Download Equity, Inclusion and Education

Washington DC,USA
October 6, 2016
What does this report do?
• Looks at the growth of for-profit low fee private
schools (LFPS) and the actors promoting them.
• Examines the evidence behind the key arguments
from LFPS proponents.
• Documents the impact privatisation of education has
on poverty, inequality and social segregation.
• Offers feasible and pragmatic solutions to the
challenges facing quality public education.
LFPS- Low Cost, High Profit?
• Global education ‘market’ worth $4.4 trillion- ‘the
great growth industries in 21st century’.
• Profit from- fees, textbook development and ICT.
• Bridge International Academies (BIA) and Omega
Schools- $6-14 per month fee.
• BIA profit target- $ 500 million in 10 years.
The big supporters of LFPS
• World Bank through IDA (India and Burkina Fuso) and IFC
(invested $10 million for expanding BIA in Kenya and
beyond, and to attract other companies).
• Bilateral donors- preaching public education in their own
countries and promoting privatisation in others.
• ADB and Economic Commission – “Africa must build a
vibrant private sector that supports the development of a
dynamic primary education system”.
• Pearson- world’s largest education company, investing in
Africa and promoting via media.
• Philanthropic billionaires- Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg
The Arguments of the Proponents
•
•
•
•
•
LFPS offer better quality
LFPS are affordable for all
LFPS reach the most excluded
More efficient and innovative
Bring choice and competition,
driving standards up and
responding to parental choice
LFPS- the quality argument
• Very narrow definition of quality addressed.
• Reliance on test score as proxy for quality education.
• Natural bias - majority of children attending come from
higher socio-economic backgrounds.
• Unqualified and untrained teachers, often on short-term
contracts and extremely low wages.
• Evidence of countries where the public sector is
outperforming private schools in terms of learning
outcomes.
No clear private sector advantage.
LFPS- the affordability argument
• In Nigeria, sending one child would cost nearly 20% of the
annual minimum wage, In Ghana, 40% of household income
of poor families. In Kenya, sending 3 children to BIA would
cost at least 24% of income.
• Poor people are already contributing, often at a higher rate
because of regressive tax systems. Paying fees is essentially
double charging them.
• The successes of countries that have removed fees are well
known. In Uganda, enrolment rose by 73% in just one year
following the abolition of school fees.
Available evidence contradicts the assertion that LFPS are affordable for all, and
especially for poor families – effectively pricing the poorest people out of the
classroom.
LFPS- reaching the unreached?
• Established more in urban areas, whereas most out
of school children are in rural areas.
• Girls likely to be out of school because of fees.
• Selects children likely to do better in tests.
• Children with disabilities denied admission.
• Generally not enrolling out of school children .
• Not available in conflict and fragile contexts.
Clear lack of evidence in reaching the unreached.
LFPS- more efficient and innovative?
• Unsustainable and subject to frequent closures,
openings and re-openings, affecting performance
and efficiency.
• Low-cost standardised education.
• Technology as a replacement for skilled teachers.
• ‘Pay as you go’ schemes at the expense of quality.
Lack of evidence in efficiency ,dubious innovations
based on outdated education principles.
LFPS- Choice and competition?
• Dissatisfied parents likely to stay, engage in bargaining to reduce fees
rather than to improve the quality of the school, and ‘feejumping’ changing schools when charges become imminent in order to avoid
paying.
• Choices based on inaccurate information.
• Countries where the private sector is responsible for a greater
proportion of school provision fail to outperform systems with less
private involvement.
• Parents enrol children in private schools against their true preference,
due to a lack of alternatives.
The concept of choice is deeply flawed, and the poorest families suffer
the most serious constraints.
Public First: Surest Way to Quality Education
• Increase confidence in public education
– Government systems do deliver- 50 million more children in school
– No country has universalized; rich countries have public systems
• Increasing the financing of public education
– 5-6% GDP; 15-20% of the state budget; but on average 5% GPP and 11.77%
of budget
– US$139 billion a year from corporate income tax exemptions. This is US$3
billion each week. Ending tax incentives in Ghana could double its
education budget, doing this in Sierra Leone could increase 7X
– non-OECD countries lose US$200 billion a year due to profit shifting by
companies using tax havens. If 20% was spent on education, it cover global
resource gap to EFA. Africa Union High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows
(IFFs) estimate that sub-Saharan African countries lose at least US$50
billion a year
– International aid donors should also be doing more to support education
systems, particularly in low-income countries
Public First: Surest Way to Quality Education
• Making education spending progressive and increasing scrutiny
– Focus on primary, those in most need
– End subsidy to private sector
– Scrutiny
• Increasing governance and accountability in the public sector
– Parent participation
– Local and District authorities- professional accountability
– CSO role
• Increasing quality and equity in the public sector
• Ensuring public regulation of the private education providers