Education vouchers

Free to choose, and learn

New research shows that parental choice raises standards-including for those who stay in public schools. From The Economist.
FEW ideas in education are more controversial than vouchers—letting parents choose to educate their children wherever they wish at the taxpayer's expense. First suggested by Milton Friedman, an economist, in 1955, the principle is compellingly simple. The state pays; parents choose; schools compete; standards rise; everybody gains.
Simple, perhaps, but it has aroused predictable—and often fatal—opposition from the educational establishment. Letting parents choose where to educate their children is a silly idea; professionals know best. Co-operation, not competition, is the way to improve education for all. Vouchers would increase inequality because children who are hardest to teach would be left behind.
But these arguments are now succumbing to sheer weight of evidence. Voucher schemes are running in several different countries without ill-effects for social cohesion; those that use a lottery to hand out vouchers offer proof that recipients get a better education than those that do not.
Harry Patrinos, an education economist at the World Bank, cites a Colombian programme to broaden access to secondary schooling, known as PACES, a 1990s initiative that provided over 125,000 poor children with vouchers worth around half the cost of private secondary school. Crucially, there were more applicants than vouchers. The programme, which selected children by lottery, provided researchers with an almost perfect experiment, akin to the “pill-placebo” studies used to judge the efficacy of new medicines. The subsequent results show that the children who received vouchers were 15-20% more likely to finish secondary education, five percentage points less likely to repeat a grade, scored a bit better on scholastic tests and were much more likely to take college entrance exams.
Voucher programmes in several American states have been run along similar lines. Greg Forster, a statistician at the Friedman Foundation, a charity advocating universal vouchers, says there have been eight similar studies in America: seven showed statistically significant positive results for the lucky voucher winners; the eighth also showed positive results but was not designed well enough to count.
The voucher pupils did better even though the state spent less than it would have done had the children been educated in normal state schools. American voucher schemes typically offer private schools around half of what the state would spend if the pupils stayed in public schools. The Colombian programme did not even set out to offer better schooling than was available in the state sector; the aim was simply to raise enrolment rates as quickly and cheaply as possible.
These results are important because they strip out other influences. Home, neighbourhood and natural ability all affect results more than which school a child attends. If the pupils who received vouchers differ from those who don't—perhaps simply by coming from the sort of go-getting family that elbows its way to the front of every queue—any effect might simply be the result of any number of other factors. But assigning the vouchers randomly guarded against this risk.
Opponents still argue that those who exercise choice will be the most able and committed, and by clustering themselves together in better schools they will abandon the weak and voiceless to languish in rotten ones. Some cite the example of Chile, where a universal voucher scheme that allows schools to charge top-up fees seems to have improved the education of the best-off most.
The strongest evidence against this criticism comes from Sweden, where parents are freer than those in almost any other country to spend as they wish the money the government allocates to educating their children. Sweeping education reforms in 1992 not only relaxed enrolment rules in the state sector, allowing students to attend schools outside their own municipality, but also let them take their state funding to private schools, including religious ones and those operating for profit. The only real restrictions imposed on private schools were that they must run their admissions on a first-come-first-served basis and promise not to charge top-up fees (most American voucher schemes impose similar conditions).
The result has been burgeoning variety and a breakneck expansion of the private sector. At the time of the reforms only around 1% of Swedish students were educated privately; now 10% are, and growth in private schooling continues unabated.
Anders Hultin of Kunskapsskolan, a chain of 26 Swedish schools founded by a venture capitalist in 1999 and now running at a profit, says its schools only rarely have to invoke the first-come-first-served rule—the chain has responded to demand by expanding so fast that parents keen to send their children to its schools usually get a place. So the private sector, by increasing the total number of places available, can ease the mad scramble for the best schools in the state sector (bureaucrats, by contrast, dislike paying for extra places in popular schools if there are vacancies in bad ones).
More evidence that choice can raise standards for all comes from Caroline Hoxby, an economist at Harvard University, who has shown that when American public schools must compete for their students with schools that accept vouchers, their performance improves. Swedish researchers say the same. It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition.


Parth J. Shah National Coordinator India.
School Choice Campaign

PM Speaks

WARNING: INDIA PRIME MINISTER DR. MANMOHAN SINGH TURNS RED

By Manuwant Choudhary

To all who saw India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh as the great liberaliser his statement calling for India Inc. to cut salaries of its top CEOs has come as a shock.
Dr. Singh says paying such high salaries will increase the gap between the rich and poor and that there would be a backlash.
Haven't we heard similar statements issued by commies and Congressmen for the past 50 years until India went bankrupt!
Let us judge the Prime Minister on merit. The poor Indian does not even know what salaries CEOs get. So the question of a backlash against the rich CEO is farfetched. But yes instead of calling for a cut in salary the PM should have called for more growth, more jobs, more salaries which would mean less unemployment, less poverty and less dependence on social security.
Would Indian CEOs living abroad return to work in India with lower packages? If the best brains are not paid what they deserve (the market decides not the PM), then will the brain drain stop?
Mr. Sunil Mittal, newly elected president of CII, rightly opposes the PMs idea when he says that there are not enough trained CEOs at the top to take the jobs. Why? Because the Indian government has not just a ceiling on land but also on the number of IITs and IIMs in the country. Why can't we have 100 IIMs in the country instead of this stupid debate about which caste gets what seats.
The PM must come out with a white paper on how many students actually leave for foreign universities for their MBA. With just that money the 100 IIMs can be built. But this socialist government believes money spent abroad is alright, in India education must be free.
Just to remind all those who have hopes from this Congress government, the survival of this government depends on the CPI (M) and a lesser known story is that it is not the Congress Party but the Communist sardar Harkishen Singh Surjeet who asked Sonia Gandhi to make Manmohan PM.

LONDONSCAPE

Trafalgar Square green with turf

Trafalgar Square has been transformed into a green space.
More than 2,000 sq m of turf has been laid as part of Visit London's campaign to promote green spaces and villages in the city.
The grass will cover the square for two days during which visitors will be able to soak up the sunshine in specially laid-out deckchairs or enjoy a picnic.
The turf, which has been sourced from the Vale of York, will then be moved to Bishops Park in Hammersmith and Fulham.
Chief executive of Visit London James Bidwell said: "From the rural feel of areas like Bexley Village and Wimbledon, to urban villages like Marylebone and even Canary Wharf, the campaign will help everyone discover Village London."
Courtesy: BBC News

CONGRESS BILLS AGAINST FREEDOM

Double standard on foreign money Yes to Industry, no to NGO

USING A SLEDGEHAMMER TO SWAT A FLY


If Parliament's Standing Committee on Home Affairs, which is currently deliberating on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2006, decides that repealing and replacing the FCRA, 1976, is good and fine, NGOs and Media will lose another slice of freedom.

By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta

There are non-governmental organisations and there are NGOs. There are NGOs that spend more on their staffers than on the underprivileged for whom their hearts are supposed to be bleeding. And there are NGOs and quasi-NGOs (or QUANGOs) that have made a huge difference to lives of ordinary people, much more than the government and corporate bodies have. Philanthropy may not change the planet we live in, but there should be very good reasons for not encouraging the transfer of wealth and resources from the rich to the poor in this highly unequal and stratified society of ours. It is this context that the Union government's hamhanded efforts to regulate the flow of foreign funds to NGOs should be condemned in no uncertain terms.
Parliament's Standing Committee on Home Affairs is currently deliberating on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2006, which, if enacted, would repeal and replace the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 1976. The opening sentence of the bill says that it is meant “to consolidate the law to regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain individuals or associations or companies and to prohibit acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.
The intention of the bill appears quite reasonable. Or does it? A perusal of the bill's fineprint reveals the devil in the detail and makes apparent why a host of representatives of NGOs have described the proposed new law as “draconian”, “dangerous” and of “questionable merit” that would “stifle” and “choke” the way in which civil society organisations work. It is argued that the bill would give power to civil servants to “interfere” and “undermine” the activities of NGOs and violate the human rights and democratic freedom of their representatives.
Are NGOs overreacting? Is the government justified in wanting to closely control and monitor the flow of foreign funds coming to civil society groups, some of whose activities could be construed as antinational, or even subversive?
The bill proposes a blanket prohibition of foreign contributions to organisations of a “political nature, not being political parties”. Under the FCRA, 1976, such “political” organisations could receive foreign funds only after the prior permission of the ministry of home affairs (MHA), which is responsible for administering the Act. The new bill, however, leaves it to the subjective judgement of bureaucrats to determine whether or not the activities, ideology or programmes of a particular NGO have any association with those of a political party.
The bill states that the Union government will provide a certificate of registration or give prior permission to an organisation to receive foreign contributions if it is satisfied that the applicant “has undertaken meaningful activity in its chosen field for the benefit of the people” or “has prepared a meaningful project for the benefit of the people”. Once again, the word “meaningful” and the phrase “benefit of the people” are open to be interpreted in a highly discretionary manner.
Whereas the registration of an NGO is permanent and free under the current FCRA, the new bill requires recipients of foreign funds to renew their registration every five years and introduces a scheme of payment of fees for registration, renewal of registration and prior approval for receipt of funds. Representatives of NGOs say this provision in the bill would not only generate inconvenience but could also lead to harassment by government officials. They point out that NGOs are, in any case, subject to existing laws such as the Income Tax Act and have to have their accounts audited.
The bill also seeks to impose a 50 per cent limit on the total quantum of foreign contributions received by an NGO that can be spent as “administrative expenses”. Significantly, the bill contains certain provisions meant for the media. It prohibits any association, company, correspondent or editor engaged in the production or broadcast of audio or audiovisual news or current affairs programmes from receiving foreign contributions. In other words, if the new bill becomes law, no foreign organisation can provide a grant to an Indian organisation to make a radio or television programme or a
documentary film meant for broadcast. It should be noted that this particular provision of the bill, tabled in the Rajya Sabha on December 18, 2006, has been almost completely ignored by the country's media, which is usually alert about any attempt by the government to encroach on its independence.
The FCRA came into existence during the infamous Emergency period when Indira Gandhi was prime minister. During the 1980s and the 1990s, various amendments were made in the act and rules were introduced to enable the MHA to exercise greater control over the activities of NGOs. One such rule pertained to seeking prior permission of the government before an NGO could change its office bearers or directors. It was in June 2005 that the MHA first stated that a new bill to amend the FCRA was in the offing, well after the Foreign Exchange Management Act as well as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had been enacted.
A few important points need to be noted in the context of the bill to amend the FCRA. There are some in the Bharatiya Janata Party who believe that foreign funds received by NGOs have been used (and continue to be used) to “convert” poor Hindus into Christians. We are all aware of what the views of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are in this regard. Although the National Democratic Alliance government was voted out of power in May 2004, there are undoubtedly quite a few in the bureaucracy, and perhaps even in the ruling Congress party, who believe that foreign contributions to NGOs should be curbed for this reason alone. Then, as far as the source of funds of NGOs is concerned, it is fairly simple for government authorities to ascertain where foreign money is coming from because all such transactions have to take place legally through regular banking channels. Why, then, is there need to exercise more controls?
It is curious that the government should be seeking to curb and monitor the flow of foreign funds to NGOs when it is bending over backwards to welcome foreign direct investment as well as foreign institutional investors in the country's stock markets. Finally, the MHA is dominated by police officers and their attitudes have clearly been reflected in the manner in which the bill to control foreign contributions has been drafted. As the old saying goes, the government is trying to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly.