Does Privatization Improve Education? 26th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement Santiago de Chile 4 September 2013 Henry M. Levin Teachers College, Columbia University
Educational Privatization Rising as focus of educational policy. Promoted by World Bank. Assertions of Advocates.
Greater Effectiveness-competition for students Greater Equity-family choice
EDUCATIONAL PRIVATIZATION CAN MEAN MANY DIFFERENT THINGS Private funding, ownership and operation of schools (e.g. private schools in the U.S.). Use of tax credits.
Private operation of government schools. (e.g. educational management organizations) Government funding for private schools (e.g. educational vouchers). Or direct government subventions.
Tension of Public and Private Goals of Education ď ˇ Public- promotes civic participation, a historical and cultural heritage, a common set of economic and political values, and a common language. ď ˇ Private-promotes individual development, understanding, and productivity that contribute to adult well being. ď ˇ Not completely compatible.
EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS
Proposed by Milton Friedman in 1955 and expanded in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. His arguments: ď ˇ Because of social benefits of schooling in creating common values necessary for democracy, government should fund basic levels of education.
ď ˇ Because of superior efficiency of market in producing goods and services, operation of schools should be done through market competition rather than government.
VOUCHER MECHANISM Government funds are used to provide a certificate to parents that can be used for tuition at approved schools. Schools can meet requirements for approval and obtain vouchers by attracting students.
Vouchers are redeemed by schools with State to obtain funds. Voucher is usually symbolic with funding going directly to schools on basis of voucher amount and enrollments.
VOUCHER MECHANISM (CONTINUED)
ď ˇ Schools compete for students and their vouchers by trying to provide most attractive programs. ď ˇ Market competition is used to create and ensure good schools. Schools that cannot attract sufficient numbers of students do not survive competition.
WHERE HAVE EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS BEEN USED? Chile, since 1980, has a national system of vouchers. Sweden has had voucher alternative since 1992. Netherlands has had school choice with voucher-type funding since 1917. Low income families only: Milwaukee since 1990 with more than 20,000 students participating. (low Cleveland since 1995 with about 5,000 students participating. Experiments in New York, Washington, and Dayton for three years.
PROBLEMS IN EVALUATING Highly ideological and emotional issue.
Public opinion is uninformed. Little understanding or useful information. No single voucher plan, but many. Multiple goals of education that must be considered. Not just test scores.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Privatization and vouchers can differ profoundly in design and consequences by: A. Finance B. Regulations C. Support Services
Finance 1- Size of Voucher
2- Additional Parental Fees Allowed 3- Compensatory Vouchers for Educationally At-risk Students (Chile-50 percent more, recent addition).
Regulations Admissions—Lotteries vs. school selection. Curriculum—Common requirements. Testing- Personnel Credentials School Sponsorship (e.g. religious)
Support Services Transportation—access to options
Information—informed decisions Adjudication—settle disputes when parents are dissatisfied with choice
FOUR MAJOR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
FREEDOM TO CHOOSE PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY EQUITY
SOCIAL COHESION
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Providing parents with the time honored right to impart to their children their values, religious beliefs, and political perspectives by enabling them to choose the kind of school that mirrors and reinforces childrearing practices.
PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY
Maximizing school results for a given level of resources. Not just test scores. Student engagement and interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, values, and attitudes. Full range of human development.
EQUITY
Providing fairness in access to educational opportunities, resources, and outcomes by gender, social class, race, language origins, and geographical location of students.
SOCIAL COHESION
Preparing the young for democratic and civic participation by providing a common educational experience with respect to curriculum, values, language, and institutional orientations so that students from many different backgrounds will accept and support a common set of social, political, and economic arrangements that are foundational to a stable and democratic society.
VOUCHER PLANS
Friedman Plan – 1. Flat voucher from government (modest). 2. Parents could add on to voucher. 3. Minimal curriculum, no other regulations. No testing requirements. 4. Admissions determined by school. 5. No government information or transportation.
Chile Private schools choose students; public schools must accept. Flat voucher—some adjustment for at-risk students. National curriculum and testing. Private schools can add fees (limited).
Netherlands Flat subvention per student, no fees. Private schools can choose students. Public schools accept all applicants. Extra funding immigrants. Only non-profit schools.
Trade-offs and Conflicts Support Services such as Transportation have high costs reducing funds for instruction. Common curriculum and testing improve social cohesion, but reduce choice. Philanthropy, parent fees increase funding, reduce equity.
Achieving Balance ď ˇ Setting priorities among criteria. (e.g. which are most important?) ď ˇ Using policy design tools that achieve balance.
Research in Last Decade 1- Increases Freedom of Choice. 2- Mixed Results on Student Achievement, but parent satisfaction is higher. 3- Evidence of increased stratification and inequities (e.g. Chile, Netherlands, New Zealand). 4- Little Evidence on Social Cohesion.
Freedom of Choice Always increases range of choices for parents and students. Number of choices depends upon level of subsidy and access to parent fees. Extent of choices depends on regulations (e.g. for-profit, religious, political, and extra fees from families).
Productive Efficiency Limited to test scores. No evidence on non-cognitive outcomes. Weak studies for adjusting for student selection. Mixed results and small differences. Infrastructural Costs--
Equity Increased stratification by income and ethnicity. (Chile, Netherlands, Sweden) Greater resources (school fees and contributions) for students in schools with students from higher income families. Higher socioeconomic schools attract teachers and principals with greater qualifications
Social Cohesion Little direct evidence. Stratification leads to different educational experiences. Students have limited or no contact with students from other income or ethnic backgrounds. Evidence of family and school choice decisions.
Where Should Emphasis Be Placed? Choice Productive Efficiency
Equity Social Cohesion
Context is Important For example: Europe and inflow of immigrants makes social cohesion and equity important. India:
Inadequate school places for poor. 30-50 percent of teachers absent. Parents have no recourse. Teachers do not cover curriculum except in ) private tutoring. Private schools (even underfunded )? Extreme Stratification in all schools, public or private?
Policy Choices Balancing competing goals. Balancing public vs. private goals.
Family preferences. Social purposes of education.
Need better evaluations.
Where are we on educational privatization? ď ˇ We have made progress in understanding the consequences of educational privatization. ď ˇ But as we have expanded the circle of light, the perimeter of darkness has also grown.
THANK YOU GRACIAS