Children need education, but do they need their own education funds?

Of course, we listen when the secretaries-general of nine of Norway's largest aid organizations come together to criticise Long Sight's proposal about cutting in the big education funds Global Partnership for Education (GPE) and Education Can't Wait (ECW).

At the same time, it's a little disappointing that they fail to distinguish between a discussion about what we should support -- in this case education, and a discussion about which mechanisms we should use to provide support. That's the last thing we want a discussion about, in the note we have published.

We have never proposed cutting aid to education. That would be unwise, especially at a time when more and more children are living in conflict zones and humanitarian crises. On the contrary, we believe that education should still be a priority.

But we must at the same time ask a fundamental question: Are we using current education support in a way that provides the most education to those children who need it most? Our answer is: probably not.

More and more intermediaries

Over the past decade, an increasingly complex system of educational assistance has emerged — with new funds, secretariats and coordination mechanisms.

The ECW and GPE funds were established with good intentions: to mobilize support for education, also in crises. And they have undoubtedly helped lift education higher on the international agenda, but they are essentially funded by donors and have brought fresh money to education to a small extent.

At the same time, they have become examples of an aid logic from the growth years after 2015: when something needs to be raised, new structures are created - even if strong institutions already exist. It gives more political visibility and legacy.

ECW and GPE are not Conductors. They are intermediary: platforms for the coordination and dissemination of funds. Behind the scenes, there is still the World Bank, Unicef, other UN bodies and major international NGOs implementing the education efforts they support.

The result? A parallel education architecture, which has made aid more expensive (greater administration), more bureaucratic and less transparent.

When we now need to shake up the system a little, to adapt it to less global aid, we must also dare to ask whether these mechanisms have the right of life. The international aid system needs dieting, and these types of intermediaries are strong candidates for streamlining.

This is not a particularly Norwegian position — the UN Secretary-General has also pointed to the need for a more efficient, coordinated and modern multilateral system through the reform initiative UN80 which aims to renew and strengthen the United Nations system in order to meet the global challenges of the present and future more effectively.

Multiple joints don't always add value

Take ECW. The Fund largely passes funds on to actors who already have their own systems in place — notably Unicef. Norway already supports several of Unicef's thematic funds for education in crises. What is the added value of ECW? Save the Children also receives money from ECW, and from Norway directly.

We pay double for administration and coordination, without it producing better outcomes for the children on the ground.

The same goes for GPE. The Fund channels funds further — often to the World Bank, which in any case plays a central role in the countries' education sector, and which has its own mechanisms through International Development Association (IDA) to support education.

When GPE adds an extra layer of governance, reporting and distribution, we should ask: What does GPE add that could not have been done more effectively directly through IDA and national processes? We run the risk that the funds go to a greater extent to maintaining the fund itself than to the measures on the ground.

Evaluations show that GPE and ECW often fails at its most important mission: coordination. GPE's local groups function poorly in many countries and often make coordination more complicated. ECW has struggled to build trust and distinct roles -- and often overlaps with Unicef, which already does the job.

When these funds fail to deliver on their main task, we have to ask the question: Do we need them?

The counter-argument is gladly that the World Bank and Unicef do not prioritize education enough. That doesn't add up. The World Bank has the world's largest education portfolio and is by far the largest recipient of GPE funds. The World Bank channels funds directly into government budgets and education systems — with far greater impact for structural reforms. More direct support is not only cheaper, it also strengthens national ownership and sustainability. That, in turn, provides higher efficiency.

UNICEF is the second largest — and has unique presence and operational capacity in humanitarian contexts. They already work closely together in many countries.

We need to rethink

A better alternative to the current fund is a more direct model:

• The World Bank assumes responsibility for long-term support through IDA and investment loans.
• Unicef is leading the humanitarian response and transition to development.
• Both work with governments, UN country teams and civil society via existing education groups.
• Results are measured in line with national plans and humanitarian response frameworks.

This does not require own funds, it requires cooperation — which already exists, and which donors like Norway should incentivize.

GPE and ECW have played a role in making education visible as a global common good. And yes -- some co-financing and coordination could be lost if the funds are phased out. But these functions can be continued in existing institutions, at lower cost and with greater effect.

In aid, the tools are not sacred. It's the results that count. Effective education assistance is not about the raison d"être of funds, it is about providing children with schooling. Then we must dare to prioritize what makes the most difference -- and cut the rest.