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 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 (ie, 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 January 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—eg, 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% were government schools, fewer than
the 37% of unrecognized private schools. In total 65% 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% of these were government schools, and
64% 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% were
government and the largest proportion (43%) private unregistered.
An estimated 75% 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 2,000-4,000 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:[145]
— 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
145 Not printed. Copies placed in the library. Back
|
