AS pleased as we are with the compromises in the tax proposals announced by the prime minister last Wednesday, we have to continue to keep in view the key issues in education. They have a bearing on our economic troubles and our survival. I assert that equity in access to quality education in public and private schools is as important as equity in income and tax-burden distribution. In fact, these “equities” are inter-related. Furthermore, economic recovery is tied to equity in quality education.

Given the ongoing debate on the education system these last few years, it should be timely to reflect on a comprehensive, responsive and an up-to-date set of policies for private institutions. As a starting point, we need to place the issue of support for private institutions in the context of government’s policies to increase access and improve quality. Right across the country, quality places are in short supply and the government’s response has been inadequate.

Two facts are relevant. One is that achieving the policy objective is impossible without the contribution and support of private institutions, many of which are reputed for maintaining quality and high standards. Second, many parents of private-school students contribute to public education through paying taxes and should receive some state benefits in return, albeit through the private schools.

A current debate is whether any support provided should be given to the individual or to the institution. If there are significant inefficiencies at the institution and the support is provided there, then the effect is that the state is rewarding inefficiency. On the other hand, if the support is to the individual but he or she does not take advantage of it, there is a problem as well. A mix involving institution and individual can also be considered, but the complexities increase significantly in such a case. The choices are always difficult. However, this urges a thorough study of the private school environment to arrive at satisfactory policies for them.

For those concerned about the general policy formulation process, it may be helpful to focus some attention on this issue before considering policy options for private schools. We observe first that our educational policies are fleeting and are found in diverse and multiple places. Some exist in the Education Regulations 1980. Others exist in documents containing statements often cited as policy. It is also commonplace to hear inadequately researched speeches or passing remarks of a minister quoted later as “the policy”. Unsurprisingly, sentiments expressed in heated parliamentary debate may even mutate into unresearched “policy statements” in Parliament!

A more general experience with the policy formulation process of government is that a problem arises in some portfolio area: a team is constituted to make suggestions or recommendations for solving the problem, the team complies, recommendations are accepted and no sooner than later the latter are declared as policy. The time for thoughtful and data-supporting research as well as for meaningful stakeholder participation may either be disallowed or infrequently attempted. We know that such an approach sorely compromises the quality of the particular policy.

That said, we could surmise that to address a set of policies on private schools there ought to be a search and collating of existing elements of policies. The major activity, however, would be to investigate and research thoroughly the current state of affairs in the sub-sector. The ideas and suggestions of key stakeholders from the poorest to the most affluent schools should be adequately canvassed and objectively analysed to inform a clear and non-contradictory policy.

What are some international experiences and practices? Is the ownership of buildings or private sector management of schools what differentiates public and private schools? In this context, the situation in Belize would not only make good reading, but also give interesting insights into the dynamics of the relationship between religious bodies and government in supporting and providing education. The Trinidad and Tobago case would make interesting reading as well. Information on “charter schools” in the USA would be instructive. Could we learn something from the latter about quality and parental choice? I urge a study of these to inform our own policy formulation bereft of the “copy-cat” motive.

Returning to the question of support for the individual or the institution, we should be able to accommodate a two-tiered system where (a) the institution could be a recipient of support such as in-service training of teachers in some areas like mathematics and science and (b) needful students get economic support through a voucher system. Again, the criteria would have to be set out in unambiguous ways.

Though considered untenable by some as a part of its policy, the state could pay a percentage of the salary of the staff of low-income private schools that meet well-defined criteria while not compromising obligations to public schools. Purchasing additional school places or paying the salary of some teachers on a long-term rather than an “off-and-on” basis could prove mutually beneficial. Administratively, the allocation could be treated as a form of secondment of the teacher. Incidentally, no teacher lay-offs in public schools should ever be contemplated in the IMF conditionalities. Redeployment, if necessary, must be the way forward.

On the other hand, there should be a more meaningful oversight function for the state. It should be obligatory that private schools furnish the authorities with statistical data on enrolment, fee charges, class-size and attendance rates. All the schools should be monitored for compliance to regulations and standards. However, let us have monitoring and accountability on both sides.

I wish all fortitude and good health in 2010.

wesebar@yahoo.com