Across the global education community, there is broad agreement that evidence plays a role in improving learning outcomes, strengthening delivery and guiding the use of limited resources.

From inside government, that expectation is familiar. But experience shows that the challenge is not simply a shortage of evidence. It is how evidence is defined, whose knowledge is valued, where support for evidence use sits and who holds responsibility for applying it in practice.

Too often, efforts to strengthen evidence-informed decision making operate outside government systems. Expertise arrives through short-term technical assistance. Reports are commissioned and delivered.

Fellowships are created alongside ministries rather than within them. Even with good intent, the result is often evidence that is technically sound but poorly connected to the realities of policy decisions, implementation constraints and local context.

When good intentions weaken systems

Across many countries, support for evidence use has taken forms that unintentionally weaken public systems.

Ministries manage multiple initiatives competing for limited leadership attention. Similar analyses are repeated by different partners. Talented staff are drawn away from government roles by donor-funded opportunities, even temporarily. Reports arrive too late or sit outside policy cycles, limiting their relevance.

Outputs are delivered and activities completed. But inside ministries, routines rarely shift. Capability often concentrates in a few individuals rather than being built across teams, institutions and communities.

These patterns reflect design choices. They are also shaped by incentives and power. Who defines the questions, controls resources and sets priorities influences what counts as evidence and whose knowledge is included or sidelined.

Evidence as part of professional practice

Using evidence well is not a technical add-on. It sits within professional practice.

Decisions inside government are rarely linear. Policy makers balance urgency, uncertainty, political realities and operational constraints. Evidence needs to be clear, timely and usable.

Strengthening this capability involves more than training workshops or standalone analysis. It depends on practice, reflection and routines that support decision making under pressure. Formal research sits alongside local knowledge, professional experience and insight from teachers, communities and frontline staff.

Rather than relying on short-term financial incentives, the Fellowship invests in professional growth, responsibility and credible career pathways within government. This supports retention and reinforces the value of public service.

Working with the system, not around it

Another core design principle has been working with the system rather than around it.

Fragmented support creates coordination costs for ministries. Isolated interventions rarely lead to sustained change. Evidence becomes something owned by individual partners rather than a shared resource for planning, dialogue and oversight.

The Fellowship works alongside civil society and development partners to strengthen alignment and shared ownership. When approaches are genuinely co-created and government-owned, they can also shift power in how priorities are set and how resources are used.

This approach depends on humility from partners and trust from governments.

Designing for durability

The most important test is whether evidence use continues once a program ends.

When teams routinely ask better questions, draw on relevant evidence and apply it in planning and implementation, systems are stronger. That strength sits not only in institutions, but also in collective capability across ministries, local government, schools and communities.

This depends on a long-term view, on support that becomes less necessary over time and on confidence in public institutions to lead.

Reflections for the global education community

For funders, partners and the wider global education community, the implications are practical.

Support can reinforce government leadership by starting with country priorities, working through public systems, valuing different forms of knowledge, investing in people and teams and designing with sustainability in mind.

These choices shape whether evidence strengthens systems or fragments them.

From Sierra Leone’s experience, this approach is helping shift evidence from an external input to part of how policy and delivery operate inside government.

The process is gradual and demanding. It is also necessary if evidence is to inform decisions, delivery and outcomes for learners.