Guest blog by Joyce Kafuo, Hilton Kapial, Elisheba Musia, Priscilla Vuvu, Regil Wanwanji
Why is Early Childhood Education (ECE) still struggling in Papua New Guinea despite policy reforms?
Over 12 weeks, our team applied the Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) approach to understand why Early Childhood Education (ECE) in Papua New Guinea continues to struggle despite policy reforms and national commitments. The experience pushed us to move past assumptions, engage directly with frontline actors, and learn through small but meaningful iterations. This blog captures our shared reflections, progress and learning as a team.
We worked on the question: Why is the implementation of Early Childhood Education weak in Papua New Guinea despite national reforms and policy intentions?
Through analysis and evidence gathered from schools in Manus, Morobe, Western Highlands, Port Moresby, West New Britain and New Ireland, three major sub-causes stood out:
- Role ambiguity: When elementary structures were dissolved, no officers were formally responsible for ECE implementation, monitoring, or feedback.
- Communication and linkage failures: Policies were not reaching teachers. Teachers’ feedback was also not reaching decision-makers.
- Insufficient teacher preparation and classroom support: Teachers lacked training, learning materials, inspection support and standard curriculum guidance.
These issues showed up differently across provinces, but the pattern was consistent nationally.
Our fishbone diagram
Core problem: WEAK ECE Implementation in PNG
Contributing factors include:
• Structural gaps
• Role and mandate ambiguity
• Lack of curriculum and coordinated implementation
• Weak communication channels
• Limited teacher support and supervision
• Insufficient feedback mechanisms
Doing the fishbone analysis, shifted our mindset from: “How do we fix ECE quickly?” to: “How do we learn our way into understanding and improving the system?
Through two full iterations, we engaged with:
- Classroom teachers
- District education officers
- Provincial leaders
- Development partners including KTF and Digicel Foundation
- Church agencies and school boards
Our Findings
- Many teachers had never received the ECE policy or guidance explaining their role in the new 1-6-6 reform.
- No designated officers exist at provincial or district levels to support ECE since elementary roles were phased out.
- Policy expectations are unclear, and schools are left to interpret requirements on their own.
- Teachers are improvising curriculum, using NGO programs and locally available materials.
- When treated as partners rather than recipients, officers and teachers became more engaged and willing to contribute.
This program changed how we understand problem-solving in real systems. Key lessons include:
Start with the problem, not the solution: We began with assumptions about ECE challenges, but PDIA tools; problem construction, fishbone analysis, design space thinking and AAA analysis showed that the issue was deeper than we realized. The breakdown existed in structures, communication, mandates, and capacity across multiple administrative layers.
Take small steps and learn rapidly: Instead of trying to build a large master plan, we acted in small iterations. Each step produced evidence, feedback, and learning that shaped the next action.
Authority is not one doorway: We learned that legitimacy and support can be built gradually by:
- Including district managers, head teachers, curriculum officers, churches and teachers in the conversations
- Demonstrating progress
- Sharing learning
- Asking for help based on real observations
Complex problems require humility: Many of our assumptions were incomplete. Once we started engaging teachers and district officers, we began to understand how policies were breaking down beyond the national level.
Several shifts have already happened in how we now approach challenging work:
- We no longer assume authority or capacity is the starting point. We build it through action.
- We have become more comfortable starting small and adapting.
- We pay more attention to system realities—behaviours, constraints, relationships and unwritten rules.
- We now engage stakeholders early and continuously rather than designing solutions in isolation.
- We appreciate that solving real problems means navigating politics, incentives, and perceptions—not just analysing policy documents
We are already applying PDIA tools in:
- School visits
- Data collection
- Training and monitoring
- Negotiations and stakeholder discussions
- District-level planning
- Provincial policy interpretation
- Partnerships
Examples include:
- Creating feedback loops between schools and district offices.
- Documenting experiences from teachers to inform the next iteration.
- Testing small improvements in classroom structure and teaching support.
- Structuring meetings around “what we learned, what changed, and what we do next.”
- Moving away from one-off workshops toward continuous engagement.
Across the team, PDIA is now shaping daily problem-solving, not just this assignment.
From our experience, a few lessons stand out:
- Small steps matter more than big plans that never start.
- Listen to the people closest to the problem—they often hold the key insights.
- Authority grows from doing, not from waiting.
- Document as you go. You understand better when you track your learning.
- People support what they help shape.
We have not solved the ECE challenge entirely—but we have built:
- A deeper understanding of the system
- Real learning from schools and officers
- New working relationships
- A practical way forward
The work continues one iteration, one engagement, and one improvement at a time.
This blog was written by participants who completed a 12-week PDIA for PNG online learning program from August – November 2025. 44 participants successfully completed this program.