Source: Flickr

Education is a basic pillar for any society. It is the bedrock upon which a country builds its present and future prosperity; hence the importance that governments in developing countries provide free, basic education so that children do not fall behind due to lack of economic resources and see their opportunities to thrive expand, thereby abandoning the vicious circle of poverty. As obvious as this may sound, there is quite an unjustifiable logical jump between the undeniably-true premises and the questionable conclusion.

Economic growth has been historically accompanied by increasing literacy rates long before compulsory education was introduced by the public sector. For instance, by the time free, public education was established in England in 1870, the literacy rate was already greater than 70% thanks to philanthropy, Sunday schools and private schools among others. Some could argue, however, that this historical example cannot be extrapolated to our days. After all, government-provided education seems the only means whereby the lower classes in places like India or Nigeria can have access to quality education that enables new generations to reach higher standards of living than those endured by their parents. But is this so?

The research conducted by James Tooley, professor of Education Policy at the University of Newcastle, shows that, contrary to what is widely believed, it is the private sector that is educating the poorest among the poor in developing countries. In his book The Beautiful Tree, Tooley summarizes the research that has led him to the slums of cities in India, Nigeria, Ghana or Kenya to look into how low cost, for-profit private schools are filling the literacy gap in low-income countries. His findings are revealing. 

First, Tooley shows that a majority of children living in low-income areas of Hyderabad (India), Lagos (Nigeria), Accra (Ghana) and Nairobi (Kenya) attend both recognized (that is, regulated by the government) or unrecognized private schools. One might be tempted to think that this is due to the lack of government schools where parents can send their children for free. Dead wrong. Parents often choose fee-charging, private schools over public schools even though the latter are free of charge and in some cases children receive lunch, uniforms and books at no cost.

Professor Tooley talks about his findings on BBC’s Newsnight in 2005. 

Why are low-income families willing to pay a fee for sending their children to private schools if free-of-charge, public schools are available in their neighborhoods? For several reasons. First, parents are concerned about teachers’ commitment in public schools. According to the Tooley’s research, absenteeism and demotivation among teachers are common in government schools, which has a direct impact on the learning experience of children. In addition, private schools have lower pupil-teacher ratios and gender equity is usually maintained, meaning that private schools do not result in gender segregation.

What about those parents who can’t afford to send their children to private schools? First of all, it should be noted that fees are, in general, affordable for poor families. For instance, in the slum of Kibera, located in Nairobi, fees account, on average, for 6,4% of the minimum income level. Nonetheless, local entrepreneurs who run these small, for profit-schools often offer scholarships to those families that, for any reason, cannot incur in such a cost.

In terms of performance, Tooley’s findings are crystal-clear: overall, both recognized and unrecognized private schools in low-income areas achieve higher results than government schools. These results, which control for socioeconomic factors and selection bias, suggest that parents’ inclination towards for-profit, private schools seems completely justified. Moreover, this superior performance is attainted at a fraction of the cost of public schools, which reveals that more resources do not always lead to better educational results.

Two main conclusions can be drawn from James Tooley’s work. First, his research suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, private education does not necessarily have to be aimed at middle and high classes. The fact that, in developed countries, private schools normally target high-income families is just a matter of supply and demand. The de facto educational monopoly held by governments has historically shifted the demand for education to the public sector, forcing private schools to focus on a very specific segment of the population. Second, given the failure of publicly-funded education in these countries, governments should start supporting these private initiatives (e.g. via school vouchers) and recognize the role they play in educating the lower classes.

Luis Pablo de la Horra is a finance graduate at Vlerick Business School. Originally from Valladolid (Spain), he has lived all around the world, from California and Liverpool to Brussels. In California, Luis Pablo had the opportunity to do some coursework at Stanford University. After receiving his Bachelor in English Language at the University of Valladolid in 2015, he is now doing a master’s degree in Brussels. He will be blogging for ESFL on politics and economics. You can follow him on twitter at @luispablohorra

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. European Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. If you’re a student interested in presenting your perspective on this blog, please contact [email protected] for more information.