Visit the BBC Radio 4 website to listen to this 30 minute programme

More information on Omega Schools.

• Download the SOLE Toolkit.
• TED prize 2013 website

Low-fee Private Schooling: aggravating equity or mitigating disadvantage?

Edited by PRACHI SRIVASTAVA - 2013 paperback 220 pages US$48.00

Low-fee private schooling represents a point of heated debate in the international policy context of Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals. While on the one hand there is an increased push for free and universal access with assumed State responsibility, reports on the mushrooming of private schools targeting socially and economically disadvantaged groups in a range of developing countries, particularly across Africa and Asia, have emerged over the last decade. Low-fee private schooling has, thus, become a provocative and illuminating area of research and policy interest on the impacts of privatisation and its different forms in developing countries.

This edited volume aims to add to the growing literature on low-fee private schooling by presenting seven studies in five countries (Ghana, India, Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan), and is bookended by chapters analysing some of the evidence and debates on the topic thus far.

The book presents research findings from studies across three levels of analysis that have proven relevant in the study of low-fee private schooling: the household, school and state. Chapters address household schooling choice behaviours regarding low-fee private and competing sectors; the management, operation and relative quality of low-fee private schools; and changes to the regulatory frameworks governing low-fee private schools, and the impact of low-fee private schools on those frameworks.

The book does not seek to provide definitive answers since, as an emerging and evolving area of study, this would be premature. Instead, it aims to call attention to the need for further systematic research on low-fee private schooling, and to open up the debate by presenting studies that use a range of methods and, owing to the context specificity of the issue, draw different conclusions. The hope is that these studies may serve as springboards to further research.

Finally, the book does not aim to snuff out the political and vociferous debate surrounding low-fee private schooling and private provision more broadly, or to erase the complications that abound in conducting research in this area, but to engage with them.

The hope is that as the 2015 target date for Education for All and Millennium Development Goals approaches, this book may help us get closer to answering the question: do low-fee private schools aggravate equity or mitigate disadvantage?

Contents

• Prachi Srivastava. Low-fee Private Schooling: issues and evidence
• Kwame Akyeampong & Caine Rolleston. Low-fee Private Schooling in Ghana: is growing demand improving equitable and affordable access for the poor?
• Shailaja Fennell. Low-fee Private Schools in Pakistan: a blessing or a bane?
• Pauline Dixon, James Tooley & Ian Schagen. The Relative Quality of Private and Public Schools for Low-income Families Living in Slums of Nairobi, Kenya
• Jonathan M.B. Stern & Stephen P. Heyneman. Low-fee Private Schooling: the case of Kenya
• Joanna Härmä & Folasade Adefisayo. Scaling Up: challenges facing low-fee private schools in the slums of Lagos, Nigeria
• Yuki Ohara. The Regulation of Unrecognised Low-fee Private Schools in Delhi: potential implications for India’s Right to Education Act
• Salman Humayun, Rizwana Shahzad & Roger Cunningham. Regulating Low-fee Private Schools in Islamabad: a study in policy and practice
• Geoffrey Walford. Low-fee Private Schools: a methodological and political debate

While examples of these models have already been documented in numerous other sectors such as banking, housing and health, it is only in the last few years that they have started to appear in education.  For example the International Finance Corporation (IFC) has documented the growth of the ‘Value for Money Degrees’ model which makes university education accessible to all through a combination of innovations that increase affordability and value.  An example is Anhanguera in Brazil which educates 650,000 students a year on its campuses and 100,000 students online.  The Monitor Group has also documented the ‘Private Vocational Training at the Seam’ model, which enables private vocational colleges to provide low cost, no-frills, quality further education courses.  In South Africa more than 700 private colleges currently provide learning opportunities for over 700,000 students.

In India, Sudiksha Knowledge Solutions is one of a growing number of innovative and ambitious for-profit ventures which provides preschool education for children living in poverty.   A woman from each local community is responsible for the daily management of each school, and in return, they receive profit sharing, thereby providing school managers with an incentive to continuously improve the services which they offer.  Sudiksha is now hoping to develop one million preschools across India based on a new curriculum that children can actually enjoy.     Many of these new chains of schools (including Bridge International Academies in Kenya and Omega Schools in Ghana)are also adopting a ‘Pay as You Learn’ model whereby parents pay each day on or on a regular basis thereby making the schools much more affordable to those who need it the most.

In Zambia a different innovation has emerged under the brand name of iSchool, Zambia. This for-profit company offers a comprehensive online multi-media eLearning package which covers the whole of the Zambian school curriculum, including both lesson plans for teachers and interactive learning for students.  Schools can purchase the ‘iSchool in a Box’ package which provides all the resources necessary to make full use of the materials, including laptops and tablets for staff and children, secure storage,  power supply, internet access, teacher training, mentoring, and technical support.  Schools can either opt for the iSchool Plus+ package or iSchool Lite.  The iSchool Zedupad is also now available on the high street and iSchool Apps are being designed as we speak.  The average cost per pupil is approximately $10 per child per term or £18.75 per child per year.

So why is the emergence of these new inclusive business models across the developing world relevant to the future development of education in the UK?   While the answer may not be immediately obvious, on closer inspection it soon becomes clear that the rate of innovation being experienced in these markets is both rapid and potentially very disruptive.  This is because to make products and services affordable to the poor, significant and not piecemeal innovations are required.  Furthermore, the lack of government intervention and control in some education sectors is providing a conducive environment for the rapid experimentation of numerous different innovations.

A relevant example is mobile education – enhancing educational outcomes using mobile technology, which is still in the very early stages of development in most schools in the UK.  However, in a 2012 report by GSMA and McKinsey, the global market for mEducation products and services is already estimated to be worth approximately $3.4 billion and is expected to dramatically increase to $70 billion by 2020.  For example in the Philippines over 500 schools are experimenting with a program called Text2Teach which uses Nokia’s Education Delivery (NED) technology to deliver video content to teachers via their mobile phone.   The phones are then connected to TVs in classrooms thereby allowing schools in remote places to access a locally-developed content.  Another mEducation innovation is Tutor on Mobile (TOM) which connects people who want to learn and acquire knowledge with experts in India through their mobile devices. Developed by Tata DOCOMO with technology partner Voicetap Technologies, it is a ‘knowledge marketplace‘ that encourages the sharing of knowledge, and provides an opportunity for people to earn money at the same time by providing learning content.

With portable devices now rapidly evolving this is increasing their capability while at the same time reducing costs – the UK company Datawind has recently launched the worlds cheapest tablet in India at a cost of only £40 (or £25 if purchased in bulk by the government).  These developments combined with the emergence of a new digital savvy and technology-literate generation the possibilities are now endless.   Any UK based company involved in any aspect of education would therefore do well to keep an eye on these developments.

This article by James Stanfield can be found in the latest issue of EducationInvestor.

“To anyone worried that, by expanding the mix of providers in our education system, we are inching towards inserting the profit motive into our school system, again, let me reassure you. Yes to greater diversity; yes to more choice for parents. But no to running schools for profit, not in our state-funded education sector.”[1]

Four months later, in January 2012, the Swedish education company International Education Schools (IES) became the first for-profit company to be awarded a contract (£21m over 10 years) to run a new publicly-funded ‘free school’. So, where does this leave the Coalition’s policy on education? Is the UK education sector now open for business? Or does it remain one of the least attractive service sectors in the UK for private investment and entrepreneurial talent?

 The existing role of for-profit companies in education

Contrary to popular belief, for-profit companies already play an important role in our state funded education sector.

Premises, nursery and specialist provision

Every physical item located inside a publicly-funded school, including the school building itself, has been provided by for-profit companies operating in highly competitive markets. For-profit companies also dominate the provision of state-funded nursery schooling in many areas across the country. And for-profit companies such as the Cambian Group also receive public funds to help run pupil referral units (PRUs) and specialist schools catering for children with severe learning difficulties.[2] However, this lies in stark contrast to the primary and secondary sector where the Government continues to direct all public funds to government schools, thereby discriminating against all private alternatives, despite the fact that they may be able to provide a better quality of service.  Within the European Union there is already widespread government support for a variety of private alternatives and the focus is increasingly on what works best.  Greece and the UK are now the only two countries left that do not allow public funds to be distributed to a variety of different education providers.[3]

From a public policy perspective, it is therefore very difficult to understand why the Government is prepared to distribute public funds to for-profit companies that provide schooling to children up to the age of five, but not beyond that point. Or why such companies are deemed capable of delivering world-class schooling to excluded children or those with severe learning or emotional difficulties, but not to all other primary and secondary school children.  What logical explanation could there possibly be for such a dramatic shift in policy between nursery schooling and primary and secondary schooling?

Local authority services

For-profit companies also work with local authorities to help deliver a variety of services to schools, from school meals to special educational needs. For example, Babcock International Plc has entered into a joint venture with Surrey County Council (Babcock 4S)[4] to provide a range of support services to schools, including consultancy, ICT programmes, training and development, and project management. According to the company’s website, Babcock 4S recently presented Surrey County Council with a £1.2 million dividend as a result of efficiencies delivered, whilst continuing to raise education standards. Other examples of for-profit companies providing education services on behalf of local authorities include Arvato Ltd in Sefton, Merseyside; Devon Norse Ltd in Devon; and Cambridge Education in Islington.

Qualifications and inspections

Edexcel, a for-profit company owned by Pearson, is the UK’s largest awarding body, offering academic and vocational qualifications and testing to schools and colleges. Even Ofsted, which has the important role of inspecting schools and maintaining standards across the sector, relies on a number of for-profit companies to carry out the majority of its school inspections. Again, this can only beg the question as to why companies such as Serco and Tribal Group are deemed capable of inspecting the quality of publicly-funded schools, but not of owning and managing the schools themselves. Common sense suggests that if these companies have developed a good understanding of what a good school should look like, they will also be better placed than many to set up, own and manage a publicly-funded school.

Free school management

Finally, as noted above, in September 2012 the Swedish education company International English Schools helped to launch IES Breckland, in Brandon, Suffolk – the first free school in England managed by a for-profit company. This suggests that while for-profit companies in principle are now allowed to manage publicly-funded free schools, public funds are still not allowed to be distributed to these same companies if they were to establish exactly the same kind of school outside of the free school process.  This confusing and contradictory state of affairs is a direct result of the government’s on-going refusal to direct public funds to a variety of different educational providers.  As a result the only way that they can increase choice and variety within the existing monopoly structure is to set up new government schools and then outsource the management of these schools to successful private education companies.

The private education sector

The notion that for-profit companies cannot be trusted to, or are not capable of, owning and managing publicly-funded schools is rather undermined by the scale and success of the private education sector. There are currently 489 mainstream private schools owned and managed by for-profit companies, educating 82,528 children, which represents approximately 15% of all pupils educated in the independent sector (82,528 of 562,885)[5].  Approximately 83% of these schools are non-selective, and 41% charge fees that are similar to the national average per-pupil funding in the publicly-funded sector.

Outside of schooling, there are also hundreds of for-profit education companies, such as the Early Learning Centre (ELC), which sell a variety of learning products and services direct to parents. The ELC opened its first store in 1974 and now has 215 stores across the UK, together with over 80 stores in 19 countries internationally. When learning materials are purchased from the ELC, it’s doubtful that parents are concerned with the legal status of the Centre or with what motivates the company to sell its products and services. If the profit motive plays such an important role in helping companies such as ELC meet the learning needs of parents and children, why should the same not also apply if ELC decided to open and manage a school? In fact, wouldn’t trusted brands such as Mothercare or the ELC be particularly well placed to expand into different types of schooling if given the opportunity?

The existing role of for-profit companies in both the public and private education sectors suggests that this type of organisation is already trusted and deemed capable of providing a variety of educational services. It is therefore difficult to justify any existing government policy which continues to discriminate against and restrict for-profit companies from competing with their public counterparts on an open and level playing field. To suggest that for profit companies are just out to make a quick buck from children’s schooling (as suggested by the Stephen Twigg, the Shadow Education Secretary[6]), is a cheap and unjustified slur against the thousands of companies and their employees working tirelessly to help deliver a variety of educational services to children across the country.

Of course, this is not to suggest that all for-profit companies operating in education will always deliver a world-class service. Just as in any other sector of the economy, the level of service provided by different education companies will also differ. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, this will be related to the way in which each company is managed, not because of a fundamental conflict between the profit motive and children’s schooling.

Open public services

An ambitious plan to bring about the end of this kind of government monopoly in the delivery of public services was set out by the Coalition Government in its July 2011 Open Public Services White Paper. Writing in the Daily Telegraph in May 2012, the Prime Minister outlined his determination to bring an end to the closed state monopoly where central government dictates what people get, and how they get it:

“I want truly open public services, where people can choose the hospitals and schools they go to, with the right information at their fingertips to make that choice; where different providers, from the private and voluntary sectors, can come in and offer new services that people can access free.”[7]

Building on the reforms previously introduced by New Labour, the delivery of NHS services has become the first government monopoly to be challenged. The right of patients to choose is now enshrined in the NHS Constitution.[8] The Any Qualified Provider (AQP) approach, allowing patients to choose from a list of qualified providers – whether state, charitable or private – when they are referred by their GP, is also now being rolled out across the NHS. The question of whether a provider of health services is non-profit or for-profit will therefore become increasingly irrelevant. Instead, the focus is now on what works best for each individual patient and guaranteeing value for money for the taxpayer. In short, public funds follow the patient.  The Government hopes that choice of treatment and provider will become a reality for patients in the vast majority of NHS-funded services by 2013/14.

The rationale of this approach is relatively straightforward. Because there are now a number of different organisations that are capable of providing similar services, it is impossible for any government to decide prior to the event which will be the best provider for each different patient at any one point in time. The only way to guarantee that each patient gets access to the best possible provider is to allow each patient to the make the choice themselves.[9] Once again, these developments raise important questions. If the Government now recognises the right of patients to choose between a variety of different health providers, and is now pragmatically focused on what works best, why can this approach not now be applied to education?  Why should parents not also exercise the right to choose what works best in terms of their children’s education?

Free schools and half measures

Unfortunately in education, recent reforms have been much less ambitious than in health and despite the increasing role of for-profit companies in the sector, primary and secondary schooling in England remains a government-controlled monopoly consisting of 326 local authorities and 20,086 government primary and secondary schools, educating a total of 7,451,875 children.

The governments flag ship policy has been the introduction of free schools, which are non-selective state schools (or public sector entities funded by taxpayers), independent of local authority control. However, they are not private or independent institutions. While they may be independent of local authority control, they are certainly not independent of the Secretary of State for Education or the Department of Education. To a certain extent, local government control has simply been supplanted by central government command, and while the current Secretary of State may be very supportive, it is impossible to predict what impact a possible change in government would have on the policy.

While IES Breckland is clearly a positive step in the right direction, it is unlikely to be replicated across the country by IES or any other for-profit education company within the existing policy framework. Unless companies such as IES are allowed to open new IES free schools as and where they please, then little progress will be made.  Without this freedom, IES will not be able to realise the benefits that come with developing a chain of schools and so they may be reluctant to make long-term investments in the sector.[10]  The profit motive will also play an important role in the development of chains of schools, as it provides companies with a clear incentive to expand and multiply. Without the profit motive there will certainly be less of an incentive to expand and replicate success.

It also remains unclear how viable these local non-profit educational trusts will be in the long run, especially after those who set them up have retired. The unpredictable nature of these trusts will certainly increase the risks facing any potential private investor.  In the case of IES Breckland, Sabres Education Trust was set up by a small group of local parents. After its application proved successful, the trust then decided to outsource the management of the school to a private education company. However, this raises questions concerning the role and purpose of the education trust. For example, why not simply miss out the middle man (the trust) and allow for-profit companies set up and manage free schools themselves?

All of this confusion suggests that the Government has failed to make a clear distinction between parental demand (groups of parents demanding a new school in their local area), and the ability of these groups to set up and run a school themselves. However, there is clearly an important difference between the two. If parents want a new school in their local area, then the only option they currently have is to set up a new free school themselves. But in a normal, open market, where there was excess parental demand in a specific geographical area you would expect a number of education companies, either local, national or global, to be attracted to the location. And as soon as one provider showed an interest, more would be expected to follow.

For the free schools policy to be genuinely transformative, for-profit education companies must be free to offer their services to parents and open new schools in response to demand. If they remain fettered, the impact of free schools is likely to be muted. The number of new free schools being introduced represents a very small proportion of the school population indeed. By the end of 2013, there will be an estimated 193 free schools – with only a handful of these being run by for-profit companies. In other words, the projected number of free schools by the end of 2013 will represent just 1% of publicly-funded schools in England. Without reform, therefore, the Government’s free school policy is likely to result in the opening of a relatively small number of new schools, but will do nothing to tackle the problems which continue to plague the rest of the sector.  While free schools are a welcome initiative – they should be celebrated as a glimmering of what an open and entrepreneurial education sector makes possible – not the culmination of that process.

Credit where credit is due, the coalition government have dramatically increased the number of academies from 203 in May 2010 to 1807 by May 2012.  Academies enjoy the same freedoms as free schools (but are former local authority schools instead of entirely new schools) and to date, for-profit companies have been restricted from managing academies, which suggests coalition policy on academies is now lagging behind coalition policy on free schools.  Therefore, for this academy programme to work these restrictions also need to be removed and for profit companies must be allowed to develop and manage chains of academies located across the country.

The education passport

If the Government was prepared to take its Open Public Services agenda to its logical conclusion in education and if it was truly interested in what works best, then it should be looking to more radical solutions. In particular, it should be seeking to address the fundamental flaw in the vast majority of state education systems around the world – governments’ propensity to distribute public funds to institutions rather than to parents. As soon as this happens, governments tend to set up their own schools which then crowd out the majority of private alternatives. The result:  government monopoly. With governments then responsible for the majority of schools across the country, they have little option but to get involved with almost every aspect of how those government schools operate and what they teach.

To break this cycle, the Government could do worse than to examine the system of ‘education passports’ put forward by the Institute of Directors in 1999.[11] These payment passports are analogous to education vouchers in the economic literature. The IoD argued that a voucher system with a top-up facility could create a truly world-class education system for the 21^st century. If parents chose to send their children to existing state schools, and not exercise any top-up option at a private school, then education would remain free at the point of use. In advancing the new system, the IoD also pointed out that the debate over market forces in education is not new, quoting John Stuart Mill, from On Liberty:

“If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself to helping pay the school fees…an education established and controlled by the state should only exist, if it exists at all, as one among many competing experiments.”

In a universal system of education passports, all public funds would be directed to parents, not schools, with parents then free to choose their preferred school. As a result, all questions relating to who should be allowed to set up a new school, or whether a new school should be permitted at all, would no longer be the concern of politicians, civil servants, academics or policy experts. Instead, the Government would simply give purchasing power to parents, who would be responsible for choosing between different types of provision. As in the NHS, this is the only way to guarantee that people get access to the best opportunities available.

The three key principles of the education passport system are as follows:

• The value of the passport is the average cost of a state school place;
• Parents are allowed to top up the payment with their own contribution towards fees;
• Both parents and schools are unconstrained – parents can spend the voucher payment at any publicly-funded or private school and these schools have freedom over their waiting list choices.

Since the IoD initially recommended this reform over a decade ago, nothing has changed with reference to the fundamental problem facing the sector referenced above – that the Government directs public funds to schools instead of parents. Until this very simple and common sense reform has been introduced, the prospects for transformational change within the sector will remain severely limited.

The current controversy surrounding the role of the profit motive in education is therefore best viewed as a red herring.  Instead two key questions prevail.  First, should parents have the right and freedom to choose the nature and form of education which their children receive, or should the government continue to dictate?  Second, should our education sector be open and inclusive, allowing a variety of different providers to compete on a fair and level playing field?  When Milton Friedman was interviewed in 2003, he was questioned about his future vision of education and whether he thought that schooling would be provided exclusively by the for-profit sector?  He responded with the following comment:

No, I see competition. Let parents choose. I would expect an open market where there would be a wide variety of schools. There would be for-profit schools, charter schools, parochial schools, and government schools. Which survived would depend on which ones satisfied their customers.[12]

This blog originally appeared as an article titled ‘Profit in education – not a dity word’ in the Winter 2012 edition of the Institute of Directors Big Picture publication.

The current approach adopted by the international development community to guarantee education for all (EFA) across the developing world can best be described as monocentric and one that favours a ‘one size fits all’ optimal solution. This involves expanding the state-controlled and bureaucratic model of education to ensure that all children have access to a free government school. It represents a typical top-down approach promoting one form of institutional design where the key decisions are made by those at the top in central government, with people and local communities at the bottom playing very little if any role in the decision-making process. The EFA project also adds another level of decision making above national governments as many of the key decisions have been made by a select group of development experts working for a number of international agencies.

The post-millennium development goal agenda is now on the table. Last week a meeting was held in London with the great and the good to discuss a new framework to tackle poverty eradication…. again. But haven’t we been down this road before? What lessons have been learnt?

Well, for one, we need to be asking the poor what they want and what works for them?  During a visit to the slum of Kiberain Nairobi, Kenya, walking around a government school, I asked what the head mistress thought about the introduction of Free Primary Education (FPE), a good thing according to the Kenyan government, UNESCO, Bill Clinton and the World Bank amongst others? The answer came back “No one ever asked us, no one ever does”.

It turned out she didn’t want children from the slum in her government school. “They have their own schools” she said, “Everyone knows those in the slum send their children to their own schools. It only implies a transferral from one type of school to another”. The affordable school owners didn’t want it either, and parents were sending their children to low cost private schools in Kibera anyway. So why make the change? Because governments and aid agencies around the world thought it was a good idea,… without asking the poor.

Times need to change.

When the goals were originally set low cost private schools just didn’t figure in the discussions with regards to achieving education for all, a rather meaningless attainment anyway, attending school is very different from learning something in school, what’s needed is ‘quality education for all’, and that means whatever management type the parent chooses.

Times have changed. And rightly so. The work that I’ve been doing at Newcastle University and the E.G. West Centre shows that the majority of poor children living in urban slums, shanty towns and low income areas in developing countries around the world are attending low cost private schools. It has taken parent power, wanting what’s best for their child, to make the world sit up and notice that what really counts is what’s best for the children. And parents know best. Illiterate parents in slum areas know what they want for their children. Many believe that by paying for affordable learning (£3-£4 per month) they get a better quality provision which is accountable to them. Research agrees with the parents.

So if a message needs to go out to aid agencies, politicians and decision makers it is listen to what parents want, allow choice to flourish, look at the evidence, and focus on what’s best for the children.

This blog by Pauline Dixon was originally published on Pearson’s Affordable Learning website on November 8th 2012 http://www.affordable-learning.com/news-views/viewpoints_blog.html#sthash.2SODbqIc.dpbs

A Case Study of Private Schools in Kibera: An Update, Tooley, J & Dixon,P, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, v40 n6 p690-706 Nov 2012.

Unfortunately, because each new student still costs the government thousands of pounds each year and because the government itself has limited funds, it is now difficult to expand the supply of university places in order to meet the increase in demand, which successive governments have helped to create by encouraging more people to attend university.  The inevitable result is that over 200,000 A-level students have missed out on a university place each year.  This represents an extraordinary and unprecedented level of rationing in one of the UK’s most important service sectors.

We are therefore left in the current situation in which the government can no longer afford to increase public subsidies, while at the same time it continues to restrict universities from raising extra income by raising tuition fees above £9,000. This is despite the fact that both the government and the universities agree that extra investment in higher education is required and that some students (and their families) would be prepared to pay higher tuition fees, if only the government would allow universities to increase them.  It is clear that something has gone horribly wrong when the government starts to fine universities for taking on additional students!

Despite introducing the above reforms the current government has unfortunately followed in the footsteps of all previous governments and has failed to recognise one very simple but significant point – there is no such thing as a public university in the UK.   Instead all universities are private institutions which are supposed to share the following characteristics: a legally independent corporate structure; charitable status; and accountability through a governing body which carries ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the institution.  To be clear, they are all legally recognised as private and not public institutions and the government has failed to take this into account when intervening in the sector.  Until this fact is recognised, government intervention across the sector will continue to: undermine the autonomy and independence of private institutions; completely disrupt and distort the pricing system; lead to the widespread rationing of university places; restrict private investment from home and abroad; crowd out for-profit institutions, entrepreneurial talent and philanthropic donations; restrict competition and innovation throughout the sector and last but not least continue to fuel qualification inflation. 

It used to be said that because higher education plays such an important role in our social and economic life, it can’t simply left to the chaos of the market.  However, many people are now beginning to question whether the endless stream of misguided and contradictory government interventions is proving to be even worse.

This article by J.B. Stanfield appeared in The House Magazine (18 October 2012), which is distributed widely in both Houses of Parliament.

Further reading

• Freedom: the bottom line, James Tooley, Times Higher, May 2012
• The rationing debacle in higher education J.B. Stanfield, Institute of Economic Affairs Blog, 20th August 2011
• Scrap the public benefit test and abolish all taxes on education J.B. Stanfield, IEA Blog, 26th May 2011
• Higher education and government subsidies, J. B. Stanfield, Economic Affairs, March 2011
• All universities are private not public! J.B. Stanfield, Institute of Economic Affairs Blog, 19th April 2011
• It’s independence day for those who rise to the Browne challenge, James Tooley, THES, 28 October 2010
• The Broken University: Things Seen and Not Seen in HE, J.B Stanfield, Economic Affairs, Vol 30, 2010
• Why MPs should not sign the NUS petition opposing any increase in tuition fees J.B. Stanfield, 27th April 2010
• The Broken University , J.B Stanfield, Adam Smith Institute, 2010
• Ban political interference with tuition fees, J. B. Stanfield, Economic Affairs, December 2009
• Privatization of business and law schools, J. B. Stanfield, Economic Affairs, September 2009

An example of such a chain is Bridge International Academies (BIA), which was launched in Kenya in 2009 with a mission to revolutionise access to affordable, high-quality primary education for poor families across Africa.  By July 2012 sixty schools had been opened in the slums of Nairobi charging $4 a month and the company now plans to rapidly scale the company and expand across sub-Saharan Africa. By 2015 they hope to have a total of 1,800 schools serving more than one million families. An important initiative introduced by BIA concerns the use of a custom-built automated computerised student payment system which allows parents to pay school fees using a mobile phone. This technology is also used to manage the majority of each school’s financial transactions, helping to create a “cashless school system”. The head office therefore distributes school budgets and teacher salaries by mobile money transfers and parents are also expected to pay school fees in the same way.  As no money is handled within each school, teachers are restricted from demanding extra payments and parents are also asked to report any demands for such payments to the head office.

To help fund its ambitious expansion plans BIA have also succeeded in attracting a significant amount of private investment from a new generation of impact investors such as the Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation, the Omidyar Network, Jasmine Social Investments, d.o.b foundation, LGT Venture Philanthropy, Hilti Foundation and Learn Capital.  Following the lead taken by these impact investors, more established companies have since taken an interest, including Pearson who became a significant minority investor in BIA in March 2011.  According to JP Morgan, the potential size of investment in the primary education market alone over the next 10 years could be $4.8–$10bn, with an estimated profit opportunity of $2.6–$11bn.

On the 2^nd July 2012, Pearson also launched an Affordable Learning Fund and announced another investment in a chain of affordable private schools in Ghana.  Omega Schools was set up in 2009 by Ken Donkoh (a local entrepreneur from Ghana) and James Tooley as a for-profit business with a social mission to create private schools that benefit low income families and empower the aspirations of those at the bottom of the income pyramid.  By July 2012 the number of Omega schools had increased to ten, enrolling 6,000 children and following the recent investment from Pearson the company now plans to expand the chain across Ghana. 

An important innovation pioneered by Omega Schools has been the introduction of the daily fee which caters for the many parents that cannot afford to pay monthly or termly fees.  This fee covers tuition costs, uniform, books, transport, de-worming programmes and a hot meal. Each child also receives fifteen free school days a year and an insurance policy which guarantees that every child will complete their schooling in the event of the death of a parent. The popularity of the pay-per-use business model applied to schooling is highlighted by the fact that the demand for places at each new Omega School has been high and the same model is now being introduced by a number of competing private schools in the local area. As noted on their website, Omega Schools is now looking to introduce rapid incremental innovations that, if successful, will not only yield benefits to our students, but will also have the potential to be widely replicated, yielding benefits to learners outside our system. The Omega Schools innovative Pay As You Learn (PAYL) model combined with very low overheads allowed the company to break even in 2011, which suggests that a new sustainable model of schooling is now beginning to emerge which is not dependent on either government or international aid.

The cashless school and the daily payment of school fees are two innovations that are already beginning to address the issues of financial mismanagement and the lack of transparency and affordability which have plagued government education sectors in developing countries over the previous half century. The fact that the above two companies have developed and then put into practice these two innovations in less than two years shows how entrepreneurial talent, private investment and the profit motive can have a positive impact in this sector within a relatively short period of time.  It will be fascinating to watch these for-profit education companies think the unthinkable and blaze new trails over the coming years.

Further reading: The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid in Education by J.B Stanfield, published as a chapter in  The Profit Motive in Education: Continuing the Revolution edited by J. B. Stanfield, Institute of Economic Affairs, 2012

On July 2 2012, Pearson, launched a $15 million Affordable Learning Fund to invest in private companies committed to innovative approaches, sustainable business models and improving learning outcomes for the poorest families in the world.  The first investment from the new Fund, is a stake in Omega Schools, a privately held chain of affordable, for-profit schools based in Ghana.   Accoprding to Sir Michael Barber, Pearson’s Chief Education Advisor and Chairman of the new Fund

“Low-cost private education is an important, complementary element of education in developing countries and should be seen as an active partner with governments looking to ensure all children have access to a high quality education. We are convinced that affordable schools, operated on a for-profit basis, can make a big difference.”

Omega Schools was set up in 2009 by James Tooley and Ken Donkoh (a local entrepreneur from Ghana) as a for-profit business with a social mission ‘to create private schools that benefit low income families and empower aspirations of those at the bottom of the income pyramid’.  By 2011 the number of Omega schools had increased to 10, enrolling approximately 6,000 children and the company now plans to expand the chain across Ghana .

An important innovation pioneered by Omega Schools has been the introduction of the daily fee which caters for the many parents that cannot afford to pay monthly or termly fees.  This fee covers tuition costs, uniform, books, transport, a de-worming programmes and a hot meal. Each child also receives fifteen free school days a year and an insurance policy which guarantees that every child will complete their schooling even in the event of the death of a parent. 

The popularity of this Pay As You Learn (PAYL) business model is highlighted by the fact that the demand for places at each new Omega School has been high and the same model is now being introduced by a number of competing private schools in the local area.  This example therefore helps to shed light on how the profit motive in education can help to benefit not only the children attending the school introducing a new innovation but also children attending different schools, which may subsequently copy or imitate the same innovation.  A process of continuous innovation which is normally associated with more competitive sectors of the economy is therefore slowly beginning to emerge in these new education markets.  Research published by the Monitor Institute (2011) identified Omega Schools as an ‘emerging phenomenon with high potential to counter the causes and consequences of global poverty’ (Monitor Institute, 2011, p.26).  Again, this is not simply referring to the potential of Omega Schools operating in complete isolation.  Instead it also takes into account the transformative effect that opening an Omega School could have on other schools operating in the local area.  After the multiplier effect has been taken into account, it becomes much easier to see how an innovation introduced in one school can be quickly imitated by other local schools and eventually across an entire nation.

To help support and develop this new chain of private schools the Omega Schools Foundation was also set up in 2009 which acts as the companies R&D department and helps to manage any philanthropic donations which the company receives.  To date, the Foundation’s research activities have been focused on addressing a number of questions including: What low cost methods could create quality lesson plans that could be used in low-cost private schools?  Could a computer lab for self and peer-learning be introduced into the low cost private schools without any significant premium on fees to parents?  What school design could be introduced to enable low cost schools to be built or upgraded at minimum expense?

The Omega Schools Pay As You Learn (PAYL) business model combined with very low overheads allowed the company to break even in 2011.  These ten schools are therefore financially self-sustainable and do not depend on any external funding from governments or international agencies.  This is a significant achievement and it confirms that when schools are given the space and freedom to develop they can flourish without government support.  This raises an intriguing question – what would be the state of education across Africa if there were no government schools?  Would there be more or less education and would the quality be higher or lower?

Links

BBC Hard Talk, Sir Michael Barber, August 13 2012

Pearson to invest in low-cost private education in Africa and Asia, Mark Twan, The Guardian, July 3 2012

Pearson Affordable Learning Fund makes first investment in Omega Schools in Ghana, July 02 2012

Over the past decade, low-cost private schools have burgeoned in developing countries. In some areas, the majority of children are attending the low-cost private unaided schools. Children seem to do better in low-cost private schools compared to government ones, and at a fraction of the teacher cost. Figures show that many children currently purported to be out of school are in fact attending private schools that are unregistered/unrecognised, which are often missing from official data and statistics. But many writers, including some at UNESCO and Oxfam, are in denial over the reality and potentiality of private schooling or, despite the evidence, still assume that in order to provide greater access for the poor the government sector needs to be “fixed.” According to such voices, international aid money through bilateral and multilateral aid needs to focus on government schools. This essay critically examines the arguments of some of those who discount or deny the success and potentiality of private schooling. Some initiatives are also considered that focus on aiding low-cost private schools rather than government ones.

To download this article please visit: Why the Denial? Low-Cost Private Schools in Developing Countries and Their Contributions to Education

To download this article please visit: Big Questions and Poor Economics: Banerjee and Duflo on Schooling in Developing Countries.

A new generation of qualifications has recently emerged in the global IT sector, which operate very differently from our traditional GCSE’s and A Levels.  For example, Microsoft Learning is now a global leader in IT qualifications and they offer a wide range of Microsoft Certifications which provide individuals with technical expertise and prove their ability to design and build innovative solutions across multiple technologies.  Due to the rapid rate of change in this sector, new Microsoft qualifications are continuously being introduced and existing qualifications revised.  Some certifications are retired when Microsoft ends its support for the related technology and others must be updated every three years by taking a refresh exam.  This generates additional income for the company, enables students to keep up to date on the latest developments in the field and ensures that potential employers have confidence that someone who holds a Microsoft Certification is current and engaged with Microsoft technologies.  In short the value and the relevance of the qualification are maintained over time.

The branding of these new qualifications is also significant because the quality and reputation of the qualification is now inextricably linked with the quality and reputation of the parent company.  Therefore any criticism of the Microsoft Certification will have a negative impact on the corporate image of Microsoft itself, which places pressure on the company to continuously maintain and improve the quality of its qualifications by investing in research and development and experimenting with new and better ways of delivery.  Further pressure comes from existing and any future competitors from around the world which may introduce a superior alternative at any time.  Again, all of these pressures help to maintain the value and the relevance of the qualification.

Because the government uses examination results as a key measure of a schools performance, schools respond by teaching to the test and by choosing the exam board which has the highest pass rate, i.e the easiest exams.  You therefore end up with a race to the bottom with each private exam company competing to provide the easiest exams. Children continue to get better exam results, schools continue to climb the league table and the government can boast of helping to improve standards across the board.  And when people begin to highlight the blatantly obvious, that despite increasing grades, children appear to be less educated than half a century ago, the private companies which provide the curriculum and the exams can simply hide behind the cover of the government and its generic GCSE qualification, which now attract most of the criticism.  As a result the branding of the company remains intact, while the value of the GCSE continues to decline, until it becomes worthless.

Thankfully, a new generation of specialist qualifications may soon begin to appear in more traditional subjects across the curriculum, as a variety of world class companies and organisations begin to offer their own branded certificates, in the subject areas in which they specialise.   For example, Pfizer could provide qualifications in the sciences, Khan Academy on maths, Pearson on English, Adobe on web design, Virgin on entrepreneurship, Google on utilising the internet, National Geographic on geography, the British Museum on history, the Economist on economics, Fitness First on sport, Jamie Oliver on home economics, Office Angels on how to get a job, Marks and Spencer on customer service and Greenpeace on the environment.  The list is endless.

This unbundling of the school into different subject areas helps to redefine the school as a mechanism that provides students with an assortment of services instead of delivering an indivisible package of education.  We can then start to disentangle the components of that package and customise them to fit specific student needs and abilities.  Choice, variety and specialisation will therefore begin to increase within each school, and each school will now be in a position to offer their students a variety of different courses and qualifications.  With the use of online technology this increasing variety and customisation of children’s education is now much more affordable and this will also encourage a new blended style of learning that combines the classroom with an online experience.

This unbundling of the school will certainly appeal to those parents who live in areas where there is a lack of alternative schools to choose from or who may not want to disrupt their children’s education by transferring them to a different school.  Instead, if they are not satisfied with their child’s progress in a particular subject then they will now have the opportunity to choose between a variety of different educational programmes and qualifications within the same school.  Therefore the goal for customised, unbundled school reform is not to develop a new model of what a good school should look like but to create a flexible system that enables schools and a variety of specialist content providers to meet a variety of needs in increasingly effective and targeted ways.

The end result is that children would not simply graduate after 11 years of schooling with a single certificate which lists the subjects studied and the corresponding A-F grade.  Instead they would graduate with a portfolio of branded qualifications which have real meaning in the outside world and which provide useful information concerning the knowledge and skills acquired by each student.   However, unlike traditional qualifications these branded qualifications will not hold their value for ever but will expire after a certain period of time unless a refresh exam is taken.  This is the only way to guarantee that the qualification holds its value and remains relevant over time, thereby protecting the brand image of both the qualification and the parent company. 

Abstract: Since 2007, almost every child in Uruguay has a laptop connected to the Internet. We investigated possible
changes that such exposure to IT may have had on the children’s ability to read, understand, search and analyze
information. This paper reports the results of experiments carried out in 4 schools in and around Montevideo. The
experiments consisted of children attempting to answer ‘deep’ questions in groups, children attempting to read
beyond their expected levels in Spanish and English, and whether children would read better in groups than
individually. The paper describes the design and limitations of these experiments, the results and their possible
interpretation. It is suggested that children in groups can perform better at ‘hard’ problems than they can
individually. It may be the opposite for ‘easy’ problems. It is suggested that the children studied in Uruguay are
as good or better at reading than the corresponding standard recommended in the UK/USA. They are also shown
to be capable of researching effectively using the Internet. The study raises several new research questions.

Download pdf

Professor Sugata Mitra sits down with AdvancED to discuss the changing role of education and the evolution of the human collective in self-education

In this short 5 minute video Professor Tooley outlines his committment to the growth and development of chains of for-profit schools across the developing world and challenges the anti-profit mentality which continues to dominate the development community.

Firstly, would this newspaper still be prepared to support its claim that “educating children should not be for profit” if schools run by for-profit companies could be shown to produce much better results at a lower cost – especially for the less-well-off? Or should these schools be permanently precluded irrespective of how they perform?  While many politicians – might claim that no such evidence exists, we should also question why they are not interested in finding out which type of school performs the best. Are they confident in their belief that all government schools will always outperform all schools run by for-profit companies, both now and at any time in the future?  Or is there some objection in principle to the profit motive, even if the education of children suffers as a result of excluding it?

Secondly, the burden of proof must be placed on those who want to maintain the current restrictions on parents and the resulting government monopoly. Even if some parents would choose an inferior school rather than a superior one that was profit-making, is this newspaper suggesting that parents who see the matter differently should not be able to choose a profit-making school? Is the profit motive so obnoxious that it should not be allowed to prevail for those whose priority is simply a high-quality education? And why are parents deemed to be capable of voting politicians into power, but then deemed incapable by the very same politicians of choosing the best school for their children?  If parents are deemed to be ignorant, then why not extend this argument to its logical conclusion and demand that their right to vote should also be removed?

Thirdly, how can this newspaper justify campaigning so passionately for freedom and a free market within the press and the media, while at the same time campaign for the restriction of freedom and almost total government control over children’s schooling?  How can freedom and a free market be so fundamentally important when it comes to the market for newspapers or children’s books, but dismissed when applied to children’s schooling?  And why is political control, central planning and a government monopoly deemed to be unacceptable within the media but welcomed in education?

The above quotation then goes on to proudly state that, “learning has always been separate from the forces of the free market”. This statement shows how confused this debate has now become.  For example, if the forces of the free market include the freedom of parents to choose and the freedom of private providers to enter the sector, then this suggests that this newspaper believes and indeed celebrates the idea that learning has always been separate from these forces of freedom.  But if freedom refers to choice, autonomy, self-determination, independence, openness and the lack of restrictions, then how can restricting these forces be a good thing?  And if learning has always been separate from these forces, what other superior forces have been at play?  After all, what could possibly be more important than the forces of freedom in education?

In this debate it is also important to acknowledge that even in an open and competitive education sector, the anti-profit mentality will continue to exist in the minds of some parents who may choose to send their children to a variety of different schools for a variety of different reasons.  However, it is also important to distinguish between parents perfectly legitimate views concerning the role of the profit motive in their own children’s education and the very separate and much more sinister desire of these same parents (and politicians) to force all other parents to accept this own particular point of view.

Milton Freidman previously stated that the willingness to permit free speech to people who you agree with is hardly evidence of devotion to the principle of free speech.  Instead, the relevant test is willingness to permit free speech to people who you disagree with. And so the relevant test of the belief in individual freedom is the willingness to oppose state intervention even when it is designed to prevent individual activity which you personally dislike or disagree with.  Therefore, this provides a useful test to all those high minded people who continue to view schools run by for-profit companies as an unnecessary evil. Do they have the discipline to place their personal views to one side and instead recognise that the rights and responsibilities of individual parents must always come first? If they do, then they should be willing to oppose the existing government restrictions which prevent profit-making companies from managing state-funded schools, despite the fact that they may personally disagree with the idea.  This approach would therefore be seen as much less self-obsessed and instead much more compassionate towards the very private and personal beliefs and opinions of those who are directly responsible for children’s education – their parents.

Contents

 - Introduction by James B. Stanfield
- Profit is about learning not just motivation by Steven Horwitz
- Setting up a free school by Toby Young
- The profit motive in Swedish education by Peje Emilsson
- The story of a school entrepreneur by Barbara Bergstrom
- The fortune at the bottom of the education pyramid by James B. Stanfield
- For-profit higher education in the USA by Bennett, Lucchesi and Vedder
- Why is there no IKEA in education? by Anders Hultin
- UK Business Schools need an injection of the profit motive by J R Shackleton
- Schooling and entrepreneurship in the USA by Frederick M. Hess
- Private capital, for-profit enterprises and public education by Tom Vander Ark

Related

The For-Profit Edge, Daniel Bennett, Career College Central, November 2012

Harnessing the Profit Motive to Transform Education, Daniel Bennett, Forbes Magazine, 21 August 2012

A vision of the liberal ideal in education, James B. Stanfield, Adam Smith Institute Blog, 23 July 2012

Whats wrong with the profit motive in education? James B. Stanfield, Conservative Home, 20 July 2012

Freedom is the missing ingredient in education, James B. Stanfield, Institute of Economic Affairs Blog, 19 July 2012

Good schools for the world’s poor, Tom Vander Ark, Huffington Post, 31 July 2012

For-profit schools would be no more virtuous than other private-sector firms, Peter Wilby, The Guardian, 30 July 2012

The profit motive in education: continuing the revolution, IEA Press Release, 19 July 2012

Purchase at Amazon.

Press

The SABIS Story – Youtube video

Book events

Events featuring author James Tooley are currently being scheduled for the following dates and places:

Monday, October 8, 2012:  Eden Prairie, Minnesota – 4:00-5:30 PM in the Performing Arts Center at The International School of Minnesota (6385 Beach Rd, Eden Prairie, Mn 55344; Tel: +1 952 918 1800)
This event will include a keynote speech by Professor Tooley followed by a Q&A session, book signing, and reception.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012: Boston, Massachusetts – 8:00-10:00 AM at the Omni Parker House (60 School St, Boston, MA). This event is being held in conjunction with The Pioneer Institute, the Program on Education Policy and Governance Harvard Kennedy School, the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, and the Black Alliance for Educational Options.

“For-Profit Charter School Management: International Lessons from SABIS” featuring James Tooley, author.  This event will include a keynote speech by Professor Tooley, a panel discussion including Jim Peyser, New Schools Venture Fund, Basan Nembirkow, retired Superintendent, and Kathie Skinner, Massachusetts Teachers Association. The panel discussion will be followed by a book signing and reception.If attending, please RSVP by October 2nd to Brian Patterson at 617-723-2277, ext. 217 or bpatterson@pioneerinstitute.org.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012: Washington D.C. – 4:30 PM at the Business Roundtable, 300 New Jersey Ave, Suite 800, Washington DC.  The Center for Education Reform and SABIS are pleased to host this event which will include a keynote speech by James Tooldy, a roundtable discussion featuring Jeanne Allen, President, The Center for Education Reform and the Honorable John Engler, Former Governor of Michigan, among others.  A book signing and reception will follow the event.  If attending, please RSVP by October 5th to 301-986-8088 or E-mail events@edreform.com.

Thursday, October 11, 2012: New York City – 5:30-6:30 PM at the Brownsville Ascend Charter School at The Pitkin Theater, 1501 Pitkin Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11212.  SABIS extends an invitation to join James Tooley on the last stop of his US book tour.  Held at the Brownsville Ascend Charter School, an esteemed SABIS licensee, the event will include a keynote speech by Professor Tooley, a Q&A session, and book signing.  The event will also include refreshments and hors d’oeuvres.

Reader comments

“The story told by this book offers hope for the world. This is not an unrealistic claim. A system, demonstrated in many countries to be successful for educating even the most disadvantaged children, has addressed with results, not theories, the leading barrier to success for individuals and nations. The book explains how those results have been accomplished. It offers convincing evidence that others can achieve similar success. “  William Edgerly

“James Tooley takes us back through time in a narrative that should remind us that human endeavor in general is born at an individual level; and if the endeavor is healthy it will persist through time through the dedication of individuals that share a common dream. This is the story of the SABIS adventure in education, and it is a story of success born through personal interest and commitment to serve others. It is also the story of real solidarity; for true solidarity can only exist at an individual or small community level, as opposed to the fallacious conception that education can prosper through political centralization. This is the tragedy of the commons and of failing education all over the world; to think that the responsibility of preparing our sons and daughters for their life adventure can be delegated to a government monopoly is a dangerous delusion, and all the evidence is there for all who want to see.

If we really want to understand where we all took the wrong path in the road of education, we must go back in time and review the real reasons that led us to a centralized system of schooling. How long and how much injury must our children and society in general bear before we understand that education is just another service that can and must be delivered by the market processes; for if society con not work at this level, can we really expect it to work at a centralized one?  And before I forget… The book is very well written and entertaining, as it takes you back through time and events that enthrall and remind us that great things can be birthed in the most humble of places.  John A. Bennett N. (Miami, Florida USA)”.

• Fraser Nelson, Editor of the Spectator

• Pat Glass MP, Member of the Education Select Committee

• Janet Murray, education journalist for the Guardian

Prior to the seminar, the following report was published:

Profit in education; where we are now – An overview of policies and controversies from around the world, Helena See, May 2012

An overview of the discussions which took place can also be found in the following report:

Education as a commodity: Buying, selling, and making money out of education and skills, June 2012

“I wanted to avoid the usual doom and gloom—the usual ‘it’s all crap and there’s no hope for the future,’” says Eli A. Kaufman, GOOD’s director of video production and the creator of our latest education micro documentary, “Future Learning”. Instead of making a film about everything that’s wrong with America’s schools, Kaufman and his team set out to answer a key question: “How do we make learning more relevant to the lives of our students?”

However, Future Learning isn’t about “educators in the classroom or about the out-of-the-box teachers who are pushing the envelope,” says Kaufman. Instead, “it’s about people who are out of the box of education completely who are trying to improve the system.” The half-dozen education technologists Future Learning features are sparking conversation across the globe—innovators like Khan Academy founder Sal Khan, Sugata Mitra, an education scientist and professor at Newcastle University in the U.K., and Catherine Lucey, the vice dean for education at the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, who has come up with a pedagogical approach that employs technology that serves new models of learning—and not just for the sake of having the newest gadget in the lab.

Creating the film was personal for Kaufman—he’s a new dad whose son will one day attend public school in Los Angeles, and, like many of us, he believes in lifelong learning. But, education’s also in his blood—Kaufman’s the son of two teachers, and before he became a filmmaker, he spent three years teaching eighth grade English “to Bridge and Tunnel kids” in New Jersey and a year teaching at a private experimental school in Los Angeles. The film stems from a series of minute-long webisodes that Kaufman’s team created for GOOD’s education page partner, University of Phoenix. Because of his teaching experience, Kaufman realized that the footage being left on the cutting room floor could add value to the current education conversation.

Kaufman says the education innovators he filmed have a fresh perspective since they’re “not right on top of the issues.” However, their ideas aren’t without controversy. At one point Mitra,—who is well known for his “Hole in the Wall” experiment where he put unattended computers in villages in India to see what kids would do with them—suggests that maybe we don’t need teachers anymore. While that certainly pushes buttons, Kaufman says he had to step back and realize that what Mitra means is that the role of teachers has to change from that of lecturer to facilitator, mentor, and coach.

Kaufman says he can see how the innovators’ lack of actual classroom experience might make some teachers reluctant to listen to their ideas. “They’ve never had to put together a lesson plan or a scope and sequence that would help a kid,” Kaufman says. That doesn’t make their ideas less legitimate to Kaufman, but making the film made him realize that there are real limitations to tech-based solutions. A computer can’t teach “those life skills that only a master teacher can teach”—and which require people to be in the same room—”how to become a citizen, how to problem solve, and learning how to be a collaborator,” Kaufman says.

Above all, Kaufman’s optimistic that the ideas shared will spark conversation about how we design a learning experience that matters to our students. “There are people who are really investing the time to make learning better,” says Kaufman. “I hope other teachers feel that there’s hope, too.”

Recent research carried out by the India Institute and the E.G. West Centre in the Indian city of Patna has produced some remarkable findings. The report, The Private School Revolution In Bihar, India, shows that government statistics are currently excluding three quarters of the schools in the city and 68% of school children.  This means that 238,767 school children out of a total of 333,776 were missing from the official data.

Instead of the official 350 schools, the research located a total of 1,574 schools with 78% identified as private unaided, 21% government and 1% private aided.  Therefore, approximately 65% of school children in Patna were attending private unaided schools, with just 34% attending government schools. According to Professor Tooley, “when plotting the location of 1,182 private schools and 111 government schools using GIS technology, we found that there existed hardly a road or a street in Patna without a private school”.  Based on the monthly fees being charged at each private school, the research also found that 69% of private unaided schools were low cost, 22% were affordable and only 9% higher cost. In other words, the vast majority of private unaided schools found in the city of Patna were low cost, charging fees of less £4 per month.

These findings have two important implications.  First, if these findings reflect the real state of education across India and developing world, then the so called ‘global education crisis’ is much less of a crisis than previously thought. Instead, the widespread under-reporting of the number of children in school may now be a deliberate policy of developing country governments to help attract more international aid.   Second, Article 18 of the 2009 Right to Education Act in India requires that all unrecognised schools in the country be closed down within three years of the Act coming into force.  For the city of Patna this would involve forcing two thirds of the city’s children out of school and onto the street – all because of government legislation which is supposed to be increasing school enrolments and not dramatically reducing it.

Thankfully, it would appear that the Bihar Education Minister P.K. Shahi has already read the report. Last Saturday he declared that “I can assure that the government will not implement the Right to Education Act in Bihar and will not force private schools to follow rules under it.”  I suppose the people of Bihar should be grateful to their Education Minister for not shutting down the majority of their schools. However, this does make me wonder – do politicians around the world have any kind of positive impact on the education which children receive, or are they all bent on disrupting and distorting its natural growth and development?

Read and dowload the report

The Private School Revolution in Bihar Slideshow

Videos

Release of The Private School Revolution in Bihar

Honourable MP Mr NK Singh at the release of The Private School Revolution in Bihar

Speaking at the release of India Institute’s maiden report, of a study with the Newcastle University, Mr NK Singh, a Member of Parliament from Bihar and a former top bureaucrat, described the study as a great national service. Listen in for his valuable insights on the education sector of India in general and the Right to Education (RTE) Act in particular. He demands that sections of the RTE be revisited in the light of the findings in our report

Ms Rasika Sridhar Sethi, Head-Ventures at Absolute Return for Kids (ARK) India, speaks of the significance of the findings and how the report could be a rallying point for reforms in the sector

Mr Sandeep Saha on the study of private schools in Patna by India Institute and the EG West Centre.