Pledges for Priorities: Who gives aid for which educational future?

In this blog post, Elizabeth Agbor Eta, Yeji Cho, Bertin Enyegue, Camille Fabo, Katarina Đilas Holtzapple and Gita Steiner-Khamsi expand the scope of analysis of the GPE replenishment from how much money was raised to also discuss which priorities were put forward by the donors.

The Global Partnership for Education (GPE) held its “Multiply Possibility” replenishment event on September 23, 2026, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The goal was to raise US$5 billion from donors (governments, philanthropies, and the private sector).

Although the target was not met (US$2.1 billion was raised), participating in the replenishment event was uplifting: Government after government and donor after donor expressed their commitment to strengthening education systems in GPE partner countries through the year 2030. It also gave aid-recipient partner countries the opportunity to make their domestic education financing commitments public.

Shortly after the event, Will Brehm, host of the FreshEd podcast, interviewed Professor Gita Steiner-Khamsi, who was in the room as delegations spoke. As one of the research leads in GPE’s flagship Knowledge and Innovation Exchange (KIX) project, she was granted access to attend the high-level replenishment event as an observer. As a group of international comparative education researchers , we were interested less in how much each donor pledged and more in what for.

The 10,200-word transcript documents the brief statements of 22 delegations representing governments (including the EU), the private sector, civil society, philanthropy and other organisations, of which 17 were donors and 3 represented partner countries. Codes were developed to understand the main target populations for each delegation in their pledges (such as Italy’s, see box below). Not all delegations, however, directly named the populations they hoped to serve, such as Germany, which pledged 270 million euros (US$303 million) over the next five years. Their representative, Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development Reem Alabali Radovan called education one of “the best investments” and “one of the strongest foundations for peace and stability”.

“Italy will double its funding for GPE, from 25 million to 50 million euros. Our main focus will be on Africa and on girls’ education. This is the future. Education is a top priority for Italian foreign policy, in Africa, in the Mediterranean region and in the world.” – H.E. Antonio Tajani, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Italy

Our analysis of the transcript yielded interesting findings.

Main target populations:

• Crisis- and conflict-affected: 9 (41% of delegations)
• Girls and women: 8 (36% of delegations)
• Out-of-school children: 7 (32% of delegations)

Main themes:

• Inclusion and equity: 18 (82% of delegations)
• Skills and employment: 17 (77% of delegations)
• System strengthening and resilience: 14 (64% of delegations)
• Access and enrolment: 14 (64% of delegations)
• Peace and social cohesion: 11 (50% of delegations)
• Learning outcomes: 10 (45% of delegations)

Note: The percentages listed below do not add up to 100 because delegates usually mention more than one priority.

The replenishment event brought together high-level politicians and government officials, whose pledges reveal political priorities in their own countries; that is, how they justify allocating international cooperation funds to their constituents. Unsurprisingly, the perennial target groups—girls’ education (36 percent) and out-of-school children (32 percent)—were mentioned by many. During these bellicose times, with wars raging in several regions of the world, children and youth in crisis- and conflict-affected countries moved to the first rank (41 percent) in terms of donor priority.

In particular, we must continue to prioritise girls, children affected by conflict and crisis, and those whose voices are too often overlooked. – H.E. Neale Richmond, Minister of State for International Development and Diaspora, Ireland

The missing social groups are as important to highlight as the ones explicitly mentioned. Curiously, students with disabilities and special needs are missing from donors’ wish lists, as are ethnic and linguistic minorities, even though governments have paid greater attention to these groups over the past twenty years. With imagination and generous interpretation, we can say delegations may have understood these to fall under the broad issue of inclusion (mentioned by 82 percent of delegations).

Moreover, the absence of large vulnerable social groups is addressed by emphasising the need for education programmes that promote “peace and social cohesion” (an indirect allusion to ethnic/linguistic/national minorities) and “inclusion and equity,” which could include students with disabilities and special needs. UNESCO’s World Inequality Database on Education lists eight vulnerable groups who, if disaggregated data become available, should be monitored in terms of disparity: gender, location, region, wealth, ethnicity, religion, disability, and parental education. The fact that donors do not explicitly address these social groups but instead subsume them under broader thematic priorities indicates the political dimension of international cooperation. In fact, only one partner country, the Federated States of Micronesia, explicitly ties GPE support to placing “Indigenous Knowledge, language, tradition and relationship with the ocean at the heart of […] children’s education”.

Also fascinating is the comparison between donor priorities for GPE, as reflected in the main themes presented by the delegations (see above), and the projects GPE funds. GPE’s system transformation grants emphasise system strengthening, including improving girls’ education,  learning outcomes, and, especially in countries where UNICEF is the coordination agency, improving access and enrolment at pre-primary and early grade levels. What is conspicuously absent from externally co-funded educational reforms, whether by GPE or by other intergovernmental organisations (UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank), is skills development and employment, even as 77 percent of delegations name it in their priority pledges. A case in point is the statement by Denmark’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, reiterated below. OECD countries typically pursue this reform priority at the upper secondary school level, the technical-vocational level, and the lower tertiary education level. What are we to make of a priority that exceeds intergovernmental organisations’ current focus on pre-primary, primary, and, since 2015, lower-secondary education?

Education gives children the skills to build better futures. For Denmark, investment in education is also about supporting stable, resilient, productive societies, and about building trusted, equal partnerships for trade, investment and cooperation. – H.E. Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Denmark

The content analysis of the transcript may also offer an opportunity to speculate about the contours of the post-2030 agenda, developed by many of the same actors: a move toward (i) strengthening secondary school education, including technical-vocational tracks, (ii) greater emphasis on education in emergencies, and (iii) a shorter time frame (5 years rather than the previous 10-15 years of international agreements). Whether these trends are justified and reflect country-level needs, however, is a different matter. Education Cannot Wait (ECW) had its replenishment event in early November.  Both GPE and ECW prioritise girls’ education and education in emergencies. This overlap suggests complementarity, but also competition for donor funding at a time of shrinking aid budgets.

The replenishment also draws attention to who finances education and who determines its priorities. In addition to donor contributions, GPE aid-recipient partner countries reportedly committed US$471 billion in domestic education financing, including more than US$250 billion from 35 African countries for 2026–2030. Although these figures represent different financing commitments and cannot be directly compared, they highlight the substantial role of domestic resources in education financing. They also invite a critical examination of the growing emphasis on domestic financing and country ownership at a time when international development assistance is under pressure. As Sierra Leone’s Chief Minister observed, “20% of a small budget is small.” Prioritising education within national budgets does not necessarily translate into adequate financing, particularly in countries facing limited fiscal space and high debt burdens.

Equally important is how international partnerships are presented and legitimised. Throughout the replenishment event, speakers repeatedly invoked the language of shared responsibility, country ownership, equal partnership and the need to multiply domestic investments through international cooperation. These appeals were often situated within broader narratives of crisis, including learning poverty, conflict, climate change, debt, and technological disruption. In this polycrisis framing, partnerships emerge as an indispensable mechanism for addressing a multitude of education challenges simultaneously. GPE pioneered multi-stakeholderism more than twenty years ago. To this day, “partnership” is the trademark of GPE operations, as emphasized by Italy’s delegation.

Our vision for Africa is a model for Europe and for many international partners. Our goal is simple: we want a true partnership of equals. We want to support local capacities. We want to grow together. – H.E. Antonio Tajani, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Italy

The forty members of GPE’s Board of Directors are not only representatives from governments (both donors and recipients) but also non-state actors (civil society, private foundations, private sector). In international relations parlance, the move from “international organisations” (different national governments) to “transnational organisations” (governments and global actors) has become the norm, not the exception.

Yet the repeated emphasis on country-led and equitable partnerships leaves important questions unanswered: Whose priorities ultimately shape financing decisions? To what extent do partner countries influence the allocation and use of resources? And does the growing emphasis on domestic financing represent a genuine shift towards more equitable global education governance, or a redistribution of financial responsibility without a corresponding redistribution of decision-making power?

The inflationary attention to some social groups at the expense of others who are left orphaned can only be understood against the backdrop of the politics of international cooperation: Donors in the high-income OECD countries need to legitimise their budget allocations, however small they have become, vis-à-vis their own political parties and constituents, regardless of what is actually needed. Finding political consensus on girls, refugees, and out-of-school children and youth is easier than on other minorities and vulnerable groups.

These questions and topics deserve attention as the international community begins to shape the post-2030 education agenda.

Authors:

Elizabeth Agbor Eta (Tampere University, Finland).

Yeji Cho (Teachers College, Columbia University, USA)

Bertin Enyegue (Ministry of Basic Education, Cameroon)

Camille Fabo (Teachers College, Columbia University, USA)

Katarina Đilas Holtzapple (Teachers College, Columbia University, USA)

Gita Steiner-Khamsi (Teachers College, Columbia University, USA)