Some eight or so years ago, when Tony Blair decided to start
sending his children to an independent secondary school instead of the
local state comprehensive (in contradiction to his own Labour Party
policy), he dared not say in public that the schools were sub-standard
for fear of bringing out teachers on strike so, very wisely, he said
nothing. He was, however, excoriated by Trevor Phillips, Head of the
Commission for Racial Equality, and Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney, both
much to the left of Blair. They are also both black but
unrelated.
However, when their time came to choose schools for their children, they,
too, chose independent schools at considerable expense rather than allow
them to attend their local state schools where, Diane Abbott maintained,
blacks would be stereotyped by the white English school-teachers (despite
the fact that those who choose to teach in the predominantly black
borough of Hackney would be those who had a sympathy for raising the
standard of black education). More to the point, however, state schools
in Hackney had already been 'stereotyped' by Her Majesty's Inspector of
Schools as being among the worst in the country, so I certainly don't
blame Diane Abbott whatever her former views.
Generally speaking, although there are generally many excellent state
schools in England -- usually in the tree-lined suburbs to which
middle-class parents migrate in large numbers when it's time for their
children to start secondary education -- the state education system is
falling down. Standards of teachers are steadily declining, particularly
in mathematics and the sciences, and pupil examinations have had to be
downgraded steadily over the past 50 years. Within a few years, it will
soon be the case that almost all undergraduates at universities taking
degrees in the 'difficult' subjects, such as languages and the sciences,
will have come from the private sector (7%) or the independent
grant-aided grammar school sector (even smaller).
For this reason, the Labour government are trying all sorts of
educational experiments with different types of speciality schools and
city colleges of technology, sometimes in association with commercial
sponsors and sometimes not. At present, the number of these is very
small. There are also some private firms which have taken over the
management of schools in local authority areas which have fallen down on
the job. At the same time, at least two quite sizeable business
initiatives are being planned, one led by Chris Woodhead, the former
chief inspector of state schools, which will enter the secondary school
arena when educational vouchers are at last accepted by a Labour
government. They have costed their per capita fees at about the same as
what the government now spend on state education. Education vouchers
cannot be far off because the overall standard of education, particularly
in the sciences, is spiralling downwards and, unless decisions are taken
fairly soon, there will be insufficient number of teachers of the right
qualifications in the sciences who will be available even if private
education is allowed its head.
It is a pity that the state entered into the business of education in the
1870s because most children, particularly in the large cities, were being
educated privately anyway. More than 90% of parents in the large cities
would make sure that their children went to school until they were at
least 13 or 14 years of age. There were enough charities and church
schools who would make sure that even children of the very poorest
families could also attend. Some irresponsible parents didn't, of course,
and pushed their children into the factories at a very young age. By and
large, children at the turn of the last century were better educated at
the age of about 11 or 12 than they are today. School examinations were
harder and the literacy rate was nearer 90% than than the present one of
75% (at age 14). The difference in standard between now and then is even
more stark in the case of arithmetic.
If private education had not been interfered with a century ago, then
wages and the cost structure of normal spending on goods and services
would be quite different today -- when, of course, most parents can't
possibly afford private education. Education vouchers are necessary today
and it would take a generation or more to wean ourselves away from these.
Nevertheless, it is almost certainly on the cards in both England and
America, and it could come in quite suddenly at some favourable political
stage.
Meanwhile, developed countries are still trying to push the idea of state
education in the less developed countries and are tieing a great deal of
foreign aid to this policy despite the fact that the vast bulk of foreign
aid to these countries has been purloined by politicians in times past.
But, as during the last century in the home countries, policies of state
education are not noticeably successful in the less developed countries
either. The following article by Prof James Tooley, explains what the
situation is in many developing and undeveloped countries
today.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
PRIVATE SCHOOLS CAN BRING EDUCATION FOR ALL
The meeting of the commonwealth ministers of education Is taking place in
Edinburgh this week. High on the ministers' agenda is how poor member
countries in Africa and Asia can meet their "education for all"
targets for universal primary education by 2015. Missing altogether is
discussion of how private education can help.
Some may wonder why this is an issue. Surely private education is only
for the elite and middle classes. But in urban slums and villages in
developing countries more and more poor parents are sending their
children to schools run by educational Entrepreneurs, with fees of
$2 (£1.20) a month or less.
My research has found such schools in battle-scarred buildings in
Somalia, in the shanty towns built on stilts above lagoons in Nigeria,
scattered among the cardboard huts of Africa's largest slum in Kenya, in
crowded villages across India and even in remote mountain regions of
China. And these schools are not some minority pursuit. In the Indian
city of Hyderabad, for instance, 61 per cent of children attend private
unaided school; and in the slum areas 80 per cent of the poorest families
go to private schools.
Development circles are aware of this trend but there is a blinkered
refusal to think through its implications. Oxfam's education report, for
instance, says that private schools for the poor are emerging and that
these schools are superior to government schools for the poor. But then
it repeats the same old mantra, that "there is no alternative"
to blanket public provision to achieve education for all. The World Bank
is funding the provision of free primary education in Kenya to the tune
of $80m but suburban state schools get all the money and the slum private
schools get none. Meanwhile, the British Department for International
Development is pouring money into government education in west Africa;
simultaneously, poor parents are fleeing the state sector to send their
children to private schools.
Parents are opting for private schools because of the failure of state
schools across Africa and Asia. The Indian government-approved Probe
report* on education paints a disturbing picture of the
"malfunctioning" of government schools for low-income families.
When researchers called unannounced on their random sample, only in 53
per cent of schools was there any teaching activity. In 33 per cent, the
headteacher was absent. The low level of teaching occurred even in those
schools with relatively good infrastructure, teaching aids and
pupil/teacher ratio.
The report says such problems were not apparent in the private schools.
In the great majority -- again, visited unannounced -- there "was
feverish classroom activity". So much so, that most parents reported
that, "if the costs of sending a child to a government and a private
school were the same, they would rather send their children to a private
school".
What is happening in India is increasingly occurring in other countries
across Asia and Africa. Oxfam's education report points out that the
"inadequacies of public education systems ... have driven many poor
households into private systems" across the developing world. In
particular, it cites government teacher absenteeism as a reason for poor
households sending their children to private schools.
The Probe report says the main advantage of private education is
accountability. In private schools, it says, "the teachers are
accountable to the manager [who can fire them] and... to the parents [who
can withdraw their children]". The government schools were less
transparent and "this contrast is perceived with crystal clarity by
the vast majority of parents".
If poor parents are transferring their children into private education
en masse, why are the development experts saying they should be
dragged back into government schools? Instead, there should be an
exploration of ways in which private schools for the poor can be
assisted, through loan schemes and low-cost school improvement packages.
Indeed, these experts should find ways to make private schools even more
accessible, with public and private vouchers.
Poor parents have made their preferences clear. They want schools that
are accountable to them, where teachers turn up and teach. It is time the
politicians caught up with them.
Public report on basic education in India, Oxford University Press
1999
The writer is professor of education policy at the University of
Newcastle upon Tyne
>>>>
