35148753

27056_IOB_omslag_Uganda_GB 20-11-2003 16:02 Pagina 1
Local Solutions to Global Challenges: Towards Effective Partnership in Basic Education - Country Study Report Uganda
Local Solutions to Global Challenges:
Towards Effective Partnership in Basic Education
UGANDA
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003

Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education in Developing Countries
© Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2003
Non-commercial reproduction of all or part of this publication may be made

providing the source is acknowledged. Requests for commercial reproduction
should be addressed to the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB),
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, P.O. Box 20061, 2500 EB, The Hague,
The Netherlands.
Printing: Opmeer | De Bink | TDS vof
Design: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
Cover photograph: John Berry
ISBN: 90-5328-326-9
Order Code: OSDR0510/E
Web Sites: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Policy and Operations Evaluation Department:
www.euforic.org/iob
The Development Assistance Committee (DAC)

Evaluation Inventory:
www.dac-evaluations-cad.org/dac
(The site is managed by the Canadian International
Development Agency on behalf of the DAC Network on
Development Evaluation of the OECD)
UGANDA

Evaluation Undertaken by
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada

Goss Gilroy Inc. − Canada
Education for Change Ltd. − United Kingdom
Report Prepared by
John Berry (J. W. Berry & Associates, Inc.)

John Wood (Education for Change Ltd.)
Kupuliano Odaet (Independent consultant)
Titus Balemesa (Independent consultant)
Evaluation Team
Vindu Balani Document Review

Titus Balemesa Uganda Study
John Berry Document Review, Lead Evaluator Uganda Study, Zambia Study
N’gra-zan Coulibaly Burkina Faso Study
Kadiatou Ann Dao Sow Burkina Faso Study
Sheila Dohoo Faure Final Report, Document Review, Lead Evaluator Burkina Faso Study
José Subirats Ferreres Bolivia Study
Ted Freeman Final Report, Document Review, Lead Evaluator Bolivia Study
Annette Isaac Document Review
Joe Kanyika Zambia Study
Margery Leach Document Review
Richard Maclure Document Review, Burkina Faso Study
Lilian Goytia Marín Bolivia Study
Enrique Ipiña Melgar Bolivia Study
Kupuliano Odaet Uganda Study
Ernesto Schiefelbein Bolivia Study
Anne L. Sikwibele Zambia Study
Stephen St. Michael Document Review
Geofrey Tambulukani Zambia Study
John Wood Lead Evaluator Zambia Study, Uganda Study
The evaluation was commissioned by a group of thirteen donors and development
organizations, who along with representatives from four partner countries, constituted an
Evaluation Steering Committee.
Evaluation Steering Committee Members
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

Department for International Development (DFID), United Kingdom
Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland
European Commission
Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Ministry of Basic Education and Literacy, Burkina Faso
Ministry of Foreign Affairs − Danida, Denmark
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
Ministry of Education and Sports, Uganda
Ministry of Education, Zambia
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Chair)
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
UNESCO
UNICEF
Vice Ministry for Initial, Primary and Secondary Education, Bolivia
World Bank
PREFACE
“Education for all” entails a vision and a set of objectives adopted by the world’s governments
and international organizations in Thailand in 1990 and reaffirmed a decade later in Senegal. That
shared goal requires new levels and forms of global cooperation, including significant and
sustained external support. Alas, progress has been slower than anticipated.
What has happened? What have been the extent, forms, and consequences of external support to
basic education in developing countries?
Reflecting the partnership at the core of the commitment to education for all, thirteen
international and national funding and technical assistance organizations launched an evaluation
of external support to basic education. Four partner countries, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Uganda and
Zambia participated in the evaluation, making it a truly joint effort. The oversight and governance
of the evaluation was itself participatory, involving a steering committee which was constituted
by the thirteen agencies and the four partner countries and which included representatives of both
evaluation units and education departments.
Evaluating aid to education is particularly challenging. External support has both technical and
political dimensions, each shaping and supporting, and sometimes obstructing, the other.
Education is a marvellously complex, and often only partly visible process, and perhaps the most
contested of public policy arenas. The evaluation’s major strategy for addressing these challenges
was reflected in its objective, which was to examine the process of external support to basic
education provided by international and national funding and technical assistance agencies. The
evaluation was thus mainly concerned with external support (aid) and basic education, with
primary emphasis on the links between the two.
Partnership and process have been central to the evaluation, both in its content and its conduct. Its
focus had three major components. First, what has been the nature and evolution of external
support to basic education? Second, what have been the effectiveness and efficiency of externally
supported basic education activities? And third, to assess the evolution of the aid relationship
more generally, has there been progress in restructuring foreign aid as partnerships for basic
education development?
This evaluation has thus had a very broad reach. To assess external support to basic education
globally, the evaluators reviewed a very large set of documents, including smaller and larger scale
evaluations, project reports, sector studies, and other analyses of aid and basic education. To
ground their findings empirically, the evaluators completed four illustrative detailed case studies,
with the cooperation and participation of national education officials, in Bolivia, Burkina Faso,
Uganda, and Zambia.
The evaluators were themselves a distinguished international group, led by the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada and including Goss Gilroy Inc. and Education for Change
Ltd. The evaluation team consisted of experts from the North and from the South.
The evaluation reports draw on the evaluators’ work over nearly eighteen months, including the
document review, four country case studies, and the final report. Detailed separate reports on that
work are available in both print and electronic format. This report reflects the findings of the case
study in Uganda.
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 i

What have we learned? External support has contributed to expanding access to basic education.
Funding agencies and partner countries have developed new patterns of cooperation and
collaboration. External support is now increasingly routed directly to the education ministry or to
the national budget. At the same time, project support continues to have a useful role. The focus
on formal primary education has often reduced attention and funding to adult literacy and other
out-of-school education programmes. Increased standardization and coordination of approach
among funding agencies has been accompanied by inattention to national and local needs and
circumstances. The voices of teachers and others in the broader education community remain
difficult to hear.
The findings are of course much richer and more detailed than these brief observations! Their
presentation is readable and provocative.
Evaluations provide a mirror, helping us to see more clearly the choices we have made and the
paths we have decided to follow. Their findings prompt us to reconsider those choices and
explore other paths. That is the challenge we are facing today.
Rob D. van den Berg

Chair, Evaluation Steering Committee
ii September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The team would like to express its sincere thanks to the many people in Uganda who assisted the
consultant team in the preparation of this country case study. It would be impossible to name
them all, and, in any event, a list of those contacted or interviewed is appended to the report. We
are grateful to all of them for their contributions to the team’s work. But the team would like to
explicitly acknowledge the warm hospitality and assistance provided by district officials, teacher
educators, head teachers, teachers, parents and students during the consultants’ site visits to the
districts of Arua, Mbale, Mbarara, Mukono, and Wakiso. The opportunities they provided for
discussion and information gathering on the “front line” added immeasurably to the report.
Special thanks are also due to the busy officials of the Ministry of Education and Sports, who
were generous in their time, and patient in dealing with our questions and requests. Similarly,
representatives of a wide variety of Ugandan and international Civil Society Organizations helped
the team with information, interviews, and many documents. Mr. Abel Ojoo, of the Kampala firm
of MSE Consultants, provided very helpful local logistical support. Finally, we must
acknowledge the wise counsel and support provided by the Country Reference Group and the
leadership of its Chair, Mr. Sam Onek, the acting Director of Education. To all of these, and the
many more whom we have not specifically identified, the team expresses its thanks. As usual,
responsibility for the opinions and recommendations, as well as any errors, lies with the team
itself.
Working with such a wide range of educators – and stakeholders in education – in Uganda was a
rare privilege for the consultant team. The progress that Uganda has made, and the exemplary
relationships with organizations providing external support in contributing to that progress, are
indeed impressive. It is our sincere hope that this report may contribute to further advances in this
exciting collaboration in support of basic education and a better future for the youth of Uganda.
John Berry
John Wood
Kupuliano Odaet
Titus Balemesa
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 iii

iv September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF BOXES......................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................................ ix
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................ xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ xiii
PART ONE: BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background to the Study................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the Uganda Case Study ................................................................................... 2
1.3 Structure of the Report...................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Documents ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Site Visits................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Individual Interviews ................................................................................................. 6
2.1.4 Group Meetings and Discussions .............................................................................. 6
2.1.5 The Country Reference Group................................................................................... 6
2.1.6 Stakeholders’ Workshop............................................................................................ 7
2.1.7 Integration and Analysis of the Data and Information .............................................. 8
2.1.8 Summary of Chronology and Key Dates................................................................... 9
2.2 Strengths and Challenges................................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Strengths .................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.2 Challenges ............................................................................................................... 10
PART TWO: FINDINGS............................................................................................................ 13
3.0 External Support to Basic Education ............................................................................. 13
3.1 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies................... 13
3.2 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Practices ..................................................... 16
3.2.1 The Use of Conditionalities ..................................................................................... 21
3.3 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Results........................................................ 23
4.0 Externally Supported Basic Education........................................................................... 27
4.1 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies .............. 27
4.1.1 The Uganda Context for Basic Education Policy Formulation ............................... 27
4.1.2 Universal Primary Education................................................................................... 29
4.1.3 Decentralization....................................................................................................... 29
4.1.4 Basic Education Outside the Primary Schools ........................................................ 31
4.1.5 NGOs’ Role in Education Policy............................................................................. 32
4.1.6 HIV/AIDS................................................................................................................ 33
4.2 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Practices................................................. 35
4.2.1 Practices: Expanding Primary Schooling ................................................................ 35
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 v
4.2.2 Practices: Teaching and Learning............................................................................ 38
4.2.3 Practices: Other Components of Basic Education ................................................... 39
4.2.4 Practices: Monitoring and Data ............................................................................... 41
4.3 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Results ................................................... 43
4.3.1 Results: Expanding Primary Schooling ................................................................... 44
4.3.2 Results: Teaching and Learning .............................................................................. 46
4.3.3 Results: Other Components of Basic Education...................................................... 48
5.0 Partnerships for Basic Education ................................................................................... 51
5.1 Partnerships for Basic Education: Intents, Policies and Strategies ................................. 51
5.2 Partnerships for Basic Education: Practices.................................................................... 53
5.3 Partnerships for Basic Education: Results ...................................................................... 55
6.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 59
6.1 The Uganda Sector-wide Approach as a Modality for External Support Delivery ........ 59
6.2 The Persistence of Project Approaches........................................................................... 60
6.3 Achieving the Basic Education Goals of the Dakar Framework .................................... 60
6.4 Access and Quality in Ugandan Education..................................................................... 61
6.5 Sustaining the Outcomes of External Support ................................................................ 62
6.6 Using Partnerships Effectively ....................................................................................... 62
7.0 Implications for Policy and Programmes ....................................................................... 65
7.1 Policy at Global and National Level ............................................................................... 65
7.1.1 Policy Implications for External Partners................................................................ 66
7.1.2 Policy Implications for the Government of Uganda ................................................ 67
7.2 Programmes at the Global and National Level ............................................................... 68
7.2.1 Programme Implications for External Partners ....................................................... 68
7.2.2 Programme Implications for the Government of Uganda........................................ 69
ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................... 71
Annex 1: Profile of External Support........................................................................................ 71
Annex 2: Profile of Basic Education .......................................................................................... 83
Annex 3: Details on Methodology .............................................................................................. 91
3.1 Key Informant Interviews ............................................................................................... 92
3.2 Site Visits ........................................................................................................................ 95
3.3 Stakeholder Workshop.................................................................................................... 97
3.4 Documents ...................................................................................................................... 98
Annex 4: Comments on the Draft Case Study Report from the Country
Reference Group......................................................................................................... 99
Annex 5: Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 103
vi September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

LIST OF BOXES
Box 1: EFA Goals..................................................................................................................... 28

Box 2: Arua Hill: A Large School ............................................................................................ 36
Box 3: Primary Leaving Examination Abuse ........................................................................... 39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Literacy in Action ........................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2: Underlying Logic of Issues Matrix .............................................................................. 9
Figure 3: Classroom in Mukono District................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: ODA Flows to Uganda by Modality.......................................................................... 17
Figure 5: ODA Project Funding: Education Share.................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Budget Support to Education, 1998 to 2002 .............................................................. 18
Figure 7: Total Basic Education Expenditures, 1998 to 2002................................................... 20
Figure 8: Schoolyard in Arua District ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 9: Growth in Number of Classrooms per School: 2000 to 2001.................................... 36
Figure 10: EMIS at Kisowera School.......................................................................................... 41
Figure 11: Primary Enrolments, 1983 to 2002 ............................................................................ 44
Figure 12: Children Speak Out.................................................................................................... 51
Figure 13: Partnership Map for Basic Education in Uganda....................................................... 56
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Framework for Issues Matrix ........................................................................................ 8

Table 2: Chronology of the Uganda Case Study ......................................................................... 9
Table 3: Net Attendance Ratio .................................................................................................. 45
Table 4: Net Attendance Ratio, Urban/Rural ............................................................................ 45
Table 5: National Basic Learning Standards Test Results......................................................... 47
Table 6: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio in Selected Districts........................................................... 47
Table 7: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio in Selected Districts ............................................................... 47
Table 8: Teacher-to-Classroom Ratio........................................................................................ 48
Table 9: Assessment of ESIP as a Case Study of a SWAp in Basic Education ........................ 54
Table 10: Situation in Uganda − Project Approaches and ESIP ................................................. 57
Table 11: Profile of External Support Agencies.......................................................................... 73
Table 12: Gross Intake Rate (GIR).............................................................................................. 86
Table 13: Net Intake Rate (NIR) 1990 to 1995 ........................................................................... 86
Table 14: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) .................................................................................... 87
Table 15: Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) ........................................................................................ 87
Table 16: Number and Qualifications of Primary School Teachers............................................ 88
Table 17: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio ................................................................................................ 88
Table 18: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio ............................................................................................ 88
Table 19: Repetition Rates, by Grade.......................................................................................... 89
Table 20: Adult Literacy Rates.................................................................................................... 89
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 vii

viii September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acronyms Specific to Uganda
ABEK Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja

BECCAD Basic Education, Child Care and Adolescents
BEUPA Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas
CAO Chief Administrative Officer (District Level)
CCB Central Capacity Building
CCT Coordinating Centre Tutors
COPE Complementary Opportunities for Primary Education
DEO District Education Officer
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
DIS District Inspector of Schools
EFAG Education Funding Agencies Group
EPD Education Planning Department (within MOES)
ESA Education Standards Agency
ESCC Education Sector Consultative Committee
ESIP Education Strategic Investment Plan
ESR Education Sector Review
FENU Forum for Education NGOS in Uganda
GOU Government of Uganda
LABE Literacy and Adult Basic Education
LCV Local Council V Level
MOES Ministry of Education and Sports
MOFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
MOGLSD Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development
MOLG Ministry of Local Government
MOPS Ministry of Public Service
MTBF Medium-term Budget Framework
NAPE National Assessment for Progress in Education
PAF Poverty Action Fund
PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PLE Primary Leaving Examination
PPET Post-Primary Education and Training
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
PTC Primary Teachers College
SMC School Management Committee
SUPER Support to Ugandan Primary Education Reform Program
TDMS Teacher Development and Management System
UJCC Uganda Joint Christian Council
UMEA Uganda Moslem Education Association
UNISE National Institute of Special Education
UPK Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo [now Kyambogo University]
UTA Uganda Teachers’ Association
External Agency Acronyms
ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Organization

AUCC Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 ix

BMZ Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany)
CfBT Centre for British Teachers
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)
EC European Commission
EDF European Development Fund
FAWE Forum for African Women Educators
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Countries (Initiative)
INSSTEP Service Secondary Teacher Education Project
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
US United States (of America)
USAID US Agency for International Development
VOICE Voluntary Organizations Initiative in Central and Eastern Europe/Eurasia
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
General Acronyms
CDF Comprehensive Development Framework

CRG Country Reference Group
ECCD Early Childhood Care and Development
EFA Education for All
EMG Evaluation Management Group
EMIS Education Management Information System
ESC Evaluation Steering Committee
FAL Functional Adult Literacy
FTI Education for All Fast Track Initiative
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GER Gross Enrolment Ratio
GIR Gross Intake Rate
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ICT Information and Communication Technology
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NER Net Enrolment Ratio
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NIR Net Intake Rate
ODA Official Development Assistance
PIU Project Implementation Unit
PRSC Poverty Reduction Support Credit (World Bank)
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RBM Results-Based Management
SASP Structural Adjustment Support Programme
SWAp Sector-wide Approach
TA Technical Assistance
TOR Term of Reference
UPE Universal Primary Education
UPC Universal Primary Education Completion
x September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Basic education – While there is no universally accepted definition of what is included in basic
education, the Jomtien Conference identified basic education as being the foundation for lifelong
learning and human development and recognized that “the diversity, complexity, and changing
nature of basic learning needs of children, youth and adults necessitates broadening and
constantly redefining the scope of basic education” (Declaration 5).
Basic education programme – A programme is a grouping of activities that support one or more
basic education objectives, but which are broader in scope than a project (for example, covering
all regions of a country, addressing several components of basic education, using multiple
strategies). A programme is usually funded and/or implemented by more than one external
agency.
Basic education project – A project is a grouping of activities that support one or more basic
education objectives, but which are limited in time and in scope (for example, targeted to one
geographic area, addressing only one or two components of basic education, using only one
strategy). A project is typically funded and/or implemented by one external agency.
Basic learning needs – Generally, the terms “basic education” and “basic learning needs” are
used interchangeably. Basic learning needs generally include “early child care and development
opportunities, relevant, quality primary schooling or equivalent out-of-school education for
children, and literacy, basic knowledge and life skills training for youth and adults.” (Bentall, C.,
Peart, E., Carr-Hill, R., and Cox, A., 2001, p. 15).
Budget support (direct budget support) – This is external financial support that is provided to the
recipient country’s national government, usually through the Ministry of Finance. Budget support
can be divided into three categories of increasing constraint:
• General budget support: flows from external sources into the general revenue of the
government. Constraints are sometimes in the form of Comprehensive Development
Framework (CDF) or PRSP conditionalities;
• Sector support: is external funding that is targeted for use in a specific sector or sub-
sector; and
• Earmarked sector support: is further constrained, or targeted, to particular activities
within a sector or sub-sector. Within the constraints of sector or earmarked sector
support, the line ministry may have the flexibility to move resources around within the
sector or sub-sector.
Education for All – Based on the six goals of Education for All defined in the Dakar Framework
for Action, externally supported efforts to attain Education for All could be expected to
encompass activities in the areas of:
• Comprehensive early childhood care and education;

• Free and compulsory primary education of good quality;
• Addressing the learning needs of all young people and adults through equitable access to
appropriate learning and life skill programs;
• Adult literacy, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing
education for all adults;
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 xi

• Elimination of gender disparities in primary and secondary education, and achieving
gender equality in education; and
• Improving all aspects of the quality of education so that measurable outcomes are
achieved by all.
Macroeconomic budget support – This is support that is provided to the recipient country’s
national government, through the ministry of finance, and is not earmarked for any particular
sector.
Project or programme support – This is support that is provided by one or more external
agencies for a specific set of activities that are defined in the project or programme design and in
which there is limited flexibility to move resources between activities.
Sector – The operational definition of a sector varies from context to context. In some countries,
basic education is considered to be a sector. In others, it is a sub-sector of the education sector.
Sector-wide Approach (SWAp) – Generally a SWAp includes support that:
• Is sector-wide in scope;
• Is based on a clear sector strategy and framework;
• Is based on long-term plans;
• Includes host country ownership and strong coordinated partnership with external
agencies;
• Is developed and implemented with the involvement of, and partnership with, all local
stakeholders;
• Includes the involvement of all main external agencies;
• Is based on common implementation arrangements and effective donor coordination;
• Relies on local capacity; and
• Includes provision for results-based monitoring.
Universal Primary Education (UPE) – The Millennium Development Goal defines Universal
Primary Education as being a state in which children everywhere, boys and girls alike, are able to
complete a full course of primary schooling of acceptable quality.
xii September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the case study of external support to basic education in Uganda
for the period of 1990 to 2002. It is one of four case studies carried out for the Joint Evaluation of
External Support to Basic Education commissioned in February 2002 by a consortium of 13
external agencies, the participation of the four case study countries.
The work for this case study was carried out between April 2002 and November 2002 by a team
of four consultants: two consultants from Uganda and two international consultants. The
international consultants made three field visits to Uganda, in April, October and November.
Between these field visits, the Uganda-based consultants had many meetings with individuals and
organizations in Uganda, gathered data, opinions and information. They also participated in the
seventh and eighth Education Sector Reviews (ESRs) conducted in April and October of 2002.
During the second field mission in October, the four consultants visited several rural districts.
Interaction with stakeholders at the district and local school levels added important elements of
grassroots input to this report.
The team received useful advice and support from the Country Reference Group (CRG)
established in Uganda by the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES), which brought together
approximately 20 education experts who met on several occasions throughout the period of the
study. As well, the team liaised both formally and informally with the other three country teams
to ensure consistency and the sharing of common issues and ideas among the four country case
studies. Periodic quality assurance workshops and meetings helped to integrate the four studies
into a coherent part of the overall evaluation.
As in each of the other products of the evaluation exercise, this report is organized around three
key themes: external support to basic education, externally supported basic education, and
partnerships. Each theme is examined at three levels: intents, policies and strategies; practices;
and results.
External Support to Basic Education
External support agencies have cooperated with the MOES in Uganda to support basic education
throughout the period under review. However, until 1996, this cooperation, whether in the form
of funding assistance, technical support, or policy dialogue tended to be one-on-one − not located
within an overall strategic framework. Uganda itself had “bought in” to the global Education for
All (EFA) movement, as far back as 1989, with an Education Commission report leading to the
1992 White Paper. In 1996 the government announced that primary school fees would be
abolished for up to four children in each family to encourage Universal Primary Education
(UPE).
Following that, the cooperation between external support agencies and the government
accelerated dramatically in support of basic education. Accelerated policy dialogue led to a
shared vision, under the leadership of the MOES, in developing the Education Strategic
Investment Plan (ESIP). Shortly thereafter the external agencies established the Education
Funding Agencies Group (EFAG) and, in parallel, the MOES established the Education Sector
Consultative Committee (ESCC). These structures contributed to enhanced levels of collective
and coordinated policy dialogue, planning, management and monitoring of externally supported
basic education.
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 xiii

Together, the partners in this process conduct semi-annual ESRs, in which all aspects of ESIP and
external support targets are carefully monitored. The ESR process also affords an opportunity for
intense multi-stakeholder discussion about policy, priorities, and the planning of future activities.
At the beginning of the review period, virtually all external funding was delivered through
individual stand-alone projects. After 1996, several external funding agencies made a substantial
shift towards budget support. At a macro level, this was assisted by Uganda’s development of
their Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) (1997), which, through agreement with external
agencies, became their Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). External financial support for
basic education has increased steadily since 1996, as has the proportion delivered through budget
support. There are now signs that the rate of increase is flattening out. Overwhelmingly, the focus
of external support has been to support increasing access to primary schooling. Other areas of
basic education: alternative basic education, early childhood education, and Functional Adult
Literacy (FAL), receive much more modest levels of external support, delivered through project
modalities.
The focus of external support within ESIP, delivered mainly through budget support, makes
Ugandan education the very prototype of a Sector-wide Approach (SWAp). The stages of
evolution through the 1990s provide a valuable model of how external agencies and a government
department can move towards closer and more strategic cooperation. Nevertheless, success is not
without limitations. First, although ESIP is indeed sector-wide, external funding is almost entirely
focused on primary schooling. Second, although SWAps are intended to reduce the administrative
burden on partner governments, there is little evidence of this in Uganda. On the contrary, there
appears to be a massive transfer of administrative work from the external agencies to the MOES,
which is seriously overstretched. Third, there is a continuing level of support for project
modalities as well as for budget support often for good reasons. There is a sound basis for
believing in the validity of both budget support (programme) modalities and individual project
approaches in the evolving Ugandan context for basic education.
Approximately 60% of basic education financing is now from external sources. Since the future
date when basic education can be financed by domestic sources is unknown, but clearly a long
way off, there is concern in some quarters about the degree to which the large flow of external
support has encouraged Uganda to expand its system to a level that is so heavily dependent on
external funding. The period in question goes well beyond the time scale for which external
agencies can make formal contractual commitments. All stakeholders share an assumption that
external funding agencies have made an implicit commitment for a much longer period.
Externally Supported Basic Education
Strong national commitment to UPE, led by the President of Uganda, and supported by increased
funding through external agencies, has led to a dramatic increase in primary school enrolment,
which doubled in 1997 and continued to increase after that. It now stands at over 7 million as
compared to 3 million in 1996. This surge has put incredible strain on the physical capacity of the
primary education system. Substantial external funding has been devoted to classroom
construction, as well as the provision of enrolment-driven grants to individual schools to replace
the revenue lost through the abolition of school fees.
The MOES manages this support in a context of government decentralization. Administratively,

funds are transferred to the district offices and disbursed to individual schools. The mechanisms
tend to encourage the addition of classrooms to existing schools, rather than the establishment of
new schools.
xiv September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda
As a result, some primary schools are becoming very large, which is not conducive to either
improving quality or access (by reducing the distance children must travel). Moreover, the
decentralization mechanisms pose their own challenges of capacity development at the district
and local school levels. While public sector reform has resulted in some downsizing at the centre
in the MOES, there has been a significant transfer of transaction costs to the district level. District
offices face real problems in managing their increased responsibilities, including the monitoring
of what is happening in individual schools; they lack the resources to carry out the task
effectively.
There is a nearly universal perception that the quality of primary education has suffered through
the period of rapid expansion. Recognizing this, attempts are being made to improve the
professional development of teachers, as well as to provide a greater number of textbooks linked
to a recently reformed curriculum. However, the effects of these inputs to address quality have
not yet materialized substantially in the classrooms. The recent establishment of the Education
Standards Agency (ESA) is intended to improve the monitoring of educational quality, as well as
strengthen partnerships in inspection, monitoring and assessment between the centre, district and
local levels.
Retention of children in school remains a problem, particularly for girls in the upper grades.
While Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) results indicate almost universal support among
parents for both boys and girls completing primary education, there appear to be persistent
systemic barriers to achieving this result. A disturbing 13% (DHS estimate) of children remain
out of school, in spite of UPE. Districts report the need for greater local flexibility in curriculum,
so that particular material of local relevance can be included to catch students’ interest and
encourage them to remain in school. However, the standardization pressures of the Primary
Leaving Examination (PLE), tend to make this difficult.
In parallel to the expansion of primary schooling, the provision of alternative forms of basic
education has received attention from some external partners, through project mechanisms. These
alternative programmes have been evaluated as very successful, but the number of students
targeted has been modest and unit costs are relatively high. As well, the success in expanding
primary enrolments has created a “bulge” that will soon be putting pressure on secondary schools.
Therefore, there are plans to address Post-primary Education and Training (PPET), and there will
be pressure on the external support agencies to increase support for this level, beyond basic
education. Greater attention to the integration of basic education into the education sector as a
whole is thus emerging as a strategic issue.
Partnerships
The partnership between the external support agencies and the MOES is managed, as noted
above, by the ESCC and the EFAG. These groups come together twice each year for the ESR
process, which, over a period of several days, reviews achievement to date, current plans,
challenges and problems − all in the context of the ESIP agreements. Agencies providing
financing through budget support mechanisms address accountability during the review, by
monitoring a series of “undertakings” negotiated collectively with the Government of Uganda
(GOU). For example, the key undertaking that ensures their contributions are targeted to basic
education is currently that at least 31% of overall discretionary recurrent government spending be
on education, at least 65% of which on basic education. Stakeholders agree that these processes
of review and accountability work well.
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 xv

Beneath the surface, however, there is some degree of tension about the relative division of power
in setting priorities and determining strategic directions. While the external support agencies tend
to believe that they have put the GOU “in the driver’s seat,” this perception is not fully shared by
their Ugandan partners. The power of the cheque-book is still very real.
Furthermore, the administrative requirements assumed by the MOES, more specifically in the
management of budget support flows, are substantial. There is some concern that key units in the
MOES, particularly the planning department, have been forced to shift their workload too much
away from the planning and management of education, to the planning and management of
Official Development Assistance (ODA) flows. It is clear that many of them are overstretched,
and that this is related in part to the management of the semi-annual sector reviews.
Outside the bilateral and multilateral partnerships with government, non-governmental agencies
are important players. To some extent they have been, and continue to feel marginalized in the
processes described above. Efforts are being made to reduce this problem. For example they are
now invited to participate in the sector reviews.
The Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) are also a channel, to a degree, through which
external financing flows into basic education. Funds flow through international NGOs that work
with local partners at the grassroots level. They are involved in classroom construction,
community schools, school feeding programmes, and other community projects in support of
basic education. They are the main channel for support to adult literacy programmes. It is their
local NGO partners who come to the table as dialogue participants with the government and the
external support agencies. One of the effects of the budget support movement has been the
perception, at least, that funding for NGO efforts in basic education is being reduced. However,
as there is no system for tracking these funding flows, accurate data is not available. It is clear,
nonetheless, that greater involvement of NGOs (both international and Ugandan) in policy
dialogue would be helpful. Their own efforts would benefit from greater coordination in the
overall strategic planning for basic education. NGOs, however, have a continuing challenge to
find the right balance between involvement with the MOES and, at the same time, retaining their
traditional independence.
The shift from external support through projects to budget support mechanisms thus lies at the
heart of all discussions about partnership. While the GOU would prefer all external support to
come through budget support mechanisms not all stakeholders agree that this would be beneficial.
Both budget support and project mechanisms, they argue, have a part to play.
Channelling external financing through budget support on a large scale clearly makes a strong
contribution to sustainable basic education. At the same time, individual projects often provide
the mechanisms for piloting new approaches and experimenting on a modest scale before major
national commitment are made to a particular course of action. As well, there are strong
perceptions that projects operate more quickly and efficiently in response to local needs with
fewer layers of bureaucratic approval necessary before action can be taken. Therefore, there
would seem to be good arguments that while the bulk of external financing should flow through
budget support, some room (and funding) should remain for project approaches.
xvi September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

PART ONE: BACKGROUND
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background to the Study
This report presents the results of the case study of external support to basic education in Uganda
for the period of 1990 to 2002. It is one of four case studies carried out for the Joint Evaluation of
External Support to Basic Education commissioned in February 2002 by a consortium of 13
support agencies with the participation of four developing countries1.
Five developing countries were invited to participate in the evaluation (Bangladesh, Bolivia,
Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia) and all but Bangladesh agreed to do so. The four remaining
countries joined the 13 supporting organizations to form an Evaluation Steering Committee
(ESC). The ESC meets at important points in the evaluation cycle (two meetings have been held
to date and two more are scheduled) to provide overall governance to the evaluation process. The
ESC was the ultimate decision-making body for the evaluation.
A consortium of private firms with experience in evaluation and in basic education carried out the
evaluation. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) is the lead
organization in the consortium, which includes Goss Gilroy Inc. of Canada and Education for
Change of the United Kingdom.
In Uganda, as in each of the four case study countries, a team of four consultants (two
international and two national) were responsible for carrying out the study and for the
development of this report. Dr. John Berry served as the team leader and the international
consultant specialist in education. John Wood, of Education for Change, served as the
international consultant specialist in evaluation. Professor Kupuliano Odaet, of Makerere
University, and Mr. Titus Balemesa, both based in Kampala, served as Uganda-based consultants.
The Uganda case study was carried out from April 2002 to January 2003. It involved three
different missions to Uganda by international consultants for joint work with the Uganda-based
consultants, in April, October and November 2002. The Uganda-based consultants also carried
out data collection and analysis duties between the missions. More details on the methodology of
the Uganda case study are provided in Section 2.0 below.
The four country case studies examined a common set of evaluation issues and questions as
presented in the Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education: Framework Terms of
Reference, 2001 for the evaluation. This foundation was strengthened and refined through
reference to the preliminary results of the document review component of the evaluation. They
relied on common methods to carry out the evaluation and reported using a common framework.
1
The Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education is sponsored by: the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA); Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Danida, Denmark; European Commission (EC); Ministry
for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany; Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland; Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA); Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Norway; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); Department for International Development
(DFID), United Kingdom; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank.
Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 1
Joint Evaluation Of External Support To Basic Education in Developing Countries
1.2 Purpose of the Uganda Case Study
The Joint Evaluation of External Support to Basic Education has been planned to result in six
specific products:
• A document review report surveying current available international documentation on

external support to basic education, externally supported basic education, and the
partnerships involved;
• Four country case study reports: for Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Zambia; and
• A synthesis report summarizing the lessons for policy and programming in external
support to basic education contained in the first five products.
As one of the six core outputs of the evaluation process, the Country Study Report: Uganda can
be expected to serve the purposes of:
• Exploring and illustrating the key findings and lessons learned from the document
review;
• Providing further evaluation evidence that either reinforces or calls into question the
lessons learned at the global level through the document review process; and
• Serving as a stand-alone evaluation of external support to basic education in Uganda over
a critically important time in the evolution of both external support and national efforts to
address needs in basic education.
Finally, the Uganda country case study of should serve the purpose of identifying important
lessons learned to improve policy and programming in external support to basic education at the
global and national level.
1.3 Structure of the Report
The report is structured as follows:
Part I: Background
Section 1.0 presents this introduction and overview.
Section 2.0 provides an overview of the methodologies used during the Uganda case study and
discusses both their strengths and challenges.
Part II: Findings
Sections 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 present the analytical basis and the findings of the Uganda country case
study. These three sections of the report are structured in keeping with the three key areas of
enquiry of the evaluation: External Support to Basic Education, Externally Supported Basic
Education and Partnerships for Basic Education. Further, each area of enquiry is analyzed at three
different levels: Intents, Policies and Strategies; Practices; and Results.
Section 6.0 summarizes the implications of the case study for policies and programmes at the
national and global levels.
2 September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

Section 7.0 draws together the main conclusions of the report, based on the information and
analysis of the preceding sections.
Finally, the report comprises a comprehensive set of annexes profiling external support and basic
education in Uganda, including details on the methodologies used and data sources consulted
during the evaluation. One annex contains comments on an earlier draft of the report, which were
received from the Country Reference Group (CRG), together with the response of the team leader
to each of these comments.

2.0 Methodology
2.1 Overview of Methodology
This report is based on information gathered through a variety of sources, which are explained in
more detail in Annex 3:
• Document study;
• Site visits;
• Structured and unstructured individual interviews;
• Group meetings and discussions;
• Meetings of the CRG; and
• Stakeholder workshop to review findings.
2.1.1 Documents
Figure 1: Literacy in Action
Approximately 70 documents were
gathered during the study. An initial set
was derived from the large
documentation set associated with the
Document Review component of the
Evaluation. The bulk of the documents
however were gathered in Uganda:
from the Ministry of Education and
Sports MOES and other government
departments, from the external support
agencies, and from Non-governmental
Organizations NGOs. A number of
documents were downloaded from
various agency web sites.
Documents were of various kinds:

• Government of Uganda (GOU)
planning and policy doc-
uments;
• Education Sector Review
(ESR) reports and annexes;
• Evaluation reports from the
GOU or from funding agen-
cies;
• Specific studies commissioned
by the GOU and/or funding
agencies;
• Consultants’ reports;
• Country plans or strategies of
individual funding agencies;
and
• Reports of individual NGOs.

2.1.2 Site Visits
The consultants visited five districts outside Kampala: Arua, Mbale, Mbarara, Mukono, and
Wakiso. About two days were spent in each district, not including travel time. Details of these
visits are in Annex 3.2. The visits, usually done in teams of two, added a valuable perspective on
the outcomes of external support to basic education at the “front line” level, through discussions
with district officials, Coordinating Centre Tutors (CCTs), head teachers, teachers, students and
parents. Data and information provided by district offices and by individual schools provided a
useful form of triangulation against information collected in Kampala. But the direct experience
of schools and classroom activity was even more important. This is the “front line” where the
outcomes of external support to basic education are achieved. Perspectives gained by the team
through these direct discussions with stakeholders at “the grassroots” are incorporated into the
discussion and analysis of Section 2.0 to Section 7.0 of this report.
2.1.3 Individual Interviews
Meetings with a wide variety of individuals were a major activity of each of the international
consultants’ field missions, as well as a significant component of the Uganda-based consultants’
work, both during and between these missions. Many of the meetings were conducted according
to a pre-determined set of questions or issues for discussion and, in many instances, an outline
was sent to the stakeholder in advance of the meeting. Typically, however, the discussions took
on their own life as new issues emerged and the “agenda” redefined itself in the course of the
discussions. A list of some 75 individuals is included in Annex 3.1, which comprises 27 GOU
officials, 20 external support agency representatives and 20 NGOs. That list also includes an
additional 56 people interviewed during the site visits.
2.1.4 Group Meetings and Discussions
These proved more difficult to organize than the team had initially anticipated, and few such
meetings occurred. Often, they emerged as an ad hoc response of an interviewee who “pulled
together” a group of colleagues, teachers or students.
In Arua district, the consultants had a question and answer session with some 400 students of the
Primary Teachers College (PTC). This was the only “large” meeting, other than the much smaller
stakeholder workshop and CRG meetings described below. It was particularly interesting that, in
such a large group, the teacher trainees – for the most part young, recent school graduates – were
not at all reticent about raising the “hard” issues of educational quality and sustainability of the
primary school system after the rapid access growth to Universal Primary Education (UPE).
Other group sessions were quite small – typically two to 10 people. Our meeting with the Uganda
Joint Christian Council and with the Uganda Moslem Education Association (UMEA), for
example, involved about six people, plus the consultants. This gave the opportunity for intensive
interchange, with each person’s views getting a full hearing.
2.1.5 The Country Reference Group
Uganda was the first of the four countries to launch an active CRG. The group was established on
the initiative of the Acting Director of Education, in consultation with the Royal Netherlands
Embassy. Approximately 20 members were invited from among the MOES, other Government
Departments, civil society and individual educators. Meetings were held with the CRG during
each of the field missions. The Acting Director of Education, who served as chairman, called
each meeting. A MOES staff member kept minutes.
The CRG was mandated to assist the evaluation team by providing advice and guidance in the
following areas:
• Comments on the work plans of the evaluation team;

• Advice as to contacts and sources of information;
• Debriefing discussions; and
• Comments on preliminary reports, findings and case study drafts.
However, it was clearly understood that the evaluation team was responsible for the report and its
conclusions, under the direction of the Evaluation Management Group (EMG) and, ultimately,
the Steering Committee. From this perspective, the CRG’s role was clearly advisory rather than
directive.
In addition to meeting with the international consultants during each of their visits to Uganda, the
CRG also met, between these missions, with the Uganda-based consultants in attendance. A list
of CRG membership is in Annex 3.1. In all, the CRG held four meetings in 2002:
• April 5, 2002: Inaugural meeting of the CRG. The mandate of the group was reviewed, in
the context of a reflection of the Joint Evaluation and the particular importance of the
Uganda case study as a component in that study;
• September 3, 2002: This meeting reviewed the draft Framework Terms of Reference for
the Uganda case study and prepared detailed comments that were sent to the team. It also
provided the Acting Director of Education with advice for his participation in the
Steering Committee meeting held in Ottawa later in the month;
• September 30, 2002: This meeting, at the beginning of the second field mission, reviewed
work to date and plans for this mission, and advised the consultants on additional data
sources and informants. Contacts through the CRG with the NGO community were
particularly helpful; and
• October 11, 2002: This meeting’s main agenda was a debriefing by the consultant team at
the end of the second field mission. The CRG also reviewed future plans and discussed,
in particular, the details of the stakeholder workshop, planned for November.
Moreover, all members of the CRG were invited to participate in the Stakeholders’ workshop, to
which a substantial number attended. Finally, individual members of the CRG were invited to
comment on the initial draft of this case study report. The Acting Director of Education gathered
together their comments into a single document by. This consolidated document, along with the
evaluation team leader’s response, is appended as Annex 4 to this report.
2.1.6 Stakeholders’ Workshop
The Stakeholders’ workshop was held on Monday, November 18 at the Equatoria Hotel in
Kampala. The firm of MSE Consultants Limited of Kampala facilitated the event and provided
related logistical support. Attendance was about 40 of the 65 people invited. The strongest
participation was from district representatives, NGOs and National Associations. A number of
MOES officials had scheduling conflicts, which meant they could only attend part of the meeting.
Participation from external support agencies was poor.
Nonetheless, the participants brought a broad range of perspectives and voices, some of which
had not been previously heard in the case study work. Three consecutive structured discussion
sessions, in which the participants divided into four groups, allowed a rich discussion, captured

by rapporteurs in each group and provided to the consultants. As well, one consultant “sat in” on
each group as a listener and as a second note taker.
Details of the workshop are in Annex 3.3.
2.1.7 Integration and Analysis of the Data and Information
Section 3.0 to Section 6.0 contain the consultant team’s analysis of the gathered information and
data. This has been structured according to the original questions of the Framework Terms of
Reference, but also filtered through the experiences and reflections of the team during the time
they spent working together in Uganda in 2002. Overall, the organization follows the original
three-by-three matrix, originally presented in the study’s inception report and the country
Framework Terms of Reference. The conclusions comprise a fourth column.
Table 1: Framework for Issues Matrix

Intents, Policies
Practices Results Conclusions
and Strategies
Nature and Evolution of External
Section 3.1 Section 3.2 Section 3.3 Section 6.0
Support
Basic Education Receiving
Section 4.1 Section 4.2 Section 4.3 Section 6.0
External Support
Partnerships Section 5.1 Section 5.2 Section 5.3 Section 6.0
In the course of the team’s data gathering, and even more in the subsequent analysis, it was
increasingly clear that as we move to the right in this matrix, the previous columns cascade across
the rows. It emerges, for example, that the practices in basic education are strongly influenced by
the intents, policies and strategies of both the GOU and their external support partners, as well as
by the modalities of partnership through which these are linked. Thus Section 4.2 flows, in a very
real sense, out of Sections 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1. The same is even more true for results and
conclusions. Rather than a simple matrix with a vertical and a horizontal logic, the analysis has to
embrace diagonal links as well, so that a better representation would look like the following
diagram, in which each cell is identified as having an influence on all three levels in the next
column.

Figure 2: Underlying Logic of Issues Matrix
Intents, Policies Results Conclusions

Practices
& Strategies
External Support Sec 3.1 Sec 3.2 Sec 3.3
Conclusions
Basic Education Sec 4.1 Sec 4.2 Sec 4.3 Section 6
Sec 5.1 Sec 5.2 Sec 5.3

Partnerships
2.1.8 Summary of Chronology and Key Dates
The following table summarizes the key dates and events in the Uganda Case Study.
Table 2: Chronology of the Uganda Case Study

Date Event
April 1-8, 2002 First (Inception) mission to Uganda by team leader
April 5, 2002 First CRG meeting
April 15-26, 2002 Seventh ESR: national consultant participation
May 7-8, 2002 EMG meeting in Ottawa (review of draft Framework Terms of Reference)
July 2-3, 2002 EMG meeting in Ottawa (review of revised Framework Terms of
Reference)
Sep. 12-13, 2002 Steering Committee meeting (review of revised Framework Terms of
Reference)
Sep. 16-17, 2002 Quality Assurance workshop for Country Case Study teams and planning
of second field mission
Sep. 28-Oct. 10, 2002 Second field mission by international consultants
Oct. 2-5, 2002 Site visits to four districts
Oct. 21-25, 2002 Eighth ESR: national consultant participation
Oct. 15-Nov. 15, 2002 Additional meetings and data gathering by Uganda-based consultants
Nov. 15-Nov. 22, 2002 Third field mission by international consultants
Nov. 18, 2002 Consultative workshop with stakeholders
Dec. 2002-Jan. 2003 Final data gathering and drafting of this report
February 2003 Consideration of draft report by EMG and, in Uganda, the CRG
March 2003 Submission of draft report to the CRG
March 2003 Second Quality Assurance workshop

2.2 Strengths and Challenges
2.2.1 Strengths
The success of our case study is the result of a number of factors. First and foremost, a wide
variety of stakeholders in Uganda were eager to be involved in the consultative process.
Government officials, NGO representatives, church and community leaders, educators, teachers,
and students were all eager to discuss these issues and share their views. Clearly, basic education,
particularly Universal Primary education (UPE), is a major topic of public discourse, in which
every Ugandan feels a stake.
These views varied widely. For example, while the dialogue between government and NGOs is
strengthening, there is still a degree of tension, and a sense of different agendas at play. Another
divergence is between Kampala and the local level. Mindful of the Steering Committee’s
instructions, this report reflects the findings and the conclusions of the evaluators. For this, the
team takes full responsibility. Doubtless, there are items with which particular Ugandans would
take issue. While the process was planned and implemented to maximize the consultative aspects,
with the broadest range of stakeholders and informants, the consultants’ mandate was not to
reflect consensus views but to reach independent conclusions. So, there are limitations on the
degree to which the case study is truly participatory.
The commitment of the GOU, as well as representatives of a wide range of educational

stakeholders, was strong. Through mechanisms such as the CRG, they demonstrated their belief
in the value of this case study and gave it their cooperation. Individuals were equally eager to
make time available for meetings and discussions. This is significant, as we noted (with concern
that we expand on below), that most key people are “overstretched,” with far too many demands
on their time.
Finally, the fact that four case studies, albeit in very different countries, were proceeding in
parallel, offered numerous opportunities for cross-fertilization, shared methodological
approaches, and informal comparisons of preliminary findings. In this sense, the four studies,
collectively, are more than the sum of their parts.
In detail, however, each of the four case studies proceeded along a distinct path. This reflects the
differences in the actual situation in each country (with respect to the context, and the approaches
of both governments and external agencies). It also reflects the differences in the information and
types of data that turned out to be available in each case. But, shared reflections on these very
differences cast light on the specific reality that each team was confronted with in their particular
country of focus.
In the case of the Uganda and Zambia studies, this was particularly true, since the same
international consultants were involved in both and, indeed some of the Ugandan- and Zambian-
based consultants were able to use the Steering Committee meeting in September 2002 for an
intense exchange of views. The comparisons, as well as the contrasts, between the approaches to
external support to basic education in the two countries shed considerable light on the individual
situations of each.
2.2.2 Challenges
The greatest challenges in the evaluation relate to gaps in the ideal set of information and data
that the consultants would have wished for. These gaps are of several types.

First, the written record during the period from 1990 to 1996 is relatively sparse. This is true in
the MOES, but even more so in the offices of the external support agencies. No doubt there was
less support for basic education during those years, but the flow of Official Development
Assistance (ODA) was not insubstantial as noted in Section 3.3. The situation is made more acute
by the lack of personal corporate memory, due to turnover of staff in the external support
agencies. Time and time again, agency representatives told us, in effect, “I can only tell you about
the situation since I arrived” (usually within the past 2 or 3 years).
In the MOES, we sensed that the problem was rather different. There was a great deal of
documentation, but no systematic organizational process through which it could be accessed.
Often, several different people said that a certain report existed, but no one could actually find a
copy for us.
For documents produced in recent years, the situation seems to have improved a great deal. There
appear to be several reasons for this. One reason is that, after UPE and the Education Strategic
Investment Plan (ESIP), there is a joint commitment to information sharing and coordination,
which has created a need for clear documentation. Another is that the extensive use of computers
and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) by all partners means that documents
now are prepared and stored in electronic form. This makes organization, retrieval and sharing of
documents vastly simpler.
A second significant gap occurred in the quantitative data available. Up until the year 2000, the
capacity in the MOES for quantitative tracking of education indicators was weak. Again, the
situation has improved substantially under ESIP. At the end of the 1990s, the Education for All
(EFA) 2000 Assessment, supported by UNESCO, was a significant catalyst that accelerated
improvement of the gathering and management of education information. The assessment
specifications provided strong information about what was needed, and training workshops
increased the awareness and skills levels needed to conduct the assessment. Uganda’s capacity
was then observed to be weak and the end result (in the gathering of quantitative data) was less
than satisfactory.
Significant investments were then made to create a more robust Education Management
Information System (EMIS). As a result, management and organization of the data from the year
2000 is greatly improved. However, this very improvement creates difficulties in comparing
recent data with that from earlier years. Differences in the processes for gathering, storing and
analysing educational statistics pre- and post-2000 make any longitudinal comparisons of time
series dangerous indeed. The tables in Annex 2 must be interpreted with this caveat.
A related problem is the accuracy of the raw data itself. More detail is provided below, but it is
acknowledged by both MOES officials and by partner agency representatives that the quality
control of data gathering (particularly at the first level of individual schools) is very weak.
Finally, challenges of communication and coordination between a team of four consultants based
in widely separated locations (Uganda, United Kingdom, and Canada) were very real. ICT,
particularly e-mail, was used extensively. Indeed, our methodology would have been impossible
even ten years ago, except at far greater cost in time and money. However, the limited availability
and use of technology in Uganda, both in the GOU, NGOs and by the Uganda-based consultants
created problems. It is clear that joint projects like this study will become much easier to
implement in the future as computer technology makes greater penetration into developing
countries such as Uganda.

PART TWO: FINDINGS
Figure 3: Classroom in Mukono District
3.0 External Support to Basic Education
3.1 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies
Based on the Framework Terms of Reference, our analysis focuses on the following questions:
• What is the broad framework of ideas, understanding and institutions within which
external assistance is provided to basic education in Uganda? How has that framework, or
its major components, changed over the past decade?
• How has the nature of external support to basic education in Uganda evolved since 1990?
• How were external funding agencies involved in the development of Uganda=s basic
education policies, particularly the White Paper and, subsequently, ESIP?
• How did Uganda’s early participation in both the Comprehensive Development
Framework (CDF) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) processes affect its
relationship with external agencies?

The team’s review of documents, as well as interviews with Kampala stakeholders, indicate that
in the early 1990s, individual agencies were funding separate projects, guided mainly by their
own particular interests and priorities. Coordination between agencies was minimal, with ad hoc
links to Uganda=s education strategies that were just emerging in explicit form. Harmonization of
approach was virtually non-existent. As we note in Section 4.0, the GOU, early in its
reconstruction efforts in the late 1980s, targeted the reform and strengthening of basic education
as a key priority. After Jomtien, the Government White Paper (MOES, 1992) led to enhanced
dialogue with individual external support agencies. Although records from the period of 1990 to
1996 are rather fragmentary, they indicate that by the mid-1990s, the agencies were moving
towards closer coordination through various informal mechanisms (USAID, 1992, 1996; Wright
and Govinda, 1994).
More structured approaches emerged after that. With the movement towards UPE, announced in
1996, followed by the development of the ESIP in 1997 (MOES, 1998), it was clear that stronger
coordination and more focused support among external agencies would be essential if Uganda’s
bold initiatives were to be adequately sustained.
By the time of the evaluation team’s work in 2002, virtually all external support agencies were
operating within the framework of ESIP. Moreover, a significant number of them were providing
their assistance through budget support mechanisms rather than individual projects. The processes
established through the joint efforts of the external agencies and the MOES had led to a high
degree of harmonization in both the policies and procedures used for providing external support.
This process provides a model case study of the evolution from individual project approaches to a
SWAp in Uganda over the period of 1990 to 2002.
At the level of national policy, the Ugandan process leading from the work of the Education
Policy Review Commission of 1989 to the 1992 Uganda Government White Paper on education
are described in Section 4.1. This paper provided a framework within which external support was
intended to operate. But the concept of a SWAp was yet to emerge. The thinking – it appears of
all parties – was focused on the relationship between the MOES and individual agencies, with
some appreciation that external agencies should coordinate their efforts, to reduce overlap, avoid
gaps, and simplify administration and reporting procedures for the GOU.
It took some years, then, for external support agencies to adapt their approaches to a coordinated
and shared policy dialogue with the GOU. Indeed, the evolution of the early ideas that led to
ESIP were described to the team as a process of dialogue, led on the external side by the World
Bank and Department for International Development (DFID), that resulted in Uganda’s becoming
one of the first and most successful education SWAPs.
The idea of developing an education SWAp in Uganda seems to have emerged in 1996 during a
World Bank Study Tour to Korea, involving a number of senior MOES officials. DFID provided
some initial technical assistance (TA) to get the process started in the MOES, and ESIP emerged
in 1997. The initial group of supporting agencies was relatively small: DFID, Ireland,
Netherlands, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with the
European Commission (EC) and the World Bank were the initial providers of budget support.
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) joined this group a little later. Other
agencies were also brought into ESIP, by bringing their legacy projects within the ESIP
“umbrella” for purposes of strategic planning and monitoring. In parallel to these efforts, there
was a strong coordinated external agency consultation on a much broader multi-sector front, that
led to the development, with Uganda, of the CDF at the macro-economic level, and the Poverty

Eradication Plan (PEAP) as a strategic focus on poverty eradication. We explore the links
between these and basic education support below.
As these types of coordinated policy dialogues intensified, it was clear to the funding agencies, as
well as to the government, that a more structured process was necessary. This resulted in the
development of a negotiated agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
on government-agency dialogue, cooperation, coordination and harmonization. For their part, the
external support agencies formed the Education Funding Agencies Group (EFAG), which
operates under an agreement between the funding agencies themselves. In meetings with various
agencies, however, it became clear to the team that these arrangements were seen from a variety
of perspectives. The agencies committed to budget support tend to view them very seriously, as
formal and binding commitments. Others, primarily those providing support through projects, see
them as less formal arrangements or guidelines.
Notwithstanding these differences in perception, the team had an overall impression that there
was a strong consensus among the external agencies and GOU officials that the mechanisms
worked well. Indeed, the divergence, as a reflection of a degree of flexibility among agencies, can
be seen as a positive aspect. Harmonization need not mean uniformity. The important thing is that
there seems to be enough consistency between agencies to simplify considerably the processes of
shared planning, monitoring and accountability for the GOU with its external partners.
The monthly EFAG meetings involve the review of progress in education, coordination of
activities, and discussion (leading to agreement) on a common position on critical issues. The
main outputs of the EFAG meetings are a list of key issues for inclusion in the agenda for the
next meeting of the Education Sector Consultative Committee (ESCC), and to the semi-annual
ESR process.
Between the semi-annual review meetings, regular meetings of the ESCC, involving both MOES
officials and representatives of the external support agencies, provide a mechanism for continuing
dialogue, the regular monitoring of progress, and both preparatory and follow-up work for the
reviews. The ESCC thus acts as a kind of “executive committee” for the review process, which
involves a very large group of stakeholders. The April 2002 review, for example, involved:
representatives of funding and TA agencies; parliament; the Prime Minister’s office; the MOES
and its affiliated institutions; Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
(MOFPED; the Public Service Commission; Local Government; the Ministry of Agriculture,
Animal Industry and Fisheries; Ministry of Health; the President’s Office; district offices,
religious institutions, teachers’/head teachers’/directors’ Associations; Uganda Defence Force;
Police; NGOs; and the private sector (List from the Seventh ESR Aide-Memoire, April 2002).
By dealing with the EFAG instead of with individual agencies, the GOU, through the MOES is
able to negotiate, dialogue and work in partnership with the external support agencies as a single
body. While the GOU may reach different arrangements with individual funding agencies, the
overall modalities of support and cooperation take place within this structure. It has major
implications for the management of the ODA process (in education) for Uganda, which will be
explored below.
While UPE has been a major priority since 1997, many external agencies have also supported
individual projects supporting alternative or non-formal education, as well as ECCD and
Functional Adult Literacy (FAL). These are project approaches, although there is some desire,
both in the MOES and among some agencies, to move them closer towards budget support.
Except for FAL, they are still included within the ESIP framework and, to some degree, subject
to the processes of the ESR. The MOES, however, notes that the degree to which these individual
projects actually benefit from ESIP coordination mechanisms varies from one agency to another.
Inevitably, semi-annual sector reviews focus mainly on: first, the review of annual undertakings
to determine whether the next release of budget support money occurs, and second, planning of
future strategies. Review of current activities within project approaches is a lower priority.
Since FAL falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development
(MOGLSD), the (relatively small amount of) support in this area lies outside ESIP. Thus, modest
amounts of support to basic education provided by some agencies fall outside the scope of the
MOES and, consequently, of ESIP.
Significant amounts of external support, originating in part in the bilateral agencies, flow through
NGOs. Norway, for example, channels significant assistance to basic education through Save the
Children Norway (formerly Redd Barna). Much of the external support through NGOs is difficult
to track and impossible to quantify in a comprehensive way, since neither MOFPED nor MOES
requires systematic reporting from NGOs and neither maintains a systematic record of this type of
activity. It thus falls outside ESIP, although some discussion occurs in the process of recent
ESRs, due to the presence of NGO representatives.
3.2 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Practices
Here, the key questions are the following:
• How have the practices of support to basic education changed over time?
• What factors influenced the approaches of individual external agencies in support of
ESIP?
• What has been the experience of agencies regarding the various modalities through which
support is provided?
• How has support been provided between formal and non-formal education?
An attempt is made to trace, with varying success (depending on the information available), three
types of evolution in the practices of external support during the period of 1990 to 2002:
• The amounts of financial assistance;

• The modalities through which the assistance was disbursed; and
• The priorities to which this assistance was directed.
Also discussed are the conditionalities that have been negotiated between external support
agencies and the GOU and the evolution of this process, particularly since the beginning of ESIP.
The MOFPED now tracks all ODA flows, using a complex system whose development was
supported by the World Bank, and their records appear to be comprehensive, consistent from
year-to-year, and accurate. Unfortunately, although their data is complete since 1990, it does not
support accurate dissagregation by sector, except for specific project funding. Indeed, such
analysis is becoming more complex as ODA becomes increasingly fungible as a result of external
agencies channelling funding through budget support. Figure 4 shows the time series for total
ODA flows, divided into project support and budget support (including debt relief and import
support). It shows that, throughout most of the 1990s, project support exceeded budget support,
indeed by an increasing margin. The situation reversed dramatically after 1998 and by 2001
budget support represented 61% of ODA.
Figure 4: ODA Flows to Uganda by Modality
ODA, ALL SECTORS, BY MODALITY
900,000
800,000
700,000
US$ Thousands
600,000
500,000 Budget Support

Project Support
400,000 Total ODA
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
(Source MOFPED)
Within the smaller envelope of project funding, it is possible to track the portion disbursed to
education.
After 1997 and the introduction of UPE, the amount of ODA project funding devoted to
education increased dramatically. Even as overall project funding declined with the shift to
budget support, education’s share remained in the range of 14-16%, as compared to around 6%
prior to 1997.
Figure 5: ODA Project Funding: Education Share
ODA PROJECT FUNDING: TOTAL AND EDUCATION SHARE
700,000
600,000
US$ Thousands
500,000
400,000 Education
300,000 Other Sectors
200,000
100,000
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
(Source: MOFPED)

Since 1998, however, it is possible, from data in the Medium-term Budget Framework (MTBF)
reviews, to track the share of total budget support flowing into Uganda by sector. In Figure 6, we
track the total flow of budget support into education, broken down into three categories:
• General Budget Support: This is the largest component. It is primarily Highly Indebted
Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative funding. Under the provisions of Uganda’s PRSP a
negotiated percentage (currently 60% of PAF funds) is to be targeted to education,
through the Poverty Action Fund (PAF). General Budget Support also contains funds
allocated to education under the Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC);
• Sector Support: Funds provided specifically for the education sector by several bilateral
agencies and STABEX funds from the EC; and
• Earmarked Sector Support: Funds for specific projects or activities (e.g. classroom
construction, Teacher Development and Management System (TDMS)) administered by
the MOES, provided by individual bilateral agencies or the EC. (Project Support, in
contrast, is administered by the funding agencies directly rather than through the MOES
budget).
Between 1998 and 2002, overall budget support to education grew by nearly 25% (from US$120
million to US$148 million).
Figure 6: Budget Support to Education, 1998 to 2002
BUDGET SUPPORT TO PRIMARY EDUCATION 1998 to 2002

160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
US$ Thousands
80,000 Earmarked Sector Support

Sector Support
60,000
General Budget Support
40,000
20,000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
% of Total Primary Education Budget (recurrent + Development):

59% 55% 57% 61% 54%
Year
(Source: MTBF)

Since the mid-1990s, a substantial but far from complete shift towards budget support emerges.
The GOU has clearly stated its preference that ODA should be disbursed through budget support
mechanisms. Why, then, have external agencies not completely committed their funding support
through that modality? In discussions with various stakeholders, several answers have emerged:
• First, there are continuing concerns expressed by agency representatives that budget
support through a SWAp may leave the agency unable to meet particular accountability
requirements at home office, often part of agency-specific Results-based Management
(RBM) requirements going back to the early 1990s;
• The agencies also report domestic pressures for “showing the flag” on projects that can
be directly identified with individual country contribution;
• Some agencies present arguments that for certain activities, stand-alone projects present
advantages of efficiency over earmarked sector support. This point of view also has
significant support among Ugandan officials at the district and school level; and
• Finally, the team observed a tendency for individual agencies to “hedge their bets.” By
dividing their support between budget support, individual projects and agency-managed
TA, they feel they are diversifying their risk, and keeping options open − at least until
experience with SWAps becomes clearer over the longer term.
Budget support, through ESIP, also favours certain priorities or activities over others. Reflecting
GOU priority, it is channelled towards UPE, particularly UPE grants (capitation grants provided
directly to schools to replace school fees formerly collected from parents) and School Facilities
Grants (SFGs) to support the construction of extra classrooms. The earmarked sector support
funds are spent mainly on classroom construction, TDMS, instructional materials development
and on capacity building activities in the MOES and at the district level. Agencies wishing to
support other types of activity tend, therefore, to be pulled towards project modalities.
General budget support assists the MOES in meeting the recurrent costs of a greatly expanded
system. As noted in Figure 6, during the period of 1998 to 2002, external assistance has funded
between 54% and 61% of the recurrent costs of basic education delivered through primary
schools. (We examine the distribution of spending more closely in Section 4.2.) Some external
partners, as well as GOU officials, have expressed concern about the sustainability of a system
that is heavily dependent on external flows. Future estimates in the medium term budget
framework show this percentage declining, but this may in fact be because all the commitments
of external support agencies for future years are not yet included in the computations.
There is a relationship between the priorities of individual external support agencies with respect
to different kinds of education activity and their commitment to budget support. Those agencies
closely aligned with budget support prioritize increasing access to public schooling, as that is the
major focus of budget support. On the other hand, those who wish to focus on other priorities,
such as special needs education (e.g., Danida), or alternative basic education (e.g., GTZ), feel a
need to use project funding as the delivery mechanism.

Figure 7: Total Basic Education Expenditures, 1998 to 2002
EDUCATION EXPENDITURES 1998-2002
350,000
US$ Thousands
300,000
250,000
GOU share
200,000
Project Support
150,000
Budget Support
100,000
50,000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
(Source: MTBF)
Figure 7, based on data from the April 2002 Sector Review, shows total basic education
expenditure by funding source. The data suggest that the GOU is heavily dependent on external
ODA to support the expansion of basic education. The bars represent total spending on primary
education, both recurrent and development, as reported in the MTBF. (The 2002 data is the
budgeted amount, not actual expenditure. Based on past practice, the difference is not highly
significant.) During the five-year-period reviewed, recurrent spending was approximately 70% of
the budget, with the remaining 30% in the development budget (primarily classroom
construction). Note that the “Budget Support” component of each bar is exactly the same as the
total bar in Figure 6. While the GOU’s own proportion of total expenditure is gradually
increasing, the concomitant reduction in dependence on external support is small. The situation is
likely to persist for a number of years to come.
The GOU faces a significant challenge in mobilizing the domestic resources to fund its share of
the basic education budget – a share that is increasing. The situation is helped by the active
participation of a MOFPED representative in the Sector Review Process, but the MOES must still
make its case for each year’s budget within a larger mix of competing priorities. Inter-sectoral
budget allocation takes place in the context of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework of
Uganda’s PRSP. Fifteen Sector Working Groups are each tasked with presenting their case for
resource allocation through the preparation of explicit, costed plans. The most recent PRSP
progress report (2002) cited the Education Sector as one of the very few that has an effective,
costed sector plan (ESIP). This high level of performance relative to other sectors has, to date,
benefited the education sector.
Education’s sectoral share of the GOU Budget (as presented in the Medium Term Expenditure
Framework) is the largest of any sector, at around 26% of the annual budget. In absolute amounts,
budget allocations to basic education have been growing by 6% to 9% each year (recurrent plus
development budgets). As such, the education budget is under constant pressure from MOFPED
when sources to economize are sought. In the absence of new revenues, any new government

initiatives can only be financed by re-allocation of existing resources. As this study was ending,
the team learned that the pressure from MOFPED to limit the education budget, or at least to
constrain its growth, was increasing.
The negotiated agreements between external support agencies and the MOES, subject to regular
review in the sector review process, provide additional “ammunition” to the MOES for
maintaining the GOU financial support for basic education at agreed levels. This powerful
conditionality is discussed further in the next section.
It is clear that those external agencies who choose to funnel their assistance through budget
support, need to be “in for the long haul.” Inherently, budget support provides the means and thus
encourages the GOU, to expand its education spending. Were funding agencies to reduce their
contributions and/or withdraw from budget support, the GOU would be left with a system it could
not afford. There is no clear estimate of the number of years it will take before Uganda’s own
revenues can fund the system without the need for external support. But most stakeholders with
whom this issue was discussed believe that we are talking about at least 10 years, perhaps much
more. This goes beyond the period for which funding agencies can make formal commitments,
but they need to realize that they have made an implicit commitment to at least that time span.
3.2.1 The Use of Conditionalities
External support has always come with conditions attached. There are at least three reasons for
this:
• Each of the external support agencies within the scope of this study has explicit policy
objectives at both the global and national level. Conditionalities, from their perspective,
help to ensure that the support they provide does indeed further those policy objectives;
• Agencies, moreover, are accountable domestically, both to government and to the general
public. The agencies need assurances (that they can use to report back to these domestic
sources) that the assistance provided is being used effectively. Here, the nature of
“effectiveness” is defined domestically, not in the partner country, and so implicitly or
explicitly imposes conditionalities; and
• Finally, conditionalities tied to their support are often regarded by external agencies as a
form of TA. From this view, the agencies use conditionalities to influence the policy or
programme environment for basic education in the partner country, or even the basic
education system itself.
Each of these three rationales for conditionalities can be found in the processes of external
support to basic education in Uganda.
Under ESIP, conditionalities take on a particular form for those external agencies providing
budget support. Since their contributions are more or less fungible, the usual accountabilities or
requirements attached to a project implementation and reporting framework are not available.
Instead, a set of undertakings is negotiated (or updated) at each sector review meeting. Progress
in achieving these undertakings is reviewed at the next review meeting, about six months later.
These undertakings are the main triggers for the release of budget support funds. The process of
defining and reviewing the undertakings has been refined and, to a degree, simplified, since their
introduction in 1999. Initially, the undertakings included both general targets and specific items
that reflected individual agency priorities carried over from earlier project approaches. (The May
1999 ESR, for example, involved 16 distinct undertakings.) Over time, the number of
undertakings has been reduced and reflects a consensus negotiated among funding agencies and
the MOES. As an explicit example, the list of conditionalities from the May 2002 ESR has seven
items:
Critical Undertakings:
• Financial Commitment: Government budget and releases should maintain a minimum of

31% of recurrent discretionary expenditure for education and at least 65% of this for
primary education;
• Public Expenditure Management: Requires a progress report on implementation of the
Financial Management Strengthening Component of the Second Economic and Financial
Management Project and the Financial Accountability Project; and, a tracking study of
teacher recruitment, deployment and payroll management;
• Quality of Education: Reaching a pupil- to-teacher ratio of 54:1, and a pupil-to-
classroom ratio of 92:1;
• Equitable Quality: Reaching equitable enrolment of girls and boys in Primary 7.
Process Undertakings:
• Equitable Access: Development of a costed policy framework on the education of

disadvantaged children;
• Teacher Recruitment: Establishment of a monitoring system and an action plan to
accelerate recruitment and deployment; and
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Effective gathering, analysis and reporting of 2002 EMIS
data.
This use of undertakings as both the monitoring mechanism and the trigger for release of funds
provides mutual assurance to the external agencies that their concerns will be addressed, and to
the GOU that funds will be released to them if the negotiated undertakings are achieved. Each
undertaking is accompanied by explicit means of verification and data sources, which provide the
input to the review of the undertaking at the next sector review meeting.
The list of undertakings, as well as the specific targets associated with each of them, evolves from
one semi-annual sector review to another. The critical undertakings tend to be carried forward,
from one sector review to the next, with only minor adjustment. However, the process
undertakings are more typically “one-off” initiatives that are replaced with other requirements
once they have been completed (perhaps over a period of more than one review).
This process is strongly supported by those agencies providing budget support. Indeed all external
support agencies involved in the EFAG (including those in “project mode” and those providing
TA) felt they had a part to play – particularly regarding the process undertakings. For the MOES,
the net effect of the undertakings clearly has a strong steering effect on their work and on the
deployment of resources. While they have every opportunity to make their case when the
undertakings are developed, they report being very conscious of external pressures. It would be
unfair to say that the undertakings are imposed by external agencies. They are the result of mutual
agreement between GOU representatives and the EFAG members. However, it is certainly the
perception of MOES officials that the negotiations are complex and that while they get a fair
hearing, they often have to “bend to the will of external partners.”
3.3 Nature and Evolution of External Support: Results
Here the following questions are addressed:
• What have been the results and consequences of external support to basic education in
partner countries?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses, particularly from the perspectives of the external
partners, of the EFAG/ESCC processes?
• How is the effectiveness of the semi-annual review process perceived?
• Which agencies have been the chief providers of TA and policy dialogue in Uganda and
how have their roles changed over the period?
Ugandan officials informed the team that in the early 1990s, the individual project approaches of
each external agency caused significant management problems for the GOU in planning for the
education sector, and even more, for managing the flows of external support. A variety of
different accountability and reporting practices made consolidated planning and management
very difficult. This perspective is shared, to a lesser degree, by the external agencies themselves.
A number of informants felt that, in the past, individual project approaches caused some
duplication, as well as significant gaps in coverage which led to weakening of the collective
strategic impact of interventions. In particular, officials in the MOES felt that the budget support
mechanisms in place since 1999 made strategic planning and deployment of financial resources
much more effective.
Since 1999, the government and participating funding agencies have formed the ESCC in the
MOES and the EFAG, for the external agencies. These two bodies together coordinate and
manage a shared approach to budget support, project support and coordination, and TA.
The EFAG meets regularly and its efforts have passed beyond coordination to a high degree of
harmonization of approach. Interviews with EFAG members, as well as examination of EFAG
documents, suggest to the evaluation team that the degree of harmonization is not uniform among
EFAG members. There is an inner group of “like-minded” members who share a commitment to
budget support and a common sense of priority focused on UPE and support for primary
schooling. This group includes the EC, the World Bank, CIDA, DFID, Ireland Aid (Department
of Foreign Affairs, Ireland), and the Netherlands. Their approaches are strongly harmonized.
Indeed, the EC, DFID and CIDA share common representation in the EFAG through a common
office and official (currently in the EC office).
The remaining EFAG members can be visualized in a set of two additional concentric circles:
• The first group contains agencies committed to basic education, but whose highest
priority is not budget support for primary schooling and UPE. These agencies support
alternative basic education, early childhood education, and adult basic education. In some
instances, they are key players in policy dialogue or TA, but not as providers of external
funds. The agencies in this first “outer group” include UNICEF, UNESCO, Danida, and
GTZ; and
• The second group includes EFAG members whose activities are primarily devoted to
other parts of the education sector. This usually means support to tertiary education,
although some support to basic education may also be present. This group includes
Austria, France, Japan, and Norway.
Representatives of these two “outer” groups are generally satisfied with the EFAG process, but it
is important to note that they do not feel they are central players in it. They perceive the EFAG
processes as being steered by the priorities and views of the “like-minded” inner group. The team
notes that this perception is natural and appears to be accurate. There is no evidence that this
division between different members of the EFAG is doing any real harm. Rather, it is a natural
consequence of the inclusion of support for primary schooling as by far the largest component in
a true SWAp that also includes other parts of basic education, as well as secondary and tertiary
education. The positive aspects of including agencies supporting all these elements in a common
dialogue seem clearly to outweigh the disadvantages.
EFAG members jointly participate every six months in the review of educational sector plans and
their implementation with colleagues in the MOES, as well as other educational stakeholders
invited by the GOU. The EFAG also supports and works with the government in its management
of the review process. Accountability requirements of those external support agencies that
provide budget support is now based on a set of negotiated undertakings, which are examined and
updated in each sector review meeting and provide the triggers for the release of the next tranche
of external funding. All parties agree that this ESR process is a substantial improvement over
previous arrangements. Agency representatives noted that initially, accountability was measured
in terms of some 57 distinct undertakings. As the ESR process has evolved, this has been focused
down to less than 10 carefully nuanced undertakings. As joint commitments of the GOU and the
EFAG, these involve other ministries, particularly the MOFPED as well as the MOES.
The ESR process deals with both planning and management issues. Many officials and
stakeholders interviewed by the team in Kampala drew a distinction between coordination and
control. Coordination is now seen by most partners in the ESR process as a means of ensuring
that the planning and ongoing management of externally supported basic education take place
within a single structured mechanism involving the government and the external agencies as
dialogue partners. Coordination is thus a process rather than an end in itself. All participants in
this process agree that the EFAG has provided an extremely effective and efficient mechanism for
coordination.
Control, on the other hand, is seen, particularly by the Uganda partners, as a reflection of the
inherent inequalities in power that different stakeholders bring to the ESR process. While the
funding agencies believe that the ESR gives real substance to the mantra of “putting the
developing country in the driver’s seat,” Uganda partners appear to be much more ambivalent.
There are real perceptions, on the part of government officials, that the management of
undertakings represents a strong conditionality of funding agencies. Since they are supplying the
funds, the review of ESIP is not one of equal partners. Meeting the conditionalities imposes an
undue restriction on the Ministry of Education’s flexibility to spend money effectively.
A second set of conditionalities, of course, surround earmarked sector support. Here, there is
much less flexibility to move money around. It must be used for the particular activity or target
for which the donor has earmarked it. The Commissioner for Planning in the MOES cited several
difficulties that this inflexibility causes:
• There is often a less than perfect match with absorptive capacity. This leads to some
earmarked funds remaining unspent while other budgets are in deficit;

• At the district level, the earmarked priorities may not match perceived needs. For
example, one district turned down additional earmarked classroom construction grants
because they attached a higher priority to the construction of teachers’ housing, for which
the grants could not be spent; and
• Delays in the release of earmarked funding cause particular problems. It is sometimes
necessary to “borrow” from other budgets, but it is later very difficult to repay the
transfer of earmarked funds.
There is less evidence that, in longer term planning, the setting of activities and priorities is
unduly controlled by funding agencies. The emphasis on UPE, delivered through the public
schools, as the core of ESIP, was clearly a GOU decision. In current planning of “ESIP II,” the
extension of priority to Post-primary Education and Training (PPET) is a GOU-initiated
enhancement of ESIP. Some agencies are ambivalent about “diluting” ESIP away from its focus
on basic education. Their headquarter strategies give clear priority to basic education with a cut-
off that generally excludes support to higher levels of education. Nonetheless the initial planning
of PPET has been supported by pooled TA funding and appears very likely to go ahead with a
reasonable base of external support.
One of the advantages often cited in the literature for SWAps is a reduction in the complexity of
administrative, accountability and reporting burdens, particularly on the partner country. It is not
evident that this has been achieved in Uganda. Clearly, for those agencies that channel funding
through budget support, there is much less detail work as compared to the management of
individual projects. It would appear, therefore, that for these agencies, the burden is lightened.
However, it seems that much of this burden has been transferred to the MOES. Transaction costs
for budget support agencies have dropped, in their opinion. But, MOES officials feel that their
own transaction costs have risen. This is consistent with the preliminary observations of Foster,
Brown, Norton and Naschold (2000), who observed that in Uganda’s health SWAp there were
increased transaction costs in the short run, with no clear evidence of reductions that might accrue
later when the new arrangements were fully in place.
The semi-annual review process is extremely labour-intensive and time-consuming. A number of

the staff in certain departments of the MOES, particularly the Planning Department, report that
they are engaged virtually full-time in this activity. No sooner does one review end that the task
of planning for the next review begins. This raises the very real concern that much of the attention
and effort of senior levels in the MOES are devoted first to managing the relationship with
funding agencies, through ESIP and the ESR process, and only second (sometimes a very
“stretched” second) to managing Ugandan education itself.
Two related points are worth noting. First, officials of some agencies point out that the work
being carried out by the MOES in preparing for the semi-annual ESR is part of a monitoring
function that they should be conducting in any event, irrespective of ESR requirements. It is part
of good educational management. The team believes that this is only partially true. Preparing the
documentation in the form required by the ESR entails much additional work that is not directly
related to education per se, but instead is devoted to proper accountability for external funding
support. There is not clear baseline or methodology for quantifying this, but an increase in work
load, unaccompanied by the approval of extra professional positions by the Public Service
Commission has clearly occurred.

Second, there has been a decision recently to move from semi-annual to annual reviews. This, we
have been told, is the result of two factors:
• A desire to reduce the work load and transaction costs associated with the ESR process;
and
• Agreement among partners that the ESR process itself has matured to a level where a
single review each year should be adequate.
A positive and perhaps unexpected result, noted briefly above, of the coordination and
harmonization processes such as the EFAG is the pooling of agency representation. Since the
purpose, in part, of EFAG, is to enable the funding agencies to speak with one voice in Kampala,
some agencies have concluded that they do not need continual staff presence there. For example,
the EC office is now providing coordinated representation of both DFID and CIDA, which is both
cost-effective and efficient. There is a question, of course, whether in the longer term, agencies
that choose this indirect representation will begin to feel out of touch or less well-informed about
the context in which their support is being applied. It is too soon to tell, but the team believes that
this matter is a success story, as well as a situation that warrants monitoring.
Due to the EFAG/ESCC process, all agencies are involved in policy dialogue. They all provide
financial support, either through project funding or budget support, or a combination of both. TA
is partly supported through an earmarked pooled fund, managed by the MOES. As well,
individual agencies retain some funds through which they directly manage some consultant
assignments. The role of UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank, and DFID, in particular, supports
individual TA consultancies that provide policy-level inputs to the MOES. This support is
doubtless valuable. The wish of individual agencies to directly “manage” TA reflects some
concern about the capacity of the MOES, as well as a wish to steer the Framework Terms of
Reference for such consultancies along agency lines. However, MOES officials and, indeed, some
agency representatives have raised questions about coordination issues, as well as the
appropriateness of these “departures” from a pooled approach.
Figure 8: Schoolyard in Arua District

4.0 Externally Supported Basic Education
4.1 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Intents, Policies and Strategies
At this level, our analysis focuses on the following questions, derived from the Framework Terms
of Reference:
• Within the policy framework for basic education, to what extent and in what ways has
external support been integrated?
• How are global policy priorities reflected in Uganda’s policies and strategies for basic
education?
• What have been the challenges and progress in the decentralization of basic education
(particularly primary schooling)?
• How has the role of non-formal education been addressed?
4.1.1 The Uganda Context for Basic Education Policy Formulation
Education reform, with a particular focus on primary education, received focused attention from
the GOU beginning in 1988 as part of the government’s post-war reconstruction programme. This
led, first to the Education Policy Review Commission Report of 1989, and then, in response, the
Government White Paper of 1992. The situation in the late 1980s was indeed urgent:
• More than half of primary teachers were untrained;

• Trained and certified teachers earned, on average, US$8.00 per month. The need for extra
employment led to high teacher absenteeism;
• The school infrastructure had deteriorated. Many classes were held under trees or in
makeshift shelters;
• Textbooks and other materials were non-existent;
• Less than half of the children of primary age were in school; and
• There were no standards or inspection system in place on any regular basis.
In response to this dire situation, the GOU, in a real sense, anticipated the world community by
setting up the Education Policy Review Commission in the late 1980s, in advance of the Jomtien
World Education Forum. They were already “thinking EFA” before Jomtien.
According to Ugandan officials, there was considerable discussion with individual agencies in the
period between Jomtien and the 1992 White Paper. However, coordination mechanisms were not
yet developed, so much of this policy dialogue was of an ad hoc and unstructured nature and was
one-on-one with individual agencies. The lack of strong corporate memory among the local
offices of external agencies in Kampala means that much history and perspective on this period
has largely been lost.
The decision to implement UPE was made in 1996. UPE represented the commitment of Uganda
to achieve the EFA goal of UPE as quickly as possible. The decision to focus on UPE among the
six goals of the Jomtien Framework Terms of Reference appears to have been an initiative that
was driven by the highest levels of the Ugandan government, and not determined by any pressure
from funding agencies (although consistent with their own priorities). It quickly generated strong
agency support and commitment. After the proclamation of UPE, the dialogue between agencies
and the government accelerated and began to be more coordinated.

There has been increasing integration of external support over the period since 1996. Education
was directly linked to poverty reduction by the GOU through Uganda’s PEAP of 1997
(MOFPED, 2001) through which the government made a commitment to education as a key
component of its strategy. External support agencies were brought more directly into the process
in the preparation of the PRSP, based directly on the PEAP and completed in 2000. The PRSP
consolidates funding from the HIPC initiative and regular Bank and other funding to support the
target of reducing poverty in Uganda to below 10% of the population by 2015.
Box 1: EFA Goals
The Six EFA Goals (Updated Version, from the This was consolidated specifically for
Dakar Framework for Action): education through ESIP. The resulting
consultations over the PRSP and HIPC
1. Expanding and improving comprehensive early processes integrated basic education into
childhood care and education, especially for the
most vulnerable and disadvantaged children;
broader poverty reduction and social
2. Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly development strategies for both the
girls, children in difficult circumstances and government and cooperating partners
those belonging to ethnic minorities, have through the PAF. Thus PRSP, CDF, and
access to and complete, free and compulsory UPE have all worked together as pillars of
primary education of good quality;
3. Ensuring that the learning needs of all young ESIP and supported Uganda’s EFA strategy,
people and adults are met through equitable as well as being broadly consistent with
access to appropriate learning and life-skills external agency priorities. This is a success
programmes; story of effective coordination and
4. Achieving a 50% improvement in levels of adult
literacy by 2015, especially for women, and
complementarity along several axes.
equitable access to basic and continuing
education for all adults; The GOU and external funders have
5. Eliminating gender disparities in primary and increasingly coordinated their strategy in
secondary education by 2005, and achieving relation to the post Jomtien “consensus” on
gender equality in education by 2015, with a
focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to EFA reflected in the Dakar Framework for
basic education of good quality; and Action. This is particularly evident in ESIP,
6. Improving all aspects of the quality of education which to date has focused within EFA
so that recognized and measurable learning mainly on education access for children of
outcomes are achieved by all, especially in
literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.
primary school age.
More broadly, the government’s commit-ment to basic education has five components, the first
four of which are in ESIP:
• UPE (reflecting EFA goal #2 and #6);
• ECCD (reflecting EFA goal #1);
• Alternative or complementary basic education for out-of school children and youth, in
particular disadvantaged groups: urban poor, nomadic groups (reflecting EFA goal #2
and #3);
• A strong commitment to girls’ education is built into both UPE and alternative education,
reflecting EFA goal #5. Thus the approach under ESIP is strongly consistent with both
the six EFA goals and the two Millennium targets (essentially EFA goals #2 and #4) set
for basic education; and
• FAL, through the MOGLSD (reflecting EFA goal #4).

However, it is clear that, to date, the overwhelming emphasis is on UPE, through a focus on
expansion of access to primary schooling. Section 4.3 demonstrates that the results related to
increased access (since 1996) are indeed impressive. Serious questions regarding quality still
remain.
ESIP is a true SWAp. It covers primary, secondary and tertiary education, but GOU budget
commitments agreed to in the PRSP process, reflected in the MTBF, and monitored through the
semi-annual ESR meetings include maintaining a budget minimum 31% of recurrent
discretionary expenditure for education and at least 65% of this for primary education. Indeed, the
meeting of these thresholds is the key financial undertaking committed to by the GOU in
agreement with the external agencies providing budget support to education. In particular, the
65% requirement addressed the requirement of a number of agencies that their earmarked
contributions be used for basic education. For those providing general budget support, this is less
of an issue. It is thus possible for ESIP, as a strategy covering all levels of education, to account
for budget support funds from external agencies that wish to target basic education particularly,
as well as those providing general budget support.
4.1.2 Universal Primary Education
Following the 1992 Government White Paper on Education, the immediate progress was small
with little increase in enrolment in primary schools. The main emphasis of external support was
to address issues in teacher training through programmes such as the TDMS. In order to focus
directly on the issue of increasing access, President Museveni announced, in 1996, that, effective
at once, primary school fees would be abolished for up to four children from each family.
Moreover, families with more than four children would have to give priority to girls. (The team
was told that, in reality, the “four children limitation” was often not enforceable and was largely
ignored).
This proclamation by the President was a bold stroke. It had immediate effects. At the policy
level, it sent a strong signal to both Ugandans and to external partners that the government was
seriously committed to the achievement of a key EFA goal. Politically, it was quickly
communicated to families throughout Uganda and many who hitherto were reluctant to send their
children to school were motivated to participate in this “universal” movement. Soon, large
numbers of children and young people came to enrol for primary school (many well above the
normal age for entry). Enrolments soared. These results are tracked in Section 4.3.1.
A number of partner agency representatives told the team that this strong national leadership,
followed by consistent commitment and support, as evidenced by the GOU’s own budget
commitments, was a key factor in encouraging agencies to move quickly to increase dramatically
their support for basic education.
4.1.3 Decentralization
Implementation of the government’s decentralization policies had begun just before the UPE
decision. This was a much broader strategy than education alone, cutting across a broad range of
government services. Nevertheless, as education is a sector that, more than any other, touches
every person’s life, the processes and the politics of decentralization had major implications for
the implementation of increased school access at the local level.

The pursuit of decentralization was a deliberate policy of the GOU to achieve several related
goals:
• To accelerate the reconstruction reconciliation process following the civil unrest of the
1970s and early 1980s and, so, contribute to national development;
• To reduce regional disparities, which were large; and
• To achieve greater local engagement and sustainability, particularly in health and
education, the key social priorities of the PRSP.
External support agencies certainly supported these goals. Moreover, in line with their own
policies, they also emphasized additional objectives, namely:
• To improve responsiveness, transparency, and local relevance in the delivery of services,

as part of the strategy to improve governance; and
• To improve the quality and efficiency of resource allocation through closer links between
resources and local needs.
On the whole, both Ugandan officials and agency representatives described the adoption of the
decentralization policies as a Ugandan-driven process, which subsequently was welcomed and
supported by agencies, particularly as they began to increase basic education support after UPE.
These decentralization policies remain broadly supported by both Ugandan officials and external
agencies. As well, NGOs, who operate mainly at the “grassroots” level in selected districts, are
particularly positive. However, the belief in total responsibility at the centre is still encouraged by
some local politicians, and this, the team was told, can impede the effective mobilization of local
community interest and support. To counter this tendency, local education officials believe that
clear information and messages need to be transmitted to communities by both the MOES and, to
an increased extent, the Ministry of Local Government (MOLG). The situation is exacerbated by
the inability of local government to raise adequate revenue. An example frequently cited in our
field discussions was the central authority’s assumption that the district level should take
responsibility for local supervision and monitoring. District officials, particularly the district
inspectors, claim that they have inadequate budgets for travel, fuel and related expenses, so that
visits to individual schools that are distant from the district office are far too infrequent for
effective monitoring.
District officials and school head teachers told the team that district politicians tend to actively
campaign against local revenue collection for education, on the grounds that UPE is “completely
free primary education.” This has two effects. First, the efforts of School Management
Committees (SMCs) to raise much-needed funds to supplement school programmes and facilities
become much more difficult. Second, the evolution of a shared responsibility and governance
mechanism between the central authority and local government, with complementary
responsibility for resources and programmes, is thwarted. Instead, local politicians too often see
themselves as advocates on behalf of the district. Success is measured by the level of resources
they can extract from the national level, and thereafter re-distribute to their constituencies as a
“reward” for their election. Many officials feel that this “politicization” of UPE in a decentralized
environment is a significant impediment to effective partnership between the central, district and
local levels.

4.1.4 Basic Education Outside the Primary Schools
Drawing on the 1992 Government White Paper on Education, the focus of the MOES, expressed
in ESIP, has overwhelmingly been on the increase of access to primary education in the public
schools. The other three components of the GOU’s basic education strategy: early childhood
education, alternative education, and FAL, have each received proportionally much less attention.
Nevertheless, there is a policy environment for each one, in which external agencies play a
partnership role.
Alternative programmes, private schools and community schools now serve the needs of
approximately 750,000 pupils – about 10% of primary enrolment. There are distinct streams here:
• Alternative programmes for disadvantaged groups (urban poor, nomadic peoples, school
dropouts) for whom formal public school programmes are inaccessible or inappropriate;
• Private schools paid for by parents (mainly middle class and mainly urban) who are
dissatisfied with the quality of public education provision and who are prepared to pay
for an alternative; and
• Informal community schools established by local communities and by NGOs where no
public school is nearby, or where parents cannot afford public schooling.
Each of these alternative channels of provision, in its own way, provides a valuable service.
The growth in private schools has significant implications for basic education and is monitored by
the MOES. A significant part of the growth in private schooling had been driven by wealthier
parents, perception that the quality of public schooling has declined. Such parents are willing to
pay fees to put their children in private schools that have smaller class sizes. MOES officials
expressed concern about the risks of moving towards a “two-tier” system, particularly in
Kampala. While the MOES monitors private schools, there is no clear evidence that they deliver
better quality education, other than the fact that, as noted above, class sizes tend to be much
smaller than in the public schools.
An examination of the 2001 EMIS data reveals that, of the 734,000 children enrolled in private
primary schools in Uganda, over 300,000 (or 42%) were from Kampala and surrounding districts
(Masaka, Mpigi, Mukono and Wakiso). In contrast, these districts make up only 9% of public
primary school enrolment. Kampala itself has 78,628 children enrolled in private schools as
opposed to 64,402 in public primary schools. It is also worth noting that these figures are gender
neutral; indeed, in each district, female private school enrolments exceed those of boys. This data
indicates that, centred on Kampala, and to a lesser degree in the nearby districts, there is a major
movement towards private schooling, which is much weaker in rural districts.
Since no significant external support is provided to private schools, there is, therefore,
proportionally greater targeting of external support to basic education in public schools of the
rural areas away from Kampala. This is consistent with stated donor policies to assist the GOU in
reducing rural-urban disparities and targeting assistance where it is most needed. However, it
should also be noted that several Ugandan educators raised concerns with the team about the
growth of parallel systems based on ability to pay.
The growth of community schools as a means of increasing access is increasingly important in

situations where the formal public school system is unavailable or inappropriate. This growth is
incorporated into the policy framework of ESIP, and also attracts external support through NGOs.

Community schools often target children from disadvantaged groups who face particular barriers
in attending public schools. The factors creating such barriers include:
• Poverty issues, such as inability to pay for school uniforms and supplies;
• The need to work or perform household duties such as caring for sick relatives or siblings
(a critical factor in children from AIDS-affected families);
• Weak English language skills; and
• Unsettled domestic or family situation.
Community schools also provide a mechanism for the establishment of new schools. Although it
is not apparently well documented, there seems to be a process through which community schools
achieve “critical mass” and then become eligible for government support. In those situations
where the school has been created to compensate for the absence of a nearby public school this is
particularly valuable. At some stage, they may move onto the books as a regular government
school. Given the need to expand the number of schools, as well as adding classrooms to existing
schools, this is an important process to understand and to encourage.
The target groups for complementary or alternative education tend to face the same or similar
barriers, and in this sense, community schools and the non-formal programmes can be visualized
as a range of alternative approaches that provide basic education to children outside the public
school system.
External agencies have provided TA and funding support to various non-formal programmes such
as:
• BEUPA: Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas (GTZ);
• ABEK: Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja (Save the Children − Norway, Canada,
UNICEF); and
• COPE: Complementary Opportunities for Primary Education (Canada, Netherlands,
UNICEF).
These programmes are small in numbers, relative to potentially large demand. (BEUPA targets
3,500 children through 45 learning centres in greater Kampala, for example.) But they generate
enormous leverage and policy dialogue, by providing a rich set of pilots or alternative approaches
through which the great variety of learning needs and appropriate responses, cutting across
different disadvantaged groups, can be observed. The lessons learned are starting to feed back
into formal education, and this trend, hopefully, will accelerate. The actual practices in these three
programmes are examined in Section 4.2.
4.1.5 NGOs’ Role in Education Policy
The team’s discussions with representatives of NGOs and church groups reveal a considerable
degree of frustration on their part. While they are often invited to the table in policy and planning
discussions, they repeatedly expressed the feeling that their involvement in such discussions with
government only occurred relatively late in the process. They felt that they were asked to consider
decisions that already been taken, for which their subsequent “buy-in” was wanted.
While NGOs are generally positive about decentralization, the effect of ESIP in concentrating
policy decisions at the centre is a concern to them. Many informed the team that the mounting
layers of bureaucracy between funding sources and the decentralized end user (i.e., schools)
together have increased their feelings of marginalization in decision making. Ugandan NGOs told

the team that they are in increasingly competitive situations in seeking funding through
international NGO partners (who in turn would receive financial support from their own
government agencies). Their traditional channels for funding support through these external
agencies are now much less accessible since money is routed through central government
mechanisms.
There are now concrete efforts on the part of the GOU to involve local NGOs more actively in
policy dialogue. The government recognizes their role and importance, perhaps to a greater
degree than do the NGOs themselves. For example, they are now invited to send representatives
to the ESR meetings. The NGOs told the team that such steps need to be accelerated and need to
be seen as leading to concrete results that enhance the NGOs’ role. It seems clear that, in turn, the
NGOs will have to accept a greater degree of coordination with GOU strategies, accountability
and, potentially, control as a consequence of greater integration into ESIP. This may be a
questionable trade-off for some.
Indeed, in discussions with representatives of various civil society organizations: religious

foundations as well as NGOs, the team got the distinct impression that while these organizations
wished to be involved in policy dialogue with the government, they had their own agendas and
terms for such cooperation. There was a strong feeling that their independence of government,
which makes it possible to pursue independent strategies and to pilot alternative approaches to
education (even those not finding favour initially in official circles) is of great value. There is still
a need in Uganda for experimentation and a variety of approaches. In discussing this issue with
government officials, the team sensed that this point was recognized. They understood the value
of independence among alternative providers and stakeholders in basic education. However, the
government is rightly concerned that they should at least know what’s going on. Officials cited,
as an example, the problems caused if an NGO or a project supported by an external agency,
arranges an activity for teachers, which pulls them out of school without the government’s
knowledge – as has happened in the past.
4.1.6 HIV/AIDS
The intents, policies and strategies of the GOU regarding basic education are, of necessity,
developed and implemented in the shadow of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
UNICEF (2001a) estimates that, in 1997, 9.5% of the adult population (ages 15 to 49), amounting
to some 930,000 people out of 9.8 million, were HIV-positive. AIDS is estimated to have been
the cause of 1.8 million deaths cumulatively up to that year. The 1995 Demographic Health
Survey (DHS) (USAID, 1999) reported that 25% of households have at least one child under 15
who was displaced from their home because of HIV/AIDS.
More recent data indicates that the situation may have plateaued, and indeed the rate of new
infections appears to be declining. The 2002 UNAID Update (UNAIDS, 2002) estimates the
number of HIV-positive Ugandans at the end of 2001 at 600,000. Of these, an estimated 110,000
were children under 16 years old. The number of children under 16 who have lost at least one
parent to AIDS is estimated at 880,000.
The impacts on schooling are diverse. According to the MOES (2000b), absenteeism from work
and low productivity by professional and support staff due to HIV/AIDS is a major problem. The
loss of teachers who die from AIDS is a serious drain on the education system’s resources. As
well, there are clear impacts of HIV/AIDS infection on school-age students, who will be less
likely to go to school with medical complications and often face discrimination from peers at
school. UNICEF (2001a) reports that siblings of students with AIDS develop negative attitudes
towards the educational process because of the way they are taunted or teased. Older children
with AIDS often are isolated from their peers. These factors contribute to dropout in the higher
primary grades.
More serious still is the plight of AIDS orphans, or those whose families include AIDS-affected
members. Family income is reduced, often drastically, and the direct costs of remaining in school,
even under UPE (uniforms, school supplies, lunches) are often impossible for families to meet.
Moreover, the additional opportunity costs are substantial. Children are needed to work to
augment family income, to care for sick relatives, or to look after younger siblings in the absence
of adult care givers. These responsibilities fall differentially on girls and are a significant factor in
their lower retention rates in upper primary grades.
Young people (ages 15 to 19) are particularly vulnerable to HIV infection. Girls in this age
bracket are estimated by the Uganda AIDS Commission (2000) to have infection rates four to six
times that of boys.
The response of the MOES, in cooperation with the Uganda AIDS Commission, includes two
distinct areas:
• Dealing with the AIDS Orphan Crisis: The HIV/AIDs Plan for the Ministry of Education
and Sports (MOES, 2000b) called for the establishment of an “early warning” system to
identify those at risk (both staff and students) and provide comprehensive welfare
programmes, including bursaries and the linking of income-generating skills to
schooling; and
• Harnessing the education system to combat the pandemic: The HIV/AIDs Plan for the
Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES 2000b) calls for a comprehensive information
dissemination policy, including the mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS material into the
curriculum at all levels starting in primary school. Through schools, counselling services
would be made available to all children as both a preventative and palliative measure.
However, examination of the subsequent documents for the MTBF for education suggest that no
funds have been allocated (within the MOES budget) for the first area, while only modest
amounts are available to support the second area.
It is perhaps noteworthy that in the team’s field work, the subject of HIV/AIDS rarely came up in
discussion with local officials, head teachers and teachers. When raised by the evaluators, the
reactions tended to focus on the impact on children in AIDS-affected families. These impacts
included increased absenteeism and dropout that, in turn, were attributed to increased family
responsibility and inability to meet both the real and opportunity costs of remaining in school.
These observations are consistent with the findings of other studies and reports.
More significantly, the evaluation team failed to observe any proactive work in the schools
visited that dealt with AIDS education. While the sample involved is small, the team got the
impression that HIV/AIDS was not seen as a priority action item for these schools. Discussions
about AIDS tended to treat it as an isolated issue rather than as a pervasive dimension cutting
across basic education. Internal, school-based issues such as overcrowded classrooms, lack of
appropriate furniture, materials, and other items of support, and teachers’ housing and conditions
of service loomed much larger in priority.

4.2 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Practices
The Framework Terms of Reference suggests the following set of questions:
• At the operational level of basic education, to what extent and in what ways has external
support been integrated?
• How has the provision of basic education, through various approaches, evolved in
Uganda since 1990, both in quantity (access) and quality?
• What have been the major challenges and progress in the expansion of the primary school
system towards UPE?
• How have approaches to alternative forms of basic education in Uganda been affected
during this period?
• How effective are the mechanisms for monitoring progress and quality assurance in basic
education?
4.2.1 Practices: Expanding Primary Schooling
Expansion of access to primary schooling has been supported principally by two programmes,
each of which received major external support: school facilities grants, which fund classroom
construction, and UPE grants which are provided to individual schools as a replacement for the
revenue which they formerly generated through charging school fees. (As well, alternative basic
education, dealt with below in 4.2.3, supports programmes for particular disadvantaged target
groups.)
The processes for site selection and administration of school facilities grants favours the
expansion of existing schools by adding more classrooms, rather than establishing new schools.
Existing schools are often growing to unmanageable size. The process may need modification to
provide greater priority to the establishment of new schools.
This is illustrated in Figure 9, which compares the number of classrooms per school between
2000 and 2001 in selected districts. These are the districts visited, Kampala, and two additional
districts (Bundibugyo and Iganga), which have extremely large pupil-classroom ratios. The data
was taken from the annual school census. Kampala had significantly larger expansion of existing
schools, which makes sense in terms of the greater density of schools and the shorter distances
children have to travel. In five of the six other districts, the number of classrooms in use
expanded by between 7% and 13% in one year. This suggests that, as we observed in the field,
the bulk of investment is made in expanding the number of classrooms in existing schools in
contrast to the establishment of new schools.
However, the data for Mbarara indicate that data must be treated with caution, as it suggests that
on average, the number of classrooms per school decreased. There are two points to be
considered here. First, the annual school census data has gaps and comes from different schools
each year. Comparability of averages derived from data sets that are not entirely consistent can
produce such anomalies. Second, and this is perhaps more interesting, the team was told in its
visit to Mbarara that, in fact, new schools were being built. At the district level, administrators
were finding ways to redirect SFG grant money towards the establishment of new schools in
areas where the distances travelled by pupils were large. If this were happening on a large scale, it
would indeed reduce the average number of classrooms per school as new, small schools come on
stream. The data seems to support this hypothesis. This situation should be carefully monitored.

Figure 9: Growth in Number of Classrooms per School: 2000 to 2001
PERCENTAGE GROWTH IN SCHOOL SIZE: 2000 to 2001
MUKONO
MBARARA
MBALE
KAMPALA Percentage growth
IGANGA
BUNDIBUGYO
ARUA
-10 0 10 20 30
Percentage Growth in Number of Classrooms per School
Source: Ministry of Education & Sports, Statistical Abstract 2001
Box 2: Arua Hill: A Large School
Arua Hill School is an example of a school In discussions with district officials and head
that has grown to a very large size. The team teachers, the team concluded that building
visited it during its field work in October new schools would reduce the distance
2002. The school experienced an enrolment children have to walk each day and thus
increase from 1,600 (1997) to 2,700 students strengthen access. As well, best practice in
(2002). Even with SFG the school still has primary schooling in many countries suggests
only 24 classrooms, so the pupil-to- that smaller schools are more effective in
classroom ratio is 112:1. While the school is encouraging quality and promoting retention
requesting additional SFG, the team of pupils. (See, for example, Cotton (1996),
suggested, in discussions with the head
or Postlethwaite and Ross (1992) to enter into
teacher and district officials, that creating
new schools might be a better strategy. One the extensive literature on this subject).
model would be to use Arua Hill as a hub However, district officials cautioned the
with satellite clusters of classrooms, each team, that the allocation of SFG is a complex
managed by an assistant head, located a and often politicized process. There appears
few kilometres away. The satellites would be to be a need for tighter link and
located so as to minimize the distance that conditionality between SFG allocation
children have to walk to school. decisions, made locally and school mapping
processes, which are managed centrally.

District officials pointed out that the establishment of new schools faces significant additional
problems:
• The cost of land acquisition;

• Lack of a SMC or other local body to supervise construction;
• Perceptions that creation of another administrative unit may be financially inefficient;
and
• Inadequacy of SFG amounts to fund the construction of a new school. The current SFG
amount is budgeted for construction of four classrooms.
Even for expansion of existing schools, the amount of SFG is too small in certain situations. In
some districts, (e.g., Mbale, Sironko) officials noted that SFGs are not adjusted to take into
account difficult or mountainous terrain, remote access or other local factors that drive up costs.
In the implementation of decentralization policies in education, MOES officials soon discovered

that local management capacity, approval processes, and other aspects of administrative
infrastructure at all levels (particularly regarding financial transfers), as well as the capacity for
monitoring local efforts, including accountability of funds transferred, were all weak. The TDMS
programme provides management training for head teachers, and, from all reports, has improved
this particular component of capacity. But MOES and district officials each told the team that
much more needs to be done. This is explored is more detail below, in Section 4.2.4.
At the same time, decentralization has given local communities an important role, and
responsibility, in the implementation of UPE. This is often not well understood. Immediately after
UPE, local responsibility often declined as parents and others at the local level believed that the
central government was providing everything and “education was free.” Often, local politicians
encouraged this attitude, as noted above. Then some disillusionment set in, as parents and schools
realized that the UPE capitation grants would not cover all costs and that local revenues also
needed to be generated. This has had two effects:
• As parents realize that they still have to pay for school uniforms, supplies (notebooks,
pencils, etc.) and school lunches, the reality that primary education is still not completely
“free” has caused some disillusionment and, in high poverty areas, contributed to low
retention rates; and
• Efforts by schools to raise funds for supplementary purposes through Parent-Teacher
Association (PTA) dues meet considerable resistance, as parents have been told “the
government will pay.”
Local provision of the cost of school lunches is problematic. The team observed a range of
policies:
• Some schools provide no lunch; children are expected to bring a snack;

• Others charge a fee for lunch and provide lunches only to those children whose parents
pay;
• Still others supply a basic lunch to all children, but those whose parents pay a fee get a
better quality lunch; and
• Others supply the same lunch to all children who wish it, regardless of whether their
parents have paid a fee.

Officials observed that in many instances, children in poverty areas are not adequately nourished
for effective learning. Some arrive at school in the morning already hungry, and the provision of a
lunch to them is a virtual necessity.
4.2.2 Practices: Teaching and Learning
Both during site visits, and in discussions with stakeholders in Kampala, the team was repeatedly
told that the quality of learning in Ugandan schools had declined since UPE. Certainly in site
visits the team noted significant problems that would impair teaching and learning in the
classroom. Overcrowding is the most obvious. It also appears that the teaching resources are not
efficiently used, because of the lack of classroom space. Section 4.3 explores the data on
enrolment, number of classrooms and number of teachers.
External support has provided major resources to improve the quality and amount of teacher
training. Since the mid-1990s, the TDMS has provided in-service training to new or untrained
teachers, which, in many instances, spills over to support for all teachers in the school. Most
informants agreed that the TDMS process has been very effective in giving support and
professional development to new teachers, as well as generally strengthening the quality of
teaching in schools. During site visits the team with several TDMS tutors. While they were very
positive about their work in the TDMS process, it was clear that they were working under rather
difficult circumstances. Most tutors have too many schools in the circuit for which they are
responsible, and facilities, materials, and financing are barely adequate to enable them to fulfil
their responsibilities.
There is also some confusion about the respective roles of the Coordinating Centre Tutors
(CCTs), and the school inspectorate. The team heard different perceptions of whether they are
complementary, if they overlap, and what degree of coordination could occur between them. The
CCTs report to and are under the authority of the local PTC. The PTC, in turn, is responsible to
the Department of Teacher Training in the MOES and has no direct link to the District Office. In
contrast, the District Inspector of schools and his staff are responsible to the District Office and
through them to the Inspectorate of the MOES.
District officials observed that the lack of a coordination mechanism between CCTs and
inspectors has, on occasion, led to tension and possible inefficiency, duplication or gaps. At the
level of individual schools, there are no clear perceptions of their respective roles. However, the
whole situation is in a state of flux. The establishment of the new ESA (described in more detail
in Section 4.2.4) is intended to involve an overhaul of the whole inspectorate mechanism and,
therefore, the situation may change.
The time lag in new teachers accessing the payroll – sometimes more than a year – is a serious
drag on teacher morale. Indeed, it is cited by MOES officials, along with the lack of suitable
teachers’ housing, as a major impediment to the posting of teachers to remote rural schools.
Therefore, it needs to be significantly reduced. This would address some financial problems for
schools, improve teacher morale, as well as provide a valuable alternative monitoring device. The
ESR meetings have focused on this issue in recent years, and progress has been made. However,
district officials and head teachers still cite it as a serious problem.
Testing and assessment practices also influence the quality of teaching and learning. The Primary
Leaving Examination (PLE) still dominates the upper primary grades as a significant barrier to
innovation. In spite of the weight of tradition and strong public support for the PLE, cited by
many Ugandans, it appears to have several detrimental effects, as discussed with head teachers
and district officials during the team’s field visits:
• It pressures head teachers to assign their most experienced teachers and allocate extra
resources to the upper primary grades, rather than to ensuring that beginning pupils get
the best possible start in school;
Box 3: Primary Leaving Examination Abuse
Makubuya Warns Against Pupil Sieving • It encourages rote learning and

memorization approaches to learning
EDUCATION Minister Dr. Kiddu Makubuya has in the upper grades;
warned head teachers who bar candidates • It puts inordinate pressure on young
considered academically weak from sitting national children in a “one-time” challenge that
examinations.
determines their future educational
Makubuya, while releasing the 2002 PLE results on
opportunities;
Monday said that although 401,575 candidates had • Its results can be skewed by gender
registered for the examinations, over 35,000 did not differences in cognitive development
sit. at the standard age when the
examination is taken;
“This phenomenon is because some head teachers • It appears to re-inforce social and
sieve out weak candidates to safeguard the
reputation of their schools. But the practice of economic stratification and puts
excluding duly registered candidates from national marginalized groups at a special
examinations is contrary to the Government disadvantage; and
regulations," Makubuya said. • It puts undue pressure on schools to
achieve “good PLE results” at the cost
New Vision (Kampala) January 31, 2003 John
Eremu, Kampala
of other, potentially more important
educational goals.
These factors are common to many countries. The PLE, however, is strongly entrenched for two
major reasons, as cited by MOES officials:
• Officials and policy makers consider it to be a necessary instrument for rationing scarce
secondary places. This need will persist until the supply of PPET provision catches up
with the demand generated by the numbers now passing through primary school; and
• MOES officials also report that the PLE provides the public with the most obvious
feedback and accountability mechanism about the quality of individual schools.
External partners are encouraging the MOES to pursue alternative tools, such as classroom-based
continuous assessment. As well, the strengthening of external monitoring processes through the
ESA (see Section 4.2.4) should, over time, reduce the importance of the PLE as a tool for
“ranking schools.”
4.2.3 Practices: Other Components of Basic Education
Alternative education programmes are designed to reach specific target groups, such as the urban
poor and nomadic groups. Examples are BEUPA for urban poor areas, COPE in 16 districts, and
ABEK in three districts. Each of these programmes has received positive evaluations. They

address real needs of particular target groups for whom formal primary schooling is inappropriate
– for financial, cultural, social or time-scheduling reasons. The programmes provide “second-
chance” education, which enables children to cover the core parts of the primary curriculum in an
accelerated way. However, the number of children in the programmes has remained low in
relation to the potential demand, and unit costs, compared to formal schooling, are very high. The
experience of children from these programmes, who subsequently transfer into formal schooling,
has been good, but the numbers doing so have been very low. There appears to be a need for
better articulation, sharing of materials, and crossover opportunities with formal schooling.
Basic Education for Urban Poverty Areas (BEUPA), supported as a project by GTZ in
cooperation with the MOES and the Kampala city council, operates in the poor urban areas of
Kampala. Some 45 learning centres provide education to approximately 3,500 children. TA
provided by GTZ works with Ugandan colleagues to develop the pedagogical approaches and
learning materials and to train instructors. Many children in the programme are Luganda-
speaking and their English language skills need to be strengthened. English as a second language
is thus an important component of BEUPA, which also focuses on the other core subjects of
mathematics, science and social studies. By now, about 900 children have “graduated” from
BEUPA into regular primary schools at various grade levels, but there has been no formal review
of their subsequent academic achievement. Sustainability of the programme, with a withdrawal of
GTZ TA, is targeted for 2006.
Complementary Opportunities for Primary Education (COPE) targets disadvantaged

children in eight districts (initially four districts, later scaled up to eight) (MOES, 1997). It is a
MOES programme, with financial and technical support managed by UNICEF-Uganda. The
programme is designed to provide accelerated basic education covering the material of Primary 1
to Primary 5 in three years. Programmes are flexible, responsive to the needs of disadvantaged
children and feature a shorter school “day” of about three hours. While the programme initially
attempted to harness community resources, the MOES has had to provide increased support,
particularly instructors’ salaries. Dewees (2000) has estimated that about 35% of the entering
cohort complete the three-year cycle and proceed to Primary 6 in formal schools. While judging
COPE a success, Dewees (2000) cited two problems that needed attention:
• High unit costs: the three-year cycle to take a child from Primary1 to Primary 5 costs
about three times that of the five years of formal primary schooling (US$1619 vs.
US$562); and
• The need for true complementarity: that is the need to re-conceptualize COPE centres and
nearby primary schools as components of the same system, with strong articulation and
cooperation between the two types of neighbouring institutions.
Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja (ABEK), launched as a special programme in 1997
by the MOES, with support from Redd Barna (the Norwegian Save the Children NGO) and
UNICEF. It targets children in the pastoral, semi-nomadic communities of Karamoja in North-
East Uganda (Kotido and Moroto districts). This region had the worst education indicators in the
country, with adult literacy rates around 12% in 1991 and, in 1999, with only 31% of primary
school-age children actually in school. By 1999, the first parishes piloted had 80% of school-age
children participating in ABEK, and by 2000, over 10,000 children were enrolled. The
Norwegian Save the Children reports that by 2001, 21,000 children were targeted. Like COPE,
ABEK compresses the first five years of primary schooling into a three-year cycle, offered with a
very flexible schedule to accommodate the nomadic lifestyles of the Karamojong. The target
group is children aged eight to 18 years. The content of the standard curriculum was adjusted
based on a participatory needs assessment carried out in the targeted Karamoja communities.
Thus in addition to core academic material, locally relevant life skills such as health, sanitation,
home management, etc. are included.
The Functional Adult Education Programme under the MOGLSD, and implemented in 26
districts, has benefited from Action Aid’s REFLECT and other NGOs like Adventist
Development and Relief Organization (ADRA), Literacy and Adult Basic Education (LABE),
SOCADIDO, SCF, WEP, etc. Indeed, the NGO community remains the main source of support
for adult literacy programmes in Uganda. Special adult literacy programmes in Karamoja (part of
a parallel strategy with ABEK) is supported by the World Food Programme (WFP) and by
ADRA.
Early Childhood Development and Nutrition is jointly implemented by the MOES and
Ministry of Health, and is supported by the World Bank, UNICEF and NGOs. The curriculum
and training of nursery teachers have been designed and implemented by the joint efforts of the
MOES and NGOs.
4.2.4 Practices: Monitoring and Data
Figure 10: EMIS at Kisowera School

GOU spending on basic education is
carefully monitored, as it is a key
undertaking within ESIP by which further
tranches of budget support are released by
external support agencies. Financial data
is maintained in the MOFPED and
available through their own databases, as
well as through the MTBF and the
Medium Term Expenditure Framework
for education, which are reviewed
regularly in the ESR process.
Basic education currently runs at 65% of

the education budget, as agreed to in the
ESR. This is expected to decline slightly
in the next phase of ESIP, as efforts to
strengthen the secondary sub-sector under
PPET are brought on stream. Financial
records related to education spending and
the role of external funding are
maintained both in the MOFPED and in
the Planning Department of the MOES.
Both sources have proved valuable in the
preparation of this case study report.
Financial monitoring linked to regular

review against the MTBF, and supported
by robust data, from the two ministries,
appeared to the team to reflect a high
level of accuracy and consistency.

The situation with respect to education statistics is more complex. There is a large gathering of
data on enrolment, infrastructure, facilities, and teachers to support tracking of an agreed set of
indicators with respect to access, quality, and efficiency of education. Since 2000, this data has
been managed in a computerized EMIS facility in the MOES. Thus, starting with that year, there
are much more complete and accessible data sets available on education indicators than in the
past.
Education data sets, of course, are only as good as the raw data that is input. Each school we
visited was able to provide, on the spot, up-to-date data on enrolment. Usually, this was a
handwritten copy from their own ledgers. Occasionally, it was a mimeographed copy of a
typewritten document, presumably prepared for local distribution. Every school recorded daily
attendance on a blackboard outside the head teachers’ office. This is encouraging evidence that,
in most instances, schools are providing feedback to their own communities.
Nonetheless, officials at both the district level and in Kampala expressed real concern about the
accuracy of data, particularly as it relates to enrolment. As noted below in Section 4.3, there is a
substantial divergence between the “official” enrolment data provided by schools, and the
alternative estimates from the DHS. The obvious inference is that there is over-reporting of
enrolment by some schools. As the UPE grant to the school is based on this number, there is
certainly an understandable motivation to inflate enrolment figures. [Indeed, prior to UPE, when
schools had to transfer part of the fees collected to the district level, there was, inversely, a
motivation to under-report enrolment.]
Agreements on accountability, audit, conditionality, procurement, etc. have been implemented,

but better monitoring is needed. In each district visited, officials informed the evaluation team
members that there is need for much more effective monitoring and quality assurance at the local
level. Funds for this, however, are lacking. As a result, the district inspector and staff are unable
to travel to schools sufficiently often. Funds provided through decentralization are targeted to
other areas, and local revenue sources are unavailable. It was suggested that using a small
percentage of UPE and SFG grants, say 3%, to monitor how the remaining 97% is spent, would
be a good investment. As well as improving the accuracy of enrolment reporting, this would help
to ensure that the various funds transferred, particularly UPE capitation grants and school
facilities grants, are in fact being used as intended. There is strong evidence, cited by researchers
at Makerere University, of the existence of “ghost schools,” receiving UPE grants. Indeed, the
Commissioner of Planning in the MOES expressed the concern that this phenomenon is on the
rise, and that stronger monitoring measures are needed to check it.
SMCs, when properly constituted and managed, are seen as an effective quality assurance
mechanism that helps to ensure accurate, honest reporting. Some officials raised doubts, however,
on the basis that the committees were too often “political” and controlled by a combination of the
head teacher and local politicians. While SMCs are increasing in importance, there appears to be
a proportional decline in the role of PTAs in local communities. PTAs were perceived by some to
be more “independent” and less subject to control or coercion. The team, however, was not in a
position to make judgements about the relative merits of SMCs and PTAs. They did note that in
one district visited (Mbale) there were no PTAs in the primary school system.
The monitoring of district level activities by the centre, and the local level by district authorities,
both need significantly increased resources. As noted above, both central officials and district
authorities agreed that a percentage of both UPE and SFG money should be held back to pay for
the improved monitoring of the remainder of the funds transferred.

District authorities and individual head teachers also reported that the provision of information
(from the MOES, as well as the district level) to individual schools is improving, with gradual
moves to improve qualitative information, but communication channels still need to be
strengthened.
In the other direction, both district authorities and officials in the planning department of the
MOES reported that the flow of data and information collected in individual schools, and
incorporated into the EMIS for monitoring purposes, needs better quality control.
In 2000, the GOU established the ESA (Casteel and Roebuck, 2000), a new autonomous body
linked to a restructuring of the Department of the Inspectorate in the MOES. It is mandated to set
standards in all levels of education and implement a regular programme of evaluations to measure
the degree to which these standards are being met. The resulting information would be used to
inform policy-makers and to provide formative evaluation information to managers of all
education institutions.
The establishment of the ESA was an activity supported by DFID, both through TA and a start-up
grant. A budget for the ESA is now provided in the MTBF for the education sector. The ESA will
also have regional level representation where it will have a team of inspectors supported by teams
of associate assessors drawn form the district level inspectorates, centre coordinating tutors and
other qualified educators. One of the intended results is to bring the district inspectors and the
CCTs into a closer working relationship. It is too early to judge how the ESA will improve the
monitoring of quality in Uganda’s schools, but officials are optimistic that it will have a strong
impact. It is also expected to improve the coordination between the various stakeholders that have
hitherto been involved in monitoring and inspection as well as providing formative assistance to
schools and teachers: the MOES itself; district offices and the district level inspectorate; the
PTCs; and the CCTs.
4.3 Basic Education Receiving External Support: Results
This analysis centres on the following questions, derived from the Framework Terms of
Reference:
• From the perspectives of those involved in basic education in Uganda, what have been
the results and consequences of external support to basic education?
• What progress has been achieved in basic education?
• Has this progress aligned with the expectations of external partners?
• How has basic education opportunity for special groups (girls, the HIV/AIDS affected,
those in remote areas or regions of conflict, those in poverty, nomadic peoples, those with
special learning needs) been improved?
• What challenges does expansion of basic education pose for the broader education sector
(e.g., changes in secondary education)?
A detailed analysis of the indicators listed in the Uganda Country Framework Terms of Reference
can be found in Annex 2. In this section we discuss the most significant trends uncovered in our
study, which cast some light on these five questions.

4.3.1 Results: Expanding Primary Schooling
Enrolments were low during the 1980s and early 1990s, then rose dramatically after UPE through
abolition of school fees. In many situations, consistent attendance is still problematic, for a
variety of social, cultural and economic factors. This makes enrolment quite unstable. (For
example, the Arua district reports much lower attendance in the second term compared to the first
and third terms.) Furthermore, indicators such as retention, dropout, and transfer are very difficult
to track.
Figure 11: Primary Enrolments, 1983 to 2002
PRIMARY ENROLMENTS (1983-2002)
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
Pupils
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
pupils
Year
To a large extent, the significant and observable results of external support to basic education
have been achieved during the past five years. Examination of the ESR reports confirms strong
external agency satisfaction with the results achieved. Prior to the introduction of UPE in 1997,
there were significant improvements in the provision of teacher training through the TDMS
programme, but the various statistical educators for access to education stayed more or less flat.
That all changed after 1997 with the introduction of UPE and the resulting surge in primary
enrolments. In parallel, there were considerable increases in external support (both funding and
TA), in an enhanced policy dialogue, and changes in the modalities through which external
support was deployed, as discussed above in Section 3.0. These joint efforts resulted in enhanced
access: enrolment increased from 2.9 million children in 1996 to 7.3 million in 2002 (this latter
figure includes approximately 700,000 students in private and community schools. Public school
enrolment in 2002 was 6.576 million).
Comparison of the Uganda DHS Ed data survey reports (1996, 2001) from the DHS of 1995 and
2000 give an alternative, though broadly consistent picture of the progress that was achieved
through the introduction of UPE and related events.

Table 3: Net Attendance Ratio
Net Attendance Ratio Female Male Total
1995 67% 70% 68%
2000 87% 87% 87%
Source: DHS
The net attendance ratio is broadly comparable to the net enrolment ratio gathered by the MOES
(and is arguably a more accurate measure of the proportion of children actually in school). The
alternative terminology is used because it is based on questioning parents about the attendance of
their children in school rather than being based on the schools own enrolment records.
The above numbers are national averages. The DHS data permits disaggregation along a
rural/urban axis as well as by gender:
Table 4: Net Attendance Ratio, Urban/Rural

Net Attendance Ratio Urban Rural Urban Female Rural Female
1995 80% 67% 79% 65%
2000 89% 87% 89% 87%
Source: DHS
This data buttresses the notion that during this five-year period there was a significant reduction
of urban rural disparity, particularly between urban and rural girls.
Increased access has thus been achieved. However, signs of “plateauing” or even decline after the
initial UPE surge are evident. There are still significant numbers of out-of-school children with
primary net enrolment rates “stuck” at around 88% (estimated from DHS data).
Increased retention is likely being achieved, but this is very difficult to track accurately. Indeed,
the whole issue of improving consistent attendance and retention of students (particularly older
girls) is recognized as a significant problem warranting greater study and intervention. DHS data
identifies pregnancy, domestic duties and social pressures as major causes of girls’ dropout before
Primary 7 completion. About half the parents interviewed support greater recruitment of female
teachers in primary school to encourage retention of girls.
Approximately 98% of parents (DHS data) believe that boys and girls both need at least a
complete primary education. There are no significant differences if the question is asked about
boys’ or girls’ education, and no significant differences between urban and rural parents.
Given this overwhelming majority, the team questioned whether continuing the investments in
measures to persuade parents of the values of girls’ education is still necessary. The money might
better be spent on girl-friendly improvements in the schools themselves and on measures to bring
more local relevance into the upper-primary curriculum. This would appear to have greater value
and cost-effectiveness than programmes to convince parents of something they already appear to
accept. However, in the consultative workshop and in subsequent comments received from the
CRG, there was a strong message that Ugandans feel such public education measures continue to
be necessary. Only when the retention rates in upper-primary grades, particularly for girls,
improve markedly, should these efforts be relaxed.

For boys, the chief factor influencing dropout rates is the perception that further education is
irrelevant to future livelihood. This is a curriculum issue, strongest in rural areas, and one that
points to the need for greater flexibility in tailoring the curriculum, particularly in upper grades,
to local conditions.
Significant findings of the 2000 DHS also include the observation that the average distance to
school in rural areas was 35 minutes (adult walking time) with over a quarter of children more
than one hour away from the nearest school. As children walk considerably slower than adults,
these estimates are on the low side. This provides further evidence for the team’s belief that
building satellite schools or new schools would significantly improve access, as opposed to
enlarging existing schools.
4.3.2 Results: Teaching and Learning
Increasing the quality of teaching and learning is problematic and has yet to be visibly achieved.
According to the 2000 DHS, about half of urban parents believe that children are now learning
less than before UPE. This drops to about a quarter for rural parents. In part, this difference may
reflect the greater gains in access achieved in rural areas. But the number of parents (both urban
and rural) with major concerns about educational quality in the primary schools is disturbing.
Thus, a large number of Ugandans believe that, overall, quality of instruction and learning has
declined since UPE. Of course, public perception, and the reality in the schools, may be different.
Officials, however, are rightly concerned about the issue of quality. Some decline is
understandable, given the need to recruit many teachers with minimal training who then have to
work under poor conditions in acutely overcrowded classrooms.
Community survey data from 1999 also provides some important data about school quality. At
the community level, the survey tracked the number of students that sat for the PLE in Primary 7
and the number of students who passed the exam. Only 67% of students in Primary 7 completed
and passed the final exam. Put another way, 33% of those students reaching Primary 7 failed to
complete primary education (as defined by a PLE “pass”). Some of these may repeat the exam.
As well, the examination fees may be a barrier to taking the exam. Notwithstanding these factors,
the fact that one third of those reaching the final year of primary school fail to complete their
primary schooling that year is a troubling indication that justifies concerns about the quality of
teaching and learning.
Most of the quality indicators track inputs that are normally expected to have a positive influence
on quality. Examples are pupil-to-teacher ratio, pupil-to-classroom ratio, and pupil-to-textbook
ratio. It is important to recognize that such input indicators are proxies for quality measurement.
They reflect the view that, other things being equal, teaching and learning will be better if class
sizes are smaller and more textbooks and materials are available. While such proxies are useful,
they are not a substitute for the direct measurement of the achievement of learning outcomes.
The main concrete evidence at this output level of decline in actual learning achievement comes
from the 1996 and 1999 National Assessments for Progress in Education (NAPE). These two
dates, of course, bracket the advent of UPE. The percentage of pupils with at least Primary 3
completion who meet national standards for basic learning competencies declined rather
strikingly during the three years since UPE. The following table records this decline.

Table 5: National Basic Learning Standards Test Results
Subject Year
1996 1999
English 92% met the minimal standard 56% met the minimal standard
Mathematics 48% met the minimal standard 31% met the minimal standard
Source: NAPE
Classroom overcrowding is a critical problem. The team observed this directly in its field work,
and it is reflected clearly in the EMIS data. Both the GOU and external support agencies agree
that the construction of new classrooms and schools needs to be accelerated. As a result of
external support, the pupil-to-classroom ratio has improved slightly. However, the national
averages hide significant regional disparities. On a positive note, these regional disparities seem
to be shrinking. Tables 6 and 7 illustrate this for the districts visited, for Kampala, and for two
additional districts at the extreme of the range of pupil-to-classroom ratio.
Table 6: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio in Selected Districts
Pupil:Classroom Ratio
2000 2001 2002
(Government Schools)
National Average 106:1 98:1 94:1
Arua 184:1 137:1 124:1
Bundibugyo 209:1 160:1 105:1
Iganga 145:1 140:1 122:1
Kampala 83:1 67:1 61:1
Mbale 103:1 102:1 105:1
Mbarara 69:1 73:1 102:1
Mukono 103:1 84:1 82:1
Source: Statistical Abstract (2000, 2001)
The comparable data for pupil-to-teacher ratio is as follows:

Table 7: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio in Selected Districts
Pupil:Teacher Ratio
2000 2001 2002
(Government Schools)
National Average 65:1 58:1 55:1
Arua 90:1 60:1 56:1
Bundibugyo 68:1 55:1 55:1
Iganga 71:1 70:1 62:1
Kampala 51:1 44:1 46:1
Mbale 64:1 63:1 55:1
Mbarara 551 51:1 52:1
Mukono 59:1 50:1 49:1
Of course, neither student-to-classroom ratio nor student-to-teacher ratio gives an actual picture
of class size (i.e., the number of pupils actually present with a teacher at a given time). It is clear,
however, that the number of teachers is far greater than the number of classrooms, as Table 8

displays. Moreover, the ratio is not decreasing: teachers are being recruited faster than classrooms
are being built. In the absence of split-shift timetabling, there is a potential for considerable
inefficiency in the use of human resources.
Table 8: Teacher-to-Classroom Ratio
All government schools 2000 2001 2002

Number of teachers 82,148 101,818 118,784
Number of classrooms 50,370 60,199 69,990
Ratio of teachers-to-classrooms 1.63 to 1 1.69 to 1 1.70 to 1
Generally speaking, the number of classrooms needs to be doubled to bring things to a reasonable
level, unless the use of split-shift scheduling is increased. The team was repeatedly told that split-
shift strategies “would not work,” although the reasons for this conclusion, linked to local custom
and context, were not entirely clear. The Ministry’s December 2002 MTBF paper (Ministry of
Education & Sports, 2002e) reports that double shift teaching was piloted in four urban areas (in
Tororo, Mbale, Soroti and Fortportal). The results were poor, as parents were not supportive of
their children attending school in the afternoon. Certainly split-shift schedules have major social
implications and need to make sense in the context of local communities. However, given the
shortage of classrooms and the large imbalance between the number of teachers and the number
of classrooms, it would appear that the split-shift option warrants closer examination. The pilot
experience suggests that an investment in public sensitization is necessary before implementing
double-shift programmes in any particular area, and a modest budget for this has been built into
the MOES budget for the medium term.
The new curriculum is increasingly penetrating the schools. In the field work, district officials
and head teachers reported that Part 1 (core subjects) seems to be well received. Books are
reaching schools leading to a student-to-text ratio of approximately 1:5 or better. Part 2 (cultural
and vocational subjects) is more controversial with some evidence in rural or remote regions that
relevance to their local situation is considered to be weak, and more flexibility is needed. The
team heard repeated messages that there was an unsatisfied need to develop co-curriculum
content that would provide relevant skills to rural youth and thus encourage retention in the upper
primary years. One example cited was that specific material for communities where fishing is the
primary source of livelihood needed to be developed, and their local use encouraged.
4.3.3 Results: Other Components of Basic Education
Each of the other components of basic education, described above in Section 4.2.3 has been
subject to some degree of evaluation or review over the past two to three years. These results
were made available to the evaluation team and provide the basis for the following remarks.

The alternative basic education programmes are generally deemed to be successful. By 2001,
ABEK, for example, was reaching over 21,000 children in Karamoja and its community impacts
were recognized. These included:
• Increased community awareness of the value of education, including education for girls;
• Measured increases in literacy and numeracy among the targeted children;
• Increasing levels of transfer into formal public schooling;
• Improved family hygiene;
• Parental involvement in the ABEK centres;
• Community initiatives to establish additional centres; and
• Accelerated demand by parents for adult literacy programmes.
This last outcome is an interesting example of the potential synergies that can emerge between
different types of basic education programming. In this case, successful non-formal education of
children led to increased interest and demand for adult basic education services by their parents.
An analysis of the COPE programme carried out for UNICEF (Dewees, 2000) found the
programme to be very effective in its ability to reach the disadvantaged target groups and deliver
effective programmes. Those children who do stay in the programme are generally able to
complete Primary 1 to Primary 5 in three years and transfer successfully to regular primary
schools. However, the programme suffers from high dropout rates (about 66%) and very high unit
costs – about three times those of the primary schools.
Dewees also cited the tendency for COPE to become a “parallel system” rather than an integrated
and articulated component within a single basic education system. He recommended that stronger
integrated management, including common funding of COPE sites and primary schools, should
be put in place to encourage complementarity rather than competition. He also noted that
improved articulation with the primary schools would require changes in the schools themselves
(more flexibility) − not just changes in the COPE programme. This would have at least three
significant advantages:
• Smoother transition from alternative programmes into formal schooling (normally into
Primary 6);
• Sharing of experiences about effective skills training and transition to work for students
who do not proceed further in primary schooling. Evaluations of ABEK, COPE and
BEUPA all noted that the alternative programmes do this better than primary schools,
whose raison-d’être is retention and preparation for secondary school. However, for the
majority, particularly in rural areas, primary schooling is terminal and the schools could
learn much from the alternative programmes about the best ways of addressing the needs
of this group; and
• Sharing of lessons learned about the effectiveness of mother-tongue education and
optimal management of the transition to English medium education.

5.0 Partnerships for Basic Education
Figure 12: Children Speak Out
5.1 Partnerships for Basic Education: Intents, Policies and Strategies
Our analysis centres on the following questions, derived from the Framework Terms of
Reference:
• To what extent and in what ways have the evolving concept and practice of partnership
influenced the intents, policies and strategies of external support to basic education?
• How have the modalities of partnership between external agencies and the GOU evolved
during the period?
• What have been the common areas, and the differences in the approaches, evolving
strategies, and experiences of various partners?
• How are the new forms of partnership viewed by Ugandan stakeholders, particularly in
relation to the effectiveness of education provision?
To a considerable extent, every external bilateral or multilateral partner has moved into a much
stronger coordination relationship, both with other agencies and the GOU. This has been
strengthened by ESIP, the EFAG, and the semi-annual sector review process. Among the 14
agencies that are members of the EFAG, the partnership mechanisms that have emerged during
the period under review have led to a strong degree of harmonization. Instead of 14 distinct
positions, the agencies now divide into essentially three distinct groups, as described in
Section 3.3:
• Those agencies committing the bulk of their funds to basic education through budget
support mechanisms (Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, EC, World Bank);
• Those agencies committed to basic education, but providing support through projects or
through TA (Denmark, Germany, USAID, UNICEF); and
• Those agencies involved in ESIP but not targeting their support at basic education
(Austria, France, Japan, Norway).
Within each of the first two groups, particularly the first, agencies have developed a single
harmonized position. (The third group fell outside the scope of this study).
For the first group – those involved in budget support – this harmonized position reflects the
following agreements at the level of intents, policies and strategies:
• A common commitment to support for primary schooling and UPE as the highest priority
in their support for basic education in Uganda;
• Agreement that the bulk of external funding support should target the problems caused by
the enrolment surge after UPE, particularly the construction of additional classrooms;
• Incorporation of common cross-cutting elements, in agreement with the GOU, such as an
emphasis on girls’ education (the retention of girls in primary school);
• A common approach to capacity development, both in the MOES and at the district and
sub-district level;
• Agreement on common monitoring and accountability mechanisms, centred on the semi-
annual ESR process, to replace the need for individual reports by the MOES to different
agencies; and
• A commitment to pooled approaches in the deployment of TA.
Agencies vary in the degree to which they can move towards budget support. This depends on
their own agency policies set at headquarters. Thus, those agencies in the second and third groups
retain a project-based approach, although still subject to coordination under the ESR process and
ESIP. Harmonization of both priorities and programme mechanisms is accordingly much weaker
in these two groups.
The GOU would prefer all external support to come through budget support, but recognises that a
degree of earmarking and aid tying will always be present. They also recognize that for many
stakeholders at the district and local school levels, there is a strong feeling that the delivery of
support through individual projects had certain advantages of responsiveness and efficiency (as
noted above in Section 3.2). Furthermore, there is increased recognition that the channelling of
some ODA through international NGOs to local projects provides an alternative mechanism for
innovation and the piloting of alternative approaches to basic education.
Both church groups and NGOs feel a degree of marginalization as partners in the ESIP processes.
While their role in education is recognized and their projects incorporated into the ESIP strategy,
to date they state, that they have not felt like equal partners. Spokespersons for both religious
foundations and for NGOs told the team that they had valuable experiences and ideas that should
be given greater weight in the ongoing basic education policy dialogue. In 2002, this is being
addressed by including them in the sector review, which may improve relationships. As well,
education NGOs have recently formed the Forum for Education NGOs in Uganda (FENU), which
is becoming a recognized dialogue partner with the government.
5.2 Partnerships for Basic Education: Practices
Here the following questions are addressed:
• To what extent and in what ways have the evolving concept and practice of partnership
influenced the practices of external support to basic education?
• Have the new approaches met the needs of funding agencies for review, monitoring,
quality assurance, accountability and transparency?
• How has the role of international and national NGOs in basic education been affected?
• How have partners (e.g., NGOs, universities) in the external agency’s home country, who
have been involved in Uganda’s basic education been affected?
The provision of external funding, through budget support into ESIP, has enabled the GOU to
greatly accelerate access to primary education. Without the external funding, UPE would not
have been remotely affordable for the GOU. To date, budget support has been used mainly to
facilitate access, through support for school construction, increasing the number of teachers, and
UPE capitation grants to individual schools.
In the next round of ESIP (MOES, 2003), attention will be extended to the linked issues of
increased efficiency, through balancing the provision of teachers and facilities, and increased
quality, through enhanced training of teachers and provision of materials, as well as further
curriculum reform focusing on examinations and alternative student-centred learning assessment
processes. Moreover, the GOU intends to shift its priority somewhat to secondary education,
through financing of the PPET plan developed prior to the eighth ESR. Some agencies do not
fully support this and will likely wish to keep their contributions earmarked for basic education.
But it is very important to note that all of these, present and planned, initiatives are subject to very
detailed discussion, debate and negotiation in the structured fora of the ESCC and EFAG.
The extent to which more funding agencies will move towards budget support is unclear.
Discussions with headquarters representatives and a review of agency documents suggest that
decisions of this type depend mainly on headquarters’ policies, and secondarily on Uganda’s
actual needs or situation.
Those agencies currently providing budget support informed the team that they are generally
satisfied with the semi-annual sector review process as the main vehicle for monitoring.
However, this depends on the basis of accurate and verifiable monitoring and evaluation data
from the local level. Failure to address the issues of better quality assurance of educational data,
and the absence of sufficient resources for monitoring and evaluation of spending by individual
schools by district and national authorities may endanger the whole process.
Several bilateral support agencies informed the team that the involvement of domestic partners
(universities and national associations, for example) has declined since they have moved to
budget support. They advised these traditional domestic partners that, in the new processes, there
would be a role for them. However, it would be necessary for them to find local partners and
position themselves effectively relative to the expressed needs of the Ugandan MOES. The
agencies observed that, to date, this shift was not happening.
The actual practices of the MOES and of the external support agencies under ESIP can be
summarized in the following table.

Table 9: Assessment of ESIP as a Case Study of a SWAp in Basic Education
SWAp Characteristic Situation in ESIP

Approach is sector-wide ESIP focuses on the entire sector, but with the highest priority,
and 65% of resources, to basic education. The future may see
enhanced focus on secondary education.
Based on a clear, strategic ESIP provides the framework for the delivery of basic education
framework services within a common vision and objectives for the sector. It is
clearly linked to Uganda’s PRSP and is supported through the
PAF, so there is integration with government-wide poverty
reduction plans and Uganda’s CDF.
Ownership by the recipient ESIP was developed by the MOES, and the government has
country’s government demonstrated a strong level of ownership of the plan. UPE itself
was a precursor of ESIP and was a presidential declaration.
There was strong and enhanced dialogue with agency partners.

Some, in Uganda, see this as unduly steering some aspects of the
strategies according to external priorities rather than Ugandan
needs.
Development of a framework Within government, the development of ESIP was primarily the
included all sectors (government, responsibility of the MOES at the central level. However, decisions
NGOs, communities and private to decentralize responsibilities in several sectors to local
sector) government had already been taken. Hence, the development of
ESIP involved widespread consultation and had to incorporate
pre-existing decentralization modalities. As well, ESIP was
integrally linked to the CDF and PRSP via the PAF, so that other
ministries (such as the Ministries of Finance, Planning and
Economic Development, and Gender, Labour and Social
Development (responsible for adult education and promotion of
women)) were involved.
All non-government sectors were involved but their level of

involvement was limited. Attempts to spread an understanding of
the SWAp beyond key government and external agencies have
been limited but are being strengthened.
Framework takes long-term ESIP lays out a plan for five years (1998 to 2003), and a second
perspective phase is now being prepared. Commitments of external agency
funding is, for the most part, only three years, but some agencies
are moving to extend this, on the recognition that long-term
commitments are needed.
Participation of all external All external agencies have committed to work within ESIP, but
agencies only some have committed to budget support to fund
implementation of the Plan. Others accept coordination of their
project support within ESIP.
Activities are implemented by the Activities are to be implemented by the MOES. Much of this is the
recipient country disbursement of funds to local government under UPE and SFG.
Substantial monitoring challenges thus arise.
External agencies adopt common The external agencies that are pooling their funding through
implementation procedures budget support use the semi-annual ESR process as a planning,
reporting and accountability tool. Other external agencies accept
the planning and coordination discipline of the ESR, but implement
their project funding separately. Coordination of TA is still not
entirely successful.
Existence of good agency External agency coordination has improved considerably since the
coordination mid-decade, with the establishment of the EFAG. The process is
well harmonized with that of government, in cooperation with the
ESCC within the MOES.

Procedures and systems for results Monitoring is within the ESR using an agreed set of education
monitoring indicators for access, quality and efficiency, as well as
“undertakings” that represent the conditionalities required by
agencies to trigger subsequent releases of budget support. Some
agencies, however, still have concerns about meeting their own
head-office requirements for results reporting.
International NGOs remain a valuable alternative source of support at the local level, particularly
for classroom construction. At the level of local schools, this alternative channel seems to be
preferred, since it is faster and leads to a complete package, as opposed to the incremental
construction under SFG. While the work of international NGOs appears to be integrated at the
district and local level, strategic integration at the centre appears to be weak.
NGOs tend to be more accountable to their individual funding sources than to the GOU. Indeed,
they cherish their independence from government. The GOU does not track NGO inputs. This
independence result in a source of tension with the NGOs’ desire of to “be at the table” and
involved more fully in ESIP. As one government official put it, “they cannot have it both ways!”
5.3 Partnerships for Basic Education: Results
Here, the questions derived from the Framework Terms of Reference are the following:
• To what extent and in what ways have the evolving concept and practices of partnership
influenced the results and consequences of external support to basic education?
• Have the modalities of partnership, preferred by various funding agencies, been
appropriate to Uganda’s own needs and policy environment?
• How have the partnerships contributed to accelerated or slowed progress? Have the
emerging partnerships had an influence in strengthening dialogue around the intents,
policies, strategies and practices of both partners?
The highest profile partnership is undoubtedly that between the MOES, on behalf of the GOU,
and the external support agencies. This operates within, and also manages, ESIP, through the
mechanisms of the ESCC, the EFAG and the semi-annual ESRs.
As we noted earlier, one effect of the partnership, particularly in relation to the management of
budget support funding flows, has to create a major administrative burden for the MOES.
Managing the ESR process, and more generally, the relationship with external funders, is a full
time job for several officials. There is some concern that this diverts attention, time and focus, in
the MOES, away from the management of education per se, towards the management of ODA
flows and the partner relationship with funding agencies.
While this is one aspect of the complexity of partnerships, another is the variety and breadth of
the types of relationship that need attention.
The following figure illustrates the variety of partner relationships that exist in Ugandan basic
education. Each double arrow reflects a particular two-way partnership. The varying weights of
the arrows, as well as the unequal size of the arrows at each end, is intended to depict the
common perception of the power or control relationship in each case.

Figure 13: Partnership Map for Basic Education in Uganda
External Support
Agencies
Private Sector
GOU
MOES
Local
Communities
International NGOs
Ugandan NGOs
In the case of the external agency – GOU partnership, for example, the heavy arrow indicates that
this is perceived (by all stakeholders) to be very important. The larger arrowhead pointing to the
GOU indicates the widespread opinion that the partnership is unequal to the degree that funding
agency conditionalities empower them to influence GOU-MOES priorities, but not vice-versa.
This is similar for the relationships between international and Ugandan NGOs, and between the
MOES and local communities.
Partnership, from this perspective, is a complex relationship. In nearly every instance, the
partners do not share a symmetric relationship. Their priorities, positions and actions arise from
very different perspectives, in many cases. Moreover, as the asymmetric arrows are intended to
convey, very often, one partner is in a position to enforce “conditionalities” on the other. Much of
this complexity in the partnership relationships is more or less ignored by funding agencies, who
honestly believe that they have put the GOU “in the driver’s seat.” The team received a strong
message, however, that it is acutely felt and, in spite of the best efforts of all stakeholders,
sometimes quite understandably resented by Ugandan partners.
The move to enhanced partnership, particularly through the EFAG mechanisms and cooperation
with the GOU in the ESR process, has greatly accelerated and enhanced progress in UPE. Thus,
the formal primary education sector has benefited greatly. As well, project approaches and
programmes supported by individual agencies, which are included in the ESIP, have been better
coordinated, although the MOES feels there is still need for improvement. In the case of COPE,
ABEK and BEUPA, for example, integrating their funding continues to present challenges and
makes their much-needed expansion problematic.
The results achieved through the ESIP-ESCC-EFAG partnership as a SWAp mechanism, in

contrast with project approaches, are summarized in the following table.

Table 10: Situation in Uganda − Project Approaches and ESIP
Project Situation in
Characteristics ESIP Situation in Uganda
Approach Uganda
Scope and Specific External agencies Sector-wide ESIP priority focus is
Coverage activities with develop projects scope and on basic education –
well-defined reflecting their country-wide a sub-sector of
geographical priorities within the coverage with education. External
focus. framework of underlying macro support agencies
consultation in policy and wish to keep it so;
ESIP. Projects often political GOU would like to
target a particular commitment. shift some emphasis
geographical area. to other sub-sectors.
Implementation Close external Implementation is National The MOES manages
agency often administration in ESIP, in consultation
involvement in subcontracted, or charge of with the agencies
management through UN managing the through the ESCC
through approval agencies such as programme. and ESR processes.
of annual work UNICEF. ESR External Focus of these
plans and provides some assistance mechanisms is on
budgets, and coordination during consolidates budget support for
participation in implementation but national capacity the MOES
steering GOU would like and promotes mainstreamed
committee more. self-reliance. functions. Less
meetings. attention is given to
project modalities.
Management Project Some projects are Sector Decentralization is an
management managed by the management intrinsic component
unit set up within MOES but mostly evolved as a of ESIP and
partner through outside whole with determines many
organization organizations. The broader reform in processes related to
(NGOs or MOES participates administrative disbursement.
ministry). in macro- structures
management (including
through ESIP-ESR. decentralization).
Funding Quantified Disbursement is Budget support Budget support is to
physical and linked to the for the sector as a education, with
financial targets project’s individual whole, with agency priority for
for external management plan priorities for basic education
assistance. in relation to investment. expressed through
Funds progress towards Disbursement is undertakings such as
channeled to goals and linked to impact a 65% budget
specific, agreed- objectives. and sector reform threshold. This is
upon milestones. monitored in the ESR
components. every six months.
Meeting undertakings
trigger the next
release of external
funding.
Financing One external Occasional co- Sector financing Built into the ESIP,
Pattern agency is often financing (e.g., is on common as part of CDF,
the sole TDMS, COPE). footing. PRSP and PAF
financer. Otherwise, International strategies.
individual agencies funding agencies
follow their own support national
modalities (e.g. modalities.
BEUPA-GTZ,
JICA).

Project Situation in
Characteristics ESIP Situation in Uganda
Approach Uganda
Technical TA often plays a TA in specific TA is catalytic There is a process
Assistance co-management projects for general and firmly based for pooling of TA
role. supervision, on mutual interest managed by the
monitoring and and openness for MOES with agency
evaluation in a learning and self- input and financial
participative mode. reflection. support.
Some agencies
also support
individual TA
consultancies as
“small projects.”
Role of Existing sector Organizational Institutional Major change in the

Institutions institutions lend change is reform and MOES, but
support for the stimulated and change take constrained by
project. institutional place. Broad general limitations on
development plans base of changes in the Public
are prepared. institutional Service.
capacities for
ongoing sector
development is
created.

6.0 Conclusions
The main conclusions of the Uganda case study are drawn together in this chapter. The intention
is not to present new material, but rather to summarize the discussion and results of the previous
sections. So doing would depart from the structure of those sections that were each organized
around the 3 x 3 grid presented in the evaluation study inception report and discussed briefly in
Section 2.1.8 of this study. This is done because many of the major conclusions of the study cut
across the various individual sections of that grid.
Instead, several major themes or areas of activity that have been identified in the study are singled
out and the conclusions grouped under these as headings. The statements in this section are
conclusions reached by the evaluation team. The evidence on which they are based is in the
previous sections.
6.1 The Uganda Sector-wide Approach as a Modality for External Support Delivery
During the period under review, there has been significant evolution in the relationship between
funding agencies and the GOU in education. The result is perhaps the most highly developed
example of a SWAp in the education sector to be found anywhere. Included within the scope of
the SWAp, are the following:
• The strategic framework, derived from Uganda’s PRSP and embodied in ESIP;
• The partnership structures of the ESCC and EFAG for coordinated policy dialogue,
agency coordination and harmonization and management of the resulting partnerships;
and
• The partnership processes of managing the SWAp as a partnership, embodied in the
semi-annual ESR process.
As a strategic framework, ESIP has been an effective guide for all partners. It has provided a
clear setting for:
• The planning and implementation of Uganda’s own efforts;

• The application of budget support as an external contribution to those efforts;
• An “umbrella” under which the planning of individual projects can be integrated;
• A continuing and evolving policy dialogue; and
• A setting for integrated planning and optimal use of TA.
Coordination and harmonization of agency priorities, procedures and activities have been greatly
improved through the ESCC-EFAG structures. Coordination is strong among all external
agencies that belong to the EFAG. However, a harmonized approach is only evident among the
so-called “inner group” of external agencies who are committed to budget support.
Generally, external support agencies – particularly those channelling major contributions through
budget support – are satisfied that the semi-annual review process provides them with an
acceptable level of monitoring and accountability. Some agencies, however, appear to be
experiencing some tension in abandoning a “direct management” approach and express concern
that they are losing touch with “grassroots” results. At head office, there may be problems in the
loss of the ability to link specific results with their national contributions.

An unexpected positive effect of the ESCC-EFAG coordination process has been the willingness
of some agencies (CIDA, DFID, EC) to pool their Kampala representation. While this is working
well and is cost-effective, the team wonders whether, over the longer term, this reduction in direct
engagement will create problems in the knowledge base, relationships and potentially the
commitment of the agencies who have no on-site’ continuing representation.
The Uganda SWAp does not work as well in the engagement and coordination of NGO-led
efforts. Support entering Uganda through NGOs is poorly captured, if at all, by this mechanism
and so remains poorly coordinated and only weakly documented.
There are clear signals that the administrative burden for the GOU, particularly the Planning
Department of MOES has been increased by the shift to budget support. This department appears
to be “stretched” to the limit. Some Ugandans feel that the management of the relationship with
funding agencies has taken precedence over the management of education itself: an example of
process taking priority over product. The new burden of managing semi-annual sector reviews, as
well as the tracking of finances and statistics required by external agencies to verify undertakings,
has not been matched by PSC approval of extra professional positions. At the same time, it
appears that the SWAp mechanism has reduced transaction costs for the external funding
agencies providing budget support. Continued monitoring of these issues is needed.
6.2 The Persistence of Project Approaches
Since 1996, the modality of ODA disbursement through bilateral and multilateral channels has
shifted dramatically from project approaches to budget support, coordinated within the ESIP
framework.
Nonetheless, a significant number of agencies continue with project support. For some,
headquarters policies preclude budget support. Others are “hedging their bets.” Some wish to
support priorities outside UPE. In addition, many agencies continue to channel significant
resources through their domestic NGOs who, in turn, develop partnerships with Ugandan NGOs
for project implementation.
Simultaneously, strong messages come from the district and school levels, re-inforced by several
citizens on the CRG, that education challenges and needs are not uniform across Uganda. There is
no “one size fits all” solution. There is evidently a great nostalgia for locally planned and
implemented projects that were more responsive and specialized to meet particular local needs.
District officials report feeling “abandoned” by external agencies who formerly dealt directly
with the local or district levels of government.
Evidently, projects have continuing relevance and value as a quick-response tool for the precise
targeting of resources at local problems, as well as piloting innovative approaches and new
models of basic education delivery.
6.3 Achieving the Basic Education Goals of the Dakar Framework
Support has overwhelmingly been focused on UPE through the expansion of access to primary
schools. Uganda is close to achieving UPE, assuming the momentum generated since 1996 can be
maintained. This momentum has been most visible in increased primary school enrolment, and
the reduction of both gender disparities and urban-rural inequities in access.

This expansion of the public school system has resulted from strong GOU leadership and
policies, well supported by an enhanced policy dialogue, TA and increased funding support from
external agencies.
In spite of the dramatic enrolment increases, ensuring consistent attendance and retention of
pupils in the upper grades is still problematic. There is a persistent and disturbing 13% of the
primary age cohort who are still not in school. Overall, however, it appears that the target of UPE,
if not entirely UPC, is close to being met. The main remaining gap is the need to address retention
in the upper primary grades, particularly for rural youth and for girls.
The other Ugandan basic education priorities: early childhood, alternative basic education, and
FAL have been less well served. Their main support comes through NGOs and through specific
bilateral projects. However, recent developments indicate that more strategic and concentrated
efforts, led by the MOES, will generate greater progress, chief among these is the October 2002
approval of the Costed Framework for the Education of Disadvantaged (MOES, 2002a).
Alternative basic education, through programmes like ABEK, COPE and BEUPA have been
successful, although unit costs are high. There is considerable scope for sharing lessons learned
with the formal primary school system. The alternative programmes have developed sound
approaches for increasing relevance of curricula to disadvantaged groups. Much of what they
have piloted could be incorporated, if appropriate flexibility were possible, into the primary
curriculum. Retention in the upper grades would surely benefit.
Adult literacy has received relatively small resources. External support flows primarily through
NGOs. It is also somewhat isolated from the mainstream of basic education due to being managed
from a different ministry. Better cooperation between the MOES and the MOGLD, at both the
central (policy) and the district (implementation) levels, seems to be desirable.
6.4 Access and Quality in Ugandan Education
The quality of teaching and learning in public schools, since the introduction of UPE, has
apparently declined. On the basis that UPE enrolment is a necessary but not in itself a sufficient
condition for the achievement of UPE, the issue of quality now needs focused attention. This is
being supported by the MOES and external partners through the expansion of physical facilities,
revision of curriculum, provision of textbooks and other learning materials, and the enhancement
of teacher training. The resources devoted to these efforts, however, barely keep pace with the
expansion of enrolment. Efforts need to be redoubled.
Current support for classroom construction through SFGs, favours the expansion of existing
schools over the creation of new schools. This is leading to some primary schools reaching
excessive size (in some cases, enrolment of over 3,000 children). As current research suggests
that very large schools are detrimental to good learning and to retention of young students, this is
troubling. Strategies therefore need to be developed to encourage the creation of new schools.
This would include building some link between the local decision mechanisms for awarding
SFGs, and school mapping processes in the MOES and in the districts. Increasing the number of
schools would also reduce the distance children need to travel to school in rural areas, and thus
enhance access.
At present there are considerably more teachers than classrooms in the public school system. In
the absence of split-shift systems, this suggests that there is considerable inefficiency in the
deployment of human resources. Bringing the number of teachers and the number of classrooms
into balance, with a reasonable number of students per classroom (not more that 50) would
require roughly a doubling of the number of classrooms in Uganda.
Support for alternative programmes outside the public schools has been much weaker than for
expanding access to public schools. While programmes such as BEUPA, COPE and ABEK have
been deemed effective in evaluations, they reach only a small number of the potential target
groups, for whom formal schooling is inappropriate or inaccessible. The recent efforts in the ESR
process to bring more strategic focus on the education of disadvantaged minorities are a very
positive development.
The MOES and external partners should place increased emphasis on the provision of
professional development for both new and experienced teachers. There is also a need to
encourage and facilitate the deployment of teachers to remote rural schools. Terms of service and
benefits, particularly the issues surrounding teachers housing in remote areas, need increased
attention.
The complementary roles of CCT and school inspectors need to be clarified. It is expected that
the new ESA can address this challenge and the MOES and external partners should give the
matter careful attention in future ESR meetings.
Reform of learning assessment procedures, focusing particularly on the positive and negative
aspects of the PLE, should be considered in relation to curriculum reform and more generally the
enhancement of learning. Completion of primary schooling, and achieving entrance to post-
primary institutions, could usefully be separated as distinct goals, with distinct assessment, exit
and entrance strategies, incorporating continuous assessment as well as end-of-year examinations.
The use of continuous assessment, together with opening up more local flexibility (with suitable
monitoring) in the curriculum, could help to address the issues of relevance and retention for rural
students in the upper primary grades.
At the district level, resources need to be found for more effective monitoring and quality
assurance of the enrolment, and financial data provided by schools in relation to UPE grants and
SFGs. Again, the role of the new ESA should be watched carefully in the ESR.
6.5 Sustaining the Outcomes of External Support
Around 60% of the budget for basic education comes from ODA. This is not a problem provided
agencies are prepared to maintain their commitments through the long term − at least until such
time as the Uganda economy has expanded sufficiently to generate the necessary government
revenue from domestic sources. If external funders now committed to budget support were to
withdraw prior to that, it would leave the GOU with an education system beyond its means to
support.
6.6 Using Partnerships Effectively
The degree and quality of policy dialogue between partners in Uganda (particularly the MOES
and the external agencies in the EFAG) is indeed impressive, and is one of the main visible
achievements of the past several years.

While the strengthened processes of dialogue, coordination and sector support through budget
funding are intended by external agencies to “put the GOU in the driver’s seat,” many Ugandans
feel that there is still undue control by funding agencies, and that many interventions reflect
funding agency priorities rather than intrinsic needs of Ugandan education.
There is a strong perception of funding agencies that the processes have achieved government
ownership of ESIP. This is less strongly felt by the MOES due to funding conditionalities.
Indeed, the very notion of partnership in Uganda seems (not unlike other countries) to be complex
– both in the range of stakeholders involved and in the varying perceptions they have of each
other.
In particular, while funding agencies feel that their partnership with the MOES is one of equality,
this perception is often not shared in the MOES. Many Ugandans, as individuals, feel quite
acutely that the “power of the chequebook” makes the partnership a very unequal one and that in
spite of a much improved partnership mechanism in recent years, this power imbalance remains
unchanged. The very success of the EFAG process seems to have engendered a Ugandan
perception of the external agencies “ganging up.”
Government-NGO partnerships need to be strengthened. NGOs currently feel marginalized in the

ESIP processes. Their recent inclusion in the ESR process, along with their own initiative in
creating FENU, may help, but these steps − in themselves − likely do not go far enough. NGOs
want to be involved in a more active way, at an earlier stage in planning. This process may be
strengthened and accelerated by the development of an MOU between the MOES and FENU
(acting on behalf of its NGO membership). In turn, the MOES needs better information and the
capacity for some coordination of NGO activities to ensure better congruence with government
efforts. Some loss of NGO independence might result, and there are dangers in this. No consensus
seems to have emerged among the NGOs as to where the proper balance between involvement
and independence should lie. In spite of all these problems, in recent years, a growing number of
stakeholders across Ugandan society have gained an increased voice and increased confidence.
Participatory processes in education now appear to well entrenched.

7.0 Implications for Policy and Programmes
7.1 Policy at Global and National Level
Whether one uses the statistics of the MOES or data from the DHS, it is clear that significant
progress, particularly in access to primary education, took place during the period of 1995 to
2002. More recent statistical data suggests that this progress is continuing. The sections above
have also described other positive results achieved during the past 12 years, in both the processes
of support to basic education and the actual educational achievements.
However, identifying the causal relationships between factors that influence this progress is
notoriously difficult. It is necessary to consider the relationships between a complex set of events,
each of which has its own origins, development and documentation. Some of these reflect the
policies and practices of funding agencies, while others reflect policies and practices of the GOU.
And there are no simple chains of cause and effect between them. The key policy determinants of
the achievements in Ugandan basic education (in approximate order of increasing specificity)
include:
• The global EFA process from Jomtien to Dakar (Global);

• The Uganda policy environment, beginning with the recommendations of the Education
Policy Review Commission in 1989, followed by the Education for National Integration
and Development: Government White Paper on Education (MOES, 1992), and leading to
the drafting of the Education Strategic Investment Plan 1998-2003 (MOES, 1998)
(GOU);
• The declaration of UPE in 1996 as an expression of the strong national commitment to
basic education led by the President of Uganda with its implementation shortly after in
1997 (GOU);
• The increase in the levels of ODA devoted to primary education after 1996 (External
agencies);
• The shift by funding agencies from project support to budget support after 1998 (External
agencies);
• Decentralization of education in Uganda to the district level (GOU);
• Creation of the ESCC and the EFAG, and the mechanism of semi-annual sector reviews
in education as a means of managing the ESIP partnerships (GOU and External
Agencies) through coordinated and, in many cases harmonized, approaches; and
• The particular undertakings negotiated between funding agencies and the GOU during
the sector reviews (External agencies and GOU).
Unravelling the causal chains that connect these policy developments, and in turn link them to the
achievement of results is a complex and perhaps impossible task. This report can only begin to
suggest some directions. What the team has observed are complex bidirectional chains of
interaction between policies of the funding agencies and policies of the government, and practices
of the funding agencies and practices of the government. Each influences the other, and it is their
collective interactions that have had the final influence on progress.
The shift by many funding agencies to budget support, for example, was driven primarily, it
seems, by policy decisions taken in head office. However, the decision to implement that shift in

Uganda in particular, reflects two significant factors, cited by agencies, that were Ugandan
initiatives:
• Clear messages from the highest levels of authority in the government, which created a
strong climate of sustainable national commitment and leadership; and
• The development of an appropriate enabling environment by the GOU itself that raised
external agencies’ comfort level about using Uganda as a “test-bed” for the new policy
directions.
7.1.1 Policy Implications for External Partners
From the perspective just described, a traditional RBM and accountability approach (still used at
“head office” as part of official agency procedure by many, if not most of the funding agencies) is
clearly inappropriate in a SWAp environment. The pooling of resources, the sharing of
responsibility and ownership, and the fungibility of funding all preclude any attempt at a “project
logic” based on the provision of various inputs, yielding outputs that, in turn, produce outcomes
leading to impacts. There is no longer a simple one-way causal logic from the inputs provided by
external agencies to the achievement of specific results. Bilateral funding agencies will need to
examine this reality in relation to the specific accountability requirements that their own
governments impose on them. For some agencies, this is the principal barrier to their moving
towards a budget support modality.
A related factor, also connected to national accountability, is the domestic concern that ODA
should be visible. Projects with the flag attached have had a particular attractiveness in generating
domestic support for ODA. Yet, in moving more fully into a SWAp, funding agencies generally
lose this identification with particular products. It is no longer possible to say what their citizens’
contribution paid for, much less attach a flag to it.
In Uganda, the team detected some, if not an inordinate amount, of tension between the global
policies of the agency generated in head office and the expression of those policies in response to
actual needs in that country. For example, Uganda will soon feel the need to shift to increase
priority for PPET. This has been driven by the very success of ESIP. Somehow the UPE “bulge”
that will be leaving primary school starting in 2004 will have to be accommodated. But shifting
resources out of primary education runs counter to the basic education strategies or action plans
that many agencies developed in the post Jomtien EFA environment. At the country level it
would also represent a change in the strategies and policies agreed to with the GOU in the first
phase of ESIP. One current undertaking requires at least 65% of the recurrent education budget to
be devoted to the primary sector. There will be pressure from the GOU to reduce this number
somewhat. How agencies respond will be an interesting test case of the challenge of balancing
global priorities with national needs in the partner country.
The PPET issue also illustrates the ambivalence in funding agency policies about the meaning of
“sector-wide.” Basic education is not a sector, while education is. The great majority of funding
agencies, however, want their support to target only the basic education sub-sector. Over time, it
will be necessary to recognize the interconnectedness of all parts of the sector and extend
priorities accordingly. Just as success in primary education is now creating problems that have
resource implications for secondary schools, the needs of postsecondary education will need to be
addressed at some point. Most of the senior officials in the MOES with whom we dealt had
pursued advanced study at sometime in the past, often with scholarship support provided through
external agencies. Although it was behind our mandate, the team could not help observing that,
over the past decade, the next generation following them has far fewer such opportunities. Indeed
the building of capacity in Uganda’s own postsecondary institutions has slipped markedly. There
are real questions about where the next generation of educational leaders, administrators,
curriculum developers, training designers, etc. will come from, unless support for training at this
level is substantially increased.
A further policy issue is the funding agency’s degree of involvement. Some agencies such as
CIDA and DFID agreed that another agency could provide their representation in Kampala. Over
time it is unclear how they will maintain the needed level of knowledge and local engagement
that enable them to bring the appropriate level of expertise to exercises such as the sector reviews.
The team encountered instances where some agencies were funding their own consultants to
conduct evaluations or assessments, based on concerns that the ESR process was not keeping
them sufficiently in touch with the grassroots level of implementation. This, however, runs
counter to the whole philosophy of the SWAp approach embodied in ESIP.
7.1.2 Policy Implications for the Government of Uganda
As we noted above in Section 5.0, there is a real concern that the funding agencies may be having
an undue steering effect on policy development by the MOES. Since UPE, and during ESIP, there
has clearly been close agreement between the GOU and the group of “like minded” external
agencies in EFAG, that basic education and, indeed, primary schooling is the overwhelming
priority. It is unclear whether this agreement will continue. The MOES is responsible for the
entire sector, and ESIP is intended to be a strategy for the entire sector: primary, secondary,
postsecondary, vocational training, early childhood, special needs and non-formal education.
MOES officials indicated that the approach to the entire sector will be more balanced in the next
phase of ESIP, currently being developed. The GOU will need to exercise due care that the
relative priority it assigns to each sub-sector is driven by the realities of the Ugandan situation,
and not foremost by the global priorities of funding agencies. Moreover, it needs to be sensitive to
the concern that its principal task is to manage basic education, not external support, and convey
this forcibly to the funding agencies.
A second policy concern relates to the sustainability of the achievements in primary education
through ESIP. As noted above, about 60% of financing of basic education comes from external
support. This is a high-risk strategy for the GOU. It assumes that the funding agencies will
maintain at least the current levels of support for many years to come. Yet, the domestic reality
faced by funding agencies is that ODA budgets go up and down (too often down), governments
change, and priorities shift. The team heard of one agency that was unwilling to hire any
permanent education experts on its staff at headquarters because senior management were not
convinced that the agency “will still be in education” in five years time. Yet this agency is
currently supplying budget support to basic education in Uganda.
The team did not meet anyone who was prepared to make any estimates about the date by which
external support to education would no longer be necessary in Uganda. But, evidently, this is not
in the near future. It goes well beyond the time span for which funding agencies can make formal
financial commitments (usually, at most five years). It seems clear, therefore, that there needs to
be at least some recognition, by those agencies committing to budget support, of at least an
implicit commitment to stay in for the “long haul.” And more important still, this discussion
should take place openly with the GOU. For it is the GOU, in the end, who would be left with an
unaffordable education system if external funding were to be prematurely reduced or withdrawn.

The team observed that the GOU is acutely aware of this risk and, while in no way downplaying
the importance of external support, is proceeding with due caution, particularly on the part of the
MOFPED. On occasion, this caution can produce tension between the MOFPED and the MOES.
The MOES on the one hand, is acutely aware of the needs of the education system and how
additional external finance could be effectively applied. The MOFPED, on the other hand, is
concerned about the implications for the GOU’s own budgetary commitments in both the short
and longer term, as well as the sustainability of the increased spending levels anticipated. This
polarity has been intensified recently as the MOES develops the Uganda proposal for the
Education for All Fast Track Initiative (FTI), which would supply considerable new financial
resources into primary schooling.
7.2 Programmes at the Global and National Level
7.2.1 Programme Implications for External Partners
In entering into a SWAp such as ESIP, funding agencies need to be sensitive to the degree to
which they are transferring administrative burdens on to the partner government. The original
argument for SWAps included the belief that they lighten the tasks of management, reporting, and
accountability, particularly for the developing country partners. The team’s observations in
Uganda, however, suggest the opposite.
Indeed the semi-annual ESR process may have greater resource implications for the MOES than
individual project modalities, where most of the management is external. As noted above, this
suggests that the MOES must devote large amounts of staff resources to managing the
relationships with external support agencies, rather than to managing education itself. A greater
sense of the need to strike an appropriate balance in the sharing of transaction costs would appear
to be needed. Without denying the clear advantages of SWAps such as ESIP: ownership and
sustainability through mainstreaming, coordination and complementarity of activities, local
accountability and engagement, and so on, the downside risks must also be acknowledged. But
the risks relate to processes of SWAp management, and thus seem amenable to mitigation.
Those agencies not providing budget support should examine, in negotiation with the GOU,
whether some modification of current ESR undertakings and other accountability mechanisms
could meet their domestic requirements and enable some budget support to begin flowing.
All agencies need to re-examine their priorities in relation to the education sector as a whole.
Even if they maintain basic education as their priority for support, the implications for other sub-
sectors of education need to be clearly understood and incorporated into programme strategies. In
particular, two links need to be clearly reflected:
• The downstream implications of improved basic education for higher levels (secondary
and tertiary, as well as the labour-market implications; and,
• The dependence of basic education on the tertiary sector for the provision of well trained
teachers, administrators, managers, and educational leaders and visionaries.

7.2.2 Programme Implications for the Government of Uganda
Uganda’s success in basic education to date has been in the area of access. This success has been
impressive. Increased attention now needs to be given to the improvement of quality.
Paradoxically, some of the same inputs that were used to enhance access will also enhance quality
(and conversely), if carefully managed:
• Large primary schools are widely believed to be detrimental to quality (Cotton, 1996;
Postlethwaite and Ross, 1992). It follows that the achievement of child-friendly schools
and reducing the distances that children need to walk to school will require building more
schools, not simply enlarging existing schools. Thus, SFG will need to continue but will
also need modification since, to achieve reasonable quality, the total number of
classrooms needs to be doubled. Developing a Ugandan concept of an optimal school size
range would be useful, along with a more effective school mapping process. It may be
that reaching an ideal pupil-to-classroom ratio would best be achieved by doubling the
current number of schools, not their size. Note that increasing the number of schools
should, on average, reduce the distance to schools − which will also promote access.
Innovative models, such as the linking of new satellite classroom clusters to existing
schools, may be worth examining;
• Better monitoring of the local use of resources is essential. This means a number of
things and goes well beyond financial accountability. The end result is to improve the
quality of teaching and learning, through better trained teachers with improved morale,
more and better teaching materials in schools and, critically, efficient deployment of
teachers in the situation of insufficient classroom space, which will persist for some years
to come. Better teaching and learning are known to reduce absenteeism and dropout rates,
and hence improve enrolment indicators; and
• Schools need encouragement to build on the local support of PTAs and SMCs and, more
broadly, the community. The team saw some good examples of such active engagement,
where schools were in active partnership with their communities. But this potential
remains largely untapped. The level of complaints from district officials and head
teachers about the negative impact of “local politicians” suggests the need for an
improved and non-partisan dialogue between parliamentarians and MOES officials
concerning the best ways to strengthen the provision of education at the local level.
Success in increasing access to primary education has created an “enrolment bulge” of students
who will soon be sitting the PLE. This has enormous implications for the individuals involved
and for the future of education and its role in society. The next phase of ESIP will need to address
this issue and in so doing will achieve greater balance across the various sub-sectors of education
than was possible (or desirable) in ESIP.
Programmes to increase the provision of post-primary education (such as the components of the
recent PPET strategy) will be necessary very soon. At the same time, it is clear that many good
students will sit the PLE and yet not get a secondary school place. It would seem helpful, even
necessary for the maintenance of quality and morale in the primary schools, to de-link the two
achievements of:
• Satisfactory completion of primary school; and
• Admission to a post-primary institution.

The first (completion of primary school) could be determined by some combination of continuous
assessment and end-of-year examinations. Success would be rewarded with a Certificate of
Primary Completion. The second (admission to PPET institutions) could be determined by
meeting an additional requirement by those who wish to proceed.
More generally, the work of the new ESA (MOES, 2002c) should take some of the pressure off
the PLE as a tool for measuring the quality of individual schools. Parallel movement towards the
increased use of classroom-based continuous assessment, if effectively supported and liked, to
recognized and monitored standards will also help. Such measures will require new resources,
both to create the necessary capacity in the ESA and to train teachers in alternative methods of
assessment. If they are aggressively pursued, however, much of the status and pressure attached
to the PLE could, over time, be reduced.

ANNEXES
Annex 1: Profile of External Support

Until 1998, the main mode of delivery of external support to basic education was through
discrete, stand-alone projects. These were funded through various mechanisms: concessional
loans, primarily by the World Bank, cooperative mechanisms and TA delivered mainly through
UN mechanisms, individual projects funded by bilateral funding agencies, and the efforts of
NGOs, mainly based in particular districts of Uganda.
The ESIP of 1997 now forms the basis on which funding agencies cooperate with the MOES.
Initially focused on elementary and secondary education, it is being expanded to incorporate the
university sector and thus achieve the breadth of a full sector plan. Improved funding agency
coordination and complementarity of interventions is a government goal of increasing
importance. The GOU and participating funding agencies have formed the ESCC and the EFAG
under which a coordinated approach to budget support, project support and TA is managed.
Members jointly participate every six months in the review of educational sector plans and their
implementation, and support the government in its management of the process. Some funding
agency funds go into a consolidated TA fund managed by the GOU and ultimately, the
government hopes that all TA would be funded in this way, rather than through individual
funding agency projects.
In 1999, building on the PEAP, Uganda was identified as a CDF pilot country and subsequently
qualified for the concessional loans and debt relief under the HIPC initiatives of the IMF/World
Bank. Pursuant to these agreements, it is one of the first eight countries to complete its PRSP. The
PRSP was presented to the funding agency community in May 2000. This has given added
impetus to all sectors of social development, including an education reform effort that already had
achieved considerable momentum.
The GOU is strongly committed to the principles of national (host country) ownership in
partnership with the funding community. In particular, this includes agreeing with funding
agencies to shift to broader budget support in lieu of a series of discrete projects in separate
sectors. The World Bank’s second PRSC of US$150 million is in the approval process.
These shared goals of the GOU and the funding agencies are defined and managed through a
variety of instruments and structures that include:
• The ESIP 1998 to 2003;

• The MTBF;
• The Joint Education Sector Reviews (April 1999, October 1999, April 2000, October
2000, April 2001, October 2001, April 2002, October 2002);
• Budget support undertakings;
• Sector level indicators;
• The ESCC;
• The EFAG;
• The Draft Memorandum for Support to Education in Uganda; and
• The Code of Conduct for Education Sector Funding Agencies.

These instruments and processes, their relation to the strategies and policies of individual funding
agencies, their support for the objectives and strategies of the GOU, and their effectiveness in
terms of outcomes achieved, will form a major focus of the case study.
A summary of each funding agency, in terms of the level and focus of support is provided below.
The table that follows is a modified and updated version of one prepared by the EFAG as part of
the Directory of Funding and Technical Assistance Agencies Supporting the Education Sector in
Uganda, prior to the Seventh ESR. The original table covered the entire sector, not just basic
education and that material was not removed. While the consultants take full responsibility for the
new material inserted, they caution that in some cases, the additional information is incomplete,
so this table should not be taken as official or definitive. It represents the best information made
available to the consultants’ team in Uganda.

Table 11: Profile of External Support Agencies
MULTILATERALS
Funding Priorities/Objectives for Current Activities and Coverage, Duration and Future Intentions Contact Persons
Agency Education in Uganda Implementing Partners Financial Value of and Addresses
Assistance (US$)
European Union UPE is a major area of support Direct budget support to 1999/2000 The EC is currently Ms. Terri Kelly
(EU) recurrent UPE costs through $14.9 million* programming the Box 5244
Through STABEX 2002/2003 Ninth EDF. It is Rwenzori House
European $1.65 million* anticipated that 5th Floor
Commission education will be Plot 1
(EC) Via Budget support to GOU 1999/2000 supported through Lumumba Ave.
European through Structural Adjustment $50 million* general macro- Kampala
Development Support Programme (SASP), economic budget
Fund (EDF) which includes some support support, which will be
to UPE partly triggered by
2000/2001 – 2003/2004 progress in agreed-
Earmarked budget support for upon critical
teacher development, $28.5 million* indicators in the
classroom construction, education sector
district and Central Capacity
Building (CCB) 8 districts
2000
Eighth EDF Micro-projects $13.8 million*
Programme (health,
education, water) * Figures in US$ are
approximate, depending on
exchange rate at time of
expenditure
World Bank/IDA Quality basic education for all, Budget support to UPE 1998 to 2000 Continued budget Mr. Paud Murphy
early child development, adult (ESAC) $155 million support, focusing on Room J10-069,
literacy, comprehensive a comprehensive 1818, H Street
education sector development IDA 5 programme support to 1993 to 2001 sector programme NW, Washington
focusing on national priorities in National Primary Education $52.6 million D.C.,
the PEAP Reform Programme including 20433 USA
TDMS. Implemented by the
MOES (Project Ms. Harriet
Implementation Unit-PIU) Nannyonjo
Support to ECD through the P.O. Box 4463
CHILD project. Component 1998 to 2003 Plot 1,
implemented by Pre-Primary $ 34 million Lumumba Ave.
Department of MOES Kampala
Assistance (US$)
United Nations The Child Friendly Basic Technical and financial 2001 to 2005 Sibeso M.
Children’s Fund Education and Learning support as part of the Child Luswata,
(UNICEF) Programme, which is the Friendly Basic Education and Within the decentralized Programme
UNICEF-assisted education Learning programme through framework, the programme Officer,
programme in Uganda for the MOFPED, MOLG, MOES, will concentrate on disparity Education
period of 2001 to 2005, will districts, municipal/town reduction
operate within the UPE and councils, Forum for African P.O. Box 4047
ESIP framework. The goals of Women Educators Kisozi House
the programme are to: (FAWE)/alliance and 26 Kampala
districts. Areas of focus Advocacy, policy dialogue,
1. Enhance gender equity and include: strategy development and Tel.:256-41-
quality education partnership development, 234591/234592
2. Ensure availability and 1. Holistic family/community- educational planning, EMD,
accessibility of basic based ECCD to ensure M&E will be carried out at the Fax:256-41-
education to excluded and that at least 60% of all national level 235660/259146
unreached girls and boys, children up to 8 years old,
girls and boys living in in selected districts,
conflict-affected areas, and access family/community-
child labourers based ECCD care systems At the implementation level,
3. Ensure young girls and boys 2. Promoting girls’ education the programme will target the
up to 8 years old are able to and quality through the 26 most disadvantaged
learn and realize their full concept of a child/girl- districts and communities
growth and psychosocial friendly school as a tool
development and as a normative goal US$18,035 for Child Friendly
4. Progressively fulfill the rights 3. Complementary basic Basic Education and Learning
of 70% of primary school education to ensure the Programme
girls and boys to improved realization of rights to
sanitation, hygiene and safe basic education for 40% of *An additional US$ 4.2 million
water, in selected districts, excluded and unreached will be available from the
by 2005 girls and boys and 75% of School Sanitation, Hygiene
girls and boys affected by and Water programme to
armed conflict reduce girls’ dropout rate and
4. School sanitation, hygiene improve quality
and water to reduce girls’
dropout rate and improve
quality

BILATERALS
Assistance (US$)
Austria Uganda is a priority country Local scholarship US$130,000 Support the Konstatin Huber,
Regional but education is not a major programme for post- education sector in Head of Mission
Bureau For area of support graduate education in Uganda by means
Development Uganda, distance learning of earmarked Barbara Noest,
Cooperation and short courses. For the budget support for Programme
coming academic year scholarships Officer
(intake October 2000), (funding available is
Austria plans to finance 22 unclear at this point) Jaap Blom,
local scholarships and Programme
distance learning courses for Manager −
students based in the Kisoro Decentralization
District
Canadian Basic education with a focus Financial support to UNICEF Initially, CAN$3.0 million in Funds clearly Dan Thakur,
International on: for the implementation of support of COPE earmarked for: Education
Development COPE (expires at the end of ABEK; gender and Specialist Eastern
Agency (CIDA) • Expanding equitable 2001) education; capacity Africa and the
access development Horn Program,
• Girls’ education Budget support through the 2001-2006 CAN$10.65 Africa and Middle-
• Disadvantaged children PAF million (US$6.9 million) over East Branch,
• Strengthening capacity at 5 years. Budget support via Canadian
the district level the PAF International
Development
Agency
200 Promenade
du Portage
Hull, Quebec
Canada K1A 0G4
Tel: (819) 997-

1021
Fax: (819) 953-

9453

Assistance (US$)
E-mail:
dan_thakur@acdi
-cida.gc.ca
Represented in
Kampala by the
EU office
Ministry of Human rights is one of the EARS project – EARS Since 1991 Integration of EARS Mr. Henning
Foreign Affairs, four priority areas for Uganda centres supporting the 12.7 million total centres into district Nielsen
Danida identification and 10.9 million 1995-2000, plus budgets and
(Denmark) Special education for disabled assessment of children with 3.5 million 2000 to 2003 management Tel: 256 687 ext.
children and children with special needs and their systems, and 100
learning difficulties has been integration into mainstream gradual withdrawal
supported as part of the school, plus support for of external support
Rights of the Child and Rights teacher training in special
of Disabled People needs via established TDMS Now phasing out of
structures education in
Uganda due to
Programme support to Supported the creation of Agency focus on
Uganda National Institute of EARS centres in all districts Human
Special Education (UNISE) Rights/Governance
for teacher training at all (Danida Partnership
levels in special education 2000)
Department for International development Budget support to ESIP (£60 1998-2003 1998-2003 Represented in
International targets in education: million) and technical 100 million budget support Total £67 million Kampala by the
Development cooperation (£7 million) budget support to EU office
(DIFID), United • UPE by 2015 ESIP
Kingdom • Progress towards gender PRISFAC Project: piloting 1998-2003 12 million for
equality by 2005 decentralized school technical cooperation-ESA;
• Further strengthening of construction through basic learning materials;
theSWAp/MTEF in conditional school decentralised strategic
education mechanism (completed budgeting; education
• Improved funding agency 30/04/2000) planning
coordination
Support to NGOs including: 1 million for Mubende,
Kitgum, Bundibugyo
Action Aid – NFE 0.5 million for Arua

Assistance (US$)
Emergency schooling and
adult literacy (REFLECT)
(ending 2001)
Save the Children
United Kingdom-Women’s
Literacy (ended 2000)
In Service Secondary
Teacher Education Project
(INSSTEP) managed by
Centre for British Teachers
(CfBT) (completed
31/01/2000)
Tertiary Scholarships
through British Council.
Support for Micro-Education
Projects through British
6 million 1995-2000
Partnership Scheme (ended
2000)
Embassy of Until now - French teaching; • ITEK US$200,000 Regional and Mr. Jean Noel
France training of teachers • Makerere University approximate annual budget bilateral FSP Jodeau
• UPK projects French Embassy
French teaching for • Alliance Française Education Adviser
professionals • Ministry of Education French language French Embassy
• Scholarships and would not be an Nakasero,
workshops exclusive aim Lumumba Ave.,
Plot 16
Kampala
E-mail: Jean-
noel.jodeau@dipl
omatie.gouv.fr
German Uganda is a main focus Basic Education in Urban 1997-2003 Until 2007 Elsa Meinzer,
Technical country of German Poverty Areas: this project US$ 2.75 Million for the Principal
Cooperation Development Assistance assists the MOES and KCC Kampala District Technical
(GTZ) in developing a non-formal Advisor, MOES,
Basic education for urban out- approach including UDB 1st floor and

Assistance (US$)
of-school children and curriculum and instructional City Hall, 3rd floor
vocational training for materials development, Kampala
employment are promoted in instructors’ training and
order to reduce poverty and support to the education Marianne Reuber,
address parts of the poorest department of KCC, NGOs Principal
population and to 50 communities Technical
Advisor, MOES,
Special emphasis is also Promotion of National UDB 1st floor
given to girls. Vocational Education and Kampala
Training: support to system
development of the TVET
sub-sector in collaboration 1991-2001 Under preparation
with MOES and the private US$0.75 million nationally
sector
Department of Since Jomtien, the focus has Ireland Aid has a strong Ireland Aid supports the Nicola Brennan,
Foreign Affairs, been on primary and basic poverty focus International DAC targets of Rosemary
Ireland/Ireland education, with particular UPE by 2015 and Gender Rwanyange,
Aid attention to the needs of girls Education, particularly equity by 2005 Embassy of
and other disadvantaged primary education, the role Ireland
groups of education for girls and Box 7791
women in achieving 12 Acacia Avenue
Ireland Aid supports the sustainable national Kololo
International DAC targets of economic and social Kampala
UPE by 2015 and gender development is recognized
equity in education by 2005 E-mail:
Focus has been on primary irishaid@starcom.
Ireland Aid believes that education, with particular co.ug
community ownership and attention to the needs of
management are essential to girls and other
sustaining quality and equity disadvantaged groups
in education
The Ireland Aid Uganda
office is supported by the
Bilateral Aid division for
Southern, Eastern and the
Horn of Africa

Assistance (US$)
An educational adviser,
based in the Department’s
Specialist support Unit,
further supports work on
education
Embassy of Supporting human Provision of iron sheets for Three dispatches of iron Considering Mr. Katsuki
Japan development through school construction through sheets since 1989: possible support for Morihara
and education, particularly for girls NURP $5.8 million Post-Primary Embassy of
Japan and women, is a priority North and North-East Mathematics and Japan
International objective Provision of education Uganda Science Education Box 23553,
Cooperation equipment for Makerere Kampala
Agency (JICA) Primary school construction is University, Nakawa Rehabilitation and provision
a current priority activity in Vocational Training of equipment for the Faculty Mr. Naoki
sub-Saharan Africa Institute, Uganda AIDS of Science at Makerere Yoshikawa,
Commission and the University 1990-1992: JICA office
National Sports Council $5.5 million Box 12162,
Kampala
Support facilities and
equipment for Nakawa
Vocational Training Institute
1968-1974 and 1997-2004:
$8.1 million
Netherlands Structural eradication of Direct budget support to 1999-2001 $13 million Continued support Mr. Eric Hilberink
Embassy illiteracy, gender and ESIP to MOES priority
environment via basic Classroom construction via activities Mr. George
education PAF 1999 $4 million Kalibbala
Enhanced support Box 7728
Institutional capacity Support to TDMS in West- 2000 $4 million to classroom Kisozi House
development Nile and remaining areas construction via 4th Floor
Support to seven districts 1998-2001 PAF Nakasero
$3.7 million Kampala
Development programmes
2000 approximately $1 Continue with the
Fellowships million arrangement

Assistance (US$)
1999/2000 $1 million
Ministry of Education is increasingly a Support to UNICEF Basic 1997-1998 $1 million Current country Harald Karisnes,
Foreign Affairs, priority area Education, Child Care and programme is Randi Lotsberg,
Norway Adolescents (BECCAD) US$11 million plus
programme US$4 million Embassy of
1996-2000 $2million through NGOs such Norway
Support to Makerere 2000-2004 $9 million as SCF Box 2971
University departments of Crusader House
th
Forestry and Agriculture – Major focus on 4 Floor
curriculum revision, research PSE: support to 3 Portal Avenue
and buildings. Makerere University Kampala
1996-2000 $2million
Support to Nyabyeya
Forestry College (MOES)
Long term cooperation
Institutional and research
cooperation between
Norwegian Universities and
faculties in Makerere
University $0.5 million
Refugee Council work in

Gulu district
USAID Basic education is a priority Budget support to UPE 1993-2001 $83 million Not yet determined Mr. David Bruns
area, with a strong 1993-2000 $25 million Senior Education
commitment to universal Programme support aimed USAID is currently Adviser
access, gender equity and Support to Ugandan Primary to fully cover 10 out 18 preparing its next
quality improvements at the Education Reform Program catchment areas, and partial five years’ country Ms. Sarah
classroom level (SUPER), including TDMS support to the remaining strategy. Mayanja
and an educational research eight catchment areas by Areas to support will Education
component September 1998 depend on GOU Specialist
priorities and those
Education for Development 2000-2001 $2.5 million where USAID has a Box 7856
and Democracy Initiative Connectivity for Education comparative 42, Nakasero Rd.
• Connectivity for Development whereby four advantage Kampala
Education Development PTCs and ITEK will be
• Ambassador’s Girls’ supported to integrate new Focus will be on
information technologies in integrated education
Assistance (US$)
Scholarships and Mentoring the training of teachers and health
programme, to enable bright $380,000 To be determined
but needy girls to complete The Ambassador’s Girls’ depending on the
secondary education Scholarships and Mentoring success of the first
programme enabled at least phase
100 bright but needy
students to gain secondary
education

Annex 2: Profile of Basic Education
For the GOU, basic education has several areas of focus. Overwhelmingly, however, the main
one is UPE. In 1996 the GOU mandated that every family would have free access to primary
education for up to four children, at least where possible, two of whom should be girls. (This
extra condition reflected a concrete attempt to promote gender equity in primary school access.)
Within one year, primary enrolments more than doubled, putting incredible strains on all
components of the system: infrastructure and classrooms, supply of teachers, provision of
textbooks and other teaching and learning materials, etc. Significant quality issues have thus
increased in importance as an immediate consequence of the rapid enrolment rise. These matters
will take some years to address, although initial steps are well under way. External funding has
thus been focused in large measure on assisting the GOU to meet the needs of primary education,
as delivered through the publicly funded school system.
Nonetheless, there are other significant areas of basic education, in the broad sense of the Jomtien
and Dakar frameworks that receive support:
• Early childhood development programmes, supported by certain NGOs and UNICEF in

particular, especially in rural areas. These are normally linked with community health and
nutrition programmes, and basic education for mothers;
• Non-formal programmes or alternative programmes (complementary basic education) for
out-of-school youth, designed specifically for the context of certain areas. Sometimes,
these take the form of education programmes for urban poor/working children, which
feature innovative delivery and schedules, such as BEUPA. Others target particular
geographic regions with a high proportion of disadvantaged children (for example,
programmes such as COPE, and ABEK in Karamoja); and
• FAL programmes (age 15 and up). These do not lie within the MOES, but are managed
through the MOGLSD.
Primary education in Uganda covers seven years from Primary 1 to Primary 7. Standard age
cohorts would range from age six to 12. However, it is significant to note that Gross Enrolment
Ratios (GERs) are much higher than 100%, indicating a combination of variable starting age of
schooling by many pupils and high repetition rates. Thus formal schooling in Primary 1 to
Primary 7 includes many children older than 12, as well as children as young as three.
While, formerly, all government-supported education was in English, it has been Ugandan policy
since 1996 to promote the use of mother-tongue education as an alternative to English in the early
grades. Mother-tongue education is further enhanced in the new curriculum, which was published
in January 2002. The shift to mother-tongue education however is not without its problems.
Parents are not always supportive because access to secondary schooling and higher education is
largely dependent on English language ability. As well, the production of instructional materials
and multiple languages is difficult and costly, and the assignment of teachers becomes more
complex. Nonetheless it appears that the shift to mother-tongue education has advantages that
outweigh the difficulties (Klees, Hawley, Byabamazima and Kyeyune, 2002).
At the end of Primary 7, children sit the PLE. Success in this examination entitles them to a
Primary Leaving Certificate. The students with the highest marks may proceed to secondary
school, which, in Uganda and for the purposes of this case study, is not considered part of basic
education. As the number of secondary school places is severely limited, for the majority of
Uganda’s children, Primary 7 marks the end of their formal schooling.

Provision of schooling is highly decentralized, with the administration of individual schools
managed by district offices to which financial resources are transferred by the central government
in relation to their individual budget requirements. The activities of the district offices are
overseen by the MOLG. However, their education administrators report to the MOES. The
district offices administer financial grants to individuals schools based on their reported
enrolment. Education strategy, policy and planning, curriculum, management of teacher
education, and general (but not local) monitoring and evaluation of the education system are
conducted centrally within departments of the MOES.
The implementation of primary education, and most activities funded through financial support of
the GOU’s UPE strategy, are administered through the offices of the Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO) and the District Education Officer (DEO) in each of the 56 districts. The education section
of the district office manages all primary and secondary schools in the district, including the
recruitment of teachers, provision of facilities and materials (including construction of new
classrooms), budgetary provision and administration (with funding transferred from the centre),
and monitoring of individual school performance.
Education Indicators
This material is based on several sources:
• Data in the EFA 2000 Assessment prepared by the MOES for UNESCO;
• Additional data provided to the consultants by the Department of Planning in the MOES,
particularly in the 2000 and 2001 Statistical Summaries published by the MOES;
• Data from the 1995 and 2000 DHS; and
• Data culled from other reports and evaluations.
While education indicators reveal considerable progress over the past decade, Uganda must
continue and even accelerate its performance to achieve the EFA targets. Adult illiteracy remains
26% for males and 50% for females. Estimates of the primary school Net Enrolment Ratio (NER)
vary. On the basis of the DHS results of 2000, NER is believed to be approximately 87%, with
little gender disparity, in the first five years of schooling. This reflects major improvement on the
figures from a few years earlier, through the huge increase in primary enrolments since 1996.
This rapid enrolment growth has not been accompanied by commensurate increases in financing,
however, so that major questions of educational quality remain to be addressed.
Significantly, GERs are much higher than 100%, indicating a combination of late start of
schooling by many pupils and high repetition rates. Improving the performance of elementary
schools to move older children through more quickly would create additional places for the
primary-age cohort.
Secondary education is only available to a select few. UNICEF reports GER of 15% (male) and
9% (female), again revealing significant gender disparity.
Primary schools: Male Female Total

Student enrolment (2001): 3,528,035 3,372,881 6,900,916
Number of teachers (2001) 81,091 45,947 127,038
Government schools 10,368

Non-government schools 1,912
Number of primary classrooms in government schools:
Completed 44,256
Under construction 25,882
Net intake rate (percentage of the age cohort entering Primary 1): boys 70%, girls 71.5%
Primary net enrolment ratio: The Monitoring and Evaluation Branch of the MOES calculates this
as: boys: 120%, girls 116%. [N.B.: the MOES is aware of the anomaly in these indicators and
attributes it to underestimated population data as well as possible over-reporting of enrolments by
some schools. This is to be corrected in the next national census.]
Survival rate to Primary 4: Boys 61%, Girls 62%

Survival rate to Primary 7: Boys 67%, Girls 59% (this data, of course, reflects the
situation of the smaller, “pre big-bang” cohort, which had
significant gender inequity.)
Results of the most recent National Assessment of Primary Education (1999)
Percentage of pupils with at least Primary 3 completions who meet national standards for basic
learning competencies:
1996 1999
English: 92% 56%
Numeracy: 48% 31%
These figures are particularly disturbing as they reflect a significant drop between the previous
assessment in 1996 and that in 1999. It would appear that by 1999, two years after the “big bang,”
the quality of learning in the early primary grades had eroded significantly.
Percentage of primary teachers who hold appropriate certification: men 73%, women 78%.
Average pupil-to-classroom ratio: 98:1 (2002 target is 92:1)

Average pupil-to-teacher ratio: 58:1 (2002 target is 55:1)
Average pupil-to-textbook ratio: 4:1 (based on old textbooks)
New textbooks are about to be introduced based on a reformed curriculum with an initial target
ratio of 6:1.
Current public spending on primary education is 263.1 billion Ugandan shillings (approximately
US$146 million), or 2.7% of GDP, and is 67% of total public spending on all levels of education.
Note that these national averages conceal significant differences between districts, as mentioned
in Section 4.3.2 of this report.
Ugandan Education Data
Efforts are underway in the Ministry to improve data collection, the checking of the data for
accuracy, and the capacity for appropriate data analysis. Up to now, most researchers have cross-
checked data with material from household surveys and other sources, and the team expects to do
the same where possible (as discussed in Section 4.3.1). Unless otherwise indicated, the source of
the following data is the MOES annual Statistical Abstracts.

Gross Intake Rate (GIR)
The GIR represents new entrants (all ages) in Primary 1 as a percentage of the population of
official entry age (6 years old).
Table 12: Gross Intake Rate (GIR)
Year New Entrants Estimated Population GIR (%)
All Ages Aged 6 Years (New Ent. / Est. Pop.)
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
1990 313,833 269,612 583,445 232,509 233,289 465,798 135 116 125
1991 303,970 264,876 568,846 285,063 290,664 575,727 107 91 99
1992 309,641 254,200 563,841 280,464 278,156 558,620 110 91 101
1993 277,116 243,066 520,182 311,332 318,266 629,598 89 76 83
1994 330,407 298,179 628,226 314,571 320,467 635,038 105 93 99
1995 394,070 351,266 745,336 321,539 324,991 646,530 123 108 115
1996 415,668 381,540 797,208 321,273 319,859 641,132 129 119 124
1997 1,003,220 948,498 1,951,718 334,693 332,992 667,685 300 285 292
1998 802,647 766,941 1,569,588 348,065 346,064 694,129 231 222 226
- - - - - - - - - -
2000 724,125 712,833 1,436,958 376,465 373,995 750,460 192% 191% 192%
2001 751,665 751,826 1,503,491 388,704 385,692 774,396 193% 195% 194%
2002 799,386 813,320 1,612,706 523,028 507,626 1,030,324 153% 160% 157%
Net Intake Rate (NIR)
The NIR represents the number of new entrants to Primary 1 of official entry age (six years old),
divided by the estimated population of that age. Many of the other six-year-olds not captured in
this ratio may well begin school at other ages: a few when younger; the majority at age seven or
more. The significant disparity between gross and net intake rates also reflects this indication that
children begin school at a broad range of ages.
Table 13: Net Intake Rate (NIR) 1990 to 1995

Year New Entrants Aged 6 Years Population Aged 6 Years NIR (%)
1990 83,703 74,652 158,355 232,509 233,289 465,798 26 32 34
1991 96,621 93,012 189,933 285,063 290,664 575,727 34 32 33
1992 103,772 91,791 195,563 280,464 278,156 558,620 37 33 35
1993 85,982 84,183 170,165 311,332 318,266 629,598 28 26 27
1994 119,537 108,959 228,496 314,571 320,467 635,038 38 34 36
1995 112,539 107,247 219,786 321,539 324,991 646,530 35 33 34
- - - - - - - - - -
2000 258,653 263,624 522,277 376,465 373,995 750,460 69% 70.5 70
2001 268,130 275,818 543,948 388,704 385,692 774,396 69% 71.5 70
2002 294,057 306,029 600,086 523,028 507,626 1,030,324 56% 60 58

Table 14: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER)
Year Enrolment Primary 1 to Population Aged 6-12Yyears GER (%)
Primary 7
1990 1,263,585 998,005 2,201,590 1,660,901 1,558,000 3,324,994 77 61 69
1991 1,303,306 1,236,243 2,539,549 1,670,905 1,666,201 3,337,106 78 74 76
1992 1,203,670 1,160,408 2,364,078 1,719,528 1,783,993 3,503,521 70 64 67
1993 1,492,630 1,182,335 2,674,965 1,741,794 1,807,093 3,548,887 85 65 75
1994 1,407,797 1,190,895 2,598,692 1,763,787 1,829,911 3,593,698 79 65 72
1995 1,587,216 1,325,257 2,912,473 1,790,502 1,859,115 3,649,617 86 72 72
1996 1,647,742 1,420,883 3,068,625 1,996,182 1,988,785 3,984,967 86 74 80
1997 2,832,472 2,471,092 5,303,564 2,077,312 2,069,513 4,146,825 137 112 124
1998 2,868,564 2,595,289 5,591,000 2,159,144 2,149,100 4,308,244 129 114 122
1999 3,301,888 2,986,351 6,288,239 2,239,572 2,226,869 4,468,261 147 134 141
2000 3,395,554 3,183,459 6,579,013 2,320,702 2,308,277 4,628,979 146 138 142
2001 3,528,035 3,372,881 6,900,916 2,654,431 2,640,104 5,314,450 133 128 130
2002 3,721,135 3,633,018 7,354,153 2,892,879 2,882,115 5,774,655 129 126 127
Table 15: Net Enrolment Ratio (NER)

Year Enrolment 6-12 Years Population Aged 6-12 Years NER 6-12 Years
(%)
Male Female Total Male Female Total M F Total
1990 966,885 787,556 1,754,221 1,666,994 1,658,000 3,324,994 58 48 53
1991 952,416 849,763 1,802,179 1,670,905 1,666,201 3,337,106 57 51 54
1992 980,131 841,700 1,821,831 1,719,528 1,783,993 3,503,521 57 47 52
1993 908,840 783,837 1,692,677 1,741,794 1,807,093 3,548,887 52 43 48
1994 1,022,997 953,537 1,976,534 1,763,787 1,829,911 3,593,698 58 52 55
1995 1,092,206 988,076 2,080,282 1,790,502 1,859,115 3,649,617 61 53 57
1996 - - - 1,996,182 1,988,785 3,984,969 - - -
1997 1,905,185 1,718,501 3,623,679 2,077,312 2,069,513 4,146,825 92 83 87
- - - - - - - - - -
2000 2,886,480 2,772,585 5,659,065 2,564,030 2,548,716 5,112,746 113 109 111
2001 3,186,217 3,058,837 6,245,054 2,654,431 2,640,104 5,314,450 120 116 118
2002 3,319,404 3,260,435 6,579.839 2,892,870 2,822,115 5,774,665 115 113 114
The apparent anomaly in this data is attributed to inaccurate population data. However, an
alternative (or additional) explanation would be the over-reporting of enrolments by schools or
districts.
Dropout Rates
The statistical summary document records the number of dropouts by grade level reported from
each district. However, as Dean (2002) notes in his analysis, there are several problems with this
data. First, the data tables make no distinction between missing data and a zero dropout rate. This
means that a school that does not report is recorded as having zero dropouts. Second, there is no
cross-referencing between schools or districts, so that some students recorded as dropouts are
actually transfers to another district. Only the absolute number of dropouts (male and female) is
recorded, for each grade level and district, but from the enrolment tables it should be possible to
compute dropout ratios. Given Dean’s criticism of the data available, this may not be a
worthwhile exercise.
Table 16: Number and Qualifications of Primary School Teachers
Number of Teachers Teachers who are Certified
Year Male Female Male Female
1998 117,655 61,438 44.5% 46%
1999
2000 70,760 39,606 76% 84%
2001 81,091 45,947 73% 78%
Primary Completion Rates and Primary Certificate Examination Results
The current statistical digest does not appear to report primary completion rates. This is, however,
an important indicator. For 1997, the EFA 2000 Assessment reported survival ratios to grade 5 as
93.5% (boys) and 94.3% (girls). For 2001, a preliminary statistical report puts the 2001 survival
rate to Primary 7 as 67% (boys) and 59% (girls). Pass rates on the PLE are reported to be low; we
do not yet have comprehensive data. Should this become available it should be possible to
compute primary completion rates. However, as the current Primary 7 enrolment reflects pre-UPE
intake, these rates can be anticipated to shift dramatically over the next three to four years.
Availability of Current Curriculum
The curriculum for primary schools has recently undergone a major overhaul and new materials
are in the process of being prepared and distributed. For the year 2001, government statistics
report the availability of the current curriculum at zero, because they have stopped tracking the
availability of the former curriculum, which is becoming obsolete.
Table 17: Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ratio 28:1 32:1 27:1 29:1 31:1 35:1 38:1 58:1 55:1 61:1 59:1 54:1
Table 18: Pupil-to-Classroom Ratio

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ratio 50:1 45:1 41:1 45:1 38:1 39:1 44:1 69:1 78:1 82:1 96:1 100:1(est.)
Pupil-to-Textbook Ratio
The statistical digest presents detailed tables for English, Mathematics, Science and Social
Studies, by district. This is disaggregated for Primary 1 to Primary 3 and Primary 4 to Primary 7.
The summary data (year 2000) is that the pupil-to-textbook ratio for Primary 1 to Primary 3 is 5:1
and for Primary 4 to Primary 7 it is 3:1.

Repetition Rates
The repetition rate is the proportion of pupils enrolled in a specific grade in a given school year
who study the same grade the following school year.
The EFA Assessment reported the following repetition rates for 1997:
Table 19: Repetition Rates, by Grade

Grades Average
Primary 1 Primary 2 Primary 3 Primary 4 Primary 5 Primary 6 Primary 7 Grade 1 to 5
Total 10.0% 8.5% 6.3% 5.6% 4.2% 3.4% 1.8% 7.1%
Male 11.1% 9.7% 7.3% 6.5% 5.0% 4.1% 1.3% 8.1%
Female 8.9% 7.2% 5.3% 4.7% 3.5% 2.8% 2.3% 6.0%
A MOES summary document for 2001 reports that overall repetition rates for primary school are
9% for boys and 9.5% for girls.
Adult Literacy Rate
Data from the 1991 Population and Housing Census revealed that the adult literacy rate was 63%
(male) and 45% (female). By 1995 this had risen to 74% (male) and 50% (female) [UNESCO
data]. The 1999 rate was 77% (male) and 56% (female) [UNESCO].
Alternatively, the DHS data is as follows:
Table 20: Adult Literacy Rates

DHS: Adult Literacy 1995 2000
Male Literacy 77% 83%
Female Literacy 53% 59%
Source: (DHS)
The DHS also uncovered a significant urban-rural disparity: according to the 2000 survey for
example, female literacy in the northern region is only 34%, while it is 80% in the central region.
The regional differences for men are much narrower, falling within a band from 78% to 90%
across all regions.

Annex 3: Details on Methodology
Work began in April 2002 with the first visit of the team leader, Dr. John Berry, to Uganda (April
1 to 7). During this first visit detailed plans were developed with the national consultants, initial
meetings were held with key stakeholders, particularly in the MOES and the funding agencies,
and a short site visit was made to the Wakiso District Office and a TDMS Coordinating Centre
(Wampeewo). A stakeholder map was developed and the documentation requirements were
assessed. All of this gathering of information proved extremely useful in developing a Draft
Terms of Reference Report for the case study. Finally, an initial meeting with the CRG was
organized by the MOES, with the support of the Royal Netherlands Embassy.
Shortly after this first field mission, the seventh ESR occurred. The MOES invited the national
consultants to participate fully in that review, including the regional workshops. Prof. Odaet
participated in the Eastern regional workshop (Kumi district), while Mr. Balemesa joined the
central workshop in Masaka district. The regional workshops provided the national consultants
with a valuable and deeper perception of the education issues pertaining to different districts. In
these workshops participants visited individual schools and local offices to assess the situation on
the ground and discuss various issues with local stakeholders.
During August 2002, the national consultants worked with the CRG to gather comments and
suggestions about the draft country TORs, prior to the September Steering Committee meeting.
In September 2002, Mr. Balemesa traveled to Canada, along with Mr. John Wood, to participate
in the meeting of the ESC along with Dr. Berry. In parallel, a quality assurance workshop was
organized for the four country teams. This also afforded an opportunity for detailed inter-team
planning that fine-tuned the methodology of the individual case studies to achieve greater
coordination and consistency of approach across the four countries. It also allowed detailed group
discussions of the links between the document review and the case study methodology.
The second field mission took place from September 28 to October 10 and involved the entire
team of four consultants. This two-week period constituted the most intense data-gathering
component of the study. As well, several days were spent on site visits in four Ugandan districts
(details below).
Two meetings of the CRG were held, at the beginning and end of the mission. The observations
of the CRG members were particularly helpful, as well as their suggestions for additional sources
of information and stakeholders or informants to contact.
Following this mission, the two national consultants participated in the eighth ESR. This
particular review was significant in that there was a general review of the ESIP evaluation, plans
for the next phase of ESIP, along with the FTI proposal and plans for PPET. The four consultants
collaborated on preparing a document summarizing their key findings up to mid-October.
National consultants carried out a substantial number of follow-up meetings with particular
informants: in government, in external support agencies and NGOs. These were necessary either
because scheduling difficulties precluded a meeting during the second mission, or in other
instances to probe more deeply into particular items or gather additional documents.
The third and final mission to Uganda by the two international consultants occurred November 15
to 22, 2002. The stakeholder workshop was held November 18, and follow-up meetings were
held during the remainder of the week. National consultants gathered some minor additional data,
mainly recent EMIS data on education indicators, after the end of the mission.
Preparation of this report occurred during January 2003. The team leader wrote the initial draft in
consultation with the team leaders of the three other country case studies. Subsequently, the draft
was received by the other three members of the team, the country team leaders for the other case
studies, the EMG and the Uganda CRG, before submission of a revised draft to the ESC.
3.1 Key Informant Interviews
During the period of April to November, 2002, a large number of individuals and representatives
of organizations were interviewed in Uganda. Many of these interviews took place during the
three field missions of the international consultants. As well, a significant number of interviews
were conducted by the national consultants between the various field missions. This additional
work added considerably to the knowledge base of this report. A list of all the individuals
interviewed, with their affiliation, where appropriate, follows.
Representatives from the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES)
Hon. Geraldine N. Bitamazire, Minister of State for Education and Sports (Primary Education)
Sam Onek, Acting Director of Education
Kate N. Tibagwa, Acting Commissioner of Pre-Primary and Primary Education
M. A. O. Ocen, Commissioner of Teacher Education
Florence Malinga, Commissioner of Planning
Negris Onen, Special Needs Education
K. Albert Byamugisha, Assistant Commissioner of Planning (Monitoring and Evaluation)
Godfrey Dhatemwa, Assistant Commissioner of Planning (Planning and Budget)
Joseph Eilor, Principal Education Planner
Joseph Muvawala, Planning Department
R. Nsumba Lyazi (Assistant Commissioner Secondary Education)
Maureen Bakunzi (Principal Policy Analyst II)
Resti Muziribi (Ag. Assistant Commissioner for Pre-Primary Education)
Alice Ibaale, PIU (Instructional Materials)
John Nakabago, PIU (Construction)
Sammy Musoke, Organizational Development Specialist
Representatives from other ministries and public bodies
Ministry of Local Government

Ministry of Health
Patrick Ocailap, Aid Liaison, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Ec. Dev.
Twesime Frederick Tabura, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Ec. Dev.
Herbert Baryayebwa, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development
Education Service Commission
Moses Otyek, Education Standards Agency
Dr. Rose Nassali Lukwago, Education Standards Agency
Mrs. Sseezi, Public Service Commission
Mrs. Gorretta, Ministry of Public Service
M.G. Sendyona, Ministry of Public Service
External support (funding and/or TA) agencies
Josephine Bourne, European Union and DFID

Harriet Nannyonjo, World Bank

Anastasia Nakazzi, Uganda National Commission for UNESCO
Sibeso Luswata, UNICEF
David Igulu Wanume, UNICEF
World Food Programme
Austria (Austrian Development Cooperation)
Henning Nielsen, Denmark (Danida)
Michael Ward (DFID)
Elsa Meinzer, Germany (GTZ)
Liz Higgins (Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland/Ireland Aid)
Nicola Brennan, Ireland (Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland/Ireland Aid)
Rosemary Rwanyange, Ireland (Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland/Ireland Aid)
Harman Idema, Netherlands
George Kalibbala, Netherlands
Catherine Guma, Netherlands
Harald Karisnes, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
Randi Lotsberg, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
Sarah Mayanja, USA (USAID)
David Bruns, USA (USAID)
Dan Thakur, CIDA
Representatives from the districts visited during the field work
Arua District:
Nicholas Tembo, DEO Arua
E. Dribiri, Deputy DEO
S. L. Abeti, District Inspector of Schools
John Aloro Kenyi, Deputy Principal (P), Arua Primary Teachers College
Tom Acam, Deputy Principal (O), Arua Primary Teachers College
Stephen Droti, Bursar TDMS, Arua Primary Teachers College
Stanley Adrabo, Arua Deputy CAO (Arua Local Government)
L Candia, Secretary, Education
L Okojia, Chair, Education Committee
Kezi Ondama, District Labour Officer
Joseph Dhinya, CCT, Arua Hill
Raymonde Obiayi, HT, Arua Hill Primary School
Isaac Kotoma, HT, Jiako Primary School
Mbale District:
Stephen Nasasa, Senior Education Officer
G W Wopuwa, CAO, Local Government Office
John Wanda, Senior Internal Auditor
Joseph Mwangala, Senior Finance Officer
Peter Wandera, Auditor
Patrick, Inspector of Schools
Joy Kuteesa Gingo, District Inspector of Schools (SEN)
Annette Masmde, (Special Needs Children)
Gideon Khawukha, Community-based Service Officer
Deo Wandera, Engineer i/c School Facilities Grant Works
Clement Bweri, Head Teacher Bumagen Army Public School

Mbarara District:
Dan Tamwesigire, District Education Officer
Edward, Mbabago, Senior Inspector of Schools
Lwamafa Rwanyanure Javan, Principal Bishop Stuart Core Primary Teachers College
Lydia Kyomunangi, Sr. Assistant Accountant (District Education Officer)
Tukahiriwa, Head Teacher, Kafunjo Primary School
Julius Muhoozi, Chair, SMC, Kafunjo Primary School
Ida Natukunda Barigye, Deputy HT, Rweiziringiro Primary School
Ben Byesigwa, Bishop Stuart Core Primary Teachers College
Jovia Kyokunda, Head Teacher and Coordinating Centre Tutor Chairperson
Sam Asiimwe, Deputy Head Teacher
Mukono District:
Edward Ssewaryana, District Education Officer
Mr. Lwamasaka Prosper, District Iinspector of Schools
Silver Ssemakula-Nsaali, District Sports Officer
Drake Kasirye, Head Teacher, Kisowera Primary School
Peter Kiwendo, Assistant Rehabilitation Office, Kisowera Primary School
Annet Nakigudde, Coordinating Centre Tutor Kisowera
Regina Nakibule, Pupil Primary 7 Kisowera Primary School
Henry Katende, Pupil P7, Kisowera Primary School
Ms. Joy Kuteesa Gingo, Head Teacher Buntaba Child Protection Society
Angela Namagga, Community Development Officer
Ronald Sentamu, HT, Kichwa Primary School
James Kiyemba, Asst HT, Kichwa Primary School
Cyril M. Bampa, Chair, PTA Kichwa Primary School
Damulira Kyeyune, Vice Chairman, Mukono LCV
Christine Ampaire, Director, Gender and Community Development
Caroline Nantale, Assistant Community Development Officer
Wakiso District (during the first mission):

Mr. Sekamatte, District Education Officer
Marjorie Kalemera, Head Teacher, Wamperewo Primary School
Flavia Baguma, Coordinating Centre Tutor
Janet Otukol, Coordinating Centre Tutor
Grace Nekesa, Coordinating Centre Tutor
Stephen Asiata, Head Teacher, Masajja Primary School
Representatives of NGOs and national associations
Tom Muzoora, ActionAid

Philip Twesigye, World Learning
Helen O’Reilly, UJCC
Gerard Mukasa, UJCC
Rev. Canon Grace Kaiso, UJCC
S. Kakembo, UMEA
Charles Businge, ActionAid Uganda
John Baleeta, ADRA
John Mafabi, ADRA
Ms Farah Ahamed, Aga Khan Foundation
Seth Mangare Onguti, Aga Khan Foundation
Mr. Fred Mwesji, FENU
Mrs. Susan Kajura, FENU
Christine Okurut, Norway Save the Children (Redd Barna)
Sarah Murungi, World Learning Uganda Inc.
Bill Rigby, VOICE International
Kate Ewart-Buggs, British Council
Executive Secretary of the Uganda Teachers’ Association
Association of Principals of Primary Teachers Colleges
Aji Kakembo, UMEA
Members of the CRG (some overlap with previous lists)
Sam Onek, Acting Director of Education, Chairperson

Mauren Bakunzi, MOES (Policy)
Cristopher Kaddu Buyisi
David Ssengendo
Joseph Eilor, MOES (Planning Department)
Prof. William Senteza Kajubi, Nkumba University
Fred Mwesigye, FENU
A. S. Kakembo, UMEA
George Kalibbala, Netherlands Embassy
Rev. W.W Kamukama, Church of Uganda
Patrick Kirya, LABE Head Teacher, Nakasero Primary School
R. Nusumba-Lyazi, MOES (Secondary Education)
Joyce Mpanga, Former Minister of State for Education
Gerald Mukasa Uganda Catholic Secretariat
Anastasia Nakkazi, National Commission for UNESCO
Derek Nkata, DEO, Masindi
Moses C. Otyek, Education Standards Agency
Muziribi Resty, MOES (Pre-Primary Education)
M. G. Sendyona, Ministry of Public Service
E. Tuwangye (NGOs in ECD)
3.2 Site Visits
As noted above, a brief (half-day) site visit was held during the first field mission, to the DEO’s
office in Wakiso district, just outside Kampala. This provided the first opportunity to listen to
views of the district of local level about the impact and implementation of decentralization, in the
implementation of UPE at the grassroots level. At the Coordinating Centre at a nearby school
(Wampeewo), a training session for CCTs was being held, which the consultants were able to
observe and engage in extremely useful discussions with several of the tutors who reported both
on their experience in TDMS and the challenges facing individual schools and primary teachers.
The major site visits took place during the second mission, in October 2002. The consultants split
into two teams of two each. Thus, during four or five days, it was possible to spend about two
days in each of four districts.
• Dr. Berry and Mr. Balemesa: Arua District and Mukono District.
• Prof. Odaet and Mr. Wood: Mbale District and Mbarara District.

Each visit typically began with a visit to the CAO and the DEO. Other officials, concerned with
financial matters, school inspections, gender, adult education, and non-formal education were
also interviewed. Typically, a Primary Teachers College was also visited, a coordinating centre,
and several schools. Because of the restrictions on time and travel, the schools tended to be fairly
near to the district centre. The team was thus aware that it did not have the opportunity to visit
small remote schools, which − in some ways − present the greatest challenges with respect to
both access and quality. Nevertheless, the school visits were incredibly useful as a reality check
on the various information sources the team had tapped into prior to the site visits. A few photos
from the site visits are included in the body of this report.
School visits typically began with a discussion with the head teacher, who would explain the
particular circumstances of that school, the impact of UPE, and any particular issues or
challenges. Where possible the consultants also met with the chair of the PTA or the SMC. The
consultants then met with teachers, either individually or in groups, and observed classes in
session. The observations and impressions of the school visits had a major influence on the
analysis of results in Section 4.3 of this report.
The individuals met with are listed in Annex 3.1. The schedule of each site visit is as follows:
Arua: October 3-4, 2002 (Balemesa, Berry)

DEO’s Office
Local Government Office
Labour and Community Development Office
Arua Primary Teachers College
Arua Hill Primary School
Jiako Primary School
Mbarara: October 1-2, 2002 (Odaet, Wood)

DEO’s Office
Kafunjo Primary School
Rweiziringiro Primary School
Bishop Stuart Core Primary Teachers College
Mbale: October 3-4, 2002 (Odaet, Wood)

DEO’s office
Local Government Office
Auditor General’s Office
Bumagen Army Primary School
Mukono: October 1-2, 2002 (Balemesa, Berry)

DEO’s office
Local Government office
Gender and Community Development Office
Kisowera Primary School
Buntaba Primary School
Kichwa Primary School
Wakiso: April 5, 2002 (Balemesa, Berry)

DEO’s Office
Wamperewo Primary School
Wamperewo Coordinating Centre (TDMS)
3.3 Stakeholder Workshop
The stakeholder workshop was held on November 18 at the Equatoria Hotel in Kampala.
Approximately 65 people had been invited through the MOES, drawn from the following groups:
• Ministry of Education Officials;

• Representatives of other Ministries and Agencies of the GOU:
• Education Service Commission;
• Education Standards Agency;
• Finance;
• Planning and Economic Development;
• Gender Labour and Social Development;
• Health;
• Local Government; and
• Public Service;
• External Support Agencies (both financial donors and TA providers);
• National Associations and NGOs; and
• Members of the CRG.
Organization of the workshop was supported by the MOES and facilitated by the Kampala firm
of MSE Consultants Ltd. A document on key preliminary findings of the Uganda evaluation had
been circulated to all invitees prior to the workshop.
Approximately 40 people actually attended. Participation was very strong from educators who
had been invited from the districts involved in the site visits, and from representatives of NGOs
and national associations. It was moderately good from the MOES and other GOU
representatives, but very weak from the funding agencies.
The workshop was opened by Mr. Sam Onek, the Acting Director of Education, with Mr. Abel
Ojoo, President of MSE Consultants in the Chair. After some background remarks about the Joint
Evaluation by Prof. Joel Samoff (speaking on behalf of the Evaluation Management Group and
the Steering Committee), the consultant team presented the findings to the participants.
Detailed discussion, organized around the three areas of enquiry (External Support, Basic
Education, and Partnerships) followed for the rest of the day. For each area, the initial-findings
document provided a set of framing questions (identical to those used in Sections 3.4 and 5.0 of
this report). Participants were divided into four groups, each of which prepared a short written
report and presented a summary of their discussions to the closing plenary. One of the consultants
worked with each group as a resource person, but the groups selected their own chairperson and
rapporteur.

3.4 Documents
The original documents, a set of documents underlying the Uganda case study, were gathered as
part of the overall work on the document review component of the evaluation. As well, in
advance of the first field mission, some Internet searches of library work produced a core set of
reference materials about Ugandan education and the work of some donors in Uganda.
During the first field mission a more elaborate framework for the identification and selection of
relevant documents was developed. This focused on three distinct types of documentation:
• GOU documents, and reports commissioned by the MOES;

• Documents of individual external support agencies, or studies commissioned by them;
and
• Reports and documents of individual NGOs.
As well, several meetings were held with officials in both MOFPED (regarding financial data),
and the Planning Department of MOES (regarding EMIS) data. In both cases the officials were
extremely helpful in generating specific reports from their datasets, in response to the requests of
the evaluation team.
The office of DFID and subsequently, that of the European Union (as coordinator of the EFAG)
was helpful in providing copies of the reports and comments related to the work of the EFAG and
the ESR.
Documentation gathered focused mainly on the period after the beginning of ESIP (1998). The
coordinated work of the MOES and the donor community has created a strong archive of material
since that date.
The situation prior to 1998 was quite different. Most donor agencies appeared to have virtually no
corporate memory of events before ESIP, and documentation was extremely scarce. In the MOES
and NGOs, there was a stronger sense of personal memory, but documents were again hard to
come by. Many existed only in single copies. In a number of instances, although the existence of
a document was well-known, no one seemed to be able to find a copy of it.
It will be noticed, as a result, that with the exception of a small number of key documents, our
bibliography for the case study (Annex 5) consists mainly of documents from the period of 1998
to 2002. Many of these documents are available electronically. The use of digital technology will,
it appears, make the preservation of an adequate archive of documentation much easier in the
future, both for the GOU and for external support agencies.

Annex 4: Comments on the Draft Case Study Report from the Country
Reference Group
The following comments were provided by individual members of the Uganda CRG in response
to the initial draft of this case study report. The Acting Director of Education consolidated them
into a single document. The consolidated comments were then sent to the team leader. These
comments were very helpful in subsequent revisions of the report. The team leader’s response to
each comment is added here in italics.
General Comments
The first draft of the document shows a more in depth study and the group agrees with many of
the findings and conclusions, both in the background study and the annexes. This not
withstanding, the following gaps were noted/observed:
• Lack of clarity on how citizens influence basic education and its implication on funding;
We have strengthened the material on local involvement and consultation. However, the team
had no information on how citizen’s input influences external funding decisions, other than
discussions in the semi-annual ESR meetings.
• Lack of clarity on how education can be made relevant to Uganda – to districts, to

communities – when policies are still strongly influenced by funding agencies;
We have addressed this primarily through the issue of improving retention rates in upper
primary grades through the provision of more flexible and locally relevant curriculum.
However, we have also noted that the “standardization” made explicit through the PLE –
with one examination for the entire country – is a major obstacle.
• How equity and quality in basic education can be maintained with expanded enrolment and
obviously limited funds from whatever source;
This is a huge question that the study addresses in several ways: flexible curricula, as just
noted, changes in the way in which SFG money is allocated, to encourage the building of
more small schools, better monitoring and supervision. But no single, clear answer has
emerged and the team feels that, in all likelihood, none is available.
• The report says there is no longer a need for spending funds on convincing parents to send
children to school. It is felt we still need to do so, especially to make parents keep their girls
in school;
The response of the CRG is noted in the text and the discussion in the report is now more
carefully nuanced.

• The report had not adequately picked up the concern expressed in the Jomtien declaration,
which recognizes that basic education includes both formal primary and non-formal
education; and
The material on non-formal education (particularly ABEK, BEUPA, and COPE, as well as
community schools), has been considerably expanded.
• There is no emphasis on how rural education can be funded to bridge the gap between rural
and urban areas, which is a major shortcoming of this study.
The team has no information about funding mechanisms that could address urban-rural
disparities beyond what is already in place. However, the discussion on the disparity issue in
the report has been expanded both to highlight progress in reducing disparity in access, to
note the continuing problems in rural retention, and the link between the increase in private
schools in urban areas and the need to provide more funds to rural schools.
Other Comments
• Judging by the number of people and groups interviewed, and the site visits, the consultants
have consulted widely. However, their main respondents have been Government officials
both at local and national level. Input by the beneficiaries of the education system – such as
students and the public at large – was rather limited;
We agree with this observation. There were limited opportunities for discussion with students
and parents (usually SMC members) during the field work. The main input from civil society
was through discussions with NGOs and representatives of the religious foundations.
• The stakeholders workshop had a strong representation from Government but very weak
representation from funding agencies;
Agreed. We comment on this fact in the report.
• Though there is evidence of a more in-depth study since the last report, there is no evidence
that Uganda has addressed education as a basic right and yet, on the ground, there is clear
indication that this is our ultimate goal in the near future;
The leadership of President Museveni in affirming the right of every child in Uganda to
primary schooling is acknowledged in the report. The team, and the report, stress that
achievement of UPE is one of the ultimate goals (and one to which Uganda is relatively close
to achieving). It is our impression that the right to education is well recognized in Uganda.
Since UPE, this right is understood to a high degree at the local level.
• The Government White Paper on Education accepted by Cabinet and Parliament has been a
guide to the provision of education, but not the “blueprint” – and departure from it has not
been fully explained;
The team does not fully understand this remark as there was a clear message that the
approach to basic education after the 1992 was an iterative and evolving one. In the final
draft, we have spelled out the ESR process more completely in an attempt to explain how the
MOES, other Ugandan stakeholders, and external agencies work together in a structured
policy and planning dialogue process.
• Review of the education sector’s performance should involve the officials, both from the
districts and the national level, and beneficiaries;
The final draft includes an expanded description of the ESA and how it will work at the
regional level in cooperation with district inspectorates.
• External support has often entered through the centre and then been remitted to districts and
other levels. This has undermined genuine decentralization;
This is an interesting and new observation. The process through which budget support passes
from external agencies into MOFPED and then is remitted to district offices is described in
the report. It is fundamental to the processes of external support and the team doubts that the
role of the central government as a conduit for external funding could be removed. The only
other process is local-level projects, and the advantages, as well as the drawbacks of these
approaches now have an expanded discussion in the final draft.
• Policy making is still to be centralized;
Agreed, and the team believes that, to a large extent, this is inevitable. The report notes,
however, the mechanisms used in the ESR process to gather input and involvement from the
district level
• Uniform programmes supported externally undermine the addressing of unique local needs;
We would question the use of the word “undermine” here, but there is an important issue
here. See some of the above comments about the need for flexibility and local relevance. The
issue is also discussed in the report on the context of the relative virtues of budget support
and project modalities.
• Issues of retention and its implications have not been adequately addressed;
This discussion in the report has now been expanded.
• Assessment and evaluation in education was not fully addressed, neither was the
examinations board represented as stakeholders;
Unfortunately, the team did not make contact with the examinations board. This is a
regrettable oversight. Nonetheless, in the final draft, issues related to assessment are
discussed in greater detail that the earlier draft.
• Too many conditionalities shifts the focus to meeting limited donor demands rather than on
relevant and practical issues in the sector; and
This is an ongoing issue that we discuss. The problem is that “conditionalities” are to some
degree inevitable, because funding agencies are constrained by domestic requirements and
accountabilities and have to ensure that these are met. The issue is to determine when does
“reasonable accountability” become “too much conditionality.” The report discusses the
reality that “ownership” takes on different meanings depending on who holds the cheque
book!

• The study has relied heavily on literature and information from Government sources.
True. The extensive meetings with non-government stakeholders and the field work outside
Kampala were the main tools used by the team in an attempt to hear other voices and reflect
a balanced perspective.

Annex 5: Bibliography
ActionAid. (2000). Annual report 1999. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid.
ActionAid. (2001a). Annual report 2000. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid.
ActionAid. (2001b). Country Strategy Paper II: 2001-2005. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid.
ActionAid. (2002). Annual Report 2001. Kampala, Uganda: ActionAid.
ADRA. (2001a). Annual report 2001. Kampala, Uganda: ADRA.
ADRA. (2001b). Education project phase II: Final report. Kampala, Uganda: ADRA.
ADRA. (2001c). Strategic plan 2001-2005. Kampala, Uganda: ADRA.
ADRA. (2002a). End of programme report on ADRA Uganda teacher education programme.
Kampala, Uganda: ADRA.
ADRA. (2002b). Functional adult literacy (Leaflet). Kampala, Uganda: ADRA.
Aga Khan Foundation. (1999). Annual Report, 1998-99. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.
Aga Khan Foundation. (2001). Annual Report, 2000-2001. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.
Aga Khan Foundation. (2001a). Project briefs: School improvement programme in East Africa &
Madrasa pre-school education programme East Africa. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.
Aga Khan Foundation. (undated). Uganda (Leaflet/Posters).
Bentall, C., Peart, E., Carr-Hill, R., & Cox, A. (2001). Education for All 2000 assessment
thematic studies: Funding agency contributions to Education For All. Paris: UNESCO.
British Development Division in Eastern Africa. (1996). Non-governmental organisations (Ngos)

– National coordinating bodies and donors in the education sector in Uganda: A
mapping consultancy report. Kampala, Uganda.
Business Synergies. (2003). Evaluation of impact of UPE implementation: Final draft report.
Kampala, Uganda.
Canadian International Development Agency. (2001). Uganda: Education Sector Programme.

Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency.
Carr-Hill, R.A. (Ed.). (2001). Adult literacy programs in Uganda. Washington DC: The World
Bank, Africa Region Human Development Series.

Casteel, V. & Roebuck, M. (2000). The Education Standards Agency: A report to the Uganda
Ministry of Education and Sports. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.
Collins, T. & Higgins, L. (2000). Sector wide approaches with a focus on partnership, Seminar
Report. Dublin: Ireland Aid.
Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate and student performance. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory Close-up No. 20. Evanston. Available at
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html
Dean, D. (2002). Investigating school drop-out in Uganda (Report prepared for DFID Kampala).
Department for International Development. (1999). Uganda: Country strategy paper 1999.
London & Kampala: Department for International Development.
Dewees, A. (2000). An economic analysis of the COPE program in Uganda: Current costs and
recommendations for meeting the educational needs of disadvantaged children.
Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF.
Directory of funding and technical assistance agencies supporting the education sector in
Uganda., (undated).
Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE). (2002). Listen to us – It’s time to act.
Kampala, Uganda: Forum for African Women Educationalists.
Foster, Brown, Norton, & Naschold. (2000). The status of sector wide approaches. Dublin:
Ireland Aid.
Ireland Aid. (1997). PAEG Document on Support for the Rwenzori Area, Kampala.
Ireland Aid. (2000). Priority country education profile: Uganda (Draft). Kampala, Uganda:
Ireland Aid.
Ireland Aid. (2001). PAEG presentation for education sector support programme 2001 – 2003.
Kampala, Uganda.
Klees, S., Hawley, J., Byabamazima, V. & Kyeyune, R. (2002). Findings report: The status of
disadvantaged children in Uganda (Report prepared by UNESCO for the Ministry of
Education and Sports). Kampala, Uganda.
Letshabo, K. (2002). Evaluation of breakthrough to literacy in Luganda, Alur and Dhophadhola.

Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF.
Lewin, K. (2002). Options for post-primary education and training in Uganda: Increasing
access, equity and efficiency within sustainable budgets. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of
Education and Sports.
Luswata, S. (2002). Early childhood development: Best practice in Masaka district. Kampala,
Uganda: UNICEF.

Mercer, M., Gosparini, P., Orivel, F. & Kayonga, S. (2000). Evaluation of EC support to the
education sector in ACP Countries, Country report: Uganda.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (1992). Education for National Integration and Development:
Government White Paper on Education. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and
Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (1997). Complementary Opportunity for Primary Education
Programme (COPE). Interim Review: Final Report. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of
Ministry of Education & Sports. (1998). Education Strategic Investment Plan 1998-2003.
Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2000a). Uganda: EFA 2000 Assessment Country report. Paris:
UNESCO.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2000b). HIV/AIDs Plan for the Ministry of Education and
Sports (200/1 – 2005/6) (Draft Report). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and
Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2001). Statistical Abstract 2000. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002a). Costed framework for the education of the
disadvantaged. Kampala, Uganda: MOES Task Force.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002b). Education For All Fast Track Initiative (Country
Proposal). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002c). Education Standards Agency profile (ESA). Kampala,
Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002d). Statistical Abstract 2001. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry
of Education and Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002e). Education Sector Medium term Budget Framework
Paper for the financial year 2003/04-2005/06. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education
and Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2002f, December). Education Sector Six Monthly Report:
Medium term Budget Framework. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education and Sports.
Ministry of Education & Sports. (2003). Draft national implementation framework: Ministry of
education strategic plan 2003 to 2007. Kampala, Uganda: Strategic Plan Secretariat,
Ministry of Education and Sports.

Ministry of Education and Sports (various years). Sector Review Reports.
Review #1: April 1999
Review #2: October 1999
Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development. (2001). Poverty eradication action
plan [2001 – 2003] (Volume 1). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Finance, Planning and
Economic Development.
Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development. (2002a). Summary of background to

the budget 2002/03: Uganda poverty reduction strategy paper: Progress report 2002.
Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development. (2002b). Poverty monitoring and
evaluation strategy. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development.
Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development in collaboration with World Bank Mission in
Uganda, (1999). Report of the evaluation of functional adult literacy programme in
Uganda. Kampala, Uganda.
Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development in collaboration with World Food Programme
in Uganda. (2000). Needs assessment survey for functional adult literacy in Karamoja.
Kampala, Uganda.
Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development. (2002). National adult literacy strategic
investment plan (NALSIP) - 2002-2006. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Gender, Labour
& Social Development.
Okidi, J.A. & Mugambe, G.K. (2002). An overview of chronic poverty & development policy in
Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Economic Policy Research Centre, Makerere University.
Pfaffe, C., Hyde, K., Koch, K. & Meijerink, S. (2002). Mid-term review of the Education Sector
Investment Plan (ESIP) in Uganda (Draft Report). Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of
Education & Sports.
Postlethwaite, T. N. & Ross, K. N. (1992). Effective schools in reading: Implications for

educational planners: An exploratory study. ERIC Research Report ED360614.
The Dakar framework for action: Education for All: Meeting our collective commitments (Adopted
by the World Education Forum Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April 2000). (2000). Paris:
UNESCO

Uganda AIDS Commission. (2000). Scaling up the HIV/AIDs and orphans response to accelerate
poverty reduction in Uganda 2001/1 – 2005/6. Kampala, Uganda: Uganda AIDS
Commission.
UNAIDS. (2002). Epidemiological fact sheets of HIV/AIDs and sexually transmitted infections:
Uganda 2002 update. (2002). Geneva: UNAIDS, UNICEF & WHO.
UNESCO. (2002a). EFA Global Monitoring Report: Is the World on Track? Paris: UNESCO
UNESCO. (2002b). Uganda and UNESCO. Uganda National Commission for UNESCO &
Editions Afrique Oceanie.
UNICEF. (2001a). UNICEF country programme Uganda 2001-2005, master plan of operations
with programme plans of operations. Kampala, Uganda.
UNICEF. (2001b). UNICEF country programme progress report 2001.
UNICEF. (undated a). A community approach to primary education: The COPE programme in
Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF.
UNICEF. (undated b). Guidelines for the CFS checklist. Kampala, Uganda: UNICEF.
USAID. (1992). Country program strategic plan, Uganda 1992 to 1996. Kampala, Uganda.
USAID. (1995). USAID strategic framework and indicators 1995 to 1996. Washington D.C.
USAID. (1996). Tracking of public expenditure on primary education and primary health care.
Kampala, Uganda: Economic Policy Research Centre and Management Systems and
Economic Consultants Limited.
USAID. (1999). DHS education data for decision-making. Kampala, Uganda: USAID.
USAID. (2000). USAID strategy working document: Quality primary education for girls.
Kampala, Uganda: USAID.
USAID. (2001a). Uganda DHS Ed data survey 2001. Entebbe, Uganda: Uganda Bureau of
Statistics and USAID.
USAID. (2001b). Education Strategic Investment Program review, final report: Basic Education
Policy Support (BEPS) Activity. Kampala, Uganda: USAID and Creative Associates
International, Washington.
World Bank. (1993). Primary education and teacher development project (World Bank Project
Approval Memorandum). Washington DC.
World Bank. (1998). Do budgets really matter? Evidence from public spending on education and
health in Uganda (World Bank, Research Paper). Washington DC.
World Bank. (2002a). Uganda second poverty reduction support credit (Project Appraisal
Memo). Washington DC.

World Bank. (2002b). World Bank CDF evaluation: Uganda case study. Washington DC.
World Bank. (2002c). Achieving universal primary education in Uganda: The “Big Bang”
approach (World Bank Education Notes). Washington DC.
World Bank. (2002d). Uganda: Policy, participation, people (World Bank Findings Report).
Washington DC.
World Learning Uganda. (2002). Community action to support education (CASE) Project.
Kampala, Uganda: World Learning Uganda.
Wright, C, & Govinda, R. (1994). Three years after Jomtien: EFA in the Eastern & Southern
Africa Region. Paris: UNESCO − International Institute for Educational Planning.

Local Solutions to Global Challenges: Towards Effective Partnership in Basic Education - Country Study Report Uganda
UGANDA


35148753

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

35148753

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

27056_IOB_omslag_Uganda_GB 20-11-2003 16:02 Pagina 1

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003

© Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2003

Non-commercial reproduction of all or part of this publication may be made

Printing: Opmeer | De Bink | TDS vof

Design: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada

Cover photograph: John Berry

Order Code: OSDR0510/E

Web Sites: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC)

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada

John Berry (J. W. Berry & Associates, Inc.)

Vindu Balani Document Review

Evaluation Steering Committee Members

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 i

Rob D. van den Berg

ii September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 iii

vi September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

Box 1: EFA Goals..................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 1: Literacy in Action ........................................................................................................ 5

Table 1: Framework for Issues Matrix ........................................................................................ 8

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 vii

ABEK Alternative Basic Education for Karamoja

External Agency Acronyms

ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Organization

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 ix

CDF Comprehensive Development Framework

• Comprehensive early childhood care and education;

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 xi

Sector-wide Approach (SWAp) – Generally a SWAp includes support that:

xii September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

External Support to Basic Education

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 xiii

Externally Supported Basic Education

The MOES manages this support in a context of government decentralization. Administratively,

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 xv

xvi September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

• A document review report surveying current available international documentation on

1.3 Structure of the Report

The report is structured as follows:

Section 1.0 presents this introduction and overview.

Part II: Findings

2 September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 3

Documents were of various kinds:

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 5

2.1.3 Individual Interviews

2.1.4 Group Meetings and Discussions

2.1.5 The Country Reference Group

• Comments on the work plans of the evaluation team;

2.1.6 Stakeholders’ Workshop

Country Study Report — Uganda September 2003 7

Details of the workshop are in Annex 3.3.

2.1.7 Integration and Analysis of the Data and Information

Table 1: Framework for Issues Matrix

8 September 2003 Country Study Report — Uganda

Intents, Policies Results Conclusions

External Support Sec 3.1 Sec 3.2 Sec 3.3

Sec 5.1 Sec 5.2 Sec 5.3

2.1.8 Summary of Chronology and Key Dates

Table 2: Chronology of the Uganda Case Study