I created a bit of a stir at the recent launch at the Brookings Institution of Justin van Fleet’s excellent paper “Harnessing Corporate Philanthropy to Educate the World’s Poor”. I challenged the education sector to stop spending so much time talking to itself, to stop moaning about the success of the health sector, and generally to lift its advocacy and lobbying game. At risk of further offending some wonderful education specialists, I will rehearse the theme once again here. I should also make clear that this view is my own and not necessarily representative of FTI.
As a recent arrival to the education sector, I have been struck by the sense, almost, of hurt that exists about the relative success of the international health sector in generating awareness and raising funds. There is a feeling of awe and jealousy, that somehow education has been poorly treated. I struggle with the endless sense of inferiority to the health sector. Let us be quite clear. The education sector has singularly failed to keep its agenda high in the public consciousness and to mobilize international support and funding. This is not a case of competition between MDGs. Both education AND health are important and mutually reinforcing. It is time for us all, all education actors, to lift our game.
So why the failure? Comments are often made that you can’t photograph education but you can photograph disease. The impact of investments is much more long term. Education is a more complex issue to explain. The excuses or reasons can be limitless and education specialists are often happy to discuss these reasons endlessly among themselves. And therein lies part of the problem. The education sector is very inward looking and seems more comfortable talking to itself than engaging externally. You cannot generate global support talking just to yourself.
The sector will often argue with itself even when it does engage externally. I was always interested in the contrast between health and education delegations that used to visit AusAIDs, lobbying for funding. The education folk would often be late, arrive separately, dressed in everything from suits to jeans, and would normally end up disagreeing with each other in the meeting over issues such as quality, curriculum, testing or whatever. In contrast, the health delegations would have canvassed in the coffee shop ahead of time, would all be wearing suits, would have three clear messages with simple supporting documentation, and only publicly would be in violent agreement with each other. Frankly, our sector has been unsophisticated in its lobbying.
Debate is wonderful and we need plenty of it. However, we do need common messaging, without footnotes or circumnavigatory caveats and qualifications. It is time for shared purpose and focus. We have only ourselves to blame for reducing attention to international education and the time is ripe to change that.
Other Education for All Blog entries:
- Are aid effectiveness principles creating an education funding gap?by Charles Tapp and Rebecca Winthrop (April 14, 2011)
- Investing in education for all: worth every penny by Charles Tapp (March 28, 2011)
- If nothing changes, 56 million boys and girls may be out of school in 2015 by Natasha Graham (April 11, 2011)