Public versus private: an age old question that only seems to outweigh one another in an individual’s eyes, thus, hardly ever finding objective light. David Archer, the Head of Programme Development with ActionAid and a board member of the Global Campaign for Education, blogged on Education in Crisis’ website in order to comment on a recent decision of the Department for International Development. For the past three years, funds have been allocated to private education systems in poor nations by public funds from the UK. While he acknowledges the immediate importance of aid to many developing nations in regards to education, he does not unconditionally support aid to all education. Instead, he brings the point across that promoting private education, even low-cost private schools, perpetuates a larger problem of inequality rather than a remedy for the education gap, accessibility conundrum and extreme poverty that the DFID is trying to eradicate.
Although Archer focuses on the responsibility of the DFID and the conflicting ethics of public UK aid for private for-profit systems, the underlying issue of this blog post hits on something much larger. Whether private education is a vessel for improving educational access and consequently, ending extreme poverty, is up for contention. According to Archer, “the biggest gains in education occurred when governments eliminated user fees to deliver on the right to education, leading to tens of millions of children enrolling in school for the first time, and supporting low-cost private schools mocks the importance of that evidence.” Perhaps, Archer’s correct. It is common for private schools to charge amounts that exclude members of lower classes and force parents to prioritize which child should receive education. This often leaves girls and children with disabilities at a cyclical life disadvantage and stuck without opportunity.
However, I believe that a glance through a radical lens could justify public funds for private schooling. There is a saying that may apply to this situation in regards to development— a rising tide lifts all boats. Simply put, helping the larger issue can bring success to every member of a struggling society. Meaning, that just possibly, some countries that lack government funds and the means to build schools could benefit in the long term from privatized help.
Educating and building a working class from a privileged group of citizens may cause immediate inequality, but it seems important to consider that educating some, is better than educating none. Archer argues that private education systems in these countries hinder the government’s responsibility of ensuring education for all, but I suggest that private education may be a stepping stone for the DFID’s eventual goal of attaining money for all. For where there is money, there are options to alleviate poverty, illiteracy and more social inequalities. Even if it’s not changed over night, what more could we strive to universally achieve?
This post is in response to the original Education in Crisis blog post— “Should Public Money Be Used for Private Schools?”
Check out the original post here