The Brookings Institution

and Karen Mundy. However, the paper’s assertions, as well as any inaccuracies and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors. Th e international community has repeatedly committed to making aid more eff ective, in part by ensur-ing country ownership over aid policies and strategies. Th is commitment to the Paris Principles was re-emphasized in 2008 in Accra where donors ’ practice of linking their aid to prescriptive conditions was highlighted as an important area for more accelerated reform. Th is policy brief examines the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative (FTI) in light of these international commitments to improving country own-ership and reducing donor conditionalities.1 For the 72 million children not in primary school around the world, the FTI is the most important global aid mechanism to support their learning. Improving the FTI’s eff ectiveness is one step in improving the lives of some of the world’s poorest children. We argue that despite sincere eff orts by the FTI to engage in a country-led process, the use of a specifi c global framework and its associated indicators across all contexts eff ectively results in limiting country ownership by imposing prescriptive, donor-designed solutions. We specifi cally examine the FTI’s Indicative Framework (IF) and argue that it is neither a sensible nor legitimate basis for assisting in the allocation of resources to primary education in developing countries that are trying to achiev