Managing the Privatisation of Education in the 21st Century

Global trends in education are pointing firmly towards privatisation as a viable option for inclusive education around the world. Whether this be the privatisation of developed education systems such as those in the UK and USA, or the increasingly popular privatisation of schools in developing countries, it is seen as an option to provide choice and access while delivering educational outcomes that may otherwise not be afforded.

There are many positive qualities of privatising the education system, such as improved economies, knowledge, resources, and more jobs for local communities of which the private schools serve. It has also proved to be a key accelerator for developing nations to work towards to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

With recently realised opportunities for low-cost providers to construct schools in developing nations there are far-reaching learning programs that are being delivered in places where populations were previously uneducated. While these are positive developments, there are also negative implications to private education. Company profits over individual outcomes, neo-liberal assumptions, inequality, and lack of accountability to name a few.

It has therefore become imperative that Governments effectively manage privatisation policies by applying strong governance frameworks and keeping all actors accountable without stifling operations, flexibility or innovation.

The Inevitability of Privatisation in Education

The privatisation of education, much like many other industries has become a global phenomenon that is advocated by a diverse range of actors from local interest groups to international organisations, from corporate enterprises to Governments themselves. It is advocated as a formula that promises choice, quality, equity and efficiency across educational systems worldwide.

Evidence that international organisations such as UNESCO have encouraged privatisation and public-private partnerships (PPPs) suggest that this type of investment is inevitable in the future. They suggest that because many governments, particularly those in developing nations, lack the capacity and resources to deliver quality education, that privatisation may be a way of achieving greater levels of success for students from all socio-economic backgrounds.

There are many different forms that privatisation takes across various education levels and demographic regions, and what’s more is the many different rationales that are used to justify them. Regardless of what these rationales are, it is safe to assume that privatisation is here to stay.

Global Partnerships for Education (GPE) are one organisation who are supporting almost 60 developing countries to form effective partnerships with private enterprise and assist these nation-states to reach the United Nations’ defined Sustainable Development Goals (Ansari 2020). These countries are deemed to have insufficient funds and abilities to provide even basic education to all their children and are coordinating a global effort to increase access to quality education worldwide with a focus on the most vulnerable and this cannot be achieved without the impact of private intervention.

Aside from developing countries, there is also strong claim that private partnerships are necessary even in developed countries. Take the example of charter schools in the United States of America, that claim to increase competition and choice or the much-contested academies of the United Kingdom.

Around two decades ago the UK labor government requested proposals from outside sponsors such as religious groups, charities, and businesses to convert failing government schools into ‘academies’ which would allow them to self-govern and bring diversity and competition to the struggling school system. However, they have frequently come under fire with claims that they inadvertently promote inequality, are a forced move to privatisation, and even divide social communities.

Regardless of whether privatisation is chosen or forced, in advanced or developing nations, the one thing that is undeniable is that the privatisation of education is inevitable. Education can no longer be entirely funded by governments, particularly if the taxpaying citizens who demand public education, at the same time protest increasing taxes to pay for it. As Rizvi (2016) explains, the question is no longer about whether education should or shouldn’t be privatised, it has now moved to how the privatisation of education can be effectively managed (Rizvi, 2016) to keep democratic values intact.

Positive Aspects of Privatisation in Education

Justifying the trend, there are of course many positive aspects to the privatisation of education, and while counterarguments may hold merit, this section will focus on the positive intentions and outcomes of privatisation to date.

It has long been argued that privatisation is a significant way to improve government services. Economists such as Friedman and Drucker suggest that it breaks up government monopolies by allowing the disciplines of the market to evaluate and improve on cost-effectiveness (Rizvi, 2016), while the notion of New Public Management has frequently proven successful in the management of public services.

There is also warranted belief amongst the public that governments have become too powerful and self-serving to truly deliver on what the nation has voted for as their democratic rights. This is coupled with the belief that most states lack innovation and flexibility and do not always allow parents, teachers and local communities the autonomy to implement initiatives that are appropriate for their society. Autonomy enables private schools or PPPs to flexibly respond to local and student needs.

If governments can instead, outsource or partner with private businesses and local communities, this generates more business opportunities and autonomy and allows citizens the right to choose which educational outcomes they’d prefer to pursuit for their children.

It is also very important to note that privatisation opportunities are tied to an increase in student achievement. Baum’s studies note that students who attend PPPs outperform their peers in around half of all educational outcomes (Baum 2018), though on the other hand, the students who attend these institutions are usually deemed to have higher prior academic achievement, come from wealthier communities, and associate with peers who are achieving at similar levels.

Ansari (2020) elaborates on this finding by confirming that students from PPP schools achieve higher literacy rates than students from public schools in general, and attributes this to the PPP schools having higher motivation to achieve and their students having a higher previous academic ability than their public-school counterparts.

Another positive aspect of privatisation has been noted as expanded access to education around the globe and assisted in the realisation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Privatisation has been a key development in allowing rural populations to access education and enjoy the economic and psychological advancements that are brought to their communities as a result.

Tooley (2000) claims that private schools or PPPs are much more likely to invest in innovative technologies, laboratories and globally focused programs of work (Tooley, 2000) that will benefit individuals and empower communities in the longer term. However, it is worth noting that Tooley is the co-founder of Omega Schools who have rolled-out low-fee private schooling to many of the world’s poorest regions.

Omega Schools, much like Bridge International and a number of other newly created companies seek to educate some of the poorest communities in developing countries by providing low cost privately owned educational facilities. These rapidly deployed schools have made a significant impact on many communities although they have been met with praise and criticism alike.

Negative Aspects of Privatisation in Education

Low-fee private schools that have been rolled-out across developing nations such as Uganda and India in recent times have been met with some controversy. These schools claim to deliver world-class education for as little as $5 a month (Stanfield 2012) and provide access to education in areas that are otherwise inaccessible. While the claimed intention is to lift impoverished communities out of the slums, it is worth noting that the cookie-cutter approach to building schools may be beneficial, but not necessarily ideal.

An analysis of Bridge International carried out by Riep (2019) suggests that this style of education is impersonal in favour of being scalable, not as affordable as it is advertised to be (claiming that the education of two children costs an average of around 50% of a family’s income), and that unqualified teachers, unregistered schools, and dirt-floored constructions passed off as classrooms do not really encapsulate the ‘world-class’ education they claim to offer. However, this is not to say that public education does not fall into the same cost-saving, self-serving traps.

However, parents in these states are still attracted to private education because of factors such as the use of English as a medium of instruction, co-curriculum activities and more modern teaching aids as their wish is for their children to be educated so they are not resigned to the difficult life that they themselves have to endure. For this reason, they are willing to invest half of their income in an attempt to improve the potential outcomes for their children (Bonnell 2016). It can be furthered noted that many parents in developing nations are even sacrificing lessons in the mother tongue and other cultural aspects in favour of this modern private instruction.

Such things as lessons in the mother tongue are making way for exclusive English instruction as we become more globalised, and these are decisions that need to be made internally within such private educational institutions. Internal conflicts in private schools, suggest that companies and other actors see themselves as serving different purposes and often struggle to agree on the direction of vision and policy. As, when private actors seek to make profit, company mission and underlying priorities often collide.

This is common in privatisation of all industries and is seen increasingly around the world. With the rise of neo-liberalism, competition and freedom of choice are defined as the characteristic of human relations. Redefining citizens as consumers whose democratic choices are applied by buying and selling. The neoliberal mantra of ‘more market, less state’ increasingly considers students as merely consumers, or at best, human capital. As the ultimate interest in private enterprise is to make a profit then tough decisions often need to be made which weigh up the perceived value of an individual’s education, versus the company’s bottom line.

In the interest of equity and equality, it is nice to claim that choice encourages good human relations, but the reality may be, in many cases, that it is the winners who promote this logic in order to perpetuate their own advantages. When considering more affluent communities in Western societies, there are independent education facilities that encourage a high level of spending and the prestige that accompanies it. Where equality is one of the aims of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, and the public education system claims to be designed to reduce inequality there are societies that revel in inequality so long as they are at the higher end of the scale.

Returning to the example of the UK academies, it is claimed by Wilkins (2012) that there is a strong feeling of inequality amongst communities, as these independent schools possess the ability to circumvent democratic processes and leverage one community against another. From this point of view, it is important for Governments to map how academies and public schools perform and organise themselves and ensure accountability and fairness across the board.

Management of Privatisation Policies

Due to this inevitable explosion of private education, there is a dire need for Governments to manage policies and ensure that the rights of the citizen are recognised. Nation-states must develop rules and systems that hold private actors accountable, ensuring education favours everyone and is not geared towards the already privileged or the corrupt.

Governance frameworks matter. They shape the scope of policies and the opportunities and outcomes they enable and should include self-evaluations of schools to governing boards at the local and political levels. This makes it necessary to analyse functions, tasks and outcomes, and at the same time harmonizes the interests of everyone involved.

The OECD also outlines important aspects of policy management which include the legal requirements involved, the administrative responsibilities, and the regulatory and competition frameworks for the privatised school community (OECD 2009). These should include clear accreditation processes, strong quality assurance frameworks, and effective channels of mutual accountability between providers and policymakers.

Criteria are usually established by relevant state authorities for the registration of schools and are reviewed regularly to ensure that standards are met including but not limited to requirements relating to management, curriculum, staffing, safety requirements, facilities, and reporting.

At a more granular level, it has been proven to be effective to include reporting on activities such as funding and provision, structure of entities and their related interests, and the different levels of accountability such as local, state or national.

Because private schools should be held accountable, they should be responsible to families and their communities in terms of financial accountability, educational outcomes, and regulatory, legislative and reporting requirements. Private schools or PPPs are expected to form school boards or councils to effectively manage expectations and report to authorities. School principals should be accountable to the board and ensure the strategic direction as well as the operational running of the school are aligned.

However, while these types of governance frameworks have proven to be effective, some may argue that they can create unnecessary red tape. While effective management and accountability is essential, it is also worth noting that over-governance can result in time delays, rigidity, bottlenecks, and even the blame game. Studies carried out by Kaufmann et al. (2018) also indicate that a country’s formalised level of ‘rule’ and political conservatism invariably leads to privatised organisations encountering red tape more frequently, thus slowing operations and diming flexibility and innovation (Kaufmann, Hooghiemstra and Feeney 2018).

With Governments stepping away from being in control of educational programs, and into the role of regulator, it is more important than ever for them to get it right. The Government can keep investors and other actors accountable by way of regulating, incentivizing and applying strong legal frameworks, without stifling the company’s operations. However, the steady growth of privatisation can be considered evidence that the public do have confidence in the ability of these schools to meet the educational needs of their children. If schools are able to provide choice while remaining accountable through self-regulation, reporting and financial compliance, then there should be promise for the development of the private education system into the future.

It’s undeniable that if nations wish to contribute to, and improve the collective well-being of their states, they need to invest heavily in education. Because, for the most part, they do not have the resources or capacity to achieve this on their own, the privatisation of education is inevitable. It has therefore become imperative that Governments effectively manage privatisation through regulation and governance.

Positive aspects of privatising education systems are broad and include access to improved knowledge and resources, choice and access, as well as economic advancement for nations and their citizens. In many cases it is also an enabler for developing nations to achieve outcomes set by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

However, the negative impacts cannot go unnoticed, and Governments must continue to ensure private enterprises are held accountable to avoid further inequality, profits over people, and corruption. So, while the private sector is able to bring finance, technology, innovation and managerial efficiency to education, nation-states provide expertise on public interest and democracy.

Therefore, while privatisation may be the tide that lifts the boat, it is the management of these private arrangements by the Government that will truly improve educational outcomes across the globe.

References

Ansari, A. H. (2020). Cream skimming? Evaluating the access to Punjab's public-private partnership programs in education.

Baum, D. R. (2018). The Effectiveness and Equity of Public-Private Partnerships in Education: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of 17 Countries. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25.

Bonnell, A. G. (2016). Democratisation or management and corporate capture? Theses on the governance crisis of Australia's semi-privatised public universities. 26. Australia: NTEU.

Kaufmann, W., R. Hooghiemstra & M. K. Feeney (2018). Formal institutions, informal institutions, and red tape: A comparative study. Public Administration, 96, 386-403.

OECD (2009). Privatisation in the 21st Century: Recent Experiences of OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing

Riep, C. (2019). What do we really know about Bridge International Academies? A summary of research findings. Education International.

Rizvi, F. (2016). Privatization in education: Trends and consequences. UNESCDOC Digital Library.

Stanfield, J. (2012). Omega Schools, Ghana. Economic Affairs (Institute of Economic Affairs), 32, 103-103.

Tooley, J. (2000). Private education: the poor's best chance? The UNESCO Courier, 24.

Wilkins, A. (2012). Public Battles and Private Takeovers: Academies and the Politics of Educational Governance. Journal of Pedagogy, 3, 11-29.