Education for the Poor

This is a long one. Originally it was supposed to be my speech for the Koch policy presentation, but I ended up taking mine in a different direction. I had this left over, and thought I would share. You might want to read it in several parts, or just carve out fifteen minutes or so to read the whole thing.

 

It is a sobering fact that the foremost reason most of us are sitting in this room is we were fortunate enough to be born in a country that is able to educate its children well. For all of the problems with the American education system, it is a beacon of excellence compared to much of the world.

 Lack of human capital is the primary reason why poor people stay poor, and why poor countries stay poor. Despite technological advances around the world, these third world countries cannot achieve the growth in standards of living they so desperately need. An inadequate education system is a stone ceiling above the heads of citizens trying to improve their lives.

 Recognizing this, the United Nations created the Millennium Project, an ambitious venture headed by economist Jeffrey Sachs. One of the explicit goals of the project is universal primary education by 2015. This should be applauded. No country gains by having others languish in abject poverty. In fact, all nations can gain by having new markets for their goods and increased competition in a global economy.

 Unfortunately, the development experts are attempting to achieve universal education in the wrong way. They insist that government-run schools are the only way to bring about this revolution of education. In many countries around the world (especially developing ones), private schools are seen as pariahs in this quest. According to education experts, private schools can play no role in educating the poorest members of society. Only government-run schools, and the requisite billions of dollars in international aid, can ensure that everyone receives an adequate education.

 While this happens to be the pervasive view in most every country on Earth, it also happens to be completely wrong.  To be sure, the posh private schools located in the middle of the Hamptons or Bel Air would not be much help to the poorest people of India or Africa. Unfortunately, most people cannot envision a private school that serves the needs of anyone else. James Tooley’s book, The Beautiful Tree, details at length his experience with private schools for the poor in the poorest areas of developing countries.

 When one typically envisions a private school serving the poor, what comes to mind is a filthy hovel with a few emaciated children crowded around a dilapidated chalk board without textbooks or writing materials and taught by a teacher who can barely read or write himself. Whatever the proprietor is charging for tuition is going straight into his own pocket, while he provides the lowest level of care for his charges. This is the view held by the same experts that demand government-run schools. No one will deny that a private school for the poor will not have expensive buildings, up-to-date computers, and fancy textbooks. But to assume that these materials are necessary to a quality education is to completely miss the point of education.

 The reason Westerners assume all schools should have the resources mentioned above is because Western schools have them, and Western schools have them because it is believed they will lead to a higher quality education. But what if that isn’t necessarily true? What if the attitude of the proprietors and the quality of the teachers are what really affect student achievement? Tooley’s survey of public and private schools in developing countries confirms this to be the case. Despite spending a fraction of what public schools spend per pupil, private schools have better results on standard examinations.

 For an economist, the reasons for this discrepancy are readily apparent. In most countries, government-run schools are controlled by powerful teacher’s unions and corrupt bureaucrats. This leads to considerable deference to teachers, a large many of which use the latitude to sleep during class, read the newspaper, or just not show up at all. Since principals and administrators must go to incredible lengths to fire them, a large amount of students are left with apathetic instructors.

 Contrast the above situation with what we know of private schools. While they may not have the best equipment, they have dedicated teachers and administrators who ensure that everything possible is done to aid the pupils. Why is there such a difference between private schools and public schools? Because the owner of a private school knows that if his teachers do not show up for work or his students are not learning, parents will take their children to another school. This accountability is sorely lacking in public schools.

 It is not surprising that poor and developing countries rank among the lowest in international measures of educational achievement. We should all be concerned by this, and the global economy can only gain from universal primary education. But we should also be very skeptical of the claims that only government-run schools can provide this education. The same development experts who recognize the short-comings of government-run schools are the first to insist that they are the only way forward. But if private schools can provide better results at a fraction of the cost, shouldn’t the governments do more to support private schools?

 In fact, private schools can be most helpful in rural areas, which constitute a large part of developing nations. The reason for this is that the government simply does not have enough money to put a government-run school in each village, and the villages can be many miles apart. Thus, any place that the government puts one of its schools will only reach a handful of students. Private schools are erected with very little infrastructure. Many times it is simply the home of the proprietor, or perhaps an addition to the home. No government funds are necessary, and every structure is a potential school.

 These private schools allow the villagers to gain some measure of education, since oftentimes walking to the nearest government-run school is not an option. By banning such schools, or subjecting them to regulations that the owners have no way of complying with (large playgrounds, expensive equipment, teacher certification, etc.), the government is denying education to vast swathes of its rural population.

To be fair, many of these private schools do stay in existence despite government bans or overbearing regulation. But the only way for them to operate in such an inhospitable regulatory climate is through bribes. Many of the private schools that Tooley encountered in India and Africa are forced to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars (in local currency) in order to stay open. This exacerbates the problems of trying to provide education for the poor, since the owners of the private schools must charge more in tuition in order to cover the bribes.

 Quite possibly the most compelling reason to support an increased role for private schools is often used as a criticism: they undermine government-run schools and therefore the government. Poor countries are usually not poor because of a lack of money. Billions of dollars in aid flow out of developed countries and into developing countries every year, with few noticeable results. Yet we are constantly told that the problems can be solved if only we give more money. (Sound like the public school system?)

 Why does this happen? Because the charitable efforts of the developed nations are thwarted time and again by the corrupt and inefficient governments that handle the aid money. Without a paradigm shift within developing nations everywhere, there is no reason to think that billions more in aid for government-run schools will do anything meaningful besides enrich the administration in power.

 This same logic applies to any country, not just poor ones. Government officials have every incentive to siphon money into pet projects or to family members, rather than actually directing them towards the purpose they were designated for. The United States happens to have some of the most honest officials in the world, so we find it shocking that all of our aid money is diverted to those in charge, instead of those in need. A true solution to education and development problems should not involve large sums of foreign money.

 Instead, it should create incentives for institutions like private schools. Private schools need no outside aid whatsoever. Loans would certainly be helpful, but this can be accomplished by microfinance organizations operating outside of government interference. Using companies, as opposed to governments, would ensure not only that the schools and villagers are self-sufficient, but also any aid that does flow into the country actually reaches those who need it.

 As detailed above, most countries are not supportive of private schools. The schools are subjected to unreasonable demands by government inspectors, intrusive and overbearing regulations from the state, and ridicule and contempt from the education “experts” of the West. This presentation should not be interpreted as a call to overthrow public education in developing nations, or anywhere for that matter. Instead, it is merely a proposition in support of a greater role for private education in serving the needs of all those that need educating.

Advertisement