Privatisation and public schools

Having worked at both the policy-formation and implementation levels of Jamaica's education system, I do have an extensive knowledge of our challenges and possible solutions, so here's more food for thought.

I read the other day that the cure for the problems of a socialised monopoly is a good dose of competition. This led to my thinking about the light and power distribution debacle and the attendant calls for more providers to be allowed entry into the market. I also wondered if such principles could apply to public education, given the 'failing school' issue which has proven to be quite controversial. As educational policy across the globe becomes more acute, the notion of privatisation serving as a panacea is being explored by a number of key players who refuse to accept the ills that continue to badger the delivery of educational services.

Calling for the privatisation of public schools is nothing new, and is often premised on accountability and effectiveness, terms readily associated with the private sector. Privatisation can be understood in two ways: endogenous, which suggests that public education would adopt ideologies and practices from the private sector, and exogenous, which suggests that private-sector entities would manage and deliver public education on a for-profit basis.

Private good

In privatising public schools, education becomes a private good in that it serves the interest of the individual and affords him entry to the world of work. Both approaches impact generic functions such as curriculum development, teaching and learning, student assessment, professional development and performance management. There would also be far-reaching implications for placing students in schools, as well as the industrial relations mechanisms that exist. Public-private partnerships allow for an exchange of cultural capital in that governments facilitate an infusion of new paradigms and funding streams that could effect positive change to our education system.

The endogenous model regards schools as businesses and, as such, promotes a healthy competition among schools of similar ilk. This is the sort of competition that raises standards by taking over underperforming schools and putting them on a path towards improvement illuminated by increased accountability, enhanced leadership and performance-based pay. This approach to privatisation would require the Ministry of Education to annually set school performance targets, fund school-based initiatives to support and provide incentives for improved performance, and then make public whatever progress is made. Additionally, it would link salaries to value-added learning outcomes as in the case of Australia, Israel, Japan and New Zealand.

The exogenous model regards schools as entities that can be contracted out to vendors who have the technical expertise and fiscal resources needed to deliver high-quality education. The United Kingdom, United States, Colombia and Sweden are countries in which some schools are run entirely by private companies. What is even more interesting is that the World Bank favours the contracting of educational services in developing countries such as ours and has even funded projects in Guatemala and St Lucia in which non-government entities provided special educational, professional development and quality assurance services to schools.

But do both models actually result in increased student attainment? Research done in the states of North Carolina and Texas confirmed that students in private schools had slightly better scores than their public school counterparts. Additionally, data drawn from a 2007 study conducted in four countries that had a higher number of privately run schools characterised by strong parental involvement and autonomy regarding personnel management and teaching showed that student performance increased.

Spur the debate

My role is simply to spur debate concerning the shaping of educational policy that will positively impact education as we know it. While I am not calling for a wholesale adoption of practices that exist elsewhere, I am, however, suggesting that these principles, if adopted and modified, could be beneficial to us.

The truth is, and we all know it, it is our privately run church and or trust schools that are responsible for our Grade Four, GSAT and CSEC data being what they are, as without their successes, the picture would be far more dismal. And were we to look at our publicly owned and operated entities, we would conclude that the executive agencies certainly outperform those that are entirely dependent on the public purse. Am I suggesting that the Government free itself of all public schools? Certainly not!

Perhaps, though, one policy alternative is to see how both the endogenous and exogenous models could help us respond to our failing or underperforming schools (same difference) while we better replicate our top-performing (and preferred) ones. Whatever we deem to be feasible, our response has to be predicated on the reality of our economic constraints, the increasing public demand for greater efficiency, and the impact of globalisation and information technology, all of which bring into focus the need to redefine the role of Government in relation to public schools.

Maurice D. Smith is a doctoral student at Howard University. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and maurice.d.smith@bison.howard.edu.