Personally I do not think it is morally right to advocate for these so called private schools for the poor- they are terrible structures, unconducive and they do not educate the massive number of kids in these slums. The key point for me is nearly simple, when the state announces and implements universal access to primary education policy, how does the state ensure that those at the bottom of the ladder gain access and how do they ensure that there is quality. The issue about the private schools for the poor is still entangled in ‘excess’ demand and the examples from the US and Sweden are not helpful mixing of apples and oranges. There is need to learn more about these schools, their relative effectiveness and so forth than to jump to the conclusion that they are effective.

The data is patchy and some of the studies are skewed in one direction. We can only know better if we have complete data for all the private schools and all the public schools and I know some organisations that are keen in collected this data- call it education demographic survey if you wish. Once we have this, we can look at the matter with better clarity.

What I agree with you on is that we shouldn’t dismiss the private schools entirely- if parents are “choosing” them, they are doing so for a reason and if these are very poor parents as often or always they are, then it is the duty of the state to help them in financing the education of their children. One of the things I have suggested to Kenyan Minister of education in the past is to extend FPE capitaion grant to these schools (different from voucher system), but this is complex because those who run these schools do not wish to be involved with the state for a number of reasons. But I need to emphasise that this is a related point that does endorse any suggestion that these private schools for the poor are a better alternative to state schools, we don’t have the information sufficient enough for us to know in the case of Kenya.

Thanks again Duncan.

Having stretched your (and doubtles your readers’) patience with the length of our exchanges -and I have to accept on this one that Justin is the less guilty party – I promise to adhere in future to the ’shorter-is-better’ rule.

Welcome to the debate.

I disagree with a few of the conclusions and interpretations, but I agree that the EFA Global Monitoring Report does a really nice job of pulling together a lot of empirical evidence. Kudos on that.

I hope I can be forgiven for conflating UNESCO and the EFA Report published by UNESCO, but thanks for clarifying.

My specific objection (underlying the tweet you mentioned) was the EFA report’s insistence that governments must both finance and *operate* primary schools systems — a conclusion which did not seem to arise from the evidence presented.

If I understand you correctly though, I think we both agree that equity and quality should trump any question of who operates which school. So it really comes down to a matter of debating the evidence on the best means to a set of common goals — which is what I’ve tried to do here.

With respect to your/Ruth’s question about the sample for my co-authored paper on Kenyan private schools, we analyze the full population of pupils sitting the KCPE exam. The paper, data set, and Stata do-files are available online here.

http://www.cgdev.org/content/expert/detail/1424570/

Apology accepted, I didn’t mean to have a sense of humour failure either I just found it a bit patronising, I’m sure I’ll live.

Re your comment in response, I do find it objectionable that you try and claim the moral high ground – my central point is you are ignoring the political context.

This is not about ‘using DFID policy’ as the ‘terrain’ for criticising the UK Conservative government. Frankly if it were I’d focus my fire on issues where they are doing even worse such as their bungling of the economy. Nor is it about ‘trying to win votes’ – though it is important people realise the consequences of not voting Labour for UK development policy (you get a Conservative government that does things most readers of this blog will not like), and I’ll not apologise for that.

No, I’m critiquing the current UK government’s DFID policy specifically. The Conservatives may have ring-fenced the aid budget but they are making policy decisions that are based on their ideology, their values and evidence that supports their values. Political decisions matter, we do not live in a vacuum – far from a parochial concern of UK politicos, that has implications for people across the world where DFID operates. And as I said previously, I deeply object to DFID supporting private schools whilst at the same time they are slashing by more than half their support for public education and health systems.

Sorry if my Marie Antoinette joke disappointed you. My attempts at humor have that effect. I was trying to avoid being shrill overall, but I admit I slipped up there.

The substance of your comment feels out of place on this blog. Kevin and I have been debating the evidence for whether low-cost private schools improve learning outcomes for children in developing countries, particularly Pakistan, India, and Kenya. In contrast, your comment appears to be primarily concerned with UK politics, using DFID policy as terrain to critique the current Conservative government. I just made an extended plea for an evidence-based policy discussion, and you’ve responded by ignoring all the evidence I presented.

I’m sympathetic to your partisan aims. If attacking DFID’s support for low-cost private schooling in Pakistan and Kenya wins votes for Labour in Britain, then perhaps those ends justify those means. But I think it’s a shame if the question of what’s best for Pakistani and Kenyan students has to take a backseat to UK electoral concerns on an Oxfam blog.

I am somewhat perplexed by a tweet by Justin that I have just seen, but can’t get my response into 140 characters.

Here is the tweetL
‘ Amen. Now someone tell UNESCO. “@mandabeat: @JustinSandefur @fp2p we should prioritize learning…however it is delivered”’

First – please note that the EFA Global Monitoring Report is published by UNESCO, but is an independent Report.

Second – neither I, nor the EFA Global Monitoring Report, nor UNESCO have ever suggested that learning should not be prioritized.

The EFA Global Monitoring Report that Justin refers to presented evidence on why low fee private schools are actually costly for the poor and can reinforce inequality, but unfortunately this does not get presented in the blog.

And no one is debating whether low fee private schools may be performing better – the questions are who can get access to them (ie are they widening social divides), and whether the low fee private schools are actually performing at an acceptable level. There are good performing low fee private schools as very bad ones – just as there are for government. And government schools need to do far better overall.

It is a shame that Justin chose not to respond to Ruth’s question about whether the data in your paper include low fee private schools – this is a key question for the conclusions that are drawn.

It is vital to keep the debates evidence-based, and I fear that this blog is detracting from this intention. We shouldn’t be taking away kids’ human rights based on ideological support to the public – or private – sector.

I’d be happy to discuss and share evidence with Justin in a different space to blogs and twitter, as I imagine we will find much common ground on the importance of ensuring that all children are in school and learning – values to which I am certainly committed, and committed to identifying robust evidence that can help us achieve these goals.

It’s all well and good arguing on principle for state schools but I think this severely underestimates the intransigent problems in some school systems (corruption, low quality teaching, poor human resource management, poor governance, etc).

I worked with a local NGO in Cambodia that was so frustrated by the standards in public schools – and the fact that they also, illegally, require payment from students anyway – that they started their own school. This is also used as a demonstration school, and aims to spread best practice. The socioeconomic background of the students is no different to those in other schools in the district.

I really can’t understand the rationale for opposing such innovative approaches, with potentially such high returns. There’s risk – but there’s also significant risk in just continuing to give money to the state schooling system.

It’s just arrogant to believe that local people should just be passive recipients of poor public services. Obviously, to avoid exacerbating inequalities, schools need to be regulated effectively, but I really think that’s a surmountable issue (as Justin touches on).