Private primary schools for the poor in
the global south: The case of India
University of Amsterdam Bachelor Thesis Educational Sciences Author: Adrienne Buteijn, 6346286 // 10085157 Supervisor: Dr. Hülya Kosar Altinyelken March 2017
1
CONTENT
ABSTRACT 2 INTRODUCTION 3 METHODS 5 THEORY 6 Forms of privatization 6 Scale of privatization 8 Actors in privatization 9 Rationales 11 Outcomes of privatization 14Debates: Education as a public good? Private education accessible to all? 16
CASE STUDY 18
Indian education system and scale of privatization 18
History of privatization 19 Actors in privatization 20 Rationales 20 Outcomes of privatization 21 CONCLUSIONS 24 DISCUSSION 27 REFERENCE LIST 29
2
ABSTRACT
Private primary education for the poor is a growing phenomenon in the global south, it even plays a part in reaching universal primary education for all. Despite the highly ideologically charged debate between proponents and opponents of privatization, policymakers have not always taken a position in the debate yet. The purpose of this study is to map the phenomenon of privatization in the global south and particularly in India, and create overview of its consequences to education quality, accessibility, and inequality in education. The study concludes: 1) It is hard to determine the scale of privatization, although privatization occurs in all regions of the global south. 2) There are many forms of privatization, of which PPPs with their wide variety of types cover the majority, although in India the term PPPs is not used. 3) Edupreneurs are a typical actor in privatization for India: in other countries, more businesses and NGOs are involved in private education. 4) The main rationale for privatization is the lack of government services regarding education quality and capacity. 5) On education quality in private education there is much debate. Proponents claim that competition and choice lead to higher academic achievement, where opponents of privatization argue that teachers in private schools are often underpaid and untrained. The most marginalized are excluded from private education, which causes segregations in schools. The Indian government can either get involved in privatization by introducing PPPs, or it can expand public expenditure on education to decrease the need for private schools.
3
INTRODUCTION
Education in the global south has been primarily a public good after the former colonies gained independence. A well-functioning public education system was considered important for many purposes, such as nation building and modernization (Verger, 2012). Privatization, which is often defined as “The transfer of activities, assets and responsibilities from government/public institutions and organizations to private individuals and agencies” (Dash, 2009, p. 1), did not occur much thus far. From the 1990s, privatization in primary education occurred for different reasons, for instance dissatisfaction with public education and cost-efficiency of private education (Verger, Fontdevila & Zancajo, 2016).
Private schools, including private primary schools for the poor (also low-fee private; or LFP schools), emerged rapidly in many developing countries. Recently, debate has come about on the private primary schools for the poor. Proponents and opponents of privatization disagree on the level of accessibility and education quality of private primary schools. Proponents argue that accessibility increases through privatization and that education quality is higher in private schools, which would lead to less inequality in education. Opponents find no advantages to private schooling in terms of accessibility or education quality, and argue that privatization leads to more inequality in education. The objective of the present review study is to map the phenomenon of private primary education for the poor in the global south, and to create a clear overview of its consequences to education quality, accessibility, and inequality in education.
With the recent development of low-fee primary schools targeting the poor, the private sector has become essential in reaching global goals like the previous Millennium Development Goal ‘Education for All’ and the current Sustainable Development Goal ‘Universal primary education for all’. The private involvement in education has in many cases overwhelmed (local) governments and policy makers, who often have not developed their standpoint on private involvement in education. The present review perhaps makes it easier for policy makers to take a position in the societal debate on privatization and act upon it.
The debate also takes place in the academic world. In the debate, the promoters and opponents stand explicitly opposite to each other and the arguments are highly ideologically charged (Mcloughlin, 2013). The present review tries to contribute to the debate by offering clearance on the outcomes of privatization in the global south and particularly in India. By mapping the phenomenon of
4
privatization in primary education in the global south and providing an overview of its consequences, there might be a debate prospective based on evidence rather than based on ideology.
The case study in this review study will be on India, which is a relevant country for this study primarily because of its types of private primary schools. First, there are numerous private primary schools in India targeted to the poor, that are subject to the present study. Moreover, privatization in primary education in India mostly occurs by default, meaning it occurs ‘bottom-up’, opposed to ‘top-down’; by policy or by design (Tooley, 2016; Tooley & Dixon, 2006). India is an example of a country where the government has not applied privatization policies (yet), despite efforts to regulate the private sector in education. In addition, private primary schools in India appear as for-profit as well as non-profit (Verger et al., 2016).
This study will address the following questions, each for the global south and for India in the case study:
1. What are the main forms of privatization in primary education? 2. What is the scale of privatization in primary education?
3. Which actors are involved in promoting privatization in primary education, in which ways, and for what reasons?
4. What is the rationale for the growing phenomenon of privatization in primary education? 5. What are the outcomes of privatization in primary education?
First, in the theory section, the general phenomenon in the global south of private primary education for the poor is discussed. To map privatization in primary education, different forms of privatization in the global south are discussed, followed by an elaboration on the scale of privatization in the global south, indicating how widespread the phenomenon is. The part on actors in privatization talks about who participates in and promotes privatization, and how that is done. Then, in ‘Rationales’, the reasons for privatization are explained. In ‘Outcomes of privatization’, the education quality, accessibility, and inequality through privatization are discussed, from where the views of opponents of privatization are also highlighted, discussed, and compared to the proponents’ views. The following section is the case study on India. The Indian education system and the share of the private sector therein are discussed, followed by the actors in privatization in India. The part ‘Outcomes of privatization’ speaks of consequences of privatization in primary education in the Indian context in terms of education quality, accessibility, and inequality. In the conclusions, the research questions are answered. In the discussion, the case study is put in perspective of the theory section and shortcomings of the present study are presented. To finish, suggestions for further research are made.
5
METHODS
The present review is a Bachelor thesis for Educational Researches written by the methodology of a review analysis. Different resources have been used to answer the presented questions including empirical studies, reviews, book chapters, government website, conference papers, and reports. Over 40 pieces have been used for the paper, out of more than 60 pieces that were read during the process of writing this bachelor thesis. The resources that eventually were not useful for the study, have mainly been used to gain general knowledge on the topic. As the first intention was to write the Case Study on Chile, many studies merely on the Chilean school system are not used in the study.
Many key words in several combinations were used in UvA Catalogus as well as on Google Scholar to search articles. Also in advanced searching options words were combined for title, subject, abstract, author, and journal. While the objective was to find studies from the last decade, most used articles date from 2003 to 2016. Multiple articles were suggested by lecturers on the topics of education and development, and by my thesis supervisor at the University of Amsterdam. In these suggested articles, other useful articles were mentioned. By searching on authors, articles, journals, and books mentioned in these suggested readings, new useful articles, chapters, and papers surfaced. Searching for literature had a snowball effect, as the authors specialized in the topic of private education for the poor seem to be limited. Especially for the debates part it applies that authors often cite each other in their writings.
Key words:
Private primary education, privatization/privatisation, low-fee private schools (LFP), low cost schools (LCS), for-profit, voucher system, Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), global south, low-income context, India, Chile, Sub-Saharan Africa, Education for All (EFA), universal primary education for all, education quality, teacher absenteeism, school costs, cost-efficiency, girls, school choice, competition, education market, inequality.
6
THEORY
Forms of Privatization
Private primary schools can be categorized in different ways: As for the elite or for the poor, as occurred by default or by design (bottom-up or top-down), and as for-profit or non-profit. Out of these distinctions, only the private schools for the elite will not be considered in this review study.
In this part, the main forms of privatization and some of its different types will be discussed. The forms will be discussed from the most top-down to the most bottom-up, starting with public-private partnerships and voucher systems, followed by public-private aided schools, ending with public-private unaided schools.
Public-Private Partnerships
One form of privatization is Public-Private Partnerships, also PPPs. This term describes all kinds of mixes between the public and the private sector in education: If there is a cooperation between actors in the private and public sector with the purpose of delivering educational service (Verger, 2012), it can be defined as a PPP. Agreements between public and private actors can be either loose or contractual and formal (Brans, 2011). PPPs are increasingly emerging in developing countries, mostly as a policy tool, thus top-down. However, PPPs can also emerge bottom-up, by the default of high quality public education. Usually when speaking of PPPs in education (or ePPPs), the top-down kind is meant, for there are other terms that better describe bottom-up PPPs.
Private involvement is not perceived as a positive development by opponents of privatization in education (Robertson & Verger, 2012). Although the word ‘partnership’ in ePPPs implies an equal relationship between the different actors involved, the question remains whether PPPs is not just a new term for plain privatization. Srivastava (2014) even calls the word ‘partnership’ in PPP ‘the education buzzword du jour’ (p. 5). However, the private sector wishes to see their role as a collaborator to the state, rather than opposing the state (Verger, 2012).
EPPPs are described as private involvement in public education activity. This can be involvement in either management, professional services, support services, operational services, education services, or facility availability (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio & Guáqeta, 2009). Contracting between public and private providers can also take place on a combination of these factors. PPPs in developing countries often follow the example of charter schools in the U.S.A. that are government-funded but privately managed (Dash, 2009). Some voucher systems can also be perceived as a form of
7
PPPs, like the Colombian system in which the World Bank funds the vouchers that poor students can apply for (Patrinos et al., 2009; Arenas, 2004).
Voucher system
Voucher systems are implemented in many countries, usually following policies of decentralization. Therefore, voucher systems belong to the top-down category of privatization. The general definition of a voucher system is: Public spending on private education, in the form of per-student vouchers, to make private education widely accessible (Arenas, 2004). Voucher systems are very popular in Latin America, where it is implemented in at least 12 countries. The systems vary radically per country in, amongst other things, the targeted group (90% of school children in Chile versus only poor girls and poor children in Belize), the types of schools included (religious schools included in Puerto Rico and excluded in Colombia) and the school levels it applies to (primary and secondary in Chile versus only secondary in Colombia) (Arenas, 2004).
Chile has the oldest and most extensive voucher system. The voucher system as it is operational in Chile is a system in which the government finances education through per-student vouchers (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003). The government gives out vouchers to schools, private as well as municipality schools, based on student attendance. For each student, there is a voucher to emit. The more students enrolled in a certain school, the more money that school will receive from the government (Arenas, 2004; Carnoy & McEwan, 2003). In Colombia, the voucher system works differently. There, the system is targeted to poor people, only applies to secondary education, and the voucher does not cover all the school costs (Arenas, 2004). The reason for the existence of the voucher system varies throughout countries. In Chile, it was the decentralizing policies in the 1980s (Zelaya, 2015), and the demand for individual school choice (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003) and high quality schooling (Anand, Rizala & Repetto, 2009) that justify the voucher system, whereas in countries like Belize and Colombia the accessibility of private education for the poor and over-crowded public schools are reasons to implement a voucher system (Arenas, 2004).
Private Aided Schools
A bottom-up form of PPPs is Private Aided schools (or PA schools), that mainly exist in India. PA schools usually started out as Private Unaided (PUA) schools but then applied for recognition and government grants (Tooley, Dixon & Gomathi, 2007). Once rewarded with the government support, that they must use for teacher salaries in exchange for losing most of their autonomy, PA schools become ‘quasi-governmental’ (Härmä, 2011) and therefore a form of a PPP.
8
Private Unaided Schools
PUA schools usually emerge bottom-up, by the default of high quality education. These schools are privately managed and privately funded, mainly through tuition fees. PUA schools vary from (high-fee) schools for the elite to Low-Fee Private (LFP) schools targeting the poor. PUA schools can be for-profit while in some countries for-for-profit schools are illegal. The management of these schools also varies, from faith-based organizations to entrepreneurs in education (edupreneurs). In India, there is a difference between recognized and unrecognized schools within the PUA category (Härmä, 2011). The recognized schools meet certain standards which allows them to conduct state examinations and give out certificates needed for school transfers (Tooley et al., 2007; Härmä, 2011).
Scale of Privatization
The scale on which privatization takes place in the global south is hard to determine for several reasons. First, the reported size differs depending on who is communicating on it. While opponents downsize the phenomenon, promoters tend to exaggerate its size (Verger et al., 2016). Another reason why it is hard to find out the actual scale of private schools for the poor is because many of these schools are not registered or are unrecognized by the government (Verger et al., 2016; Tooley et al., 2007). Therefore, these schools are not included in official data, hence untraceable for researchers. A third reason why it is hard to determine the size of privatization is its unclear definition. The definition of ‘low-fee’ within the private sector cannot be formulated unambiguously for different countries and even within a country it can be hard to determine what is low-fee and what is not. This depends, among other things, on the economic situation of the national and/or regional context in which the school operates (Verger et al., 2016).
Privatization in primary education takes place in all regions of the global south. Researches on privatization have been conducted in Asian countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China; African countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and Tanzania; and in Latin America in Chile, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic. Generally, the countries with the lowest enrolment rates in primary education have the highest share of private enrolment, in the same way that the private share is lowest in countries where most children can finish elementary education (Rose, 2006).
Private schools appear in rural as well as urban areas. In Pakistan, 35% per cent of children in primary school were enrolled in PUA for-profit schools in the year 2000 (Andrabi, Das & Khwaja, 2008). From 2000, this number has increased rapidly, especially in rural areas and among the poorest groups of people. Alderman, Kim and Orazem (2003), however, report on a pilot program in Pakistan, which
9
took place in rural as well as urban areas, where private schools for poor girls were reported more successful in urban areas than in rural areas. Important factors for this outcome were the presence of educated teachers, the use of experienced school operators, and parents with higher incomes. Mcloughlin (2013) also talks about low-cost private schools in India as successful in urban areas. Mehrotra and Panchamukhi (2007) state that enrolment in private education in Indian primary schools is much lower in rural areas than in urban areas. Overall, there seems to be a higher enrolment in private education in urban than rural areas.
Another notable fact is the distribution of gender throughout private and public education. African studies show an equal number of boys and girls in private primary school enrolment rates, whereas Indian studies show more boys in private schools than girls (Tooley and Dixon, 2006).
Actors in Privatization
There are many different actors playing a role in the provision of private education. First, the actors involved in the more top-down forms of privatization will be discussed, followed by the actors involved in both top-down and up privatization. Practically all actors involved in bottom-up/’de facto’ privatization are also involved in quasi-governmental, or PA forms of education. Therefore, none of the actors are mentioned as merely involved in bottom-up forms of privatization.
Government
The government is most evidently an actor in privatization in the case of voucher systems. The government sets out policies for a voucher system, often because of decentralization (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003). It is then the government’s job to regulate the school system, to pay vouchers to the schools, and to perform school inspections.
In the case of ‘de facto’ privatization: private institutions started by individuals or organizations, governments are faced with a decision on how to deal with them. Governments have three options: They can either prohibit the private institutions, which might lead to them going into illegality; they can regulate them, by providing them with the ‘recognized’ status; or they can ignore them and therefore rather let them happen (Alderman, Orazem & Paterno, 2001).
International institutions
As already mentioned, the World Bank as an International Institution plays a role in privatization of education. Where World Bank’s investments used to be mainly in the public sector of education, this has changed in the recent decades up to 57% of World Bank’s spending on education
10
projects in 2007 having a PPP aspect (Patrinos et al., 2009). For example, the World Bank is an actor in the voucher system in Colombia (Arenas, 2004) and voucher projects in Haiti and Pakistan (Patrinos et al., 2009). In these countries, it is the World Bank that funds the vouchers that the government distributes.
Typical for the World Bank is the fact that it does not only grants loans, it also provides governments with ‘policy support’ on how to involve the private sector in education. Clearly, the World Bank is a promoter of the involvement of the private sector in education (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). Alongside the support for governments, the World Bank (including its International Finance Corporation (IFC)) also supports entrepreneurs in Kenya and Ghana with microcredit programs to help them operate private schools (Patrinos et al., 2009).
Businesses
Businesses get involved in privatization of education in different ways. Not unusual is through PPPs: businesses can be contracted by governments to provide one or several services involved in education (Patrinos et al., 2009). Pearson, publisher of educational books and owner of the Financial Times, for example, invested in privatization of education through its ‘Pearson’s Affordable Learning Fund’ (PALF) (Srivastava, 2016). Pearson has a stake in both Ghana’s Omega Schools and Kenya’s Bridge International Academies. More indirectly, businesses can be involved in NGOs that play a role in the private sector of education. A business may be a donor or a partner to that NGO. The third way businesses can be involved, is through an individual education entrepreneur, who is a business in itself.
Edupreneurs
Edupreneurs is the term used for individual entrepreneurs in education (Härmä, 2011). Edupreneurs often operate private schools with a commercial goal, although they also run schools to fill the gap of quality education left by the government. The low-fee private schools in India are often run by edupreneurs (Verger et al., 2016).
NGOs
Nongovernmental organizations can operate in PPPs alongside the government, or start their own PUA schools. NGOs are often focused on marginalized groups of children who are underprivileged, like girls or the poorest of the poor, depending on their target group. Schools run by NGOs are usually non-profit and paid by a combination of parental fees, partnerships with businesses, sponsors, and donors, the latter ones are either domestic or international.
11
Charities and Faith-based organizations
Charities and faith-based organizations operate sometimes in PPPs but mostly as PUA schools (Brans, 2011). Unlike businesses and some edupreneurs, charities and faith-based organizations function for social and religious reasons rather than for profit. Like many NGOs, charities and faith-based organizations are targeted to the poor children in rural areas or slums, or the marginalized groups, and the schools are paid by the combination of parental fees, sponsors, and donors. The latter two often come from international sources.
Rationales
There are many motives for privatization of education that different parties act upon in the act of privatization. Some reasons may be on cost-efficiency, while others are based on equity in access to education. There are also cases in which it is the lack of good quality education provided by the government that leaves a business opportunity to edupreneurs (Verger et al., 2016), or it can be the government deciding on neoliberal policies creating a market for education.
Cost-efficiency
Private education in all its forms is claimed to be efficient. A voucher system is cost-efficient because it takes away pressure from the government budget, by targeting vouchers to groups of marginalized students, which allows the government to use their budget in a more efficient way (Dash, 2009; Tsang, 2002). PPPs are cost-efficient because new resources are brought to the table of education provision when the private sector gets involved (Verger, 2012). In PUA schools cost-efficiency is very important, as schools try to keep their parental fees as low as possible with no help from government budget. For PUA schools, competition is the most important factor in cost-efficiency. Through competition over students, schools force themselves, and are forced by their clients (parents), to keep their quality high while keeping their fees low.
Private education is found to be more cost-efficient than public education (Jimenez et al., 1995; Carnoy & McEwan, 2003). However, Tsang (2002) found that studies’ claims on this are often incorrect. One reason for this is the lack of information on costs of both private and public schools, which usually ends up underestimating the costs of private schools. Another reason is the difficulty of comparing private to public schools financially (Tsang, 2002).
There are a few reasons why private education is presented more cost-efficient by many. In some cases, like the Chilean system, private schools are no longer constrained by government
12
legislation, which provides freedom for the (financial) management of schools (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003). In India, private schools pay significantly lower teacher salaries than public schools to efficiently spend their resources (Tooley et al., 2007). Thirdly, private schools tend to attract lower-cost, better motivated students with higher educated parents than public schools, which makes it easier to be cost-efficient (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003).
Liberalization
Privatization in education can be viewed as liberalization, as the educational service is freed from the government (Dash, 2009). This liberation can be in the form of being freed from regulations or from government finances, also called private provision and private funding of education. When liberalization is mentioned, usually the first type of privatization is meant: private provision of education. Education that is provided privately, means fewer governmental regulations to deal with. This has advantages, such as less bureaucracy and less traditions to consider, which leaves space for higher efficiency of education (Dash, 2009).
Liberalization often takes place under the umbrella of neoliberal policies. The World Bank is the main global actor when it comes to neoliberal reforms. The World Bank Group together with its International Finance Corporation (IFC), actively promotes the involvement of the private sector in education (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). The execution of neoliberal policies is used as a condition of loans given out by the World Bank. For example: The IFC provides support, technically as well as financially, to private education projects in Ghana and Kenya (Patrinos et al, 2009). To neoliberals, the state’s job is to create an environment in which the market can work freely (Robertson & Verger, 2012).
Marketization
Since the 1990s, increasing amounts of nations aspire a market-oriented economy, whether initiated by a state or influenced by a global organization such as World Bank. Not only in traditionally commercial spheres such as consuming goods and the housing market, but increasingly in what used to be solely public services like health care and education. The marketization in the latter brings along school choice and competition between schools.
A free market in education entails opportunities for entrepreneurs to manage their own schools (Verger et al., 2016; Lewin, 2007). Because of this freedom, all types of schools can be founded varying in costs, quality, religious/non-religious and many more factors. In this way, the market can meet the increasingly differentiated demand and varied educational preferences of parents in education (Lewin, 2007; Tsang, 2002). Per market principle the demand for schools will determine what is to offer, as new ‘products’ will be offered or will disappear depending on its demand. In Chile,
13
the neoliberal reforms were introduced to turn the educational system into a self-regulated market (Bellei, 2009), that keeps functioning because of the different types of schools on offer, and because families do not experience restrictions on their school choice.
Another important factor in marketization of education is competition between schools. Because of the parents’ free choice for schools for their children, schools must compete for students. Often the competition is very important to schools, like in Chile, where financial resources in the form of vouchers depend on the number of students (Bellei, 2009). Competition between schools is assumed to result in high quality, effective and efficient education, at a fair cost, with high accountability (Härmä, 2011).
Lack of government services
Another mechanism that occurs in many countries, which resulted in privatization of education, is the lack of government services. Lewin (2007) speaks of an ‘excess demand’ of education when there are more students seeking education than places to allocate in public schools. Tsang (2002) also notices the limited access to education in the public sector as the capacity is simply insufficient.
Apart from this factor of limited capacity, there is another factor which, according to Tooley et al. (2007), causes the ‘mushrooming’ of private schools: The poor quality of public education. Verger (2012) speaks of ePPPs as an opportunity to correct inefficiencies in government education. EPPPs can be effective as a solution against poor quality public education because of the new resources that become available when the private sector gets involved.
Some parents are unpleased with the quality of public education up to a level that they name the absence of teachers as the main reason to choose for private education (Tooley et al., 2007). However, Carnoy and McEwan (2003) state that private education does not guarantee higher academic outcomes than public education.
Access & Equity
Privatization that occurs with the rationale of improving access and equity in education, is either by default or by design. By default, it usually derives from the previously mentioned lack of government service, when entrepreneurs stand up to fill up the gap left by the government. By design, privatization usually occurs because of global policies, which should lead to inclusive and quality education for all. Actors who act upon the rationale of access and equity, mean to increase access to quality education and thrive by the universal right to education for all (Srivastava, 2014), which states that also the poorest of the poor have a right to high quality education, and with that, a chance to social mobility (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003).
14
In some cases, privatization in education is especially meant to target marginalized groups of children, like girls (Alderman et al., 2003), or children from minority religions. Tsang (2002) speaks of children from marginalized backgrounds who, without private education, would be stuck in low quality public schools. To reach the poorest families and the children from marginalized backgrounds these private schools must charge minimum fees: Fees that are low enough for poor families so they do not have to cut spending on other essential goods like food and medicine (Härmä, 2011).
Outcomes of privatization
There are studies that focused on the outcomes of private education compared to public education. The main findings are highlighted.
Cost-efficiency
Privatization is assumed to result in cost-efficiency for the government budget as well as school management and the school fee-paying parent. Public investments in education, in most cases, have stayed the same or increased slightly, which makes governments still the main financer in education (Patrinos et al., 2009; Rose, 2006). However, the number of school children increased enormously, due to population growth and due to primary education made compulsory in many countries (UNESCO, 2015). Therefore, the share of public spending on education decreased, which makes privatization cost-efficient for governments.
On the level of school-management, private provision of education is also proven cost-efficient in some contexts (Ashley et al., 2014). This is mainly because, due to less government legislation, schools can allot their own financial management, and they can hire their teachers at lower costs than government schools (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003; Tooley & Dixon, 2006; Tsang, 1996). Hiring low-cost teachers does have implications for the quality of teaching, which will be discussed later.
For parents, private education is only considered cost-efficient given they do not belong to the bottom two wealth quintiles. If they do, they would not be able to afford private schooling at all (Härmä, 2011). Government schools, who charge no fees, are the economic choice for poor parents. Parents seeking higher quality, who may be able to afford it, often do turn to (low-fee) private schools.
Education quality through marketization
The market mechanisms of competition and choice are assumed to have a positive effect on education quality, however, also negative effects have been found. Through competition between students and schools, others are perceived as a threat to one’s success. This results in less to no
15
collaboration between schools and students, and a fear for sharing best practices with colleagues (Sahlberg, 2016). In the worst case, competitiveness leads to distrust, anxiety and suspicion in schools and classrooms.
Depending on the way education quality is measured, the outcomes on the effect of marketization in education vary widely. When looking at teacher attendance, most studies agree that this is dramatic in public schools in many countries including India, Pakistan, Lagos, and Ghana (Tooley & Dixon, 2006; Ashley et al., 2014; Woodhead, Frost & James, 2013). The contradictory findings are that 1) public school teachers’ salaries are usually much higher than their colleagues’ in private schools (Ashley et al., 2014; Srivastava, 2014; Tooley & Dixon, 2006) and 2) private school teachers often have had little or no teacher training, whereas teacher training for public school teachers is often required (Andrabi et al., 2008; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi 2007).
Despite these two factors that are expected to have negative effects on education quality in private schools, there is evidence that suggests academic achievement, measured by comparing standardized test scores, is higher in private than in public schools (Ashley et al., 2014; Jimenez, Lockheed & Paqueo, 1991; Jimenez et al., 1995; Alderman et al., 2001; Tooley & Dixon, 2006). The main explanation for this is higher teaching effort and teacher activity in private compared to public education (Andrabi et al., 2008; Tooley & Dixon, 2006). Anand et al. (2009) find slightly higher scores in learning outcomes in fee-charging private voucher schools compared to public schools, whereas Carnoy and McEwan (2003) state it even less confidently, arguing that private education does not necessarily guarantee higher academic outcomes than public education.
An important note to make here, is that learning outcomes are also higher when controlled for social class factors according to Mcloughlin (2013) and Jimenez et al. (1991). However, Srivastava (2010a) finds higher achievement while controlling for social class only in some cases.
Accessibility and equality
Härmä (2011) states that poverty is the main determinant of school choice. Tooley and Dixon (2005) argue that low-fee private schools are accessible to all, although they also recognize the fact that targeted vouchers are needed to reach the most disadvantaged, such as the poorest children, children in rural areas, girls, and children from large families. Only the most advantaged of the disadvantaged groups can now afford private schools (Härmä, 2011; Rose, 2006; Mcloughlin, 2013). Perception of higher quality education is what makes motivated parents choose for private education (Ashley et al., 2014) and is what makes private provision of education grow (UNESCO, 2015).
16
While private schools try to attract the motivated parents and students, they compete with public schools. Public schools are often left with students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and their often unmotivated and low-educated parents (Tsang, 2002). Bellei (2009) and Srivastava (2007b) call this ‘cream-skimming’ or ‘skimming’ of students. Skimming puts public schools in a difficult position for improving their education, and therefore reinforces inequity and segregation in classrooms.
Debates: Education as a public good? Private education accessible to all?
There are major debates on privatization in education. Proponents of privatization argue from a variety of rationales, whereas opponents of privatization mainly argue from the Rights Based Approach, viewing education as a human right. The major points of debate are whether education is the government’s full responsibility, or it should be the private sector’s business; and whether private education is accessible to the poor and therefore a suitable policy instrument to reach just and equal universal primary education for all.In several international declarations and conventions, education is determined as a fundamental human right, and is therefore seen as not just a basic need or social service (Ron-Balsera & Marphatia, 2012). Education plays a vital role for human, social, and economic development, and it is in the interest of all to educate a nation. Education should therefore be treated as a public good, Draxler (2012) argues; and be seen as the responsibility of the public sector. Viewed from the Human Rights framework, government’s responsibility is to ‘respect, protect and fulfil the right to education’ (Ron-Balsera & Marphatia, 2012, p. 217). From this view, even when education is (partly) privatized, it remains the state’s responsibility to make sure education enables the development of the human personality, promotes participation in society, teaches respect for human rights and tolerance, and is free of discrimination.
Srivastava (2007a), Mcloughlin (2013), and Robertson and Verger (2012) argue, from the Rights Based Approach, that truly inclusive education can only be reached through investments in the public sector. They argue that education 1) is in the public interest, 2) is the execution of a fundamental right, and 3) must be non-discriminative. Especially at the primary level, Lewin (2007) argues, dependence on the private sector must be avoided. Contradictory, Tooley and Dixon (2006) argue that universal primary education can best be reached through privatization, as government education has proven to be insufficient in terms of capacity and quality. They argue that a fully functioning public system is not necessary. However, to reach all marginalized groups, the private system does need to expand its accessibility through targeted vouchers (Tooley & Dixon, 2006).
17
One of the supposed benefits of privatization and marketization in education, is the concept of choice. Because of the existence of low-fee private schools, also the poor have the option to choose for private education, which is a desirable option presuming its higher quality than public education. The latter has been discussed earlier, where was concluded that academic achievement is generally slightly higher in private education compared to public education (Ashley et al., 2014). The concept of choice implies an ability to ‘vote with one’s feet’ (Capshaw, 2014), meaning unsatisfied customers will exit the service looking for another offer that better suits their wishes or budget.
Tooley et al. (2007) argue that private schools make a suitable policy instrument for reaching universal primary education for all, as fees charged by private schools can be covered by targeted vouchers or scholarships for the poorest and other most marginalized. They also state that the quality of education in private schools is high and therefore these schools are an adequate addition or even a substitution to unsatisfactory quality public schools. Härmä (2011), however, does see the opportunities of an ‘ideal market’ where there are informed customers (parents), several options to choose from, and no dominant provider, but she argues that this market is not attainable. The reason for this is that ‘the ability to vote with one’s feet is unequally distributed in modern societies’ (Härmä, 2011, p. 352), since the poorest cannot choose forms of education they cannot afford. Privatization in education therefore does not help the most disadvantaged into social mobility, while they are stuck in a highly-segregated school system in terms of class, race and wealth (Zelaya, 2015).
18
CASE STUDY: INDIA
Indian education system and scale of privatization
India is with 1,2 billion people the second largest population in the world, and has grown rapidly over the past decades. Nowadays, 27,71% of the Indian population is under fourteen. This means that around 200 million children are required to attend schooling, as the compulsory schooling age in India is from 6 to 14 years old (Government of India, 2016). Education expenditures in India were 3.8% of GDP in 2013, which makes India the 134th country in the world ranking of public spending
on education (World Factbook, India, CIA). For a large group of children, access to primary school has increased with the Education For All international policies that ended in 2015. However, there are still major challenges regarding schooling the marginalized groups of children and education quality.
In India, there are government schools as well as private schools. Government schools are fully subsidized by the state and all offer the same curriculum, timetables and examination. Teachers for these public schools are centrally recruited by the department of education and are well-trained and well-paid. Two types of private schools can be defined: Private Aided (PA) and Private Unaided (PUA). The main difference between the two is that PA schools are partly subsidized by the government, while PUA schools are fully privately funded. Although both PA and PUA schools are privately managed, PA schools are more like government schools as they follow the same curriculum, timetables and examination. Teachers from PA schools are also recruited by the government and teacher salaries are also high, paid from the government’s aid (Tooley & Dixon, 2006; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). So-called ‘low-fee private’ (LFP) schools are usually PUA schools, funded by parental fees only (Härmä, 2011).
The PUA sector includes many different types of schools that vary widely in many ways, such as quality, costs and target audience (Härmä, 2011). Among PUA schools, two categories can be defined: Recognized and unrecognized schools. Recognized schools have shown to meet all the regulatory requirements and are therefore acknowledged by the state. Unrecognized schools are not acknowledged, either because they do not meet regulatory requirements, or because they have not applied for recognition (Tooley & Dixon, 2006). Unrecognized schools are evidently not registered and therefore difficult to include in studies (Mcloughlin, 2013). However, many researchers have managed to find and study this type of private school, often aware that they might not have a hold on the exact number of PUA unrecognized schools. Technically, unrecognized PUA schools are illegal, as all schools in India are legally required to be registered (Härmä, 2011).
19
Although private schooling appears everywhere in India, the share of private schools in rural areas is much smaller compared to that in urban areas (Tooley & Dixon, 2006; Härmä, 2011; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). In urban slums the private share is around three-fifth, as by Tooley and Dixon’s (2006) research, and on average 36,5% over eight states (from 51% in Uttar Pradesh to 5% in West Bengal) as studied by Mehrotra and Panchamukhi (2007). In rural areas, these numbers are very different: The private schools make up around one-fifth (Tooley & Dixon, 2006) or on average 13% (from 26% in Uttar Pradesh to 0% in West Bengal) of schools (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007).
Private school attendance in India makes up a great share of schooling and still increases overall, however, certain groups are underrepresented in these numbers (Woodhead et al. 2013). These groups include children from rural areas, poor children and girls.
History of privatization
The Indian state is the main provider of education, and has always seen the private sector operating next to it (Woodhead et al., 2013; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). In fact, the involvement of the private sector in education is still a growing phenomenon. The elite private schools operated by Christian missionary actors derive from the Indian colonial era. These schools have been sitting at one side of the PUA spectrum, while the other PUA schools grew in number. It was in the post-colonial time that the demand for non-elite PUA schools arose. This was the time that a lower- and middle-class emerged. The upcoming middle-class could afford a small fee for education, and wanted to spend this small fee on quality education that government schools did not offer (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007).
The quality of public education had declined after the state spent a substantial amount of the governmental budget on providing each village with a public primary school. By focusing on the quantity of schools, driven by reaching the goal of Education for All, the quality of education stayed behind (Härmä, 2011). Out of the dissatisfaction regarding public schools, local entrepreneurs and communities started organizing their own schools which were unaided by the government. To meet the demand for quality primary schools for the lower-middle and middle class, these schools were to run on low fees only. Until the early 1990s, the state of India turned many PUA schools into PA schools, as it was trying win back control over the education sector. This did not go on for too long, as the government budgets were insufficient to support these converted PA schools and market-oriented policies started to shape reforms from the 1990s (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007).
Because of the history of privatization of education, PUA schools (especially the ones for the elite) often teach in English, while government schools and PA schools teach in the state language
20
(Tooley & Dixon, 2005). Students in government schools usually do not learn English until it becomes a subject in fifth grade.
Actors in privatization
The state has always been the main provider of education and has recently increased investments in public primary schools, aiming to reach Education For All goals (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). In the act of opening more public primary schools, the quality of education was forgotten. Hence, the demand for quality education in low-fee private schools increased.
In rural as well as in urban areas there are individual entrepreneurs that see business opportunities when the government schools lack quality (Verger et al., 2016). These individuals usually start PUA schools for two reasons: The business opportunity, when there is potential profit to be made; and the lack of quality education in their own community, possibly for their own children. In some researches these individuals are called ‘edupreneurs’ (Härmä, 2011). Noteworthy: All private schools in India should legally be run by charitable trusts or societies, thus are not allowed to be managed by individuals, especially not for-profit (Tooley & Dixon, 2005; Tooley et al., 2007). Tooley and Dixon (2005) found unrecognized private schools to be straighter about the fact that they are managed by individual proprietors than recognized private schools. The latter often listed a charitable trust or society together with the individual proprietor as managers of the school, although it is doubtful whether management in those cases really is a combined job.
Rationales
Out of the five rationales mentioned in the Theory section (Cost-efficiency, Liberalization, Marketization, Lack of government services, and Access and equity) three apply to the Indian case. These three are: cost-efficiency, lack of government services, and liberalization.
By trying to increase the access to education, the government left a gap that was filled by private providers. Private providers stood up especially in rural areas and urban slums where the lower-middle and the middle-class arose. Despite the resources obtained by international aid organizations, to be spent on reaching universal basic education for all, the government of India struggled with financial constraints (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). This made them decide to spend the budget in other places than education. Privatization then occurred by default or ‘de facto’, which
21
implies it was not the government setting out privatization policies, but privatization was a demand-driven act of private actors (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007; Tooley & Dixon, 2006).
Another reason for demand-driven ‘de facto’ privatization is the perceived low quality of public education. Public schools often lack quality: they are under-resourced, parents’ expectations and aspirations are not being met and teacher absenteeism rates are high (Verger et al., 2016; Woodhead et al., 2013; Tooley et al., 2007). The latter factor being mentioned as the main reason for poor households to prefer private over public education (Tooley et al., 2007).
In the past decades, the involvement of the private sector in Indian education has increased rapidly due to economic growth and liberalization (Woodhead et al., 2013). On the other hand, the demand also increased because private education is often offered in English, rather than the local state language (Woodhead et al., 2013), and because of religious, cultural, or curriculum aspects (Verger et al., 2016).
Outcomes of privatization
Privatization and the mushrooming of low-fee private schools in India has led to various outcomes in education. Parents have seen new choices appear on the horizon of schools (Srivastava, 2007a), however, there is also evidence that proves these low-fee private schools are of low quality. Moreover, different studies argue that low-fee private schools augment inequity and segregation in education.
Education quality
Marketization is assumed to have a positive effect on the quality of education of private as well as public schools. Schools must compete for students while keeping their costs low and their quality high. Parents hold teachers and school management accountable for their actions. And parents are free to exit the service or try to improve it by exercising their voice (Srivastaba, 2007b). Thus, marketization functioning well, is assumed to result in high quality education caused by competition between schools and parents exercising their free choice.
Education quality in India is determined by many different indicators, which makes results ambiguous on whether private schooling is of higher quality than public education (Ashley et al., 2014; Tooley et al., 2007; Tooley & Dixon, 2006; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). What most studies find, is higher learning outcomes in private schools compared to public schools, on subjects such as Maths and English. Many PUA schools teach in English, whereas government schools teach in local languages,
22
which, at least partly, explains the higher learning outcomes in English at private schools. The results in Maths almost even out when there is controlled for social backgrounds, although a small effect remains (Ashley et al., 2014).
Another indicator that many studies find is higher teacher activity in private schools than in public schools. Teacher absenteeism is lowest in private schools, and highest in government schools (Tooley et al., 2007). Teacher activity, measured by not only the presence of a teacher but their actual actions, is lowest in government schools (74.6%) and highest in PUA schools (97.5%), with not much difference found between different types of private schools. High teacher activity is noteworthy, since different studies also find that teachers in private schools earn low salaries and are often untrained (Ashley et al., 2014; Tooley et al., 2007; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). Government school teachers earn up to three and a half times PUA school teachers’ salaries (Tooley et al., 2007).
Also on physical school facilities private schools often score higher than public schools. For instance, drinking water facilities are more often available for private schools than for public schools (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007; Tooley et al., 2007). Tooley et al. (2007) even found that 57.7% of government schools had drinking water facilities available, against 87% of PA and 98% of PUA schools. Additionally, government schools have higher pupil-teacher ratios, less often have toilets for the children (50% against over 94% in private), and have access to a smaller extent to libraries, playgrounds and blackboards than private schools (Tooley et al., 2007).
The market concept seems to be functioning in India in terms of education quality for private schools through competition and choice, as private schools score higher on many of the indicators. What is falling behind, however, is the quality of public schools. Marketization is assumed to have a positive effect on public schools as well, but this is not occurring in India. There are two reasons given for this: 1) There is a lack of competition between the private and the public schools (Härmä & Rose, 2012). Public schools are not financially motivated to join the market as they are financed through the government and not through parental fees. Public schools are for a great part not accountable to parents, but to the government. This introduces the next reason: 2) Motivated parents who wish high quality education for their children leave public schools for private schools (Härmä & Rose, 2012). There, the importance of their voice is higher to school management and teachers. This ‘cream-skimming’ of students leaves government schools with less motivated parents and thus less incentive to improve their education quality (Srivastava, 2007b).
Accessibility
Because of the growing difference between private and public education in terms of quality, caused by, amongst other things, skimming students and competition between private schools,
23
segregation in Indian primary schools is growing. Segregation in terms of wealth, as the poorest are not able to exit public schools to attend private education (Härmä, 2011), but also in terms of class and ethnicity (Härmä, 2011; Härmä & Rose, 2012).
Härmä (2011) speaks of the fact that only the traditionally advantaged groups are favoured by privatization of education. These groups exclude: Most people in rural areas, many girls, children from large families and children from low castes. Geographically, private schools are not well-distributed in India, as the share of private schools in rural areas is much smaller compared to urban areas (Ashley et al., 2014; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). For marketization to function well, competition between schools is essential. In rural areas, there are often not enough private schools to bring about competition (Härmä, 2011). Rural areas, therefore, miss out on a large part of the advantages for education quality caused by competition between schools.
Another excluded group is girls. Enrolment rates show less girls in private education than boys, whereas in government schools there are as many girls enrolled as boys (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2007). Boys are usually preferred when parents are forced to make a choice between children to send to private schools. Especially girls from large families tend to be disadvantaged in this way (Härmä, 2011). Härmä (2011) states that people in the bottom two wealth quintiles in India cannot afford private education for their children, without having to cut on other essential expenditures, such as food and medicine. The girls that do go to school, often attend free government schools (Härmä, 2011; Tooley & Dixon, 2006).
Inequity and segregation
Competition and choice aggravate inequity and segregation in education (Härmä & Rose, 2012): The poorest cannot afford low-fee private schooling, in rural areas there are fewer private schools available, and children from large families do not have the opportunity to attend private schools. Srivastava (2007b) finds the future of schooling for the most disadvantaged not promising. Because of the segregation in education through skimming of students, public schools are less likely to improve education quality (Srivastava, 2007b; Ashley et al., 2014). Mehrotra and Panchamukhi (2007) conclude that ‘even the very large lower-end of the private school system does not serve the interests of equity’ (p. 429).
24
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this research was to map the phenomenon of private primary education for the poor in the global south, and to create clear overview of its consequences to education quality, access to education, and inequality in education. The research questions will each be answered for the theory part and for the case study.
What are the main forms of privatization in primary education?
There appear to be many forms of privatization in the global south, of which PPPs are the most common. This is primarily because of the broad definition of public-private partnerships. The variety within the type PPPs is enormous, and reaches from loose agreements between public and private actors to voucher systems. In the latter system, private education is funded publicly through per-student vouchers. Private Aided (PA) schools are a separately mentioned form of PPPs, as they usually started out as Private Unaided (PUA) schools, but became recognized by the government. PUA schools are completely autonomous. In India, there are are PA and PUA schools in the private sector, PUA schools divided in recognized and unrecognized schools.
What is the scale of privatization in primary education?
The scale of privatization in the global south is hard to determine. The reported size is often downsized or exaggerated, many private schools are not registrered, and the definition of private schools for the poor, or ‘low-fee’ schools, is unclear. However, it is evident that privatization in primary education takes place in most parts of the global south, in rural as well as urban areas, with a slightly higher enrolment rate in urban than in rural areas. In India, the same problems occur while trying to determine the scale of privatization, yet it is clear that the share of private schools in rural areas is much smaller than in urban areas. Also, girls and children from marginalized families are underrepresented in private education enrolment numbers in India, whereas African studies show an equal enrolment number of boys and girls.
Which actors are involved in promoting privatization in primary education, in which ways, and for what reasons?
The actors involved in privatization are governments, international institutions, businesses, edupreneurs, NGOs, and charities and faith-based organizations. These actors are involved in privatization as school managers or as investors. The reasons for involvement in privatization vary from dissadisfaction with the public-school system, to commercial goals, looking for profit, to religious reasons. In India, actors in privatization are often charitable trusts or societies, or individuals
25
(edupreneurs) who seize business opportunities when government schools lack quality and/or capacity.
What is the rationale for the growing phenomenon of privatization in primary education?
Many rationales can be identified for privatization in primary education in the global south. Cost-efficiency is a reason for privatization for parents as well as for school managers and for governments. Liberalization of educational services from the government is a way to create opportunities for privatization to occur. The marketization of educational services, which is popular since the 1990s, brings along school choice and competition between schools. Perhaps the most important reason for privatization in primary education is the lack of government services in terms of quality and capacity. Accessibility and equality is the last-mentioned rationale for privatization. The rationales that apply to the Indian case are cost-efficiency, lack of government services, and liberalization.
What are the outcomes of privatization in primary education?
The outcomes of privatization in the global south and in India are categorized in education quality, accessibility, and equality. For the global south in general also cost-efficiency is added as an outcome, concluding that for governments as well as on the level of school management, privatization is cost-efficient. To parents, however cost-efficient, even low-fee schools are not affordable in some cases. Private primary schools are at some factors found to be of higher quality than public schools. Academic achievement is often higher in private schools, despite poorly trained and underpaid teachers. In India, education quality is also measured by many indicators. Learning outcomes on Maths and English seem to be higher in private schools in India, and teacher activity and physical school facilities are better. Although expected through the market principle, public schools in India do not profit from the higher quality of private schools. Accessibility to private primary schools is often poor, as only the most advantaged of the disadvantaged can afford private education. The effect of skimming, caused by parents exiting public schools chasing the perception of high quality education in private primary schools, leads to segregation in classrooms. In India, the traditionally marginalized groups, including girls and children from rural families, are also excluded from the benefits of private primary education. The private school system in India does not serve the interests of equity.
As described in the Theory section, there are debates between proponents and opponents of privatization in primary education. Proponents of privatization argue that privatization leads to better access and higher quality of education, and therefore improves equality in education. Opponents of privatization, based on education as a human right, find that education must be a public good for it to be inclusive and indiscriminative, as privatization makes education not accessible and affordable to all.
26
In the Indian case this debate is present as well. Proponents of privatization in primary education stress the argument that privatization, through choice and competition principles of marketization, brings about improved access and higher quality education. However, the outcomes of privatization in India reveal that the argument, that private education quality is higher than public education quality, cannot be used unambiguously, for the education quality depends highly on the indicator by which the quality is measured. Though academic achievement is found to be higher for private schools than for public schools, in most cases also when controlled for social class factors, teaching quality is low, as teachers are underpaid and untrained. Although proponents of privatization claim the problem of segregation and discrimination is partly solved by improved access through privatization, segregation in Indian classrooms appears to increase, as skimming of students continues throughout primary education.
27
DISCUSSION
The growing phenomenon in the global south of private primary education for the poor is also occurring in India. In the light of the general phenomenon, some outstanding exceptions or typical practices for India will be discussed.
In the Indian context, privatization is rarely called PPPs. This may imply that privatization in India is not perceived as a partnership, albeit technically what part of the private involvement in education in India comprises, in the form of PA schools. Also noticeable, is that the clear majority of private primary schools for the poor in India rose by default, rather than by design. The government in this sense, is not an actor in privatization in India. The only time the government is involved in privatization, is when it grants recognition to previously unrecognized schools, to regulate the private sector. The main actors in privatization in India are edupreneurs. These actors are typical for the Indian case, as in other countries business or NGOs are often school managers, rather than private individuals. The last noticeable fact on the Indian case is on exclusion of marginalized groups. Although everywhere in the global south marginalized groups are excluded from private education more than non-marginalized groups, in India the share of girls and children from rural areas in private schools is smaller than in other countries in the global south. Accordingly, the problem of exclusion and segregation is bigger in India compared to most other countries in the global south.
Private primary schools for the poor have started to play a part in the global policies towards universal primary education for all. As mentioned in the introduction, governments are often outsiders in this development of privatization. This is perhaps undesirable, while as policy makers, their influence on reaching global goals is potentially enormous. Following this review study, there are two things the Indian, or a similar, government could do: Either the government recognize the role of the private sector and get involved by introducing PPPs in Indian education, or they expand public expenditure on education with the purpose of taking away the need for private education. Srivastava (2010b) argues that India projects itself as ‘one of the fastest growing and largest economies of the world’ (Srivastava, 2010b, p. 551), therefore it should be a matter of policy choice to support public education.
The academic debate on privatization in primary education in the global south does not need to be based solely on ideologies, for an increasing amount of data on privatization becomes available through recent studies in this field. Opponents of privatization could consider the high academic achievement of private schools more, while proponents of privatization could take the gravity of segregation into account more, to find a field of agreement.
28
The present review study has known some shortcomings, primarily because of the scope of the study. Mapping the phenomenon of privatization in the global south through a literature review is a challenge, since the present study provides limited space to elaborate on issues, while the phenomenon is broad. In addition to that, the focus on one country for the case study provides the reader with a limited detailed look into private primary schools for the poor, for it leaves numerous situations and examples in other countries underexposed. However, the case study on one country does provide one with a rather extensive representation of this example.
Another shortcoming of this study is the limited number of authors who have studied the relatively young phenomenon of private schooling for the poor. Tooley et al. seemed to be the only authors with studies concluding in favour of privatization, where several other authors studied the same phenomenon and conclude the opposite in terms of accessibility and quality of private education. Further research should therefore focus on the outcomes of privatization in different situations, countries, and regions. Private education, and even PPPs, is a very broad term, and there seems to be evidence missing on outcomes of many of the characteristics of privatization.
29
REFERENCE LIST
Alderman, H., Kim, J., & Orazem, P.F. (2003). Design, evaluation, and sustainability of private schools for the poor: the Pakistan urban and rural fellowship school experiments. Economics of
Education Review, 22, 265-274. doi: 10.1016/50272-7757(02)00051-1
Alderman, H., Orazem, P.F., & Paterno, E.M. (2001). School quality, school cost, and the
public/private school choices of low-income households in Pakistan. The Journal of Human
Resources, 36(2), 304-326.
Anand, P., Mizala, A., & Repetto, A. (2009). Using school scholarships to estimate the effect of private education on the academic achievement of low-income students in Chile. Economics of
Education Review, 28, 370-381.
Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja, A.I. (2008). A dime a day: The possibilities and limits of private schooling in Pakistan. Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 329-355.
Arenas, A. (2004). Privatization and vouchers in Colombia and Chile. International Review of
Education, 50(3/4), 379-395.
Ashley, L.D., Mcloughlin, C., Aslam, M., Engel, J., Wales, J., Rawal, S., Batley, R., Kingdon, G., Nicolai, S., & Rose, P. (2014). The role and impact of private schools in developing countries: A
rigorous review of the evidence. Final Report. EPPI-Centre Education Rigorous Literature
Review Reference Number 2206. London, UK: Department for International Development. Bellei, C. (2009). The public-private school controversy in Chile in R. Chakrabarti, & P.E. Peterson
(Eds.), School choice international: Exploring public-private partnerships (165-192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brans, B. (2011). PPPs - Public private partnerships in education: Analyzing PPPs as a policy tool for Universal Secondary Education in Uganda. (Master’s thesis). Graduate School of Social Sciences. University of Amsterdam.
Capshaw, N.C. (2014). Low-fee private schooling: aggravating equity or mitigating disadvantage?
British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(3), 357-359. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2014.944393
Carnoy, M., & McEwan, P. (2003). Does privatization improve education? The case of Chile’s national voucher plan. In Plank, D. N., & Sykes, G. (Eds.), Choosing Choice: School Choice in
