Debates over charter and private schools, especially for-profits, are not restricted to the United States. The European Parliament recently passed a resolution instructing the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union (EU), must not use development aid money intended to help poorer countries to fund commercial private schools. Over 90% of the voters approved the resolution.
According to Kira Boe of the Danish Oxfam-IBIS, the resolution “confirms our analysis that taxpayers’ money should not be used to fund private school chains or for-profit actors in education. Given the detrimental impact of such schools on transparency, democracy and quality, such funding is a violation of States’ human rights obligations and global commitments to free quality education.”
For-profit schools in Africa and Asia have drained resources away from already impoverished public school systems. The United Kingdom (UK) and British companies like Pearson have been using aid money targeted for Third World countries to subsidize for-profit schools. The U.S. government has considered doing this also. The Resolution does not prevent the European Commission from funding small-scale non-profit private schools, such as faith-based, NGO or community schools.
Proponents of the resolution are especially concerned by the impact of edu-companies like Bridge International that operates a chain of approximately 500 schools in four African countries and in India. Omega Schools in Ghana and Liberia, and APEC schools in the Philippines. Carole Coupez, of the French Education Coalition, said: “The evidence is clear: it’s only by funding quality public education systems that we can overcome poverty and guarantee social justice in developing countries. The European Parliament positions the EU as the leader it should be to guarantee public services for all.”
The World Bank has played a leading role in providing financing for what are euphemistically called Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). This has stirred international opposition. According to a report by Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights there is mounting evidence that PPPs are expensive, risky and opaque. In Liberia, money invested in Bridge International returned only marginal educational gains that were not “cost effective.” The report also looked at the ineffective performance of Public-Private Partnerships providing health, water and sanitation, energy, and infrastructure in Colombia, France, India, Indonesia, Lesotho, Peru, Spain and Sweden. “All projects came with a high cost for the public purse, and an excessive level of risk for the public sector and, therefore, they resulted in a heavy burden for citizens. The Partnership School in Liberia impacted negatively on the poor, contributing to an increasing educational divide.
In March 2018, over 80 international educational organizations demanded that the European Investment Bank withdraw investment dollars from Bridge. The Global Partnership for Education GPE), which supports educational projects in over 65 countries, is currently finalizing its policy on private sponsors of for-profit schools. Bridge International is trying to tap into GPE funds to expand its for-profit school system. The European Commission, the largest funder of GPE, is expected to abide by the resolution, pressuring the Global Partnership to steer clear of Bridge.
The United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution in July 2018 urging nations to “ regulate and monitor education providers and to hold accountable those whose practices have a negative impact on the enjoyment of the right to education.” It is especially concerned about the “negative impact of the commercialization of education.” France, unlike the UK and the United States has committed itself to “act against any attempt at commercialisation of education.”
Follow Alan Singer on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ReecesPieces8