January 2026
Executive Summary
Since the 2021 military coup, Myanmar’s education system has broken down amid armed conflict, displacement, and institutional collapse. In response, Local Education Boards (LEBs) have been formed across areas under the control of Ethnic Resistance Organizations (EROs) and resistance authorities, especially in Karenni, Mon, Sagaing, and Magway. These boards—composed mainly of Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) teachers, education staff, students, and community leaders—now act as de facto education governance bodies, maintaining primary education despite the lack of a functioning state.
Read the Irrawaddy Article “The Quiet Revolution: Myanmar’s Bottom-Up Federal Education Movement“.
This policy paper contends that LEBs are not temporary crisis tools, but essential institutions paving the way for Myanmar’s future federal democratic education system. Their grassroots governance approaches show how decentralization, community trust, and inclusive decision-making can safeguard the right to education during conflict while establishing the institutional foundation for a federal state.
Drawing on evidence from various regions, the paper highlights five key policy areas where LEBs are already active.
- Governance and institutional structure
- Access and equity
- Financial management and accountability
- Teacher development
- Democratic participation and policy implementation
The paper concludes that official recognition, capacity building, and the integration of LEBs into interim and future federal frameworks are essential for ensuring equitable, resilient, and democratic education in Myanmar’s transition.
1. Policy Context and Problem Definition
1.1 Collapse of Centralized Education Governance
Following the 2021 coup, Myanmar’s centralized education system has lost legitimacy and operational capacity in large parts of the country. Airstrikes on schools, arrests of teachers, forced curriculum control, and widespread participation in the CDM have made state-run education inaccessible or unsafe in many regions.
In response, communities, ERO education departments, and resistance administrations took responsibility for delivering education. Local Education Boards (LEBs) emerged naturally at township and community levels to coordinate schooling, teachers, resources, and safety.
1.2 Policy Gap
Despite their growing role, LEBs currently operate:
- without official legal recognition
- with inconsistent governance capacity,
- under fragmented financial arrangements,
- and with limited policy coordination between regions.
Meanwhile, federal education debates increasingly focus on decentralization and bottom-up governance—yet current LEB practices still lack full integration into policy design.
Policy challenge: How can Myanmar’s interim and future federal education systems establish bottom-up governance while maintaining equity, accountability, and coherence?
2. The Importance of Local Education Boards in the Federal Transition
2.1 LEBs as De Facto Federal Institutions
LEBs already carry out functions usually assigned to sub-national governments in federal systems, including:
- School administration and oversight
- Teacher recruitment and deployment
- Curriculum adaptation
- Community consultation
- Financial management
Their authority comes not from appointment but from community legitimacy and participation, aligning closely with federal principles of subsidiarity and shared power.
2.2 Alignment with International Standards
LEB-led education delivery directly supports:
- Right to education (UDHR Art. 26; ICESCR Art. 13)
- Child Protection in Conflict (CRC; IHL)
- Inclusive Education (SDG 4; Education 2030)
By maintaining access to education during conflict, LEBs uphold international commitments even without recognized state authority.
3. Key Policy Findings in Five Domains
3.1 Governance and Institutional Structure
Current reality:
- LEBs operate through collective leadership and participatory decision-making.
- Governance structures differ by region, based on coordination with EROs or interim authorities.
- Decision-making is quicker and more responsive to context than centralized models.
Policy implication: LEBs show that legitimacy in education governance comes from closeness to communities, not hierarchical authority.
Policy risk: Without formal mandates, LEB authority remains susceptible to fragmentation and marginalization in future federal structures.
3.2 Access and Equity
Current reality
- LEBs support education for displaced, rural, and conflict-affected children through adaptable models.
- Mother tongue-based multilingual education is broadly supported and locally implemented.
- Access remains uneven because of insecurity, resource limitations, and teacher shortages.
Policy implication: Achieving equity in federal education requires more than just uniform national policies. Local discretion is crucial to effectively address language, displacement, and security issues.
Policy risk: Not empowering LEBs could recreate past exclusion of ethnic and rural communities under centralized systems.
3.3 Financial Management and Accountability
Current reality:
- Education financing depends on community donations, diaspora support, ERO contributions, and limited interim funding.
- Many LEBs engage in transparent budgeting, public reporting, and community oversight.
- Funding continues to be unpredictable and uneven across regions.
Policy implication: Bottom-up accountability mechanisms—such as public audits, community monitoring, and collective decision-making—are effective even in environments with limited resources.
Policy risk: Without fiscal frameworks, decentralization could worsen regional inequalities.
3.4 Teacher Development
Current reality:
- CDM teachers and volunteers are the backbone of education delivery.
- Professional development is unstructured, scattered, and reliant on donors.
- Teacher safety, well-being, and recognition continue to be essential issues.
Policy implication: Teachers are not just service providers but democratic agents. Their involvement in governance enhances legitimacy and promotes reform sustainability.
Policy risk: Lack of recognition and career pathways could lead to teacher attrition, weakening system resilience.
3.5 Democratic Participation and Policy Implementation
Current reality:
- LEBs promote community involvement in curriculum decisions, school governance, and policy changes.
- Education governance has evolved into a space for democratic learning and civic engagement.
- Tensions exist between local control and emerging centralized interim structures.
Policy implication: Education policy implementation should be approached as a democratic process rather than just a technical task.
Policy risk: Recentralization may eliminate locally developed democratic practices created during resistance.
4. Policy Options
Option 1: Re-Centralized Interim Education Governance
❌ Risks of repeating exclusion, inefficiency, and loss of legitimacy.
Option 2: Standalone Local Systems Without Integration
⚠️ Provides short-term access but risks fragmentation and inequality.
Option 3: Federally Integrated Bottom-Up Governance (Recommended)
- Identifies LEBs as official sub-national education entities
- Aligns local practices with federal standards
- Maintains flexibility, legitimacy, and fairness
5. Policy Recommendations
1. Formal Acknowledgment of Local Education Boards
- Identify LEBs as decentralized education authorities in current and future federal frameworks.
- Clearly establish mandates, powers, and coordination mechanisms across all levels.
2. Institutionalize Local Autonomy with a Focus on Equity
- Uphold LEB authority over access strategies, MTB-MLE, and flexible learning pathways.
- Prioritize learners who are displaced, affected by conflict, or marginalized.
3. Develop Federal–State–Local Education Funding Structures
- Implement predictable fiscal transfers with minimum equity guarantees.
- Enhance LEB financial management with training and standardized transparency measures.
4. Protect and Professionalize Teachers
- Recognize CDM and ethnic system teachers as legitimate professionals.
- Create pathways for certification, welfare protection, and continuous development.
5. Incorporate Participatory Governance into Education Reform
- Ensure LEB representation on policy councils at the township, state, and federal levels.
- Treat education governance as a foundation of democratic nation-building.
6. Conclusion
Local Education Boards have become permanent examples of federal democratic governance, not just short-term crisis responses. Their experience shows that education systems built on participation, legitimacy, and community ownership are more resilient, fairer, and more trustworthy—especially during conflicts.
Myanmar’s federal transition will succeed not by replacing these institutions, but by learning from them, strengthening them, and integrating them into the framework of the future state.
Ground-up education can become a key foundation for Myanmar’s democratic reconstruction.
