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

Public- promotes civic participation, a

historical and cultural heritage, a common set

of economic and political values, and a

common language.

Private-promotes individual development,

understanding, and productivity that

contribute to adult well being.

Not completely compatible.

EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS

Proposed by Milton Friedman in 1955 and expanded in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. His arguments:

Because of social benefits of schooling in creating common values necessary for democracy, government should fund basic levels of education.

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)

Schools compete for students and their vouchers by trying to

provide most attractive programs.

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 child-

rearing 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

Setting priorities among criteria. (e.g. which

are most important?)

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 Equity

Productive Efficiency 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?

We have made progress in

understanding the consequences of

educational privatization.

But as we have expanded the circle of

light, the perimeter of darkness has also

grown.

THANK YOU

GRACIAS