Public money SHOULD NOT be used to fund private schools and generate profit. This is so simple, so inarguable I do not comprehend why this is still a debate.
What we know:
The greatest learning gains take place when governments eliminated user fees to deliver on the right to education, leading to tens of millions of children enrolling in school for the first time, supporting private schools mocks the importance of that evidence. A recent survey in Ghana found that of 450 children enrolled in low-cost, private schools, 449 were previously enrolled in government-subsidised schools – those schools that will now suffer as a result of poor investment. Even private schools that charge the lowest fees will not help extend access to the 57 million children not in school today.
Proponents of low-cost, private schools argue that privatised schools offer a model of higher educational quality; but the evidence is highly contested and inconclusive. You are all highly selective and quote flawed and superficial research about improved learning outcomes. The biggest flaw is that most comparative studies fail to control for the socio-economic status of children as well as the self-evident motivation of parents.
Parents who opt to pay have prioritised education in their households and will provide a more supportive home environment – which is a key determinant of educational success. Even if there was some marginal evidence of an increase in gain of quality, it is questionable as to whether or not this could be retained on a larger scale. Furthermore, and there is no evidence to suggest that the “competition effect” of low-cost private schools helps to aid in the process of put increasing pressure for improvements in the quality of public schools.
Private schools drain and pauperise the public sector.
I do not see that the authors are trying to make any claims about the relative performance of private schools versus government schools. On the contrary the rational argument is that better and more transparent data and accountability systems are needed to measure learning in any school. If focus moved to outcomes not inputs that would be a positive and fundamental change.
The key stakeholders in this debate must be the children. Many academies in the UK, although not all, have improved the educational standards of the school they have taken over beyond all recognition. Children only have one crack of the whip and each and every one of them deserves the best available.
Interesting article. As a starting point, however, it seems the debate still is public v private and profit v non-profit – in fact much of the article is setting out the potential benefits of private and profit, so the authors seem aware that the debate is still central.
On the first issue – nobody has ever put forward a convincing argument to state that a government department is best placed either (a) to set the correct aims/targets/aspirations for education policy; or (b) to implement the policy aims. Competition and choice tends to drive standards and allows parents to vote with their feet etc.
On profit v non-profit, there is something to suggest that non-profit is better placed – the very fundamental fact that the ultimate aim of the provider is not to increase standards but to increase profit. It is therefore a factual question of whether the positives outweigh this drawback – i.e. whether the benefits of the potential added investment and innovation will make up for this. I’d like to see more evidence on this point - and in particular evidence of whether allow for-profit education providers to operate offers any benefits that aren’t offered by non-profit, private groups such as ARK.
You’re absolutely right. The government should prioritize better education for the youth. William is a good father to his children. He is a good person as a whole. And of course, any parent would want nothing less than the best for their children. They won’t even care if they have to slave away because of their poverty, just as long as their kids don’t experience the kind of life they have experienced. I know we are all free to state our opinions but lately it seems like we are not really entitled anymore. This freedom is highly abused and even used as a lame excuse sometimes. That’s probably why the government does not take us seriously anymore too.
Making profit is not a bad thing. Making a profit from government money is less cut and dry. It alters incentive structures.
But anyone still arguing that only government should provide education is so far from reality they should leave the room.
You are right that the debate needs to move way beyond ideology. But I cannot help thinking that in saying this you are taking a somewhat ideological position about the benefits of the private sector - perhaps in answer to the UN report you reference which I concur gives a terrible view of the UN’s approach to education.
To truly move beyond ideology there needs to be a much much stronger focus on assessment and data. It is only with a true picture of pupil attainment that a PPP can operate effectively, And it is only with a true picture of pupil attainment that any decisions can be made by government about the relative merits of different schooling options.
I urge investors, foundations, governments, bilaterals and school operators to do this. If we don’t know whether or what our children are learning, how can we possibly address the heartbreaking learning crisis that Katelyn and Susannah rightly refer to?
COMMENTS
BY KB
ON December 10, 2014 11:35 AM
Public money SHOULD NOT be used to fund private schools and generate profit. This is so simple, so inarguable I do not comprehend why this is still a debate.
What we know:
The greatest learning gains take place when governments eliminated user fees to deliver on the right to education, leading to tens of millions of children enrolling in school for the first time, supporting private schools mocks the importance of that evidence. A recent survey in Ghana found that of 450 children enrolled in low-cost, private schools, 449 were previously enrolled in government-subsidised schools – those schools that will now suffer as a result of poor investment. Even private schools that charge the lowest fees will not help extend access to the 57 million children not in school today.
Proponents of low-cost, private schools argue that privatised schools offer a model of higher educational quality; but the evidence is highly contested and inconclusive. You are all highly selective and quote flawed and superficial research about improved learning outcomes. The biggest flaw is that most comparative studies fail to control for the socio-economic status of children as well as the self-evident motivation of parents.
Parents who opt to pay have prioritised education in their households and will provide a more supportive home environment – which is a key determinant of educational success. Even if there was some marginal evidence of an increase in gain of quality, it is questionable as to whether or not this could be retained on a larger scale. Furthermore, and there is no evidence to suggest that the “competition effect” of low-cost private schools helps to aid in the process of put increasing pressure for improvements in the quality of public schools.
Private schools drain and pauperise the public sector.
BY Education Insight
ON December 11, 2014 01:28 AM
I do not see that the authors are trying to make any claims about the relative performance of private schools versus government schools. On the contrary the rational argument is that better and more transparent data and accountability systems are needed to measure learning in any school. If focus moved to outcomes not inputs that would be a positive and fundamental change.
BY Madeleine Cox
ON December 11, 2014 02:58 AM
The key stakeholders in this debate must be the children. Many academies in the UK, although not all, have improved the educational standards of the school they have taken over beyond all recognition. Children only have one crack of the whip and each and every one of them deserves the best available.
BY Famous Blue
ON December 11, 2014 03:40 AM
Interesting article. As a starting point, however, it seems the debate still is public v private and profit v non-profit – in fact much of the article is setting out the potential benefits of private and profit, so the authors seem aware that the debate is still central.
On the first issue – nobody has ever put forward a convincing argument to state that a government department is best placed either (a) to set the correct aims/targets/aspirations for education policy; or (b) to implement the policy aims. Competition and choice tends to drive standards and allows parents to vote with their feet etc.
On profit v non-profit, there is something to suggest that non-profit is better placed – the very fundamental fact that the ultimate aim of the provider is not to increase standards but to increase profit. It is therefore a factual question of whether the positives outweigh this drawback – i.e. whether the benefits of the potential added investment and innovation will make up for this. I’d like to see more evidence on this point - and in particular evidence of whether allow for-profit education providers to operate offers any benefits that aren’t offered by non-profit, private groups such as ARK.
BY Stess Morgan
ON December 12, 2014 02:51 AM
You’re absolutely right. The government should prioritize better education for the youth. William is a good father to his children. He is a good person as a whole. And of course, any parent would want nothing less than the best for their children. They won’t even care if they have to slave away because of their poverty, just as long as their kids don’t experience the kind of life they have experienced. I know we are all free to state our opinions but lately it seems like we are not really entitled anymore. This freedom is highly abused and even used as a lame excuse sometimes. That’s probably why the government does not take us seriously anymore too.
BY Lana R
ON December 12, 2014 12:27 PM
This is a good argument. I agree with you. But many won’t. Politics is politics and the concept of profit in education will always be toxic to some.
BY Graham H
ON December 15, 2014 09:01 AM
Making profit is not a bad thing. Making a profit from government money is less cut and dry. It alters incentive structures.
But anyone still arguing that only government should provide education is so far from reality they should leave the room.
BY Alexander Wassel
ON December 21, 2014 07:07 AM
You are right that the debate needs to move way beyond ideology. But I cannot help thinking that in saying this you are taking a somewhat ideological position about the benefits of the private sector - perhaps in answer to the UN report you reference which I concur gives a terrible view of the UN’s approach to education.
To truly move beyond ideology there needs to be a much much stronger focus on assessment and data. It is only with a true picture of pupil attainment that a PPP can operate effectively, And it is only with a true picture of pupil attainment that any decisions can be made by government about the relative merits of different schooling options.
I urge investors, foundations, governments, bilaterals and school operators to do this. If we don’t know whether or what our children are learning, how can we possibly address the heartbreaking learning crisis that Katelyn and Susannah rightly refer to?
BY Gavin McKillan
ON December 23, 2014 10:24 AM
Bravo ladies. Good sense