Education systems are being asked to deliver more with increasingly constrained resources.  Low- and lower-middle-income countries especially face an annual financing gap of US$97 billion between 2023 and 2030 to achieve their national SDG 4 targets, with declining official aid and constrained fiscal space compounding domestic resource mobilization challenges. In many low-income countries, even those that have reached education spending targets recommended for their GDP level, absolute levels of funding remain too low to guarantee adequate student learning with just US$55 per child expenditure annually on education. 

At the same time, debt is squeezing already constrained public budgets. In many contexts domestic financing remains insufficient, with some debt servicing obligations rivaling or exceeding education outlays, underscoring how fiscal pressures limit the ability of public systems to expand access and improve learning outcomes without innovative resource strategies. Governments are also being pressed to enhance planning and public financial management to improve equity and efficiency in domestic spending, as highlighted in recent Global Partnership for Education (GPE) analyses. This makes strengthening domestic education finance about more than simply raising additional funding but about how existing resources are allocated, how effectively they are spent, and how governments work with non-state partners.

As governments seek to improve learning outcomes within constrained budgets, public-private partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly being considered as one mechanism through which governments can draw on private financing, expertise or delivery capacity for infrastructure and public services. PPPs can combine public and private resources while sharing risks and responsibilities, for example, the Inter-American Development Bank has promoted PPP across sectors including through initiatives such as PPP Americas to support education infrastructure and other public services in Latin America and beyond. 

However, evidence also shows that PPPs vary considerably in design and performance. Their effectiveness depends on clear regulation, accountability, risk allocation and monitoring, and poorly designed models can create challenges around equity, efficiency and sustainability.  These debates reflect a broader trend where deeper public-private collaboration is explored as complementary  rather than as a replacement for robust domestic public funding.

The real question is not whether public and private actors should work together, but how these partnerships can help governments raise and manage their own education funding, whether by unlocking private capital or sharing technical expertise. 

To explore this question, EFN spoke with Gagandeep Nanda from Dalberg Advisors and Clinton Onaya from VVOB Kenya , drawing on two distinct approaches to strengthening public education systems. The first case study on the LiftEd Development Impact Bond shows how additional private and philanthropic funding can act as an “impact multiplier,” strengthening government capacity to deliver foundational learning at scale. The second case study on VVOB’s INCREASE programme in Kenya demonstrates how non-state actors can strengthen government institutions and improve the effectiveness of existing domestic financing and resources. Together, the two cases offer different perspectives on how partnerships can support government systems, align incentives around outcomes, and ultimately support ministries and partners to strengthen education systems.

While India has made significant gains in education enrolment, foundational learning remains a major challenge. In response, the Government of India launched the NIPUN Bharat Mission, identifying foundational literacy and numeracy (FLN) as an “urgent and necessary prerequisite to learning.” The LiftEd programme brings together 26+ partners and a $20 million fund across three complementary instruments, guided by the principles of collective action, finance and innovation to strengthen FLN and support 6.5 million children by 2028.

This blog focuses on the first instrument i.e. the LiftEd Development Impact Bond (DIB) which reaches over ~1 million children — nearly five times the size of its predecessor, the Quality Education India DIB (QEI DIB) — while embedding sustainability through selection of indirect, systems strengthening delivery models as well as innovative payment and measurement frameworks. As Gagandeep Nanda from Dalberg Advisors explains, “The DIB design draws on lessons from the earlier Quality Education India DIB, which highlighted three conditions for scaling sustainably: Direct models drive faster learning gains, but leaner, indirect models are better suited to scale and government adoption, while also being highly effective; lower cost per child indirect models allows funders to reach more children with the same investment while remaining compatible with public budgets; and early, intentional government engagement is essential to mainstream interventions within the system.”

The LiftEd DIB founding partners include the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, Bridges Outcomes Partnerships, Maitri Trust, Reliance Foundation, Atlassian, Standard Chartered Foundation, with the British Asian Trust as Programme Leader and Dalberg Advisors as Design and Performance Manager.  The five year programme deploys indirect, systems-strengthening interventions at scale across selected districts in five Indian states implemented by four Education Partners – Kaivalya Education Foundation (KEF), Language and Learning Foundation (LLF), Peepul and Pratham. 

As an impact bond focused on systems strengthening, the LiftEd DIB required an outcomes framework suited to measuring indirect interventions. It adopted a two-tiered approach: Systemic Shift Indicators (SSIs), tracking change within government systems, and Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), measuring the resulting gains in foundational learning across two cohorts of students. Student learning outcomes remain the ultimate outcome, while the SSIs track whether the conditions needed to sustain those gains are being embedded in the system even after the DIB closes. 

Nanda explains, “The metrics that we have used for incentivising partners are both at a student learning outcome level…but we are also incentivising them on the basis of whether they have strengthened the system or not.” The SSIs focus on three levers: better use of student data in district level decision-making, shifting middle managers from administrative supervision towards academic mentoring, and greater adoption of evidence-based pedagogical practices by teachers. 

First cohort endline results suggest that the DIB has been successful in delivering learning gains at low cost while improving how government actors work. The first cohort over 3 years for LiftEd DIB (covering ~560k students) has shown strong endline results: Literacy gains were 0.37 Equivalent Years of Schooling (EYOS) (3.7 months, 0.31 DiD effect size over control), Numeracy gains were 0.24 EYOS (2.4 months, 0.29 DiD effect size over control) and Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) gains were 1.81 EYOS (18.1 months, 1.15 DiD effect size over control) and interventions remain highly cost-effective at average cost of ~USD 6.8 per child over three years and just ~USD 8 per EYOS – better than Dalberg’s 2022 benchmarking of highly cost effective education interventions in India by 2x, and significantly what the Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (2023) deems a “great buy” globally. Given the systemic nature of the interventions, core systems practices have also seen a transformation, with average effectiveness across the systemic shift indicators tracked by LiftEd DIB rising from ~30% effectiveness in baselines to ~70% effectiveness at the end of year 3. 

The broader lesson is that philanthropic capital and partnerships can reinforce, rather than operate alongside, public systems when they are designed to learn and adapt. As Nanda puts it, the focus is “not just cost and effectiveness, but also scale and sustainability”, using philanthropic finance not as a substitute for domestic funding, but to test, incentivise and demonstrate approaches that can make government systems more effective. 

The INCREASE (Implementing National Curriculum Reforms Through App-Based Learning for School Leaders in Secondary Education) programme, implemented by VVOB in partnership with the Ministry of Education and the Kenya Education Management Institute (KEMI), was designed to address this gap to strengthen instructional leadership among junior school leaders and support implementation of the Competency-Based Education reform. Rather than creating a parallel training system, INCREASE works through KEMI, the government institution responsible for professional development of education leaders, combining self-paced digital learning through the KEMI app, online engagement sessions and school-based application. As Clinton Onaya explains, “At VVOB, we recognise ourselves as technical expertise, where we strengthen government structures. We do not implement programmes on our own, but through or within existing government structures such as the Ministry of Education.” 

This approach is deliberately designed for institutionalisation. By the end of the programme, INCREASE aims to strengthen the instructional leadership capabilities of junior school leaders and KEMI staff to steer curricular reform, embed the professional development app within KEMI, and equip school leaders to provide stronger pedagogical support to teachers through school-based continuous professional development. It also seeks to give the Ministry of Education an evidence base for institutionalising blended modalities of professional development for school leaders.

There are early signs that this model is taking root. More than 1,000 junior school leaders across 21 counties have participated in three cohorts of app-based blended continuous professional development, and KEMI is now integrating this approach into its structures and school leaders are already applying their learning to support teachers in implementing the Competency-Based Education. The programme is also extending its experience to senior schools, helping prepare leaders for the next phase of Kenya’s education reforms.

The broader lesson from INCREASE is that non-state actors such as VVOB can add value by strengthening the institutions the government already relies on, thereby enhancing effective delivery of public financing. VVOB brings technical expertise, evidence and support for innovation, while KEMI provides the institutional mandate and infrastructure needed for the approach to endure. This creates a pathway from piloting an innovation to government ownership and potential scale, while keeping reform anchored in national priorities and public budgets.

What these models tell us about strengthening public systems

The experience of INCREASE and LiftEd DIB initiatives suggests that the value of non-state partnerships in education lies less in bringing additional money into the system, and more in how external expertise, incentives and accountability can be structured to strengthen government capacity and make existing resources work harder. 

Partnerships are strongest when they respond to a government-defined problem and are designed for government ownership and scale from the outset. Both models are anchored in existing public priorities rather than creating parallel agendas. INCREASE supports Kenya’s implementation of Competency-Based Education by strengthening school leadership through KEMI, the government institution already responsible for professional development. LiftEd similarly selects interventions with government adoption and long-term sustainability in mind. “At the time of selection of the intervention itself, you have to select interventions that are going to create lasting impact,” Nanda explains. “Once the intervention has been selected, you have to deliver it well so that the government is able to actually see value in what you have done.” 

Public-private collaboration is explored as complements to, rather than replacements for, robust domestic public funding. LiftEd illustrates how philanthropic capital can create incentives around both student learning and the systemic changes needed to sustain it, while shifting some implementation risk away from government. INCREASE uses technical expertise and innovation from non-state actors to strengthen capabilities within an existing public institution. In both cases, external resources are most valuable when they enable the government to test, adapt and strengthen approaches to deliver on national priorities. 

Evidence and accountability can help public resources work harder. Both programmes place emphasis on understanding whether changes in delivery are translating into better outcomes. LiftEd links payments to measurable learning outcomes and systemic shifts, while INCREASE generates evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blended professional development. This helps shift the financing conversation from how much is being spent to what that spending achieves, giving governments better evidence on what to sustain, adapt and scale. 

While non-state partners can bring finance, expertise and experimentation, lasting impact depends on whether governments can eventually own, finance and sustain what works. Success should be measured by what remains after external support ends: stronger institutions, better incentives, proven practices and greater government capacity to sustain and scale what works. Ultimately, the test is whether the partnership leaves the public system stronger than it found it. 

This article was authored by Atma Charles, Program Manager at the Education Finance Network (EFN), with contributions from Clinton Onaya, (VVOB Kenya) and Gagandeep Nanda (Dalberg Advisors).

Disclaimer: This article reflects insights and views shared by contributors in virtual interviews.