by James Tooley
Tooley, J., P. Dixon, and O. Olaniyan. 2005. “Private and Public Schooling in Low-Income Areas of Lagos State, Nigeria: A Census and Comparative Survey.” International Journal of Educational Research 43 (3): 125-46.
Tooley, J., P. Dixon, and J. Stanfield. 2008. “The Impact of Free Education in Kenya: A Case Study in Private Schools in Kibera.” Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 36 (4): 449-69.
Tooley, J., L. Qiang, and P. Dixon. 2007. “Private Schools for the Poor in Gansu Province, China” (in Chinese). Private Education Research 6 (2): 25-28.
Tooley, J., and J. Stanfield, eds. 2003. Government Failure: E. G. West on Education. London: Profile Books.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2003. Human Development Report 2003. New York: UNDP.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2000a. “Education for All: Meeting Our Collective Commitments. Expanded Commentary on the Dakar Framework for Action.” Paris. www.unesco.org/education/efa/wef_2000/expanded_com_eng.shtml.
———. 2000b. “Preparation of National Plans of Action, Education for All, Country Guidelines.” http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001219/121911e.pdf.
———. 2002. Education for All: Is the World on Track? EFA Global Monitoring Report 2002. Paris: UNESCO.
———. 2004. Education for All: The Quality Imperative. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris: UNESCO.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2002. Submission to “The Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights.” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva.
Vaughan, J. 1823. “Principal Collector, Malabar to Board of Revenue: 5-8-1823 (TNSA:BRP: Vol. 957, Pro. 14-8-1823, pp. 6949-55, Nos. 52-53).” In The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century, by Dharampal, pp. 199-203. Coimbatore: Keerthi Publishing House, 1995.
Vibart, H. 1822.“Assistant Collector, Seringapatnam to Board of Revenue, 29.10.1822 (TNSA:BRP: Vol. 929, Pro. 4-11-1822, pp. 10260-2, Nos. 33-34).” In The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century, by Dharampal, pp. 94, 96-97. Coimbatore: Keerthi Publishing House, 1995.
Watkins, K. 2000. The Oxfam Education Report. Oxford: Oxfam in Great Britain.
———. 2004. “Private Education and ‘Education for All’—or How Not to Construct an Evidence-Based Argument.” Economic Affairs 24 (4): 8-11.
West, E. G. 1994. Education and the State. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. (Orig. pub. 1965.)
———. 1983. “Nineteenth-Century Educational History: The Kiesling Critique.” Economic History Review 36: 426-34.
World Bank. 2003. World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington: World Bank.
World Education Forum. 2000. The Dakar Framework for Action, Education for All: Meeting Our Collective Commitments. Paris: UNESCO.
Zymelman, M., and J. Destefano. 1989. “Primary School Teachers Salaries in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Division Paper no. 45, World Bank, Washington.
Notes
Chapter 2
1 Quotes are, in order, from J. Drèze and A. Sen, India: Development and Participation, 2nd ed. (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 286, 172-73, 59, 172, 161, and fn. 72, p. 172.
2 Quotations are, in order, from PROBE Team Public Report on Basic Education in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 103, 47, 48, 63, and 102.
3 Ibid., p. 64 (emphasis added).
4 Drèze and Sen, India: Development and Participation, p. 173.
5 Quotations are, in order, from K. Watkins, The Oxfam Education Report (Oxford: Oxfam in Great Britain, 2000), pp. 1, 333, 346, 230, 229, 6, 230, and 106.
6 Data on Hyderabad and Mahbubnagar are from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, “City Development Strategy,” Conference on City Development Strategies: From Vision to Growth and Poverty Reduction, November 24-26, 2004, Hanoi; and Government of Andhra Pradesh, “Census of India 1991, Series 2, Andhra Pradesh: District Census Handbook Hyderabad,” Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1997. Data on Delhi are from Census of India, “Primary Census Abstract: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Lakshadweep,” CD-ROM, Office of the Registrar General, New Delhi, 2001.
Chapter 3
1 Data are from LASEEDS, 2004, pp. 29, 5, and 7.
Chapter 4
1 A native or inhabitant of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, or its environs.
2 Data are from Ga District Assembly, “Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy: Three-Year Medium Term Development Plan 2002-2004,” District Planning Co-Ordinating Unit, Amasaman, Ghana, 2002; and Ga District Assembly, “Poverty Profile, Maps and Pro-Poor Programmes,” Amasaman, Ghana, 2004.
3 For further information on all the research data here and in following chapters, see J. Tooley and P. Dixon, “An Inspector Calls: The Regulation of ‘Budget’ Private Schools in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India,” International Journal of Educational Development 25 (2005a): 269-85; J. Tooley and P. Dixon, “Is There a Conflict between Commercial Gain and Concern for the Poor? Evidence from Private Schools for the Poor in India and Nigeria,” Economic Affairs 25, no. 2 (2005b): 20-27; J. Tooley and P. Dixon, Private Education Is Good for the Poor: A Study of Private Schools Serving the Poor in Low-Income Countries (Washington: Cato Institute, 2005c); J. Tooley and P. Dixon, “‘De Facto’ Privatisation of Education and the Poor: Implications of a Study from Sub-Saharan Africa and India,” Compare 36, no. 4 (2006): 443-62; J. Tooley and P. Dixon, “Private Schooling for Low-Income Families: A Census and Comparative Survey in East Delhi, India,” International Journal of Educational Development 27, no. 2 (2007): 205-19; J. Tooley, P. Dixon, and I. Amuah, “Private and Public Schooling in Ga, Ghana: A Census and Comparative Survey,” International Review of Education 53, no. 3-4 (2007): 389-415; J. Tooley, P. Dixon, and S. V. Gomathi, “Private Schools and the Millennium Development Goal of Universal Primary Education: A Census and Comparative Survey in Hyderabad, India,” Oxford Review of Education 33, no. 5 (2007): 539-60; J. Tooley, P. Dixon, and O. Olaniyan, “Private and Public Schooling in Low-Income Areas of Lagos State, Nigeria: A Census and Comparative Survey,” International Journal of Educational Research 43, no. 3 (2005): 125-46; J. Tooley, L. Qiang, and P. Dixon, “Private Schools for the Poor in Gansu Province, China” (in Chinese), Private Education Research 6, no. 2 (2007): 25-28; and J. Tooley, P. Dixon, and J. Stanfield, “The Impact of Free Education in Kenya: A Case Study in Private Schools in Kibera,” Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 36, no. 4 (2008): 449-69.
Chapter 5
1 Statistics are from Asia Development Bank, “Technical Assistance to the People’s Republic of China for Preparing the Gansu Roads Development Project,” TAR:PRC 33470, 2003, pp. 2-3, www.adb.org/Documents/TARs/PRC/tar_prc_33470.pdf; Gansu Statistics Bureau, “The Fifth Gansu Population Census Report” (in Chinese), 2001, www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/dfrkpcgb/t20020331_15402.htm (2001); and National Bureau of Statistics, “Important Data of Population Census of Gansu Province,” 2006, www.gansu.gov.cn/Upload/ZH/G_ZH_0000000899_22.htm.
2 For further details of the research method and findings, see James Tooley, Liu Qiang, and Pauline Dixon, “Private Schools for the Poor in Gansu Province, China” (in Chinese), Private Education Research 6, no. 2 (2007): 25-28.
3 Gansu Statistics Bureau, “Fifth Census Report,” p. 738.
4 Katarina Tomasevski, Education Denied: Costs and Remedies (London: Zed Books, 2003).
5 China Education and Research Network, “China Education and Research Network (2005) Outline and Actions of China’s Education Reform and Development in 2005,” 2005.
Chapter 6
1 Peter Jennings, Primetime, ABC Television, November 18, 2004.
2 References for this paragraph are G. Brown, “Our Final Goal Must Be to Offer a Global New Deal,” Guardian (UK), January 11, 2006; and J. Lauglo, “Basic Education in Areas Targeted for EFA: ASAL Districts and Urban Informal Settlements in Kenya,”
World Bank, Washington, 2004.
3 References for the quotations in this paragraph are, in order, J. D. Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (London: Penguin Books, 2005); UNDP, Human Development Report 2003 (New York: UNDP, 2003), p. 115; Oxfam International, Paying the Price: Why Rich Countries Must Invest Now in a War on Poverty (Oxford: Oxfam International, 2005), p. 72; Save the Children UK, “Private Sector Involvement in Education,” submission to “The Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 2002, p. 5; Save the Children UK, South and Central Asia, “A Perspective from Nepal and Pakistan,” submission to “The Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 2002, p. 7; World Bank, World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People (Washington: World Bank, 2003); and Oxfam International, Paying the Price, p. 17.
4 The reference for this section is P. Rose, “Is the Non-State Education Sector Serving the Needs of the Poor? Evidence from East and Southern Africa,” paper prepared for DfID seminar in preparation for World Development Report 2004, 2002, pp. 6, 16, and 7 (cited with the author’s permission, [email protected]).
5 The reference for this section is Lauglo, “Basic Education in Areas Targeted for EFA.” For further details on the research method and findings, see J. Tooley, P. Dixon, and J. Stanfield, “The Impact of Free Education in Kenya: A Case Study in Private Schools in Kibera,” Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 36, no. 4 (2008): 449-69.
6 References for this paragraph are Save the Children, submission to the World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People (Washington: World Bank, 2003), p. 34; and Action Aid, “Response to World Development Report 2004,” submission to the World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People (World Bank, Washington, 2003), p. 5.
Chapter 7
1 Sources cited in this section are, in order, UNESCO, Education for All: The Quality Imperative, EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005 (Paris: UNESCO, 2004), p. 18; UNDP, Human Development Report 2003 (New York: UNDP, 2003), p. 112; P. Glewwe, N. Illias, and M. Kremer, “Teaching Incentives,” working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2004; UNESCO, Education for All, pp. 29 and 26; World Bank, World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People (Washington: World Bank, 2003), pp. 24, 4, and 112; and G. B. Nambissan, “Educational Deprivation and Primary School Provision: A Study of Providers in the City of Calcutta,” IDS Working Paper no. 187, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, 2003, p. 31.
2 Sources cited in this section are, in order, World Bank, World Development Report 2004, p. 25; and Nambissan, “Educational Deprivation and Primary School Provision,” pp. 29 and 35.
3 Sources cited in this section are, in order, World Bank, World Development Report 2004, p. 24; Nambissan, “Educational Deprivation and Primary School Provision,” pp. 20 and 21; and DfID, “The Challenge of Universal Primary Education,” London, 2001, p. 23.
4 Sources cited in this section are, in order, World Bank, World Development Report 2004, p. 112 (emphasis added); DfID, “The Challenge of Universal Primary Education,” p. 21; and Nambissan, “Educational Deprivation and Primary School Provision,” p. 35.
5 UNDP, Human Development Report 2003; Save the Children UK, South and Central Asia, “A Perspective from Nepal and Pakistan,” submission to “The Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 2002, p. 5; and World Bank, World Development Report 2004, p. 3.
6 World Bank, World Development Report 2004, p. 182; and Action Aid, “Response to World Development Report 2004,” submission to the World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People (World Bank, Washington, 2003), p. 1.
7 Sources cited are, in order, Action Aid, “Response to World Development Report 2004,” p. 2; and World Bank, World Development Report 2004, pp. 113, 1, 10, 11, and 6.
8 Sources cited in this section are, in order, Save the Children UK, South and Central Asia, “A Perspective from Nepal and Pakistan,” pp. 8, 9, 13, and 9; Nambissan, “Educational Deprivation and Primary School Provision,” p. 52; Commission for Africa, “Our Common Interest: Report of the Commission for Africa,” 2005, p. 179, www.commissionforafrica.org/english/report/introduction.html; P. Rose, “Is the Non-State Education Sector Serving the Needs of the Poor? Evidence from East and Southern Africa,” paper prepared for DfID seminar in preparation for World Development Report 2004, 2002, pp. 16, 5, 6-7, 6, Box 1, and 6-7 (cited with the author’s permission, [email protected]); M. Adelabu and P. Rose, “Non-State Provision of Basic Education in Nigeria,” in Nigeria: Study of Non-State Providers of Basic Services, ed. G. Larbi, M. Adelabu, P. Rose, D. Jawara, O. Nwaorgu, and S. Vyas, commissioned by Policy Division, Department of International Development (DfID), UK, Country Studies, International Development Department, University of Birmingham, 2004, pp. 47, 47-48, 57, 64 (emphasis added), and 49; K. Watkins, The Oxfam Education Report (Oxford: Oxfam in Great Britain, 2000), p. 230; and UNDP, Human Development Report 2003, p. 115 (emphasis added).
9 See, for example, studies by G. Kingdon (“The Quality and Efficiency of Private and Public Education: A Case Study in Urban India,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 58, no. 1 [1996]: 57-81); E. Jimenez, M. E. Lockheed, and N. Wattanawaha (“The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Schools: The Case of Thailand,” World Bank Economic Review 2, no. 2 [1988]: 139-64); E. Jimenez and others (“School Effects and Costs for Private and Public Schools in the Dominican Republic,” International Journal of Educational Research 15, no. 5 [1991]: 393-410); and E. Jimenez, M. E. Lockheed, and V. Paqueo (“The Relative Efficiency of Private and Public Schools in Developing Countries,” World Bank Research Observer 6, no. 2 [1991]: 205-18) that concluded that, in general, private schools outperform public schools for lower unit costs, although studies by S. Bashir (“The Cost Effectiveness of Public and Private Schools: Knowledge Gaps, New Research Methodologies and an Application in India,” in Marketizing Education and Health in Developing Countries: Miracle of Mirage? ed. C. Colclough, pp. 124-64 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997]) and G. Lassibille and J. Tan (“Are Private Schools More Efficient than Public Schools? Evidence from Tanzania,” Education Economic 9, no. 2 [2001]: 145-72) came to contrary conclusions.
10 Watkins, The Oxfam Education Report, p. 230.
Chapter 8
1 Sources cited in this section are, in order, Save the Children, submission to the World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People (Washington: World Bank, 2004), p. 6; Save the Children UK, “Private Sector Involvement in Education,” submission to “The Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 2002, p. 8 (emphasis added); P. Rose, “Is the Non-State Education Sector Serving the Needs of the Poor? Evidence from East and Southern Africa,” paper prepared for DfID seminar in preparation for World Development Report 2004, 2002, p. 15 (emphasis added; cited with the author’s permission, [email protected]); UNICEF, submission to “The Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 2002, p. 6; and Save the Children UK, South and Central Asia, “A Perspective from Nepal and Pakistan,” submission to “The Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights,” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 2002, p. 9.
2 There is one oddity, however, that the development experts might feel reinforces their argument about the need for regulation. That is, when one visits recognized and unrecognized private schools, the recognized schools do often appear to be better than the unrecognized ones. (The evidence outlined in the next chapter reinforces this intuition.) They often appear to hav
e better infrastructure and better-equipped classrooms. Teachers seem to speak better English. However, if becoming recognized has nothing to do with actually meeting regulations, just with the payment of bribes, then why should they be better? It took me awhile to think this through, but it seems the answer lies in the fact that many of the ways in which recognized schools are better than unrecognized private schools are not prescribed in the detailed regulations. In Hyderabad, for instance, no regulations address the provision of learning facilities, such as televisions, tape recorders and computers, or fans. Yet with these facilities, just as with those that regulations address, like playgrounds, drinking water, and toilets, the recognized private schools seem to be better than the unrecognized schools. This suggests that the impetus for school improvement comes from other factors, not from a desire to be recognized by government. The obvious one is to meet parental demand.
But then, the development experts could counter, why don’t the unrecognized schools also strive to meet parental demand in the same way, since they’re also operating in the education market and will also need to keep parents happy? The reasons are not hard to find. In every study, I found that unrecognized private schools are considerably smaller and considerably newer than recognized private schools. What seems most likely to me is that the maturity of the schools, rather than regulation, is responsible for their improvement. Private schools improve as they become more mature, attracting more students, and, hence, can afford to invest in more and better facilities, and more motivated teachers. As they mature, they can also afford the informal payments to gain recognition. Why would they bother paying for recognition? Because being recognized does have its benefits: Only recognized schools can issue transfer certificates, which enable children to move from their school to the next stage. Only recognized schools can legally be examination centers.