• No results found

Privatisation of education to meet the global call for education for all : a comparison of public and private high schools and their impact on the right to and in education of the most marginalised in the Philippine soc

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Privatisation of education to meet the global call for education for all : a comparison of public and private high schools and their impact on the right to and in education of the most marginalised in the Philippine soc"

Copied!
111
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Privatisation of education to meet the global call for

Education for All

A comparison of public and private high schools and their impact on the

Right to and in Education of the most marginalised in the Philippine

society

Master’s thesis

MARJOLEIN CAMPHUIJSEN

10764925

Graduate School of the Social Sciences

Research Master’s International Development Studies

Supervisors: Prof. Xavier Bonal Sarró and Dr Andreu Termes López

Amsterdam 25 July 2016

(2)
(3)

3

Acknowledgements

The past two years, from the moment I started daydreaming about fieldwork until the final editing phase of my Master’s thesis, I received an immense amount of help, support, and inspiration from many people whom I would like to acknowledge and thank.

First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Xavier Bonal Sarró, whose writing on global education policies, educational inequality, and social segregation invigorated my interest in the topic. His guidance, critical feedback, and persistent help have been crucial throughout the whole research and writing process. Similarly, I would like to thank Andreu

Termes López, whom I was lucky enough to meet in the Philippines and who later on

became my second supervisor. His critical notes, constructive feedback, and great knowledge of the Philippine education system have greatly improved the quality of my thesis.

Second, I am extremely grateful to all the people I met in the Philippines. I wish to thank my local supervisors Cecilia Soriano and Rene Raya, whose work on education privatisation in the Philippines both inspired and informed me. Their knowledge and expertise, as well as their enthusiasm, has been of great help to my research. A very special thank goes to Celyn

Merino Perez, my guide during the data collection process, who helped me to gain access to

the schools and served as translator whenever needed. Having her on my side made my fieldwork experience even more fun. She taught me all about the Philippines and I enjoyed every day with her. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to The Asia South

Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education (ASPBAE) and Civil Society Network for Education Reforms (E-Net Philippines), which supported me throughout my fieldwork

process, gave me the chance to discuss my research findings, and provided me with important feedback. Furthermore, I would like to thank all six principals who offered me the opportunity to conduct research at their schools and who facilitated me in the data collection process. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to all teachers, students, and parents whom I met and who were kind enough to share their story.

Third, a special thank you goes to Jorien Hanna Oprins, with whom I shared my wonderful fieldwork experience. I greatly benefited from her understanding and support and very much enjoyed discovering the Philippines together. Finally, I would like to thank my father for this critical view on my work and his unconditional support and belief in me. Without him, there would not even have been a thesis.

(4)

4

Abstract

Over the past decades, the worldwide trend of privatisation of education systems has led to a debate on whether the private sector is able to reach marginalised, excluded and vulnerable children in developing societies. The Philippines are an example of a country where the Government has promoted education privatisation to respond to the global call for Education for All. This qualitative study assesses how public and private secondary schools in the Philippines fulfil marginalised students’ Right to and in Education, building on Tomaševski’s 4A-framework. Data was collected between August and November 2015 in six schools, using in-depth interviews and focus groups with school principals, teachers, students and parents as main methods. In doing so, this study adds empirical evidence to the global debate on whether private sector involvement in education is helpful and desirable and contributes to a better understanding of the Philippine education situation.

Results indicate that the Philippine State’s measures neither have been sufficient to guarantee every child’s Right to Education, nor have been desirable in light of every child’s Right in Education. While the availability of schools has greatly increased over time, economic obstacles and rigid admission processes continue to restrict access to private schools, even to those most “affordable”. At the same time, both types of educational institutes can be considered inadequate on different grounds. Public schools have clearly suffered from insufficient funding and ever-increasing enrolment and have witnessed overcrowding and limited learning resources. Private schools, on the other hand have, in an attempt to keep costs as low as possible, have failed to attract a high-quality teaching labour force. These findings imply the necessity for Government officials and policy-makers to reconsider the adequacy and desirability of their current education strategy as a means to guarantee the human Right to Education.

Keywords: Private schools; Public schools; Privatisation of Education; Right to Education;

(5)

5

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ... 3

Abstract ... 4

Table of Contents ... 5

List of Tables and Figures ... 8

List of Abbreviations ... 9

Chapter 1. Introduction ... 10

1.1 Introduction to the topic ... 10

1.2 Background to the study ... 12

1.3 Case-study: Philippines ... 13

1.4 Main objectives ... 15

1.5 Outline ... 16

Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework ... 17

2.1 Three approaches to education ... 17

a. The human capital approach to education ... 17

b. The rights-based approach to education ... 18

c. The capability approach to education ... 19

2.2 A rights-based approach to assess education in the Philippine context ... 21

2.3 Tomaševski’s 4A-framework ... 22

a. Availability of education ... 22

b. Accessibility of education ... 24

c. Acceptability of education ... 28

d. Adaptability of education ... 29

2.4 Research and sub-questions ... 31

2.5 Conceptual scheme and hypotheses ... 32

2.6 Concluding remarks ... 34

Chapter 3. Research Design ... 35

3.1 Methodology ... 35

a. Epistemological and ontological position ... 35

b. Comparative research design... 36

3.2 Methods and sampling ... 36

a. Unit of analysis ... 36

(6)

6

c. Sampling ... 39

3.3 Ethical considerations ... 42

3.4 Quality criteria ... 42

3.5 Data analysis ... 43

3.6 Limitations and self-reflection ... 43

3.7 Concluding remarks ... 44

Chapter 4. Research context ... 45

4.1 The Philippines, in short ... 45

4.2 Education in the Philippines ... 47

a. A brief history ... 47

b. Current trends ... 49

4.3 Research location: Calabarzon, Rizal ... 51

4.4 Concluding remarks ... 53

Chapter 5: Availability of Education ... 54

5.1 Availability of schools ... 54

a. Availability of state and non-state schools ... 54

b. Adequacy of state and non-state schools ... 55

5.2 Availability of qualified teachers ... 57

5.3 Availability of education ... 60

a. Means undertaken to guarantee education availability... 60

b. Do education supply and education demand match? ... 61

5.4 Concluding remarks ... 62

Chapter 6: Accessibility of Education ... 64

6.1 Non-discrimination ... 64

a. Admission process ... 64

b. Exclusion from education ... 66

6.2 Physical accessibility ... 67

a. Physical presence of schools ... 67

b. The road to school ... 68

c. Distance learning programmes ... 69

6.3 Economic accessibility ... 69

a. Cost of education ... 70

(7)

7

6.4 Concluding remarks ... 73

Chapter 7: Acceptability and Adaptability of Education ... 75

7.1 Minimal standards of education provision ... 75

a. Quality and safety of the school environment ... 75

b. Quality of teaching ... 77

c. Regulation and enforcement of standards ... 78

7.2 Orientation and content ... 78

a. Relevance, appropriateness and objectiveness of education content ... 78

b. Language of instruction ... 79

7.3 Adaption of education to societal and individual needs ... 80

a. Macro level: K-12 curriculum reform ... 81

b. Micro level ... 81

7.4 Concluding remarks ... 83

Chapter 8: Conclusion and Discussion ... 84

Bibliography ... 89

Appendices ... 102

Appendix A: Overview of respondents ... 102

Appendix B: Operationalisation of key concepts ... 104

Appendix C: Descriptive overview of schools ... 110

(8)

8

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Tuition fees of sampled private schools in Rizal ... 39

Table 2: Overview of respondents per method ... 41

Table 3: Number of teachers and students per school ... 56

Table 4: Time and cost spent on travelling to school, on a daily basis ... 69

Table 5: Direct and indirect costs of education in public and private schools ... 70

Table 6: List of respondents ... 102

Figure 1: Conceptual scheme ... 32

Figure 2: The archipelago of the Philippines ... 45

Figure 3: GDP growth (annual %) of the Philippines and East Asia & Pacific ... 46

Figure 4: Population growth of the Philippines over time (absolute numbers) ... 47

Figure 5: K-12 curriculum reform ... 50

Figure 6: Regions of the Philippines ... 51

Figure 7: Provinces of Calabarzon ... 52

(9)

9

List of Abbreviations

4Ps Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programme ADB Asian Development Bank

ALS Alternative Learning System DepEd Department of Education EFA Education for All

E-Net Philippines Civil Society Network for Education Reforms ESC Education Service Contracting scheme

GASTPE Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education

JHS Junior High School

LET Licensure Examination for Teachers LFPS Low Fee Private School

MDGs Millennium Development Goals NAT National Achievement Test NCR National Capital Region

NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OFW Overseas Filipino Worker PPP Public-Private Partnership

RA Republican Act

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SHS Senior High School

SY School Year

SPED Special Education

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USA United States of America

(10)

10

Chapter 1. Introduction

“You know, Filipinos want their children to go to school. (…). We are always telling them, ‘if you want to be a successful person, you have to finish your education: to find a better job’. So, it is already a culture for Filipinos that children should go to school; they have to oblige, they have to force children to go to school: that is the only means that they will become productive; they will have a better job and you know, they will become progressive”.

—Private school principal (R13)1, Angono, 8 September, 2015

The following quote underlines the importance that is given to education by many Filipino citizens. The Philippines are no exception in this regard. In recent decades, the value of education for well-being, poverty alleviation and economic progress has become well-known and widely acknowledged (King, 2009; Mesa, 2007). Yet, despite this global consensus, much less agreement exists on how education should be managed, financed and provided (Klees, 2008: 305). For instance, should the State be the main provider of education, or is there also a role for non-state actors, such as the private sector, to join in education provision? In case there is, what benefits does non-state education have over state-run education, and the other way around? And how do both providers influence each other? This study compares two types of educational institutes in the Philippines, public and private schools, and aims to assess and compare their fulfilment of a child’s Right to Education. This occurs against the background of increased private sector involvement in education worldwide given that since the 1980s, many education systems have experienced privatisation, which meant the increased regulation, funding and provision of education by private actors (ASPBAE, 2013: 15; Menashy, 2014: 13: Robertson et al., 2007: 24).

1.1 Introduction to the topic

The global acknowledgement of the importance of education is a result of both the individual and societal benefits of schooling (Robertson, Mundy, Verger & Menashy, 2012: 3). For individuals, education is crucial for the development of the human personality, while at the same time education can provide economic, social, cultural and political gains (Levin, 2000: 3). Moreover, a nation’s democracy, economy and society all depend on education in the sense that schooling prepares young citizens “to assume adult roles in which they can undertake civic responsibilities, embrace a common set of values, participate in a democratic polity with a given set of rules, and embrace the economic, political, and social life which constitute the foundation for the nation (Levin, 2000: 3)”. Also, the contribution of education

(11)

11 to achieving other development goals, such as improved maternal health, is recognised (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: 3). Quality education for all children, youth and adults has been listed as a fundamental human right. The responsibility of the State in protecting and fulfilling this right is legally codified in international human rights treaties (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: 1). The Education for All (EFA) movement, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Declaration and recently introduced Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)2 portray the political commitment towards realising this human right (Kelly, Bhabha & Krishna, 2015: 1047; UNESCO, 2016).

As was briefly introduced, regardless of the global consensus on the importance of education, much less agreement exists on how education should be managed, financed and provided (Klees, 2008: 305). In terms of education provision, two forms of privatisation have rapidly grown. First of all, so-called Low Fee Private Schools (LFPS) have risen worldwide. These schools are owned, financed and managed by private actors and demand the lowest fee as possible in order to reach as many people as possible (Härmä, 2010). Children from low-income and marginalised families are specifically targeted by these institutes (Heyneman & Stern, 2013; McLoughlin, 2013: 2; Srivastava & Walford, 2007). Second of all, Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in education have risen dramatically (Menashy, 2014: 13; Robertson & Verger, 2012: 22). PPPs consist of collaborations between public and private sector actors (Hodge, Greave and Boardman, 2010: 4). Increasingly, PPPs in education are used to “respond to low government capacity to deliver quality education by enabling a shift in the state’s function from a provider of schooling to that of a financier and regulator of private operators (Menashy, 2014: 14)”.

A heated debate exists about whether private sector involvement is relevant and appropriate in realising every child’s Right to Education (ASPBAE, 2013: 28; Robertson et al., 2007: 27). By some, privatisation of education is welcomed as a solution, for it can relieve public sector costs. It is presumed that increased competition between schools will enhance quality of education (Fielden & LaRocque, 2008; Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio & Guáqueta, 2009). According to advocates of privatisation, LFPS provide an opportunity for children, also from disadvantaged families, to participate in quality education, thereby offering parents an alternative to low quality public schools still within their expense range (Dixon, 2013; Tooley, 2004; Tooley & Dixon, 2006). PPPs, on the other hand, are perceived as combining the best of both the public and the private sector, and hence a solution to systematic problems

2

MDG 2 focusses on achieving universal primary education; SDG 4 entails ensuring inclusive and quality education and promoting lifelong learning.

(12)

12 in education systems, for instance by offering an innovative way of financing schooling (King, 2009: ix),

Others, however, have argued that education is a human right (Day-Ashley et al., 2014: 5), a public good, rather than a commercial good (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: ix) and a complex social and political activity that serves public interests (Oketch, Mutisya, Ngware, Ezeh & Epari, 2010; Robertson & Verger, 2012: 22). Therefore, it should always be under control of the Government. It has been shown that LFPS in many cases are not truly affordable for and accessible to the poorest and most vulnerable families in society (Belfield & Levin, 2002; Härmä, 2010; 2011). Because the majority of the vulnerable and disadvantaged are still found in public schools (Vasavi, 2003), some have argued focus should lie on investment and reformation of public schools in order to ensure that everybody can experience quality education (Day-Ashley et al., 2014; Menashy, 2014: 18). Additionally, it has been emphasised that increased privatisation can weaken the public education system (Menashy, 2013: 13; Plank, 2005).

1.2 Background to the study

In response to this debate, this research sets out to compare public and private secondary schools and their fulfilment of a child’s Right to Education. This study specifically focusses on marginalised students in society3, following a rights-based approach that emphasises the responsibility of the Government in providing quality basic education to all its citizens. This study assesses the establishment and spread of both types of educational institutes, taking into account the conditions of education provision and the extent to which demand for education is met. It is questioned to what extent public and private schools are accessible and affordable to marginalised students. Also, it is examined whether public and private schools offer education that is acceptable (i.e. of sufficient quality) and adaptable (i.e. responsive to diversity and special needs).

The rationale for choosing a rights-based theoretical approach is described in more detail in section 2.2. For now, it suffices to say that the rights-based approach has the strength of opening up the “Black box” of what happens within schools, by paying attention to the school environment, content and orientation, classroom processes and outcomes (Tikly, 2011: 7). By doing so, the approach enables one to assess the interaction of human agency and

3

This study addresses marginalisation based on social class, cultural background (religious, ethnic and linguistic) and gender (to be discussed in detail in section 3.2a).

(13)

13 structure in shaping the fulfilment of a child’s Right to Education. Consequently, inequality in opportunity, experience and treatment can be identified and differences in attainment explained.

Additionally, the rights-based approach has a strong theoretical foundation. This study builds on one particular, yet influential framework of the rights-based approach, which is the 4A-framework of Katerina Tomaševski. This framework stresses the responsibility of governments to provide primary and secondary education that is Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable to all school-aged children in society. In her work, Tomaševski (2001: 43) has emphasised that getting children into schools does not mean that their Right to Education is fully realised. By introducing the Right in Education, Tomaševski moves beyond studies that mainly focus on access to education. The inclusion of what happens within schools in the analysis of a child’s Right to Education4

is crucial since studies have shown that the quality of education has suffered from the increased numbers of children that are now in school (Hartwig, 2013: 494; World Bank, 2005: xviii). Tomaševski’s 4A-framework offers guidance to the analysis of the Right to Education and will be the basis for the comparison of the two educational institutes.

1.3 Case-study: Philippines

In the conduct of this comparison, this study makes use of a case-study: the Philippines. Among South Asian and Pacific countries, the Philippines belong to those states where non-state providers are highly active in education provision (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: 12). From the 1980s onwards, the Philippine Government has actively promoted private sector involvement in education as a main strategy to respond to the increasing numbers of school-aged children and the global call to achieve EFA, MDG 2 and SDG 4 (E-Net Philippines, 2012: 1-2). The State has increased spending on government programs that enhance privatisation and encourage public school students to transfer to private schools (OPP, 2014). The country’s Education Service Contracting (ESC) scheme, which provides a subsidy scheme to ‘poor but deserving’ students to attend private high schools, has grown exceptionally since its implementation in 1986 and has become one of the largest PPP schemes worldwide (World Bank, 2011: 11). At the same time, with the implementation of

4 Both the Right to Education (availability & accessibility) and b) the Right in Education (acceptability and

adaptability) make up for a child’s Right to Education. When the overall concept is meant, “to” is not written in italic.

(14)

14 the new Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K to 12) curriculum that universalises kindergarten and extends secondary education with two years (ADB, 2011: 1-2), the Philippine Government has increasingly tied up with the private sector in order to accommodate education for all (World Bank, 2014). Again, public school students in particular are encouraged to enrol in private Senior High Schools (SHS) by being offered a voucher that covers part of their costs. These efforts portray the pro-PPP strategy of the Philippine Government, which make the Philippines a good case study to assess what kind of opportunities are in place for disadvantaged students to participate in private schooling.

At the same time, this study questions how beneficial participation in private schools may be, compared to public schooling. This is done by examining public schools, and in particular by paying attention to how current government strategies have affected the public education system. Despite government efforts to promote enrolment in private schools, public school enrolment has continued to increase over time, at pre-school, primary and secondary education level (PSA, 2015). Whereas in 1985, public school enrolment accounted for 59 percent, this has increased to 80 percent in 2014 (World Bank, 2014). Yet, the country has experienced continuous under-investment in education. The past decade, the share of the national budget that was directed to education has consistently been below the 20 percent international benchmark. Although the budget amount has gradually increased, in 2015 still only 14.1 percent of the total budget was invested in education (E-Net Philippines, 2012: 2; GOVPH, 2015). At the same time, an increasing part of this budget was allocated to private school assistance. This raises questions about the conditions and circumstances of students in public schools, which unlike private schools are predominantly funded by government subsidies. In light of this continuous under-investment, in combination with the growing student population and the strong demand for public education, an assessment of the conditions of public schools is relevant.

This study is based on a three-month fieldwork period in the Philippines, from mid-August until the end of November 2015. A comparative research design was adopted, using qualitative methods. In total six secondary schools5, three public and three private, were assessed.

5 This study focusses on secondary schools for that education privatisation is more pronounced at this education

level. In the Philippines, 40 percent of all secondary schools are privately-owned, compared to 17 percent of all primary schools (DepEd, 2012a). Also, the privatisation strategy of the Philippine Government specifically focusses on this level.

(15)

15

1.4 Main objectives

This comparative study has two main objectives. First of all, this study aims to assess how two types of educational institutes are able to fulfil a child’s Right to and in Education, according to the criteria listed by Tomaševski’s 4A-framework. By comparing both types, this study attempts to contribute to the global debate on whether private sector involvement is helpful and desirable in guaranteeing fulfilment of every child’s Right to Education. It strives to shed light on the extent to which marginalised students have (gained) access to private schools and use this opportunity to attend these educational institutes, according to their Right

to Education. In a similar vein, it is questioned to what extent participation in private schools

is beneficial. Attention is given to the circumstances of participation in both public and private schools, taking into account a child’s Right in Education. In doing so, this study aims to add empirical evidence to the question whether privatisation can contribute to the realisation of every child’s Right to Education, or whether such efforts stimulate increased inequality in education choice and experience.

Second, this study aims to come to a better understanding of the education situation in the Philippines in particular. Only a handful of recent studies have focussed on education privatisation in the country, most often specifically focussing on privatisation policy such as the ESC (Baum, 2012; E-Net Philippines, 2012; World Bank, 2011) or types of private schools (Riep, 2015). Yet, limited studies have made a comparison of public and private schools. This study attempts to do so, by examining and comparing the country’s two main education suppliers with the aim of coming to a better understanding of differences in circumstances and conditions, and the effect of the State’s privatisation policy on public schools. The latter is in particular relevant in the light of concerns expressed by Menashy (2013: 13) and Plank (2005) that privatisation efforts can weaken the public schooling system. Given that the majority of the marginalised students remain to be found in public schools (Vasavi, 2003), it is necessary to assess how their schooling situation is influenced by privatisation policy.

Whereas a better understanding of the education situation in the Philippines adds to academic debates on education privatisation, it also has practical relevance given that insights can be used to adjust or change government policy. This implies that the findings are insightful for government officials or policy-makers whom are interested in the impact of their education approach or civil society organisations that advocate for change of government policy. In order to increase the relevance of this study, early findings were

(16)

16 presented to the regional Department of Education (DepEd) and two civil society organisations: the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education (ASPBAE) and Civil Society Network for Education Reforms (also known as E-Net Philippines).

1.5 Outline

This thesis begins with outlining three main approaches to education policy and research in Chapter 2. Attention is paid to why this study builds forth on of them, that is the rights-based approach. Additionally, this Chapter introduces Tomaševski’s 4A-framework, which is used to guide the assessment and comparison of public and private schools, and ends with the research questions, conceptual scheme and hypotheses. In Chapter 3, the research design is discussed, paying attention the study’s methodology. In order to provide the reader with background information that is needed to understand the findings of this study, Chapter 4 offers a description of the research context and research location.

In Chapter 5-7, the empirical findings of this study are presented. In Chapter 5, it is addressed how the availability of schools has changed over time, paying attention to differences in conditions of these schools (e.g. adequacy of classrooms, qualifications of teachers). Additionally, it is assessed how education supply has been able to meet education demand. Chapter 6 addresses the extent to which marginalised students have (gained) access to private schools, taking into account discriminatory practises in the admission process, physical reach of schools and affordability of schooling. In Chapter 7 focus shifts to students’ Right in Education, addressing education quality, attention for diversity in schooling and the adaptability of education systems. The final Chapter of this thesis consists of a discussion of the main findings and a conclusion is drawn with regard to the research question. Moreover, the theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed, after which this Chapter ends with addressing limitations of this study and indicating suggestions for further research.

(17)

17

Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework

In this Chapter, the theoretical framework is discussed. This framework will shape the interpretation and understanding of the collected data. The Chapter starts with a discussion of three main approaches to education policy and research, which underlie education policy, and which are used to understand and assess education systems and education quality. They include the human capital approach, the rights-based approach and the capability framework. Their strengths and weaknesses are outlined, and explanation is given why the human rights-based approach is used to assess the research problem of this study. In the sections thereafter, focus will be narrowed down to one particular, yet influential framework of the right-based approach, which is the 4A-framework of Tomaševski. Each A is discussed in more detail and applied to the research topic. Based on this discussion, this Chapter ends with the research questions of this study, the conceptual scheme and the hypotheses.

2.1 Three approaches to education

The three dominant approaches to education diverge on various grounds, including a) the role or function they ascribe to education; b) the nature of the approach; c) practical implications; and d) their value and limitations. These grounds form the basis for outlining and comparing the approaches.

a. The human capital approach to education

To start, according to the human capital approach, the main function of education is skill development and knowledge acquisition. Going to school is seen as an economic investment, which will enhance the productivity of human beings (Robeyns, 2006: 72). At individual level, the main benefit of investing in education therefore lies in the income generating effect of schooling (Menashy, 2013: 751) and the utility in developing an economically viable livelihood (Hartwig, 2013: 487). At state-level, it is assumed that investing in education can contribute to economic growth (Tikly, 2011: 5). More recently, economists have realised that in particular investing in quality education, more than increasing the number of years spend in school, has a positive impact on a country’s GDP (Hanushek & Wößmann, 2008). Market-inspired strategies have often been used to improve education quality (Buckler, 2015; Tikly, 2011: 6). By expanding school choice and by increasing competition between schools, it is

(18)

18 assumed that schools will be motivated to improve their standards. Private sector provision of education is often suggested as a desirable means to increase the efficiency and quality of education providers, both public and private (Patrinos & Sosale, 2007: 15). The human capital approach to education has been the dominant policy discourse of many financial institutions, donor agencies and international organisations (Menashy, 2013; Tikly, 2011: 5) and has underpinned most national education policies, both in the Global North and South (Buckler, 2015).

According to Robeyns (2006: 72), the main value of the human capital approach lies in the recognition of how education contributes to human capital development of individuals. It is emphasised that the approach “has broadened development discourses that only focused on technical progress and macro-economic development, to include people as central to development efforts” (Robeyns, 2006: 72). Yet, the human capital approach to education also has various limitations. First of all, people are presumed to act out of economic reasons only. This assumption limits the explanatory value of this approach in the case of people behave for social, religious, moral or other non-economic reasons (Robeyns, 2006: 72-73). Second, the human capital approach only values education when it results in increased productivity and income, thereby neglecting any other non-instrumental value that education can have (Robeyns, 2006: 73). Without degrading the importance of education as human capital, it is important to recognise that there is more to education (Robeyns, 2006: 75; Sen, 1997: 1959-61). Third, in assuming a linear relation between inputs (e.g. material resources and teachers), educational processes and outputs (e.g. literacy or numeracy), one neglects the complexity and multi-dimensionality of these relations and degrades the impact of context (Tikly, 2011: 6). It is argued that such models lead to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to education, which fails to take into account the diversity of learners and the diversity of context (Tikly, 2011: 6). Last, the approach has been strongly critiqued for failing to take into account the inequity implications of associated policies as a result of subjugating efficiency over equality (Menashy, 2014: 13).

b. The rights-based approach to education

The second approach, the rights-based approach, emphasises that education is a human right. Every child is entitled to quality education, which “respects and promotes her or his right to dignity and optimum development” (UNESCO & UNICEF, 2007: 1). The goal of this approach is the enactment of human rights, which in this case includes the right to education

(19)

19 (i.e. every child has equal opportunities to attend school), the right in education (i.e. every child has the chance to enjoy quality education) and the right through education (i.e. every child is respected within school) (Menashy, 2013: 751). In contrast to the human capital approach, the right-based approach acknowledges both the intrinsic and instrumental value of education (Menashy, 2013: 752). By this approach, the Government is perceived as the optimal provider of education (Menashy, 2013: 752), in particular since by defining education as a right, it becomes a government responsibility to ensure and protect this right (Tomaševski, 2003: 69). Provision of education by non-state actors, such as the private sector, is therefore often deemed problematic due to concerns about access, equity and quality (Menashy, 2013: 752; Menashy, 2014: 15).

The rights-based approach has contributed significantly to raising awareness and instigating global action to ensure that every child can receive quality education. The right to education has legal legitimacy by its inclusion in the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights (Menashy, 2013: 751). As part of the EFA movement, the international community has committed itself to realising the right to education (Robeyns, 2006: 75). Additionally, the main value of the approach lies in offering an alternative to the human capital approach by focussing on the processes of teaching and learning within the classroom, rather than only concentrating on educational output (Tikly, 2011: 7). According to Hartwig (2013: 488), “the human rights approach has contributed significantly to a focus on student-centred teaching, freedom from abuse, and student participation in democratic structures”.

Despite this, the approach has various limitations. First of all, it has been argued that once governments succeed in enabling each child’s Right to Education, no action will be undertaken beyond fulfilling this duty. Yet, this may be necessary in some cases for that even when all conditions are in place to fulfil this right, this does not guarantee that children will actually go to school and learn (Robeyns, 2006: 77). Another limitation of the rights-based approach is its exclusive focus on the Government, which neglects that governments themselves sometimes form the problem, rather than the solution (Robeyns, 2006: 77). Also, given that human rights are fixed by legal texts, they may thereby exclude aspects of well-being that are more intangible than legal rights.

c. The capability approach to education

The third approach draws upon the two former approaches, while remaining critical of aspects of both (Robeyns, 2006: 78; Sen, 1992; 1999; Tikly, 2011: 4). In the capability approach, Sen

(20)

20 makes a distinction between functionings and capabilities. Whereas functionings include activities and participation of individuals in society (i.e. outcomes), capabilities refer to the potential of individuals to undertake such actions (i.e. opportunities) (Jackson, 2005: 103). According to Sen, “a good and just society should expand people’s capabilities, but should refrain from pushing them into particular functionings” (Robeyns, 2006: 79). Rather, capability expansion enables people to choose and develop their own functionings. It is argued that education has important constitutive value in itself, for it can improve human well-being. Yet, the opportunity to participate in education can also strengthen and reinforce other capabilities, for example the freedom to participate in economic and political life (Sen, 1999: 11). Consequently, the instrumental value of education is also recognised by the capability approach. Investing in quality education which strives for holistic development of the human being is therefore deemed important (Nussbaum, 2003: 328).

The approach lacks a definitive list of capabilities, which can be perceived as a strength and a weakness at the same time. On the one hand, it is argued that that “the capabilities which individuals ought to be afforded are dependent upon the functionings he or she desires to achieve, not on some pre-designed set of rights (Menashy, 2014: 19)”. On the other hand, because the capability approach still largely lacks a similar degree of operationalisation as the other two approaches, this makes it more difficult to apply the framework to education research and policy-making. Also, the underspecified nature of the approach implies that additional social theories related to a particular problem are needed (Robeyns, 2006: 78-80). While this is not necessarily a problem in itself, there are no guarantees that this will be done right. Unterhalter (2003: 7-8), for instance, pointed out how Sen himself failed to address all complexities related to education as a capability.

Moreover, the capability approach has been criticised for its liberal-individualist nature (Dean, 2009: 10). According to Jackson (2005: 102), the capability approach of Sen, while acknowledging the significance of social context, only briefly touches upon social structure, and mainly emphasises human agency. Consequently, the approach has been criticised by Dean (2009) and Fraser (1997) for neglecting power structures that enable and constrain capabilities and thereby ignoring “the effects of systematic inequalities in liberal societies that effectively exclude, or compromise participation by, a variety of social classes and groups, including women” (Dean, 2009: 6).

(21)

21

2.2 A rights-based approach to assess education in the Philippine context

This study builds on a rights-based approach in assessing and comparing public and private schools in the Philippines. This approach has the highest theoretical and practical applicability and value for the focus and objectives of this study, which has four reasons. First of all, the rights-based approach moves beyond the human capital framework in assessing what happens within schools. Where these circumstances are generally ignored by the latter framework, the rights-based approach pays particular attention to the school environment (e.g. is it safe; is it gender-sensitive), education content (e.g. is the curriculum relevant and responsive to the diversity of students?) and classroom processes and outcomes (Tikly, 2011: 7). In assessing these circumstances, the rights-based approach enables the identification of inequality in experience and opportunity, which is crucial in explaining differences in educational outcome. Such an assessment is relevant in light of this study’s objective, which is to examine and compare two types of education providers and to come to an understanding of differences in circumstances, conditions and opportunities between public and private school students.

Second of all, the rights-based approach is preferred over the capability approach given the liberal-individualist nature of the latter framework (Dean, 2009: 10). As was discussed above, this nature implies that the capability approach is limited in its ability to uncover power structures that affect individual capabilities and thereby to expose inequalities and injustices (Dean, 2009: 8). As we will see in Chapter 3, this study assumes that an interaction exists between structures and agency in shaping the fulfilment of a child’s Right to Education. The right-based approach has the virtue of making structures and their effect on individual experiences and opportunities more evident.

Third, the right-based approach has a strong theoretical foundation. This study builds on Tomaševski’s 4A-framework, which specifies what the right to education comprises of and narrows down this broad theoretical concept to a framework of indicators. This gives the approach an advantage over the capability framework, which still lacks a similar degree of operationalisation (Robeyns, 2006: 80).

Last, the rights-based approach has the benefit that its discourse is relatively well-known, also outside academia, a characteristic it shares with the human capital approach (Robeyns, 2006: 81). The language of human rights has been used by civil society and grassroots organisations worldwide to fight against injustice (Jaggar, 2002: 237). The legal nature of the approach enables one to assess whether the Right to Education is fulfilled, and to indicate possible violations. The right-based approach hereby makes a strategic and powerful

(22)

22 tool to advocate for quality education, more than the capability approach which is less well-known outside academia (Robeyns, 2006: 81-82) and not law-based. Yet, it is important to recognise that both approaches do not exclude each other. As suggested by Robeyns (2006: 82-83), the rights-based approach can also be used as an important instrument to expand people’s opportunity-set, thereby contributing to the ultimate aim of the capability approach.

2.3 Tomaševski’s 4A-framework

In this section, Tomaševski’s (2001) 4A-framework is discussed. The framework consists of “a powerful, yet simple and practical framework for understanding the concept of the right to education expressed in more tangible terms by the 4 A’s” (ASPBAE, 2013: 65). The four A’s include different, but overlapping and interrelated components of the Right to Education. Together they imply that education has to be made Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable (Tomaševski, 2001: 13). In the sections below, each A is explained in more detail, after which the concepts are applied to the focus of this study based on a review of the existing literature. A full overview of the operationalisation scheme of the 4 A’s is included in Appendix B.

a. Availability of education

The first A of the framework states that “functioning educational institutions and programmes have to be available in sufficient quantity within the jurisdiction of the State party” (UN, 1999: 3). This implies that the number of schools and teachers should meet the demand for education, to secure that everybody can enjoy quality education. In a similar vein, this implies that the number of facilities and learning resources should be adequate in both quantity and quality (UN, 1999: 3). Governments can fulfil this obligation either by the establishment of government-run schools, the provision of school programmes and the recruitment of teachers, or by means of funding non-state actors in education provision, or a combination of both. The Government is not perceived as the only investor in education, but it is the investor of the last resort (Tomaševski, 2001: 13).

Education systems that are solely funded and organised by the Government have become increasingly rare in developing countries (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: xi, 6). In many of these countries, “the State experiences persistent budgetary and institutional constraints that plague both the coverage and quality of its education services” (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: 4).

(23)

23 In a growing number of nations, states have recognised the existence and potential value of non-state actors in complementing the state in realising national education goals and priorities. It has been suggested that in some cases it is of a more efficient and cheaper option to fund private schools instead of (only) expanding the establishment of government-run schools (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: 22, 25). Consequently, in fulfilling citizens’ Right to Education, states often do not only provide education, but also fund, regulate and monitor education provision by non-state actors (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: xi). In doing so, states are obliged to ensure that non-state parties will not interfere or violate the Right to Education, but contribute to equal opportunities for all to enjoy quality education.

In exercising a particular strategy, whether this is to solely provide government-run schools or to fund non-state education, the State remains responsible for ensuring that the total number of schools is sufficient to meet the demand for education and that those schools are adequate in terms of classrooms, facilities and resources. In a similar vein, the State should ensure that qualified teachers are present in sufficient numbers to guarantee education availability to all right holders. Teachers have to be educated and trained, making them qualified to teach (Tomaševski, 2001: 23). Important differences between educational institutes are found on these criteria, as the existing literature indicates. In terms of adequacy of classrooms, facilities and resources, Dixon (2013) found that private schools in India tend to be equipped with more and better facilities and resources than public schools, such as a library, computers and separate toilets for boys and girls. At the same time, private schools tend to be characterised by smaller class sizes (Singh & Sarkar, 2012). However, private school teachers are often less likely to possess official teaching certificates (Andrabi, Das & Khwaja, 2008; Muralidharan and Kremer, 2007), have received less pre-service training and are less experienced than public school teachers (Aslam and Kingdon, 2011; Dreze & Gazdar, 1996; Härmä, 2009, 2010; PROBE Team, 1999; Srivastava & Walford, 2007).

In addition to these criteria, Tomaševski (2001: 24-26) has emphasised that teachers should have perfect command of the language of education provision and that the teacher workforce should consist of a gender balance. In the Philippines, Filipino and English are used as media of instruction in both public and private schools from Grade 4 onwards6 (GovPH, 2013). Another example of a country where English is used as language of instruction is Tanzania. Brock-Utne (2007, 2010) and Hartwig (2013) have shown that in this case, student comprehension and learning are hampered by the limited ability of teachers to

6

As we will see in section 7.2, from kindergarten until Grade 3, education is provided in the regional or native language of students (GovPH, 2013).

(24)

24 communicate in English, given that it is not their mother-tongue. Additionally, whereas many policies have been designed to increase the number of female teachers, limited efforts have been undertaken to increase the number of men (Tomaševski, 2001: 25). Yet, in many countries worldwide, the teaching workforce is dominated by women (Commonwealth Secretariat & UNESCO, 2011). Some studies present evidence of higher numbers of female teachers in private schools, as compared to public schools, as is for example the case in Dominica, Samoa and India (Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO, 2011). Many of the teachers hired by private schools are unmarried, young women (Andrabi, Das & Khwaja, 2008; McLoughin, 2013).

It is emphasised that rights of teachers have to be guaranteed given that if these are not respected, “it is impossible to imagine that this may be different for the rights of children” (Tomaševski, 2001: 23). Teachers have the right to form and join trade unions and the right to strike, this in order to safeguard their occupational interests, but also to hold the State accountable for its economic and social policies. At the same time, it is argued that to attract a qualified teacher labour force, teachers should receive “domestically competitive salaries” (UN, 1999: 3). However, various studies showed that private schools attempt to keep their operation costs low by paying low wages to their teachers (Kingdon, 2008; Kremer & Muralidharan, 2008; Riep, 2015). Kingdon (2008) showed that public school teachers in India were paid 12 times as much as private school teachers. Similar results were found by Schirmer (2010) for South Africa. Moreover, private school teachers are less likely to enjoy permanent contracts than public school teachers (Andrabi et al., 2008; Härmä, 2010).

Last, availability of education entails that States respect freedom in education. While private schools have no right to receive public funding, non-state actors do have the right to establish and operate schools, albeit under supervision of the State (Tomaševski, 2001: 18). Consequently, in many developing countries a wide variety of non-state actors are active in education provision, including Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), for-profit, non-profit, civil society and religious organisations. Non-state actors can complement state-education, for example by offering schooling in particular minority languages where state schools do not, or provide an alternative to public schooling (Tomaševski, 2001: 20).

b. Accessibility of education

As the second A of the framework indicates, securing the availability of schools and teachers is not sufficient to ensure the Right to Education. It is equally important to guarantee that

(25)

25 educational institutions and programmes are accessible to all (UN, 1999: 3; UN, 2012: 136). The obligation of the State to realise education accessibility, which comprises three overlapping principles: a) non-discrimination; b) physical accessibility; and c) economic accessibility (UN, 1999: 3).

To start with the first, non-discrimination in education includes equality of access to schooling for all right holders. While the principle of non-discrimination has been included in international legal documents, such as the 1960 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, the notion is not subject to progressive realisation (Tomaševski, 2001: 3). According to Tomaševski (2003: 57), efforts to eliminate discrimination in education are hampered by a paucity of available data:

“With the exception of sex, discrimination remains unrecorded, which creates a vicious circle. Because discrimination is officially unrecorded, it can be ignored. Because there is no quantitative data, anybody trying to prove discrimination is doomed to fail for lack of data. It is impossible effectively to oppose discrimination without exposing it first”.

Consequently, both direct and indirect forms of discrimination continue to hamper access to schooling, in particular of vulnerable and marginalised groups, based on different grounds such as ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, disability and gender. Examples of measures that have been instigated to tackle gender discrimination include the construction of girl schools in Yemen, improved sanitation facilities in Morocco, and a commitment to the employment of at least one female teacher in primary schools in Nepal (Wilson, 2003: 9-10). Yet, in a number of countries in the Caribbean, measures in place that are favouring girls, have given rise to a situation wherein education systems increasingly fail to include boys (Wilson, 2003: 10).

In addition, in order to tackle discrimination and guarantee educational accessibility for all, efforts need to be undertaken that ensure that third parties, such as parents, do not prevent children from going to school. Tomaševski (2001: 27) refers to how some parents perceive no economic incentive to send their daughters to school, whom, as a result, are deprived of their right to education. Similarly, Härmä (2011: 353) argues that gender inequality is enhanced by a selection bias favouring boys. This finding in particular applies to private education, and is confirmed by other studies7 (Day-Ashley et al., 2014: 56; Hartwig,

7

Tooley and Longfield (2015: 15-16) have argued that some studies that were presented as evidence for this claim by Day-Ashley et al. (2013) have only focussed on private schools, while neglecting access to public schools of girls. It may be the case that girls, due to socio-cultural barriers, neither have access to state-run schools.

(26)

26 2013: 494; Nishimura & Yamano, 2013; Woodhead, Frost & James, 2013). When families experience restricted financial capacity and have to choose which children they send to a private school, they tend to select boys. Yet, in the Philippine case, it is found that families in rural areas tend to invest more in the schooling of their daughters as compared to their sons (Quisumbing, Estudillo & Otsuka, 2004).

Second, physical accessibility, which closely resembles with education availability, entails that “education has to be within safe physical reach, either by attendance at some reasonable geographic location (e.g. a neighbourhood school) or via modern technology (e.g. access to a “distance learning” programme)” (UN, 1999: 3). Areas that often remain most deprived of physical access to schooling include remote or rural areas. Andrabi et al. (2008: 348) showed that private schools are more likely to be located in areas with larger populations, given the existence of a more sustainable market, and better infrastructural facilities, which are most likely urbanised regions (Pal, 2010). However, LFPS have increasingly become established in rural and more remote areas, where the demand for education is more likely to be unfulfilled. In Pakistan, the growth in LFPS was even higher in rural areas (Andrabi et al., 2008: 330). Despite this, Day-Ashley et al. (2014) have argued that this should not be seen as an indication that the schools reach marginalised, vulnerable and poor children. Härmä (2011: 38) has shown that LFPS are more likely to close down after short periods of time, especially in rural and remote areas. Given this tendency, it remains a government responsibility to establish public schools in these areas, in order to assure physical accessibility of schooling.

Third, states ought to ensure the economic accessibility of education, which in the case of secondary education implies that schooling has to be affordable to all right holders (Tomaševski, 2001: 13; UN, 1999: 3). Whereas public secondary schools are still largely free of charge – with the exception of indirect or so-called hidden fees – private secondary schools are characterised by the collection of tuition fees and other charges. The direct costs of education therefore tend to be higher for private schools (Day-Ashley et al., 2014: 6). Yet, when it comes to the indirect or hidden fees, mixed evidence is found. Some studies find evidence of higher hidden costs in private schools, including LFPS (Akaguri, 2014; Day-Ashley et al., 2014: 50), whereas others report higher indirect costs in public schools (Tooley, Dixon & Stanfield, 2008: 466).

Whether education in both public and private schools can be considered affordable, in this case to the most marginalised in society, is also a question that meets mixed results. Various studies have indicated that financial constraints remain the largest obstacle for

(27)

27 marginalised families to access private education, including LFPS (Srivastava, 2013). These studies showed that low-income households could not afford the fees of private schools (Akaguri, 2014; Day-Ashley et al., 2014: 50; Härmä, 2011: 38; Woodhead, Frost and James, 2013). Yet, there is small evidence that in some countries, some children of low-income families do attend private schools. For example, Andrabi et al. (2008: 343) showed that in Pakistan, fees of LFPS were affordable even to the poorest families in society whom were living of one dollar a day. Tooley, Dixon and Stanfield (2008: 466) showed that in Kenya, children from low-income families increasingly attend LFPS, stimulated by flexible payment arrangements between school directors and parents. However, in this case, it was stated that because LFPS charged a fee, they were still not an option for the poorest families (Tooley, Dixon & Stanfield, 2008: 467). Thus, the majority of the studies indicate that low-income families remain unable to pay for the fees of private schools, even LFPS, and if they did, great welfare sacrifices had to made (Day-Ashley et al., 2014: 50). Last, it has been shown that when education is regarded as a (too) expensive investment for families, it is often the case that marginalised groups, such as girls, disabled or working children, are prevented from going to school (Coomans, 2007).

Educational service delivery programs and vouchers8, as well as scholarships and conditional cash transfer schemes are often used with the aim of improving access to different forms of education, in particular of marginalised groups. Worldwide, there are numerous examples of the implementation of such measures, with mixed results. For instance, in case of the Philippines, one goal of the ESC is to expand access to (quality) education, specifically of the poor (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: 35). Yet, studies have shown that the scheme fails to reach the poorest of the poor (Baum, 2012: 202; Sandoval & Soriano, 2014: 230; World Bank, 2011: 47). With concern to vouchers, which are generally used to expand parental school choice (Morgan, Petrosino & Fronius, 2015: 71), an extensive program is found in Chile, while vouchers are also abundant in some states of the USA. The Chilean system, which consists of an unrestricted voucher model, is generally perceived to perpetuate educational inequality. Consequently, students from low-income families continue to be predominantly found in low-quality public schools (Morgan, Petrosino & Fronius, 2015; Valenzuelaa, Belleib & de los Ríosc, 2014).

8

Education service contracts entail the purchase of places for students in private schools by government officials (i.e. public funding/private provision). Vouchers include “a certificate or entitlement that parents can use to pay for the education of their children at a public or non-state school of their choice” (UNICEF & ADB, 2011: 25). The main rationale behind vouchers is that public funding follows education demand.

(28)

28

c. Acceptability of education

Irrespective of the State being the sole funder and provider of education, only a regulator, or somewhere in between, there is a global agreement that the State is responsible “to set and enforce educational standards and provide the necessary funding (Tomaševski, 2001: 19)”. These standards relate to the form, content and quality of education, and thus require monitoring of the curriculum, quality of teaching and teaching methods9, and the broader learning environment in terms of relevance, cultural appropriateness, quality and safety. It has to be assessed whether teaching methods and education content respect the dignity of learners (e.g. the absence of corporal punishment) and enhance the overall objectives of schooling (e.g. basic learning needs, tolerance and an understanding of cultural diversity).

Despite the responsibility to regulate and monitor education provision by non-state actors (RTE-project, 2013), the existing literature points out that state regulation is often limited, in-effective or selectively enforced (Day Ashley et al., 2014: 37). A significant number of all private schools in developing countries remain unregistered and unrecognised by the State and are therefore not subject to government regulation. This trend can partly be explained by limited government capacity. Yet, Day-Ashley et al. (2014: 37) argue that “there is also evidence that regulations may be set in an unrealistically stringent manner to provide either a deterrent effect or to allow for rent-seeking”.

With concern to education acceptability, Tomaševski (2001: 14) has emphasised that the orientation and content of the curriculum, textbooks, learning materials and teaching methods have to be objective, relevant and cultural appropriate. To do so, it is suggested that different actors should participate in designing education programs. The promotion of human rights, awareness of diversity and tolerance should be central to this process. At the same time, it is emphasised that parental freedom in school choice should be respected. This implies that parents have the right to school their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and moral values (Tomaševski, 2001: 29). Also, education should be provided in a language that is known to students and their teachers (Tomaševski, 2001: 15). Regardless of this, in some cases it is felt that assimilation to the dominant culture and religion is still needed to achieve academic and social success, as Muslim children have argued in the case of Muslim Mindanao10 (Milligan, 2003).

9 Whereas the notion of availability of education focussed on quality of teachers in terms of qualifications and

training, the notion of acceptability of education addresses teaching activity, methods and the effect on learning.

10

Mindanao forms the second-largest island group of the Philippines and is home to the majority of the Muslim population, which are a minority in the country. The region has witnessed a long-lasting, violent conflict as

(29)

29 In terms of quality and safety of the learning environment, governments have to ensure that minimal standards are met in terms of teaching quality and class-size ratios in both state and non-state schools (Tomaševski, 2001: 29). Despite lower qualification levels of private school teachers, as was addressed in section 2.3a, strong evidence is found for higher quality teaching in private schools as teachers were more often present (Andrabi et al., 2008; Kingdon, 2007; Kremer & Muralidharan, 2008; Singh & Sakar, 2015: 157; Tooley, Bao, Dixon & Merrifield, 2011), teacher activity was higher (Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidharan & Rogers, 2006; Day-Ashley et al., 2014; Härmä, 2009, 2010: 158; Kingdon and Banerji, 2009; Mehrotra and Panchamukhi, 2007; Tooley, 2011) and the teaching approaches were more likely to lead to high educational outcomes (Day-Ashley et al., 2014: 6; Singh, 2013). In terms of class-size ratios, Tooley et al. (2008: 466) show that in Kenya, private schools tend to be characterized by smaller class-sizes than public schools, to the satisfaction of parents.

d. Adaptability of education

The final A of Tomaševski’s 4A-framework entails that education systems and institutes ought to “adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings” (UN, 1999: 3). Consequently, government obligations relate to both a macro and a micro level (Tomaševski, 1999). In many cases, disagreement exists about what these societal and individual needs actually are. The human rights based approach followed by Tomaševski (2001) stresses the enactment and fulfilment of fundamental human rights. At the same time, schooling should be provided in a way that challenges existing inequalities in society. However, many developing countries, including the Philippines, follow human capital approach rhetoric. These countries aim to make students and education systems more globally economic competitive. In case of the Philippines, the K-12 curriculum was initiated to reform and expand the former curriculum and basic education structure, which was considered too short and inadequate11. The curriculum reform aimed to align basic education in adequacy and duration to other countries

Filipino Muslims have called for right to self-determination, which the Philippine Government has complicated, side-tracked and ignored (Roy, Tauli-Corpuz & Romero-Medina, 2004).

11

Under the former basic education structure (before the K-12 curriculum reform was implemented), compulsory education comprised of only six years and pre-university education only ten. In both cases, this duration was the shortest of the South East Asia and Pacific zone (De Guzman, 2003; Tomaševski 2004), and was regarded as below Asian standards (UNESCO, 2015).

(30)

30 in the region and enhance economic competiveness by equipping learners with those skills and knowledge that are demanded by industries and business (DepEd, 2012b).

Zooming in on the micro-level, according to the rights-based approach followed by Tomaševski, the State is obliged to meet the needs of each right-holder in different contexts, including minority, indigenous, disabled, working, imprisoned and refugee children (Tomaševski, 2001: 12, 14). This implies that education needs to adapt to their needs, rather than that students are forced to adapt (Tomaševski, 2001: 15). In the case of working students, it is important to recognise that their participation in formal or informal employment is an unavoidable reality, as long as underlying poverty of their families is not tackled (Tomaševski, 2001: 34). Therefore, adapting education to their needs can include modifying the curriculum towards a focus on work-related skills, rather than a mere focus on preparing students to proceed to the next level of education. In a similar vein, this can consist of the opportunity to ‘learn and earn’, offering part-time education to working children, potentially financed by their employers (Tomaševski, 2001: 34).

Furthermore, the State is responsible for offering schooling that is adapted to students with special needs, such as disabled students (Tomaševski, 2001: 31). However, Eleweke and Rodda (2002: 118) have argued that in many developing countries special needs education is not seen as a priority of government policy or expenditure. As a result of inadequate financial resources, lack of personnel training and necessary materials and the absence of legislation demanding inclusive education, many governments schools in developing countries fail to offer inclusive education to all (Eleweke & Rodda, 2002: 118). Tomaševski (2001: 31) has argued that despite legislation many disabled students continue to be denied of access to schooling, or to be segregated in separate public or private schools.

Last, adaptability deals with the responsiveness of education systems to the needs of cultural, linguistic and religious minorities. This, for example, implies that governments have to offer adequate means for minority children to learn the national language and get to know the mainstream culture, so they are able to participate fully and actively in education. These efforts should be balanced with provisions to preserve their own linguistic heritage (RTE-project, 2008). The UN Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1992, entails that governments should offer minority groups adequate opportunities to participate in education instructed in their mother-tongue (UN, 1992). Given that the Declaration is non-binding, States cannot be legally imposed to establish state-run schools for linguistic minorities using their language as medium of instruction (Benedikter, 2009: 146). However,

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

As it has been mentioned in the introduction chapter, the research question of this thesis is: “What is the influence of domestic level variables on doctrinal adaptation

Verwacht wordt dat de deelnemers die te horen krijgen dat de geluidsfragmenten afkomstig zijn van EVP (en dus de verwachting hebben stemmen te kunnen horen), meer stemmen in ruis

Guiver (2009:210) noem twee kernaspekte van musiek: eerstens moet dit gemáák en prakties ervaar word deurdat die individu daarby betrokke is deur byvoorbeeld te sing of te

U ondersteuning sal hoog op prys gestel word. 'n Groot aantal algevaardigdes word verwag na die vierde kongres van die Afrikaanse Studentebond wat van 25 tot

Part I (Chapters 2 and 3) is concerned with introducing the concepts, tools and results from formal learning theory and natural deduction proof system that will be significant for

To understand if the large consumers would be willing to pay a premium for green electricity, a detailed study was required on the determinants influencing the

low power consumption (6mW core) for sampling receiver can be achieved by a sufficient “passive” pre- gain, together with a simple 2 nd -order LC filter and a HR. downconverter

共b兲 Time average of the contribution of the bubble forcing to the energy spectrum 共solid line兲 and of the viscous energy dissipation D共k兲=2␯k 2 E 共k兲 共dotted line兲,