SABER’s domain of engaging the private sector: A critique

• In Event: The World Bank’s SABER: critical analyses of assumptions, operations, and consequences

Proposal

The privatization of education is very controversial, but SABER tries to avoid the controversy by saying that the goal of this domain is “not to advocate for private schooling … but simply to guide governments that are currently utilizing these non-state provision approaches towards effective policy practices” (Baum et al. 2014, 5). Despite this disclaimer, a major critique of SABER in this domain is that it does strongly advocate for the privatization of education both in its analysis and recommendations in a myriad of ways.
For instance, the framework paper argues: “Given the positive, if not overwhelming, evidence suggesting that increased choice can improve the performance of school providers – both public and private – there are several methods by which government can facilitate growth in the educational marketplace” (Baum et al. 2014, 27). SABER cherry-picks evidence that supports its ideological bias towards privatization and choice and, once again, ignores contrary findings that private schools are no more innovative or efficient than public schools and that cooperation may be more important than competition.
The World Bank’s ideological biases are also signaled in this domain of SABER in many of the “best practices” it recommends for governments to follow. For example in the rubric, SABER recommends that “[s]chools [should] have the legal authority to set their own teacher standards,…to appoint teachers,…to determine teacher salary levels,…[and] to dismiss teachers, [all] without review by central authorities.” Moreover, countries in which private schools must meet requirements around facilities, land, or assets are considered backward (“latent”). The policies and practices SABER recommends are not the “best” ones in any agreed-upon, objective, evidence-based way; they are simply practices that conform to the Bank’s neoliberal, market-based ideology.

Author

• Brendan DeCoster, University of Maryland