© Alain Le Quernec, France
|
In
large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in
large kitchens the cooking is usually bad.
Friedrich
Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844-1900)
|
|
To know more
|
.
The Probe Team, Public Report on Basic Education in India, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1999
. Tooley,
James, The Global Education Industry, London, IEA/IFC, 1999, and Reclaiming
Education, London,
Continuum/Cassel, 2000 |
|
Across the developing world, private
schools and education companies are not only flourishing, but reaching the poor.
India is a case in point
 A common assumption about the private sector in education
is that it caters only to the élite, and that its promotion only serves to
exacerbate inequality. On the contrary, recent research points in the opposite direction.
If we want to help some of the most disadvantaged groups in society, then encouraging
deeper private sector involvement is likely to be the best way forward.
Several developments are underway in India, all of which involve the private education
sector meeting the needs of the poor in distinct ways. But India is not unique in
this respect–similar phenomena are happening all over the developing world.
As a point of departure, how do government schools serve the poor? Usefully, the
government-sponsored Public Report on Basic Education in India (PROBE) from 1999
paints a very bleak picture of the “malfunctioning” of government schools for the
poor. When researchers called unannounced on their random sample of schools, only
53 percent had any “teaching activity” going on. In 33 percent, the headteacher was
absent. Alarmingly, the team noted that the deterioration of teaching standards was
not to do with disempowered teachers, but instead could be ascribed to “plain negligence.”
They noted “several cases of irresponsible teachers keeping a school closed ... for
months at a time,” many cases of drunk teachers, and headteachers who asked children
to do domestic chores. Significantly, the low level of teaching activity occurred
even in those schools with relatively good infrastructure, teaching aids and pupil-teacher
ratios.
But is there any alternative to these schools? Surely no-one else can do better than
government given the resources available? As it happens, the PROBE report pointed
to private schools that were serving the poor and conceded–rather reluctantly–that
such problems were not found in these schools. In the great majority of private schools–again
visited unannounced and at random–there “was feverish classroom activity.”Most parents
would prefer to send their children to private schools if they could afford them.
Private schools, they said, were successful because they were more accountable: “the
teachers are accountable to the manager (who can fire them), and, through him or
her, to the parents (who can withdraw their children).” Such accountability was not
present in the government schools, and “this contrast is perceived with crystal clarity
by the vast majority of parents.”
The way forward: loosen regulations
and set up voucher schemes
To many readers, the existence of these private
schools for the poor will come as a surprise. It was to me too, until I had the privilege
of conducting fieldwork for the International Finance Corporation (the private finance
arm of the World Bank) on a group of such schools operating under the banner of the
Federation of Private Schools’ Management based in Hyderabad. The federation has
500 private schools (from kindergarten to grade ten) serving poor communities in
slums and villages. I was impressed by both the entrepreneurial spirit within these
schools –they were run on commercial principles, not dependent on hand-outs from
state or philanthropy– but also by the spirit of dedication within the schools for
the poor communities served: not for nothing were the leaders of the schools known
as “social workers.” But these schools suffer under restrictive and inappropriate
regulations. One example will suffice: to be recognized, a school must deposit up
to 50,000 rupees(about $1,200) in a stipulated bank account, of which neither the
capital nor the interest can be touched. Given that the fees charged in these schools
ranged from 25 (60 cents) to Rs 150 per month (about $3.50), with most of the schools
grouped near the lower end of the range, such sums are completely prohibitive.
Fees of around $10 per year are not affordable by everyone, but they are to a large
number of poor families. Furthermore, the great majority of the schools offer a significant
number of free places –up to 20 percent– for the poorest students, allocated on the
basis of claims of need checked informally in the community.
All of this suggests that if one is interested in serving the needs of the poor in
India, then trying to reform the totally inadequate, cumbersome and unaccountable
government system is unlikely to be the best way. Instead, reform the regulatory
environment to make it suitable for the flourishing of private schools for the poor,
help build private financing schemes using overseas and indigenous philanthropy,
and encourage public voucher schemes, so that parents can use their allowance of
funding where they see the schools are performing well, rather than wasting them
in unresponsive state schools.
Private education in developing countries isn’t just about the poor, of course, and
there are many exciting examples of big education businesses. But these too have
implications for the ways in which the private sector can reach the least advantaged.
One Indian company which embodies much of the excitement and innovation in the education
industry is the National Institute for Information Technology (NIIT). With its competitor,
Aptech, it shares just over 70 percent of the information technology education and
training market in India, estimated at roughly Rs. 1.1 billion ($24 million). NIIT
has 40 wholly owned centres in the metropolitan areas, and about 1,000 franchised
centres across India. It also has a global reach, with centres in the U.S., Asia-Pacific,
Europe, Japan, Central Asia and Africa. A key aspect of NIIT’s educational philosophy
is that there is a need to harness research to improve the efficiency of learning
and to raise educational standards.
Because of its success in developing innovative and cost-effective IT education and
training, NIIT has attracted the attention of several state governments. First off
the mark was Tamil Nadu, which wanted to bring a computer curriculum to all of its
high schools. Significantly, although allocating about $22 million over five years
to this endeavour, it didn’t hand the funds over to government schools, perhaps in
light of the PROBE report’s lessons. Instead, it developed a model to contract out
the service to private companies, which provide the software and hardware, while
the government supplies electricity and the classroom. For the first round of the
Tamil Nadu process, 43 contracts were awarded for 666 schools, with NIIT allotted
371 schools. Many of the classrooms have become NIIT centres, open to school children
and teachers in daytime, then used by the franchise holder in the evenings. The contracting
out of curriculum areas such as this represents an important step forward in relationships
between the public and private sectors, and provides an interesting model worth watching
and emulating.
Most recently, NIIT has focused on reaching largely illiterate and unschooled children
through the Internet. Within weeks of having set up an “Internet kiosk” in a slum
area, the institute’s researchers found that without any instruction, children could
achieve a remarkable level of computer literacy. NIIT is exploring ways to roll out
the idea commercially, harnessing the power of the private sector to reach the poorest
through modern technology.
These initiatives all find echoes in other developing countries. In each case, the
private, not the public sector, is most responsive to the needs of the poor, and
is bringing innovation, efficiency and educational quality to the lives of the most
disadvantaged. The private sector has the potential to promote greater equity and
to influence education policy, provided it is encouraged and viewed as a partner,
not a threat to governments, whether in the developing or the developed world.
|
