less biased understanding of the system.29

24 Overseas Development Institute (2015)25 Bowman et al. (2015); Egan et al. (2019)26 Andrews et al. (2015), p.12427 Andrews et al. (2015); Overseas Development Institute (2015)28 Egan et al. (2019), p.829 Bowman et al. (2015), p.2

Whilst the key principles described within these approaches and frameworks make intuitive sense, critics have highlighted that they have largely been developed by international ‘experts’ working in predominantly Global North institutions, thereby running counter to their own key principles. Muyumbu (2018) pointed out that the doing development differently manifesto, drafted in 2014 at Harvard University’s Centre for International Development for international organisations to sign, may be viewed as the ‘newest form’ of ‘perpetuating problematic power relations’ by justifying certain habits of domination locally, nationally and internationally.30 Whilst we acknowledge the validity of these critiques, and commit to prioritising Global South voices in the ongoing development of our own strategy and approach, we think that the key principles remain important foundations for doing development differently.

The purpose in examining these approaches is to inform EPG’s work with governments and ensure that it is appropriate for the realities in which we work. Together, these approaches share three common themes that we endorse:

1. Deep Understanding of Local Challenges

Beginning with an in-depth understanding of local challenges rather than solutions, and pursuing change through problem-solving and behaviour change methods.

2. Localised Solutions by Local Leaders

The pursuit of localised and contextual solutions which are led by local leaders, based on an understanding of economic interests, political incentives and power dynamics.

3. Incremental Improvement to Build Local Capacity

Working towards incremental improvement in existing capacity, rather than attempting comprehensive reforms to fill capacity gaps.

Building on these themes, EPG has developed our own approach, based on four interlinked principles, to deliver contextually appropriate technical assistance that supports long-term, systemic reform.

30 Muyumbu, G. (2018) 19

Section V

Our ApproachTo meaningfully contribute to long-term systemic improvements in education systems, we recognise that how we work is as important as what we do. The four principles of our approach – building strong partnerships; understanding local contexts; supporting systems strengthening; and ensuring learning and adaptation – are fundamental to how we intend to do development differently.

We Build Strong Partnerships

We Understand Local Context

We Support System Strengthening

We Ensure Learning and Adaptation

We invest heavily in building relationships through our in-country teams, as well as through regular contact with our global team, both in-person and remotely. We believe it’s a privilege to work alongside government as trusted partners and advisors and we are led by their priorities, striving to be accessible and responsive to their needs. To ensure consensus around policy reform initiatives, we recognise the vital importance of building relationships across the system and endeavour to do this from the outset in any country we work in. In our day-to-day relationships with government, we respect the technical expertise and contextual knowledge of Ministry officials, whilst providing independent and evidence-based advice.

Education systems consist of many interconnected actors and relationships, who are trying to solve problems that are dynamic and multi-dimensional. The process of researching, designing, and implementing policy gets to the very core of the system and its functioning. Policies and their processes define the roles, responsibilities, relationships and accountabilities of all the different actors who make up the system, and how they work together. This is the lens with which we approach our work on the policy process. We do not look to work on individual policies in isolation, but as aspects of a larger more complex system, that interact with and affect functionality across the system. In doing so, we seek to understand, inform and strengthen the roles and responsibilities of all components of the system.

Systems change requires a genuine understanding of context, rather than assuming ideas can simply be transplanted from one country to another. For this reason, we prioritise building in-country teams who understand the culture, language and system and are embedded in Ministries of Education. We involve Ministry partners in recruitment of in-country team members, including selecting the final candidate. Sitting alongside our government partners, our in-country staff are on-hand to provide advice and support in real time, with the wider global team also readily available to respond to government needs. Where possible, we extend this approach to all our partnerships, seeking to work with local researchers, consultants and academic institutions, who have deep contextual knowledge and experience working within the system.

Education systems are dynamic, uncertain and complex contexts, where adaptation is key to success. In our work with governments, and internally as an organisation, we foster this learning and adaptation, with regular touchpoints to review, feedback and adjust our approach. These help to clarify contextual challenges and allow us to continue being responsive to emerging needs. We are not afraid to change direction or pivot as we learn and respond to developments within the system.

The broader education ecosystem includes a diverse range of actors, including multilateral and bilateral institutions, foundations and philanthropists, research institutions, non-state providers of education delivery and services, and the private sector. Taking a systems approach requires looking at the bigger picture and involving these actors. The relationships we build with other partners and collaborators allow us to leverage resources and extend our reach, facilitating governments to build coalitions to help achieve lasting policy change. In all our partnerships, we prioritise alignment with, and support to, government goals and objectives

A better understanding of the system and how it functions leads to more contextually appropriate, politically feasible and practical policy design and implementation. We work in partnership with governments to co-design rapid, practical and contextualised system diagnostics. We define system diagnostics as an analysis of how the system functions (both in policy and in practice); the inputs and resources of a system (both human and financial); the relationships within a system (both institutions and actors); and the politics and feedback loops within a system. These diagnostics allow us to work closely with government to identify what needs to change; how it might change and who needs to be involved.

We are committed to understanding the impact of our work with governments, and to monitoring progress towards achieving our joint objectives. We believe that we will only achieve our mission with a strong emphasis on being evidence-based – both in the support we provide to governments, and in informing our future work. As we are working in complex and changing social and political contexts, we use an embedded and developmental approach to monitoring and evaluating progress. This allows us to better respond to change and unpredicted consequences. We ensure that every major project cycle undergoes an internal process evaluation in order to hold ourselves and others to account for continuous learning.

We build trusted system-wide relationships with government partners

We focus on the core of the education system

We embed our in-country teams within Ministry of Education offices

We ensure learning informs iterative adaptations of our approach

We build strong coalitions of partners in the broader education ecosystem

We are prepared for change to take time

Given the complexity and dynamism of systems, it is no surprise that sustainable systems change takes time and involves incremental progress. We make long-term commitments to our partners to accompany them through this process, celebrating each success along the way. In embedding staff into Ministries, we plan to work alongside governments over multiple years and according to their needs, as trusted partners and advisors. We are careful to ensure that we are complementing existing expertise, rather than substituting it and we regularly review an exit strategy to ensure that governments are better able to thrive independently once our engagement ends. We make sure that we are realistic and transparent about what can be achieved in a given timeframe with government partners and funders. Whilst we know that change takes time, we also know that it can be done.

We map system functionality in order to help identify necessary change

We support regular monitoring and evaluation to track progress

20 21

Section VI

Our Values

Accountable

Accountability lies at the heart of EPG and the work that we do. We understand that being accountable means accepting ownership and being responsible for what we do and how we act. We welcome respectful challenge and healthy conflict to strengthen accountability – both internally, and with our partners. Within EPG, we regularly hold each other accountable through ensuring well-defined roles and responsibilities, clear expectations and objectives, and regular feedback and evaluation. Outside of EPG, we work in partnership with governments to strengthen system-wide accountability in similar ways, ensuring both individuals and institutions are completely responsible for what they do – both upwards (to Heads of Government) and downwards (to citizens).

Inclusive

Inclusivity is the practice of seeking a diversity of perspectives and experiences to better inform our work. Within EPG, we value individual differences and perspectives, and regularly benefit from the cognitive diversity of our colleagues. We believe that diversity of experience, expertise and geographic location is our strength, and allows us to foster more creativity and innovation in our work. We extend this value to our partnership with governments. Facilitating systems-change requires the inclusion of diverse views and experiences – both inside and outside government. Through encouraging regular stakeholder consultations, we support governments to ensure a wide range of perspectives are included in their ongoing reforms.

Respectful

Within EPG, we cultivate a respectful working environment where professionalism, integrity, trust, fairness, openness, and understanding are the norm. In practice, this means that we show respect to our colleagues and partners, no matter their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or country of origin. We strive to always treat others as we wish to be treated: with kindness, courtesy and politeness. We extend this value and these behaviours to all our interactions with government partners and other external stakeholders. We encourage our colleagues and partners to share their valuable ideas and we actively listen to them. We practice giving praise and positive feedback, and we credit and acknowledge our colleagues and partners for their excellent work. We invite regular feedback from colleagues and partners both internal and external, through performance and quality assurance mechanisms.

In our work with governments and with each other we are:

Responsive

In order to be a responsive organisation, we embrace change, learn quickly, and adapt with agility to changing circumstances. We know that policy work is highly complex, and circumstances can change very rapidly, so we strive to place learning at the centre of our work. In order to do this, we put purpose ahead of profit, empowerment and collaboration ahead of rigidity and control, and we value transparency and open communication over privacy. We ensure a transparent flow of communication – both internally, and with our partners – encouraging experimentation and innovation through rapid learning cycles. In striving to be responsive to government partners, we encourage and reward solutions-oriented, entrepreneurial mindsets that embrace change as positive opportunities to demonstrate we are reliable and flexible partners committed to high quality, client-focused delivery.

Rigorous

The principle of rigour lies at the heart of our work, ensuring that we are continually striving for excellence. We maintain high standards and support our colleagues and partners to hold us accountable to meeting those standards, under all circumstances. We are committed to ensuring our work and that of our partners is grounded in evidence and is factually accurate. We are meticulous in our attention to detail, and we have consistent quality assurance processes so that all our work meets our quality benchmarks. With government partners, we ensure this same level of rigour and work together to embed strong quality assurance processes, as well as review mechanisms that ensure relevant partners and stakeholders are involved in the review process.

22 23

Challenge Identify, discuss, and challenge issues of race, power and privilege and the impact they have on our staff, our organisation, and our partners.

Internally, we will meet on a regular basis (either remotely or in person) to openly and routinely challenge issues of race, power, and privilege and continually challenge the system that we operate in, to ensure we are doing development differently. We commit to identifying, discussing, and challenging these issues and the impact they have on our staff and our organisation. In doing so, we challenge ourselves to acknowledge and address the inequalities we discover. We commit to being open and honest about these conversations with our partners, involving them in these discussions where appropriate, and actively seeking views and experiences of our partners and other key stakeholders to inform our work.

AcknowledgeAcknowledge and learn about the damage caused by colonialism; and resolve to do what we can to reverse, rather than propagate, ongoing colonial behaviours.

We acknowledge that the development sector has its roots in a problematic colonial history that still influences ways of working today. We also acknowledge that it’s not just the sector, but also countries themselves that function in the shadow of colonial history, and experiences can differ significantly from country to country. We acknowledge that racism in the development sector cannot be divorced from the systemic structures of power, financing and decision-making that shape the contexts in which we operate. We commit to acknowledging, and learning more about, the damage caused by colonialism, as well as the individual colonial experiences of our partner countries. We resolve to do what we can to avoid pitfalls and, where possible, reverse ongoing colonial behaviours and mentalities.

Build

Build an organisation that reflects the diversity of the communities in which we work, in our governance structures, senior management team, and staff.

In the first instance, we commit to ensuring that our governance structures, senior management team and staff better reflect the diversity of the communities in which we work. However, our commitment is about more than just reflecting diversity in the compositions of our teams. We commit to ensuring that these diverse views, perspectives and experiences inform decision-making across the organisation, and that we continually cultivate an open, inclusive working culture in which all staff, no matter their seniority or location, are able to grow and thrive. This requires us to ensure that recruitment and progression, salaries and benefits, and training and support are tailored specifically to ensure we attract, retain and progress diverse talent within EPG, promoting an organisational culture that truly embraces diversity and inclusion.

Elevate

Value, prioritise and elevate local expertise and knowledge.

As programmes of technical assistance within the international aid architecture have been built on the idea of transferring knowledge from predominantly white global North ‘experts’ to non-white global South ‘recipients’, we believe in, and are committed to ensuring that, local expertise and knowledge is privileged. This means that, wherever and whenever we need to expand our team, we prioritise expanding our in-country teams first to ensure that our team offer appropriate local knowledge and expertise to our government partners and other key stakeholders. This also means that, wherever and whenever we need to bring in external experts to work in partnership with us, we prioritise partnering with consultants and organisations who have the appropriate local and contextual knowledge and experience as to ensure that our support is bespoke and tailored, rather than transplanting global best practice solutions. Lastly, this means that, wherever possible we prioritise working directly with local institutions rather than global ones.

Decentralise

Decentralise our operating model to ensure that leadership is dispersed across the countries in which we work.

We commit to decentralising EPG’s operating model in order to build strong teams in the countries in which we work, ensuring that there are clear opportunities to progress into leadership positions. Decentralising EPG’s operating model means that, where possible and practical, we prioritise establishing locally registered subsidiary organisations in the countries in which we work. Formal registration will allow us to establish locally-led governance and advisory structures to guide our work in-country, directly hire full-time permanent staff with a standard packages of benefits and professional development opportunities, and ensure the longer-term sustainability of embedded technical advisors with our government partners.

We commit to being an anti-racist organisation. That means we will:

24 25

Bibliography

Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., and Woolcock, M. (2012) Escaping Capability Traps through Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA). Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP12-036.

Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., Samji, S., Woolcock, M. (2015) Building capability by delivering results: Putting problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA) principles into practice. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., and Woolcock, M. (2017) ‘Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis, Action’. Oxford University Press.

Booth, D. (2014) Towards politically smart, locally led development in Africa, accessed at: https://africanarguments.org/2014/10/23/towards-politically-smart-locally-led-development-in-africa-by-david-booth/

Bowman, K., Chettleborough, J., Jeans, H., Rowlands, J., and Whitehead, J. (2015) Systems Thinking: An introduction for Oxfam Programme Staff. Oxfam.

Brinkerhoff, D., & Brinkerhoff, J. (2015) Public Sector Management Reform in Developing Countries: Perspectives Beyond New Public Management Orthodoxy. Public Administration and Development 35: 222-237.

Bruns, B., and Schneider, B. (2016) Managing the Politics of Quality Reforms in Education: Policy Lessons from Global Experience. Background Paper: The Learning Generation. The Education Commission.

Cox, M., & Norrington-Davies, G. (2019) Technical Assistance: New Thinking on an Old Problem. Agulhas Applied Knowledge and Open Society Foundations.

Crouch, L., & Rolleston, C. (2015) Raising the Floor on Learning Levels: Equitable Improvement Starts with the Tail. Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE) Insights.

Denney, L., Mallet, R. & Benson, M.S. (2017) Service delivery and state capacity: findings from the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium. London, U.K.: ODI.

Egan, M., McGil, E., Penney, T., Anderson De Cuevas, R., Er, V., Orton, L., Lock, K., Popay, J., Savona, N., Cummins, S., Rutter, H., Whitehead, M., De Vocht, F., White, M., Smith, R., Andreeva, M., Meler, P., Marks, D., Petticrew, M. (2019) NIHR Guidance on Systems Approaches to Local Health Evaluation, Part 1: Introducing Systems Thinking. National Institute for Health Research.

Grindle, M. (2004) Despite the Odds: The Contentious Politics of Education Reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hirschmann, D., (1993), Institutional development in the era of economic policy reform: concerns, contradictions and illustrations from Malawi. Public Administration & Development, 13: 113-128.

Muyumbu, G. (2018) The DDD Agenda: Questions from a Development Practitioner from the South. CARE Insights. Accessed at: https://insights.careinternational.org.uk/development-blog/the-ddd-agenda-questions-from-a-development-practitioner-from-the-south

Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2015) The Doing Development Differently Manifesto. The Overseas Development Institute.

Pritchett L., Woolcock M., Andrews M. (2010) Capability Traps? The Mechanisms of Persistent Implementation Failure. Working Paper 234: Center for Global Development.

Pritchett L., Woolcock M., Andrews M. (2012) Looking Like a State: Techniques of Persistent Failure in State Capability for Implementation. CID Working Paper No. 239.

Pritchett, L. (2015) RISE Working Paper 15/005 - Creating Education Systems Coherent for Learning Outcomes: Making the Transition from Schooling to Learning. Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE).

Rodrik, D. (2008). Second-Best Institutions. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 98(2).

Rolleston, C. (2016). RISE Working Paper 16/008 - Escaping a low-¬level equilibrium of educational quality. Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE).

Sriprakash, A., Tikly, L., Walker, S. (2020) The erasures of racism in education and international development: re-reading the ‘global learning crisis’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50:5, 676-692.

Timmis, H. (2018) Lessons from donor support to technical assistance programmes. Helpdesk Report: Knowledge, Evidence and Learning for Development (K4D).

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2019) New Methodology Shows that 258 Million Children, Adolescents and Youth are Out of School. Fact Sheet 56. UIS/2019/ED/FS/56.

UNICEF (2020) Unicef Data: Pre-Primary Education. February 2020. Accessed at: https://data.unicef.org/topic/education/pre-primary-education/

World Bank (2018) World Development Report: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. The World Bank.

World Bank (2019) Ending Learning Poverty: What Will It Take? Conference Version. The World Bank.

26 27

@EPG_Edu

epg.org.uk

info@epg.org.uk