Speaking Cooperation, Acting Competition: Supply-Side Subsidies and Private Schools in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Contexts

• In Event: Globalization, Privatization, Marginalization: Assessing Connections and Consequences in/Through Education

Abstract

During the last decades, the role of private actors in the provision of educational services gained salience globally. Drawing on the argument that the private sector can provide higher-quality education in a cost-efficient manner as compared to the public sector, diverse types of public-private partnerships (PPPs) have been developed, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Worth noting, evaluations of different PPPs have rendered inconclusive evidence regarding student achievement and economic efficiency. Moreover, research has been mostly dominated by quantitative approaches and focused especially on demand-side financing schemes (Languille, 2016). In comparison, fewer studies have explored how schools operate under different specific PPP schemes. PPPs involving supply-side subsidies for private schools–i.e. without a direct link to enrollment–have remained largely underexplored, despite their historical presence and growing expansion both in developed and developing countries.
In this study we focus on the City of Buenos Aires (CABA). CABA has the highest private enrollment rate nationally and private schools account for more than half of compulsory education enrollment. In this context, of all state-funded private schools in the city, the clear majority (70%) are state-subsidized privately-run low-fee schools (S-LFPSs). In S-LFPSs, the state finances between 80 and 100% of teachers and principals’ salaries and, in turn, schools are entitled to charge very low fees to families. Unlike demand-side subsidy schemes, the supply-side subsidy policy in CABA does not aim to enhance school competition. The policy was conceived as a cost-effective alternative to guarantee equality of educational opportunity. It aims to expand access where publicly-run supply is insufficient by reducing the cost of attending private schools for socioeconomically disadvantaged families.

We used ethnographic methods to explore S-LFPSs’ views on competition and analyze how school leaders interpret, signify and respond to the subsidy policy framework in their everyday practices. We selected nine S-LFPSs offering primary education located in the city’s poorest neighborhoods to conduct on-site observations during a period of eight months (June 2015 through January 2016), as well as in-depth interviews with principals, owners, teachers, and legal advisors (n=52).

Based on limited research on schools’ responses to other mostly demand-driven-PPP frameworks, we developed a non-exhaustive list of potential responses followed by schools in competitive scenarios as a preliminary checklist to identify whether S-LFPSs engaged in any, and with what consequences (Felouzis, Maroy, & van Zanten, 2013; Jabbar, 2015; Woods, Bagley, & Glatter, 1998).

Findings show that student selection and operational changes (e.g., increasing the student/teacher ratio) prevail over academic and curricular changes. Selection is operated by means of aptitude tests and screening interviews, and other symbolic artifacts aimed at signaling differences with state-run schools and the potential fit between schools and families. We also present a heuristic typology of the different logics of action systematizing the schools’ responses as their leading orientations toward the competitive environment. We suggest that policy inconsistencies and deficient governmental oversight tilt the field against state-run schools. Rather than ensuring equality of educational opportunity, the policy contributes to shape and deepen a highly segregated and inequitable educational landscape.

Authors

• Mauro Moschetti, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

• Carolina Snaider, Teachers College, Columbia University