Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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