The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education

More documents

Recommendations

Info

40 THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN EDUCATION Table 3.5 Studies of subsidies Empirical strategy Randomization Country and study Balochistan, Pakistan (Kim, Alderman and Orazem 1999) Data: type and year Outcome variables Results Panel: baseline and follow-up data, 1994 and 1995, student level Enrollment rate Positive impact on girls’ enrollment: 22 percentage points (baseline: 56 percent enrollment). Difference in difference Bogota, Colombia (Uribe et al. 2006) School-level panel data, 1999 and 2000, student, teacher, and school level Standardized test, math, 5th grade Private and public schools yield the same achievements, after controlling for individual and school characteristics. Private schools have wider dispersion; public schools have teachers with higher level of education. Strong evidence of presence of peer effects. Public schools have larger classes. Sources: Authors’ compilation. they found that students from private and public schools had similar test scores. Their second finding was that peer effects were one important explanation of higher test scores. Indeed, students with classmates whose mothers had more education had higher test scores. Third, class size was an important determinant of test scores. Fourth, private schools were more flexible in contracting teachers, and teachers in public schools have more education than those in private schools. Fifth, the authors found that the dispersion in test scores in the private sector is wider and that the combination of inputs is more diverse than in public schools. Private finance initiatives As discussed earlier, it is not yet clear how upgrading infrastructure affects education outcomes (see table 3.1). Moreover, an important line of research casts doubts on whether increasing inputs such as infrastructure influences education outcomes (Hanushek 2003). The few studies that have assessed the impact of private finance initiatives on education outcomes are case studies; for example, Audit Office of New South Wales (2006) in Australia and Gibson and Davies (2008) in the United Kingdom. In terms Delivered of academic by The World achievement, Bank e-library to: KPMG (2008) found a significant unknowncorrelation IP : 192.86.100.35 between private finance Mon, 30 Mar initiative 2009 12:16:23 schools and improvements in test scores. Essentially, between two rebuilt schools—one funded by a private finance initiative and the other by the public budget—there is a 90 percent chance that the school whose reconstruction was funded by a private finance initiative will have a faster rate of academic improvement. Moreover, an analysis of the first private finance initiative school in the United Kingdom concluded that the overall impact of the partnership is positive as measured by improvements in the quality of infrastructure, academic performance, students’ attitudes and behavior, and attendance indicators (Gibson and Davies 2008). Nonetheless, whether these results will be applicable elsewhere remains to be seen because schools funded by private finance initiatives tend to be characterized by exceptional circumstances such as positive attitudes toward the partnership on the part of both the school and the private contractor that influence the behavior of students and teachers (Gibson and Davies 2008). The main rationale for private finance initiatives is cost savings. The private sector, with a clear interest in the financial outcomes of its own investments, is more efficient than the public sector in using resources and in maintaining the infrastructure that it builds (Latham 2005). Nevertheless, there is little actual evidence that private finance initiatives lead to cost savings, and, because the model is relatively new, it is difficult to reach firm conclusions. (c) The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
What Do We Know About Public-Private Partnerships in Education? 41 Channels of impact It is critical to understand the internal work of schools and how interventions such as PPPs can modify how schools function. Unfortunately, there is little rigorous empirical research on this topic. Uribe et al. (2006) is one of the few attempts to quantify the ways in which PPPs affect education outcomes. Hoxby and Murarka (2007) present some evidence of the relationship between certain traits of charter schools and education outcomes. Also, Bettinger, Kremer, and Saavedra (2008) present evidence on how students acquire skills in private vocational schools. However, all in all, more research is needed on the impact of PPPs on education outcomes. Conclusions There is an extensive empirical literature on vouchers that is technically sound. In contrast, the literature on subsidies, private management, and private finance initiatives is less abundant, with most of the evidence on private management consisting of studies of the charter school experiment in the United States. It is critical for researchers to explore further the relationship between PPPs and education outcomes. Delivered by The World Bank e-library to: unknown IP : 192.86.100.35 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:16:23 (c) The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
Page 1 and 2:
The Role and Impact of Public-Priva
Page 3 and 4:
The Role and Impact of Public-Priva
Page 5 and 6: The Role and Impact of Public-Priva
Page 7 and 8: Contents Foreword ix Acknowledgment
Page 9 and 10: Contents vii Boxes 1.1 Sources of c
Page 11 and 12: Foreword Education is widely believ
Page 13 and 14: Acknowledgments We acknowledge the
Page 15 and 16: Abbreviations AVEC BRAC BTL CARE ES
Page 17 and 18: Introduction Despite recent increas
Page 19 and 20: Introduction 3 schools (for example
Page 21 and 22: Introduction 5 PPPs may face resist
Page 23 and 24: Introduction 7 recent (such as thos
Page 25 and 26: Understanding Public-Private Partne
Page 31 and 32: International Experience While gove
Page 33 and 34: International Experience 17 Countri
Page 35 and 36: International Experience 19 BOX 2.1
Page 37 and 38: International Experience 21 of stud
Page 39 and 40: International Experience 23 of trad
Page 41 and 42: International Experience 25 to prov
Page 43 and 44: International Experience 27 allocat
Page 45 and 46: International Experience 29 student
Page 47 and 48: What Do We Know about Public-Privat
Page 49 and 50: What Do We Know About Public-Privat
Page 55: What Do We Know About Public-Privat
Page 59 and 60: Designing a Conducive Environment f
Page 75 and 76: Conclusions Despite recent increase
Page 77 and 78: Conclusions 61 for providing educat
Page 79 and 80: Conclusions 63 The United States ha
Page 81 and 82: Conclusions 65 limited data, and, t
Page 83 and 84: Conclusions 67 funding system shoul
Page 85 and 86: Conclusions 69 system is a persiste
Page 87 and 88: Public-Private Partnerships: Progra
Page 99 and 100: appendix BMethods for Evaluation of
Page 101 and 102: References Aedo, C. 1997. “Organi
Page 103 and 104: References 87 in Emerging Economies
Page 105 and 106: References 89 Discussion Paper 2003
Page 107 and 108:
References 91 ———. 2003b. Par
Page 109 and 110:
Index Boxes, figures, and tables ar
Page 111 and 112:
Index 95 H Haiti, 18, 19b, 73 Heckm
Page 113 and 114:
Index 97 schools. See also charter
Page 115 and 116:
Delivered by The World Bank e-libra
show all

The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?