(If this message does not format properly in your email - please click the “Read in App / View in Browser” above, top right).
Quote of the Month
The meaning of your life is to find your gift. The purpose of your life is to give it away.
Pablo Picasso
Introduction
“The politics that made access possible are not necessarily the politics that will improve learning” says Dr Kenechukwu Nwagbo in this month’s guest post.
Her contention is that educators know politics matter to the changes they want to see in education - but are strangely shy to confront the political dimension of education change head on. Political economy analysis, she argues, is a tool to help educators name the issues, map them and draw up a plan to address them.
PEA challenges educators to equip themselves with the political tools to address this lacunae. Dr Nwagbo describes how Open PEA tries to put its prescriptions into practice by running bootcamps for educators and publishing plainly worded accessible analyses of development issues, including education, in specific contexts.
It’s time to bring politics to the centre of discussions about education change.
Andy Brock, July 2026
Background
Access to basic education is one of the greatest political success stories of the last three decades. Quality has been a harder hill to climb. Does politics explain why ? I believe so and I think PEA is a strategy that can help educators.
Between 2007 and 2015, there were 43 million fewer children out of school, and since the SDGs were adopted another 110 million have enrolled. This has been driven by strong political coalitions of governments, donors, practitioners and civil society organisations that have prioritised education, mobilised resources and sustained commitment. Education for All, the MDGs and the SDGs made schooling a global priority.
But, progress has stalled : since 2015, out‑of‑school numbers have fallen by only 3 million, and over 200 million children remain excluded. The real challenge has shifted from access to learning. In 2018 the World Bank declared a “learning crisis” and recent figures estimate 70% of 10‑year‑olds in low‑ and middle‑income countries unable to read a simple text.
Easy Access, Hard Quality
Expanding access meant building schools, abolishing school fees, recruiting teachers and increasing enrolment. These were tangible achievements that governments could quantify, voters could see, and communities could immediately benefit from. New schools created construction contracts, generated employment and demonstrated visible investment in neglected areas. Fee abolition removed one of the biggest barriers preventing children from attending school. Rising enrolment numbers became powerful indicators of political commitment and progress.
Improving quality has proved much harder. Quality is far less visible, requires continuous investment and is far more dependent on a functional education system. It requires teachers to be recruited on merit, paid on time and supported to improve their practice. It also requires reliable learning assessments, effective school leadership, and strong monitoring and accountability systems. These are not one-off investments but continuous governance interventions. Their political returns are often slower, less visible and more difficult to attribute to a single administration than opening a new school or announcing free education.
If the politics of access defined the previous generation of education reform, then the politics of learning should help define the next. Fortunately, this is no longer a neglected area of research in the field of education and international development.
The Politics of Learning
As countries have struggled to convert schooling into learning, political economy analysis has become an increasingly important lens for understanding what is holding these reforms back. For example, in 2018, the World Bank acknowledged that countries must overcome both technical and political barriers to improve learning outcomes by building coalitions, aligning with the interests of important actors and taking an adaptive approach to facilitate change.
These ideas did not emerge in isolation. They build on a longer tradition of scholarship that has examined education reform through a political economy lens. Together, this emerging body of work has shown how power, formal and informal institutions, incentives and coalitions shape whether reforms succeed, stall or fail, and have proposed ways of working with, rather than around, these political realities.
The politics of education is not new. Practitioners have been navigating it for decades, through stakeholder engagement for example. The newness is the growing body of research that helps us to systematically capture, analyse and integrate these political realities in our approach to education reform.
Yet, despite these advancements, politics is often left unspoken in decision-making rooms and rarely discussed openly in policy and practice. Why ?
Why are educators so shy of politics ?
This has created a disconnect in what we know and what we do. Educators know politics matters, yet they rarely talk about it openly.
Ask almost any funder, practitioner or policymaker whether education reform is political and they will acknowledge the truth of it. Budgets are political. Teacher recruitment is political. Curriculum reform is political. Decentralisation is political. Education financing is political.
Yet, the moment the conversation turns to politics, many of us become uncomfortable. Not because we deny its importance, but because we worry about how to talk about it and the consequences of talking about it. This instinct is understandable: we want to maintain trusted relationships with governments, preserve access, reassure donors, and stay in the good graces of the very people we need to work with. There is safety in seeing education reform as a purely technical exercise, but, too often it means we replace “politics” with softer language, substituting it with words like “context” or “institutional analysis” and avoiding the P-word altogether.
Avoiding politics, namely, the power dynamics, incentive structures, institutions (or lack thereof) that shape education systems, means we ignore its consequences, and the role of politics in preventing us from improving learning outcomes, specifically.
A couple of years ago this conviction led me to bring together like-minded colleagues to establish the Politics of Education (POLED) Network at the University of Cambridge. As doctoral researchers, we believed there should be a space where researchers, practitioners and policymakers could simply talk about the role of politics in education, and especially how it affected the low and middle-income countries we worked in.
The Open Political Economy Analysis (Open PEA) Approach
So, joining the Open Political Economy Analysis (Open PEA) programme at the University of Oxford felt like the natural next step after my doctoral studies.
If POLED was about creating space for conversations about politics, Open PEA is about integrating these conversations within policy and practice.
Our goal is simple: to make political economy analysis accessible and actionable. To do this, we translate complex research into practical insights that help policymakers, practitioners and the general public to understand how power, interests and incentives shape the systemic challenges that they are trying to change. We do this using a simple five-part template to :
1. lay out the problem
2. identify the players
3. show the rules of the game
4. describe the state of play and
5. offer practical policy propositions in plain, accessible language
Open PEA writing bootcamps
One of our key objectives is to help practitioners use political economy analysis not just as an academic exercise, but as a practical way of designing, implementing, and thinking about reforms. To help realise this goal, in July, we hosted our first ever writing bootcamp, bringing together education researchers, policy experts/practitioners and funders to do something that rarely happens: work side by side to translate political economy research into plain-language policy products. Using Open PEA’s five-step framework, participants left not just with new ideas, but with practical outputs designed to respond to real-world challenges.
One researcher commented :
[I learned] how to think differently about a problem I thought I had a very good grasp on (given that it was my PhD thesis) and how complicated thinking and discussing politics really is (even when you think you have it figured out).
Another said :
Thinking and doing politics is hard! It’s why so many people avoid it and why these conversations are important.
I travelled to Nairobi a few weeks later on the invitation of the International Education Funders Group (IEFG) to deliver a similar training session for their network of education philanthropy donors operating in Kenya. We applied Open PEA’s approach to address a real challenge they faced: co-ordination.
Again, our approach gained real support and positive feedback with one participant reflecting that:
Often times our sector treats politics as something to avoid or confront. This session reminded me that politics is an inevitable reality that we must engage with if we’re to have the impact that we desire.
What’s Next ?
Basic education is experiencing a shift in its political and financial landscape. The COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of progress and deepened the global learning crisis, governments have less fiscal space, and many international donors have radically reduced their aid budgets. If education systems are expected to deliver more with less, understanding how those systems really work is now more important than ever.
But, the politics that made access possible are not necessarily the politics that will improve learning. Researchers at our bootcamps pointed out that facilitating the integration of refugees into Kenya education systems involves a different set of actors, incentives and institutions than improving education quality in Nigeria, or strengthening outcomes-based financing in Ghana, or addressing barriers to the political saliency of quality education in Bangladesh.
Every stubborn problem has its own politics, which is why every Open PEA begins with understanding the problem before proposing solutions.
The political economy analysis of education that Open PEA is supporting can help policymakers and practitioners understand not just what the problem is, but why it persists and what can realistically be done about it. Developing these ideas into high-quality products, takes collaboration, time and funding. But, once published, they become public goods that educators can use, adapt and build into their own work.
Dr Kenechukwu Nwagbo, July 2026
References
Open PEA’s first education product: The Practical Politics of Public Private Partnerships In Education: Lessons From Edo State, Nigeria will be released in mid-August. A summary can be found here.
Other products include the politics of cash versus maize in Malawi (here) and health financing in Nigeria (here).
If the mission of Open PEA resonates with you, then do get in touch at open.pea@bsg.ox.ac.uk.
There are three ways you can help.
Fund new Open PEAs (including training sessions) so we can continue developing practical, open-access analyses of the enduring problems holding education systems back.
Use our products in your own work and encourage others to do the same.
Share them widely to help put politics on the table in education policy and practice.
News
A new, and frankly depressing, report from UNESCOs Global Education Monitoring (GEM) team confirm the cuts to aid in education are even greater than the much-advertised 23% fall in global aid as a result of cuts around the North. Overall the figure is 30% cuts in education and 40% cuts to programmable aid for education in specific countries. This graphic makes the point.
Part of this story is the UK’s cuts to its aid budget. From a mandated 0.7% of GNI it is falling towards just above 0.2% says Ian Mitchell. Malawi and Mozambique lose around 90% of bilateral aid by 2028-29. Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda see theirs virtually eliminated and Afghanistan, the DRC, and Myanmar face cuts despite pledges to protect fragile states.
£2.4bn of the UK aid budget — more than supports Africa - is being spent in the UK itself. The shift toward fragile and conflict states is real on paper, but largely driven by protecting Ukraine, Sudan, Palestine, and Lebanon. All this means less support for girls’ education and weaker country systems, inhibiting development.
The British Council, doyenne of UK soft power, is to close 9 offices, including Mozambique and Tanzania, in an effort to make ends meet as their budget has been cut and the government takes its time to restructure a £197m loan made during the Covid era. Soft power is going digital supporters argue. Susannah Birkwood’s article in Devex Pro has more.
One person now in the eye of this storm is Kirsty McNeill recently appointed in the new Burnham government as Minister of State for International Development and Africa at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (now headed by Ed Miliband brother to David of IRC). McNeill was at Save the Children UK for 9 years before becoming an MP. In a unique first LinkedIn post as Minister she sets out how to get research across to her, how to have a meeting with her and how she thinks about campaigning. In other words – do your homework before talking to her !
Interesting to see ECW’s call for Crisis-Oriented Resilience and Emergency (CORE) Programmes in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Myanmar and South Sudan emphasising this “single, flexible, multi-year approach that serves as ECW’s primary country investment modality”. Are the silos between humanitarian and development aid starting to be broken down ?
Development
Alice Evans (as prolific a writer as her brother, educator Dave Evans) has an interesting piece on education and gender in China citing a new paper on women’s opportunities in the job market in China by Xiaoxia Huang. A key stat : adverts preferring male applicants have risen from 0.05% in 2005 to 30% in 2024 ! It seems the days of “women hold up half the sky” (a Mao era slogan) are in full retreat as the Chinese patriarchy reasserts itself. Education, Evans says, is not enough :
But herein lies the Great Gender Divergence… In much of the world education does not break patriarchal gatekeeping, because men either discourage women from leaving the house or by closing ranks at the top.
Shahidul Islam and John Richards have an article in Bangladesh’s Daily Star : “Why Bangladesh’s children are in school but not learning”. Some shocking statistics – a basic literacy rate of 42% in Bangladesh, 23% in Pakistan and 85% in Sri Lanka – and a massive drop off from government schools in Bangladesh (41% down in the ten years since 2013). But, while strong on analysis, my one gripe is that the authors offer few solutions other than hope that a new government will address all this.
I was thinking of this article when I read Dean Karlan and Rachel Glennester’s article “We Advised Different Governments on Aid Spending. Now We’re Calling for Radical Simplification”. The authors frame this is a response to the current fiscal reality. And they give an example of lesson plans and solar panels and improved data collection as a “layered” programme. But, this is really a “straw man” – the real example is in an article like the one cited above which demonstrates the complex nature of reform.
Just focusing on teacher training or curriculum or school leadership in isolation – the prescription Karlan / Glennerster would have – is to take us backwards into the world of single-issue programmes that proliferated 30 years ago and ignored the interconnectedness of education systems. Education systems are complex and reform demands complex solutions, not simplified solutions no matter how little money there is.
AI Spy
Norway has imposed a “near ban” on AI in elementary education. This is part of a general pushback in Scandinavia against unsupervised edtech / AI.
Recently there’s been a buzz around Alpha Schools, a private chain started in Texas. They condense 6-8 hours of schooling a day into two hours using personalised tuition from a bespoke AI software. Carl Hendrick, who I have quoted here before, has a piece (Children of the Magenta Line) that details his visit last year and why he became convinced of the Alpha approach. There is certainly much to commend the idea that learning can be imparted better through personal motivation and engagement and that it doesn’t need 6 hours sitting quietly in classrooms. Much is made of the socialisation, leadership and collaboration skills learnt through play and action in the rest of the day.
This 20-minute promotional video fronted by MacKenzie Price one of Alpha School’s founders makes the case passionately and with some data. But, watching this, a couple of things concerned me. There are no teachers, only “guides”. Really ? All academic content and support can be handled by AI ? Or is this a way of evading responsibilities and rights to employees ? And finally, none of the data cited was independent and, apparently, the schools have resisted independent verification. Expect more on this and other similar experiments as AI becomes more ubiquitous – but keep sceptical.
Voices from the front
The Foundational Learning Initiative for Government Led Transformation (FLIGHT – but no H ?) was formally launched at the Africa Foundational Learning Exchange (FLEX) in Malawi this month with Joan.osa Oviawe, formerly Chairperson of the Edo State Universal Basic Education Board in Nigeria, recently appointed CEO. More information here.
Interesting description and analysis of how one NGO – Can’t Wait to Learn – has transitioned a programme fully into the ministry of Education in Ukraine. Details here. Keeping the principle of government ownership as a central guide to decisions and being flexible about systems interoperability has been key.
Very insightful post from Euan Wilmshurst about the sizeable bias in philanthropic giving to health. He is quick to point out that this is not a comprehensive database and that a full picture may be more balanced. Another figure to note : Mastercard and Gates Foundation give more than 50% of all philanthropy (in these figures) to Africa.
Voices from the rear
(Gray and Published Research)
Brookings Institution have just released a new paper called “From Access to Impact : Government decision-making and scaling of EdTech in South and Southeast Asia”. There’s an excellent short video accompanying it. This focus, not on the edtech itself, but on how governments decide what to prioritise, is a welcome angle for discussion. Their six recommendations could easily be use as a checklist for governments trying to prioritise edtech spending. Fundamentally, edtech (including AI) needs to be seen as a tool in the classroom to enhance or catalyse learning, but not replace teachers.
The paper reminded me of Karim Mohammed’s piece in Issue #29 where he described developers of edtech and development actors (governments / donors / NGOs) talking past each other. Developers are interested in “demand” and development actors in “need” – not the same. To be successful that equation needs to be solved.
From the other end of the scale, designing edtech, comes another toolkit ; the subject of an EDC blog “A New Approach to Ed Tech”. “More than a sequence of steps, the toolkit is a shared way of working” say the authors, emphasising having educators and developers in the room together to design new programmes, piloting and adjusting often.
See also Nick Allardice’s really thoughtful, experience-grounded and operationally astute piece on the coming “wave” of philanthropy (driven by AI IPOs) and the barriers to scaling. Strong synergies with Brad Olsen’s piece on scaling in Issue #30, but even more nitty gritty detail.
A new paper : The politician, the press and the public: How politicians’ perceptions of the media shape UK aid allocations by Paul Clist and Martin Scott suggest politicians may be overestimating the role of the media in shaping public perceptions of aid when in fact it may be shaping their perceptions of aid.
Podcasts, Films and Books
Continuing the theme of Edtech, EdVance, Vika Pota’s podcast, has an interesting interview with the co-founder of LEAD schools in India, Smita Deorah ; “How India is scaling personalised learning”. LEAD provides a tech-based solution for schools in Tier 3 and 4 towns and has grown considerably since founding in 2012. But, it now describes itself as “multi-modal”, a recognition that tech solutions cannot simply replace books.
Deorah speaks passionately about the need for personalisation within Edtech solutions and the poor quality of teacher education in India, and she coins a neat phrase : working “vision backwards” i.e. start from the end you have in mind not from where you are. The podcast is a good intro one of India’s largest ed tech “unicorns” (valued at $1.1bn in 2024).
But, for something a bit more critical read “When schools drop out: Why edtech LEAD is struggling to find followers” by Samiksha Goel in Mint. Goel is pretty balanced on the barriers facing LEAD in terms of parental and teacher resistance to change while also noting LEAD’s own failings and internal challenges.
Also worth a listen, for those puzzling over how to build “belonging” without “othering”, is “If You Were In Charge”, a podcast with hosts Sanam Naraghi and Kavita Ramdas. The latest episode has a very thoughtful interview with john a. powell Professor of Law at UC Berkely whose whole career has been dedicated to this.
It’s summer, and following the death of one of the greatest cricketers ever, Gary Sobers, I’ve been reading CLR James “Beyond a Boundary” about West Indies cricket and the astonishing struggle to have a black cricketer as captain in the 1950s (eventually Frank Worrell). James has an interesting observation on the role of private schools developing cricket as a moral discipline, one that underpinned Victorian cultural life, and as a by-product, strongly influenced Chambertin the architect of the Olympic Games. He says :
The proof of its validity is its success, first of all at home and then almost as rapidly abroad, in the most diverse places and among people living lives which were poles removed …This signifies that it contains elements of universality that went beyond the bounds of the originating nation. It is the only contribution of the English educational system of the nineteenth century to the general educational ideas of Western civilisation.
And finally
Did you enjoy the World Cup ? Using humour to make a heartfelt and serious point, a group of Palestinian amputees came together to recreate the final - see this one-minute video.
Haogen Yao of UNICEF says he has a habit of ending talks with this quick test. Try it at the end of your next talk.
If you know someone who would be interested in reading this newsletter, please pass on, by clicking the share button below. Subscription is free - subscribers receive each issue of Re Education automatically every month.
😀 great issue!