private-schools-full-report

Appendix 3: Hypotheses (H) and counter hypotheses (CH)
The following tables set out the key hypotheses of the review alongside the counter
hypotheses and, underneath, the assumptions and counter assumptions that underpin
them.
Supply
H1: Private schools are better quality
than state schools
• Teaching in private schools is better than in state
schools.
• Private schools are better resourced than state
schools.
• Students achieve better educational outcomes in
private schools.
CH1: Private schools are not better quality
than state schools
• Curriculums used by private schools may be
unregulated and of low standard, not permitting
transfer to secondary or tertiary sectors.
• Private school teachers may be inexperienced,
unqualified, and poorly paid thereby limiting the
quality of teaching and learning.
H2: Private schools provide education to
disadvantaged children
• Private schools geographically reach the poorest.
• Private schools are equally accessed by girls and
boys.
CH3: Private schools do not provide
education to disadvantaged children
• Private schools do not reach the poorest, or fill the
gaps in geographical coverage of state provision.
• Private schools cluster in urban areas and cities
where the market is more viable than in rural areas –
i.e. they ‘follow the money’.
• Private schools may be accessible to girls and boys
but household decisions may influence whether
attendance is equal.
H3: Private schools are cost-effective
and financially sustainable
• Private schools are (more) cost-effective (than
state schools) partly because overheads are low.
• Private schools are financially stable. Fee
collection, even from the poorest, is a sustainable
financial model for private schools.
CH2: Private schools are not cost-effective
and financially sustainable
• Fee-paying schools operate for profit. If they are
‘viable’ it is at the cost of teachers who earn low
salaries.
Demand
H4: Private schools are affordable to the
poor and the poorest
• The poor and poorest are able to pay private school
fees.
• Private schools are no more expensive (or no less
affordable) than state schools (which often have
implicit costs, e.g. uniform, transport, food,
textbooks, exam fees).
• Those in the poorest quintile are willing and able to
pay for private schools.
CH4: Private schools are not affordable to
the poor and the poorest
• The costs of fees and desire for private schooling
may reduce the money available to the household to
invest in other beneficial activities. Where parents
cannot judge education quality this may lead to
inefficient investment (and potentially risky
borrowing and exploitation by money lenders) and so
poorer welfare outcomes.
• The cost of fees may lead to a redistribution of
resources and inequity within households. Money may
be taken from less favoured or female children to
send the favoured or male children to private school.
66