Memorandum submitted by Professor James Tooley, School of Education, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

 

1. The impact of free primary education (FPE) in Kenya

1.1 In his speech to UNISON on 16^th February 2006 , Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for International Development, said "In Kenya, the abolition of school fees in 2002 [actually 2003] helped an additional 1.5 million children into a classroom. Abolishing primary school fees has had a huge impact in Zambia, where enrolment of girls has increased from around two thirds in 2002 to over 80% in just two years later." The problem with these assertions is that they fail to take into account the contribution already played by non-state providers. My research teams explored this contribution in a detailed international study, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, USA, in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, India and China. The work in Kenya was particularly relevant to the issues raised by Hilary Benn, as the study first took place in the informal settlements, or slums, of Nairobi in October 2003, some 10 months after the introduction of free primary education. But the other research is also relevant, as will be discussed below.

1.2 In the slum of Kibera alone, our research team found 76 private (non-state) primary and secondary schools, enrolling 12,132 pupils, made up of nearly equal number of boys and girls - 6,212 boys (51%) and 5,920 girls (49%). In the five government primary schools that were reported to be serving the Kibera community, the reported enrolment was 9,126.

1.3 Official literature reported that FPE led to an increased enrolment of 1.3 million primary school children in Kenya, with a reported increase of 48.1% in Nairobi. However, these figures only take into account enrolment in government and registered private schools; not what was happening in unregistered private schools in the informal settlements. My teams explored this by asking school managers of schools with primary sections how FPE had affected their primary school enrolment (i.e., excluding secondary and nursery students for schools that catered for these streams as well). It was certainly true that FPE had dramatically increased the number of students enrolled in all five government primary schools reportedly serving Kibera, with a reported increase of 3,296 students, an increase of 57% on the earlier enrolment of 5,830. This is a dramatic increase, part of the reported increase in enrolment of 1.3 million nationwide.

1.4 However, taking into account what was happening in private schools, a different picture emerges. Of the 70 private schools serving (or previously serving) primary students, it was reported that FPE had led to a net decline in enrolment of 6,571 students. In addition, we also found the school managers of 35 private schools that had closed since Jan 2003; of these, 25 of them had closed specifically because of FPE, losing 4,600 children.

1.5 In other words, pulling this information together, we estimate that FPE, far from bringing about a net increase in student enrolment, as the headline figures suggest, had actually led to net decrease in enrolment of primary school children of 7,875. That is it was reported that there may be about 8,000 fewer students from Kibera enrolled in primary schools than before FPE was introduced.

1.6 Although these figures may be inaccurate for several reasons - e.g., they relied on the memory of the manager, and may be incorrect, or may be exaggerated possibly because school managers felt this would lead to financial or other assistance - they clearly point to the need for a more sober assessment of the net impact of FPE on enrolment, taking into account enrolment in private schools for the poor as well as the more customary exercise in examining only official enrolment figures. Even if we have over-estimated the number of children dropping out of private schools by a factor of four, our estimates would still mean a "best case scenario" that the net impact of FPE was precisely the same number of children enrolled in primary school - only that some had transferred from private to government.

1.7 In other words, our research suggests that free primary education may not be the panacea that Hilary Benn believes it to be. Official figures that support his claim do not take into account enrolment in schools run by non-state providers. We believe that the answer to the Supplementary Question in particular is that the proposal for introducing free primary education in countries may be the wrong one, if increased enrolment for the poor is what is required. We come to alternative solutions below.

 

2. Extent of private (non-state) providers in other countries

2.1 The research in Kenya was not alone in finding a large proportion of school children enrolled in private (non-state) schools. It is particularly pertinent to note that we found the same in Nigeria and India, both countries that introduced free primary education some time ago - so it is not simply the case that the situation in Kenya was the result of 'teething problems' that could easily be overcome. Researching low-income areas in India, Nigeria, and Ghana, revealed a large majority of schoolchildren attending private schools. Poor parents are apparently expressing their dissatisfaction with government schools and voting with their feet for this alternative - surely something that development agencies should take into account when they consider the most effective ways of reaching the poor.

2.2 For instance, in the "notified slums" of three zones of Hyderabad's Old City, we found 918 schools, of which only 35 percent were government schools, fewer than the 37 percent of unrecognized private schools. In total 65 percent of schoolchildren in these low-income areas attended private unaided school. In the Ga District of Ghana (the low-income peri-urban area surrounding the capital city, Accra) we investigated 779 schools in the same way, finding that only 25 percent of these were government schools, and 64 percent of schoolchildren attended private school. In the "poor" areas of three local government districts (one rural, two urban) of Lagos State, Nigeria, we found 540 schools, of which 34 percent were government and the largest proportion (43%) private unregistered. An estimated 75 percent of schoolchildren were enrolled in the private school.

2.3 We also found significant numbers of children attending private school in rural Mahbubnagar (Andhra Pradesh, India) and in the villages of Gansu Province, China. In the latter, our researchers found 586 private schools, enrolling 59,958 pupils - even though it was reported by officials and those conducting work for DfID (Gansu Basic Education Project) that there were no private schools in these villages. The private schools were reportedly established because public schools were too far away for children, who would have to walk for up to five hours to attend. This was particularly undesirable for parents of girls.

 

3. Quality of private provision

3.1 It is argued by some that the position we found in Kenya - where at best there was a simple transfer of students from private to public schools - is still to be celebrated, because the quality of education in the private unregistered schools is low. These voices would also argue that the situation found in other countries is undesirable for the same reason.

3.2 Whilst it is certainly true that the school buildings are inadequate, and teachers often untrained and paid lower than in the government schools, it seems that critics of private education provision for the poor have not any substantial evidence to show low quality. We took the issue of quality seriously in our research, through conducting parental focus groups, surveying inputs to schools, and by testing up to 4,000 children in each location in key curriculum areas and controlling for background variables:

3.3 In Kibera, Kenya, we interviewed parents who had previously moved their children to government school, but had since returned them to private school, and found universal dissatisfaction with the public schools. Parents were dismayed by the large class sizes in the government schools (our research suggested the average pupil-teacher ratio was 21:1 in the private schools, but 60:1 in the government, nearly three times higher), the lack of teacher attention and accountability, and the fact that there were hidden fees, in the form of school uniform requirements in particular, that made the private schools much more desirable to them. They also remarked that, if they had been the Minister of Education, they would have provided funds to the private schools to help them improve, or scholarships to parents to help them use the private schools, rather than simply give more money to the government schools.

3.4 In the other countries, we sent our researchers to call unannounced on classrooms, to see if teachers were teaching, and also to survey classroom inputs. In every single case apart from China (we didn't do this comparison in Kenya, because there were too few cases to make it statistically significant in the government schools), we found that in the private schools, teachers were more often teaching than their government counterparts, and less often absent. In Gansu, China, there was no significant difference in teacher activity between public and private schools.

3.5 Finally, and most significantly, we compared pupil achievement in government and private schools by testing 2000 - 4000 children in a stratified random sample of primary schools at a single class or grade (either class/grade 4, 5 or 6), using tests in English, (or Chinese) mathematics and one other subject, depending on context, together with other cross-sectional data collected from the school and family. In India (three studies: Delhi, Hyderabad and Mahbubnagar), Ghana (Ga) and Nigeria (Lagos), pupil achievement was always in the same rank order - private registered schools highest, followed by private unregistered, with government schools trailing. These results held even after controlling for a range of background variables. In China and Kenya, the results showed no significant difference between private and public schools. Furthermore, in all cases, private schools were achieving the better (or similar) results for a fraction of the per pupil teacher cost. That is, it does not seem as though critics are right - the quality of provision is not low in the private unregistered schools, at least not when compared with government provision.

 

4. Suggested alternative ways forward for DfID

4.1 What we suggest is that, if the DfID wishes to reach the poor, there is an obvious alternative way forward - by assisting private schools that serve the poor to improve, and extend access to them. If increasing access to education is the aim of the MDG and EFA goals, then rather than assuming that free public education is the only way forward, harnessing the "harambee" (self-help) spirit that already apparently exists in poor areas may be a more viable alternative for serving the educational needs of the poor. Such an approach would see the existing private schools as potential partners in achieving "education for all", rather than something to be replaced entirely by free public education.

4.2 Of course, there are immediate objections to embracing private education as a way forward. First, private schools charge fees, thus making them out of reach of the poorest. But per se this might not be an insurmountable obstacle for private schools assisting in meeting 'education for all' goals. Private school fees may be less than 5%-10% of the 'absolute poverty' income figure, suggesting that they are within reach of many of the poor. Moreover, the private schools themselves engage in offering informal scholarships (free or concessionary places) for some of the poorest children to attend, up to 20% in some of our studies. One approach would be to extend this principle to create state and/or donor funded targeted vouchers for the poorest, or for girls, to use at private schools, which could potentially overcome this objection. Some programmes have already been successfully trialled in Colombia and Pakistan, and would seem to be no a priori reasons why such programmes could not be introduced into other contexts, which could potentially overcome this first objection to private schools.

4.3 The second concern is of the quality of provision in private schools - implying that extending access to such schools would not be desirable because of the low quality of education within them. Their quality is currently better, or at least as good, as public schools. But again, assistance could be given to the private schools to help them improve their quality even more, to offer a better deal to the poor. Such assistance could take the form of providing grants and/or loans to allow schools to provide in-service teacher training and improve their infrastructure. DfID involvement in such facilities would be a major step to help improving what appears to be the preferred educational option of the majority of poor parents.

Please find attached a copy of the following:

· Tooley & Dixon (2005) Private Education is Good for the Poor - A Study of Private Schools Serving the Poor in Low-Income Countries, Cato Institute.

· A DVD featuring Professor Tooley's appearance on Newsnight and his BBC World film 'School's Out' which examines the growth of private schools for the poor in Lagos, Nigeria.

A more detailed report of the research findings in Kenya is also available on request, and I would be delighted to discuss some of these findings and explore their possible implications with you further.

 

March 2006