Comments on: Holding out for the super-voucher: Kevin Watkins responds to Justin Sandefur on private v public education

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:54:13 +0000

From the post: “When asked, many of the parents paying for low-fee private school say that they would prefer the option of sending their children to a public school that offered decent education – a revealed preference that Justin ignores.”

This is not revealed preference. Revealed preference for “A” is when both “A” and “B” are in the feasible choice set and the household picks “A.” Of course most households would prefer a good, (nearly) free education, regardless of whether it is public or private. It seems we all agree that for many households, “good, free education” isn’t in the feasible set, even after decades of effort by good people and many billions poured into the cause.

By: Søren

Søren — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:02:44 +0000

Dear Nancy.
I have what is kind of a genuine question.
I can sort of gather from the blog, why “knee-jerk anti-private education reaction” would appear in a comment. But, is it true for “developing country officials and donors” too?
I know from many other village level public services programmes that that hasn’t been the case. Which would explain some of the strong reactions here.
I’m neither anti-privatisation, -private-public partnerships, -community-driven development, -etc, but, I consider it a fact that villages in resource constrained areas in effect have more often been left to ‘their own devices’ than to ‘flourish in progress.’

By: kevin watkins

kevin watkins — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:46:09 +0000

Nancy: Justin has a very clear prescription. It’s there in black and white in his post.
For the record, I’m not anti-private school – and I think I made it pretty clear that I’m not advocating for unaccountable, top-down public school systems. I’m all for considering a full range of options for reforming failed public systems. What I’m not in favor of is assuming that for profit education is the best starting point for delivering decent quality education to kids from poor households.

By: terence

terence — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:19:29 +0000

” he was (gently) suggesting that developing country officials and donors and UNESCO and its leaders and followers get over their knee-jerk anti-private school reaction, and consider additional options for supporting children’s education in poor countries additional to the single, centralized approach in which the public sector monopolizes the provision of schooling (leading in many cases to problems of patronage, or as Duncan would put it, of power and politics overwhelming good intentions).”

Maybe, but, OTOH, there is a certain school of development policy wonk whose knee always jerks in the direction of the private sector and markets. Which would be fine, if the evidence of superior private sector performance was unambiguous (but it isn’t), or if the private sector was free of the issues of power and patronage. But it’s not.

And so we end up having to deal with evidence. And, as far as this battle of competing bodies of evidence goes, I’m inclined to say that Kevin Watkins wins.

By: nancy birdsall

nancy birdsall — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 03:26:29 +0000

Oops. I had no fundamental point at the end!

By: nancy birdsall

nancy birdsall — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 03:25:05 +0000

Kevin: I found it odd that you start your response by asserting that Justin has a “prescription”. On the contrary: Justin concentrated on presenting evidence that many poor parents are resorting to private schools, and that the low-cost ones (often run not by “corporate entrepreneurs” but by the women with some secondary education in the village) seem to be “ok”,as good or better than the local public school. he was (gently) suggesting that developing country officials and donors and UNESCO and its leaders and followers get over their knee-jerk anti-private school reaction, and consider additional options for supporting children’s education in poor countries additional to the single, centralized approach in which the public sector monopolizes the provision of schooling (leading in many cases to problems of patronage, or as Duncan would put it, of power and politics overwhelming good intentions). Barbara Bruns has also emphasized based on a review of hundreds of studies that a key to successful schools is their accountability to parents and communities, and that in many school systems in Africa and South Asia, public systems haven’t found a way to create that accountability — and local low-cost private schools have.
(I haven’t a clue what Pearson is or is about, but suspect references to Pearson confuse rather than enlighten.) fundamental point

By: David Archer

David Archer — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:38:48 +0000

An excellent response by Kevin to a very misleading blog by Justin -which systematically mis-represented the evidence and put forward a simplistic ideological view. There are massive challenges to improve the quality of government education systems. The answer does not lie in diverting taxpayer money (from DFID) into supporting a parallel private provision for those who can afford to pay. The big gains in enrolment in recent years have been where user fees were abolished and millions more children went to school – so no-one can claim that charging fees is acceptable. The poorest will be excluded and girls will be excluded – and the evidence on this is clear!

We know a lot about what works in improving government schools – for example strengthening teacher training, making the curriculum more relevant, deepening the accountability of the school and building awareness of education rights (beyond just access). Let us focus our resources on supporting what we know works. Education can and should be the most powerful equalising force in a society. Creating or incentivising an unequal, divided education system undermines this.

Besides, to divert public funds into private schools is simply illogical on its own terms – because it will distort the market, subsidising existing providers. If you want to celebrate the free market then don’t interfere with it!

If Pearsons want to make a strategic contribution to education that serves their own enlightened self-interest then they should put resources into improving the quality of public education rather than support the short-term ideological agenda they seem to be following at present. Mass increases in literacy have not occured as a result of private provision – but rather as a result of government action and the building of comprehensive public education systems. These are the systems that will create consumers for Pearson publications – and these are the systems that are the main users of the textbooks they produce. And there is so much that a company like Pearsons can do to support improvements in the quality of public education. It would be so much better for Pearsons to do this – than to support the discredited James Tooley and his dodgy private schools in Ghana.

By: Rajesh Kumar

Rajesh Kumar — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:05:57 +0000

I do agree that improvement in public schools is possible through Reform of teacher recruitment, training and support. Futher administrative system should not be disjointed from the teacher support system. If it is so, then administrative system should be suitably oriented with the approach adopted by support system. It would be useful to make teachers part of effort to bring about change, rather than just the reciepient of orders and directions from the top of educational system. There would be critical mass of teachers who would be eager to grow as progressive teachers, be the change and promoter of change. Teachers growing as learning community at School and Cluster/Block level (with periodic external support) could become engine of sustained improvement. In this regard work of Manabu Sato, Ph.D. Professor, The University of Tokyo is of interest (School Reform toward Learning Community：In Defence of Public Education against Neo-Liberal Policies, 3Rd APS Global Education Conference 2010, Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Center June 4, 2010).

By: James Stanfield

James Stanfield — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:55:26 +0000

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. I assume we all want to improve every kind of school, whether government, private, religious or charitable. Some people specialise in improving government schools and others focus on helping to improve provision in the private sector. Instead of attempting to dictate what kind of education chidlren across the developing world receive, why not simply let parents choose? After all this is a basic and fundamental human right which is confirmed in paragraph 3 of Article 26. Or perhaps do those people who want to force parents to attend government schools perhaps believe that these parents are not as elightened as themselves to decide what is best for their own children and therefore should not be allowed to choose? How very colonial!

By: Amy Bellinger

Amy Bellinger — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:23:51 +0000

Thanks Justin and Kevin for igniting this debate. ARK is collecting evidence on a public-private partnership (PPP) model that puts equity at its heart. ARK and PEAS are managing networks of not-for-profit secondary schools in rural Uganda. Here the government introduced a Universal Secondary Education (USE) PPP policy in 2007 that enables non-state actors to deliver education on behalf of the government. In 2011, 35% of USE students were in 743 PPP schools. Access has improved significantly – 2010 saw a 54% increase in secondary examination students since 2006. Equity is being addressed by not charging tuition fees as the government pays a per student subsidy to these schools, and by targeting underserved rural areas. It is early days and there are implementation challenges, especially around the need to drive up quality and to ensure adequate government subsidy is paid. However, PEAS’ first school set up in 2008 is already demonstrating academic achievement greater than the national average, at a lower cost than government. We firmly believe that rather than excluding the most disadvantaged, plurality in education delivery can positively encourage equity and enable young people to access their right to education.