Sarangpani, P. M. 2009. Quality, Feasibility and Desirability of Low Cost Private Schooling. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV (43):67-69.
The discussion paper is a critical commentary on the paper by Jain and Dholakia (2009), “Feasibility of Implementation of Right to Education Act”. Jain and Dholakia argue for budget private schools that compromise on teachers’ salaries, and they claim, provide better quality education than the high(er) expenditure based government schools. They cite Tooley et al’s (2007) paper that puts forth a similar argument that the education in private schools is at 25-30% the cost of those in government schools as the salary of teachers is 25-30% that of salaries in government schools. Both these, Sarangpani argues, have not taken into account the management costs of running a school and provision of adequate spaces, time spent in school, and experiences that target holistic development. The provision for mid day meal is also not taken into account by either study. Jain runs a non-governmental institution that provides education to out of school children. Sarangpani further states that it is somewhat problematic to divide educational institutions into the binary of government and privately owned, subsuming non-governmental organisations into the private ambit.
An important critique in the paper is about the indicators of good quality education propounded by Tooley et al. The two fold criteria used includes- parents’ preferences for English medium education, and health and hygiene, safety and presence of teacher, among other aspects. These serve as the criteria of including private unaided recognised and private unaided unrecognised schools to be considered to be as good, if not better in providing education to children. A key aspect is also the decontextualisaion in Tooley’s work of the school being studied. Most of the participants are from the Muslim community whose specific problems with the state have not been considered while drawing conclusions.
Sarangpani makes a significant argument with reference to the low cost private schools under study here. She argues that the teachers who are paid as low as Rs.1500 to Rs. 3000 per month would face a high turnover leading to instability in schools. Further, those who stay would be looking for alternative sources of income, including taking tuitions. Both these are not conducive to good quality education in schools. She also argues that if the initial years of disadvantage owing to socio economic background is nullified and evaluation is not on rote based learning, there is no evidence of private schools showing an advantage over government schools.
References in the article (you might want to read):
Jain, Pankaj S and Ravindra H Dholakia (2009): “Feasibility of Implementation of Right to Education Act”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 44, No 25, 20 June, pp 38-43.
Sarangapani, P and C Winch (forthcoming): “Tooley, Dixon and Gomathi on Private Education in Hyderabad: A Reply” accepted for publication in Oxford Review of Education.
Tooley, J and P Dixon (2003): “Private Schools for the Poor: A Case Study from India” (UK: CfBT Research and Development,).
Tooley, J, P Dixon and S V Gomathi (2007): “Private Schools and the Millennium Development Goal of Universal Primary Education: A Census and Comparative Survey in Hyderabad, India”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol 33, No 5, pp 539-60.
Vachani, S and C N Smith (2008): “Socially Responsible Distribution Strategy for Reaching the Bottom of the Pyramid”, California Management Review, Vol 50, No 2.