In my research, I strive to reflect on who gets to shape education policy. Social realities are many; stakeholders, too. Over the past three decades, there has been one (re)current attempt to leverage those many interests—partnerships. Partnerships are tricky to implement since the trend is to include as many partners as possible, and yet, they persist. So, the more stakeholders, the merrier?

In FreshEd’s episode 186, Francine Menashy addressed the appeal of the “partnership-based mandate”, or the proliferation of cooperation between stakeholders—public, private, civil society—in international aid since the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War. Partnerships are seen as more ethical than prior top-down policies because countries ownthe policies and because of local participation. Even when stakeholders from the North are the funders, the South is still considered a partner. The Global Partnership for Education (GPE), for example, has a common pool system under different programs that avoids the top-down structure—countries receive funding without knowing who funds them, and vice versa. As Menashy stated in episode 33, the GPE is also a multi-stakeholder partnership (MSP), with 19 representatives, including states, international organizations, NGOs, the private sector, and philanthropic organizations. MSPs aim at ensuring that all stakeholders sit at the table, and a round table instead of a throne sounds better.

As democratic as they may seem, and regardless of their size, partnerships do not translate into everyone having an equal say, particularly when it comes to how they are funded. At the very least, we will see a funder and a recipient. The funder may be an international financial institution (you probably thought of the World Bank), a country, the private sector or philanthropy. If it is a lender, countries are subject to debt. If it is a donor, these usually need to track down where their funds go for accountability (Menashy, episode 186), so common pools like the GPE’s do not work. With debts ahead, ownership is questionable; without funding, local participation matters little.

Some partnerships may even undermine SDG 4 by discrediting public education. When we look at public private partnerships (PPPs), if the private sector is financing the policy, it usually designs the policy, which reflects the power of money over education. If the public sector is financing the policy, the results are publicly subsidized private schools, which do not reduce inequalities if parents see them as an aspiration for their children to detach from poor public- school students. Private schooling then becomes a social club rather than an opportunity to access better quality education. Clive and Myra Hamilton’s episode brilliantly made the case in Australia, where the public system provides better education, but does not provide the VIP pass to integrate the powerful elite. Whether some schools at all levels provide better or worse education is beyond this discussion. What is at stake is that, while traditional elite schools keep their status, many students swimming in this sea of new private schooling models coming from PPPs may neither be part of the privileged group nor of the well-educated one. Meanwhile, students graduating from the public system are regarded beneath others despite receiving better education.

Paradoxically, as Menashy commented (episode 33) for the GPE, sensitive structural issues in partnerships are often “strategically avoided” to keep partnerships going. Avoidance is particularly true of MSPs because more clashes arise when more stakeholders are involved. Granted. But then, how does dialogue take place at the round table? Perhaps, and somewhat like elite schools finding a way around COVID-19 restrictions in the Hamiltons’ research, the old top-down structure is still somewhere in the foundations of the partnership building and some have a bigger say than others.

With greater disparities and little communication among stakeholders, UNESCO’s role as “the honest broker” in education, as Ms. Stefania Giannini put it, is more necessary than ever. Someone needs to balance out interests and keep the focus on beneficiaries. With numerous country offices, employees, consultants, and connections, and ongoing partnerships, UNESCO is in a unique position to be a neutral referee in judging what is at stake rather than who stakeholders are. Giannini brought up artificial intelligence in the classroom and the lack of teachers as urgent targets of quality education. Both are excellent points of convergence for MSPs and PPPs to work more tightly with UNESCO and ensure that the right to quality education is fulfilled.

Going back to my question from the beginning, all relationships experience difficulties, and partnerships will, too. Inevitably. While not necessarily the more in the partnership the merrier, partnerships could be very effective if politics are kept to a minimum and if initiatives are beneficiary-owned, prioritizing long-term student impact over short-term funding and returns. Most importantly, dialogue should exist so new ideas can flow and real collaboration can happen. A first step is listening to different stanzas to compare perspectives.

October 1, 2026