He works for the World Bank/IMF, OMG that is all you need to know. They have a deliberate policy of destroying public education systems all over the world by demanding the privatization of public schools before they will advance any loans.

If I ever saw this guy you would have to put away the sharp objects.

Watch two videos where Diane Ravitch destroys the charter and testing movement.

Dr. Tooley (who spoke in Toronto a few years back at a seminar co-sponsored by SQE), is a professor at the U. of Newcastle in the UK.  While he has consulted for the World Bank, he has also done the same for the UN and UNESCO.  His work explores how the world’s poorest people can get a decent, and in most cases a better education than publicly offered.

I would not trust anyone who ever worked, even on contract for the World Bank in education. They are destroying thousands of lives around the world with forced privatizations.

Oh Doug, why dismiss without looking into it. The governments of the developed countries also denies of the existence of the private schools for the poor, and when face with evidence, they counter will the same arguments as you do. Kinda lame, isn’t it?
“Tooley began seeking out and finding private schools for the poor across the developing world, interviewing students, principals, parents and officials in China, Ghana, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Somaliland and beyond. Parents everywhere cited similar reasons for paying the small fees for private schools rather than sending their kids to state schools. For some, especially in rural areas, the public schools were too far from their homes. To others, teachers and administrators in private schools seemed more attuned to their concerns. And despite the foreign aid and state spending on public school facilities, many parents simply felt that their children learned more in private schools. “What’s the point of having such nice buildings,“ asked a mother in a fishing village in Ghana, “if learning doesn’t go on?“

The officials Tooley encountered in his travels often denied the existence (much less the superiority) of private schools for low-income children. “There are no private schools for the poor,“ a bureaucrat in China’s Gansu province told Tooley, “because the People’s Republic has provided all the poor with public schools. So what you propose to research does not only not exist, it is also a logical impossibility.“

Undeterred, Tooley spent years surveying private schools across the developing world. He found that, on average, they had smaller class sizes, higher test scores and more motivated teachers, all while spending less than public schools. With the zeal of a convert, Tooley invokes the market’s “invisible hand” to explain why private schools perform better: When parents pay the fees that keep a school afloat, he reasons, the school becomes more accountable to them. Tooley blasts development experts for recognizing the problems with public education and still insisting that more investment in public schools is the way to go. “Why wasn’t anyone else thinking that private schools might be part of a quicker, easier, more effective solution?“ he asks.“
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061901547_pf.html
Another article, pointed out, “The Beautiful Tree could have explored one question more thoroughly: when parents pay tuition, does it affect how they and their children perceive education? Tooley does a fine job mining the ways in which tuition creates school accountability, but might the payments not also render a parent more likely to value his child’s schooling and, therefore, to demand that his child be academically diligent? If so, the wisdom of providing free public education might be more tenuous than is generally assumed.“
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0619lj.htm

I would agree, that a free public education in today’s world, that accountability is a very loose word, and where payment of a service, accountability is a given, between the vendor and purchaser.

Are these inexpensive private schools destroying thousands of lives?  What utter nonsense.

From what I can see this is saving thousands, maybe millions.  It is helping people get out of poverty.

Read the transcript of School’s Out a documentary that looks at the schools Dooley describes.  It was produced for Life TV in the UK and sponsored by the International Fund for Agricultural Development and Oxfam to name a few.

http://www.tve.org/lifeonline/index.cfm?aid=1721

“PROFESSOR JAMES TOOLEY, Head of Education Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne:
‘I believe these private schools are a threat to governments, to international agencies and to academics. They’re a threat to governments because if governments can’t get basic education right then what can they get right. They are a threat to international agencies because they’ve spent billions over the years on public education – perhaps that money’s been misdirected. And they threaten academics’ ideological purity, if you like. They threaten that because they believe in state education – somehow the poor don’t go along with their beliefs.‘“

Totally depends where the definition of a private school begins and ends. In the remote, and back a few years some not so remote villages in China set up “people run” schools because they wanted a school and much like rural electrification, the state had just not made it that far out yet. When the state finally made it to these villages they offered to set up state schools but the people were very happy with their “people run” schools. You might see them as a cross between a cooperative or a “little red schoolhouse” of our own past. The villagers wanted to keep them because they had grown accustomed to local control. Eventually compromises were arranged. The must be non-profit coops, and the central government would subsidize them to a certain extent. They could not preach anti-revolutionary thought and needed to include some elements of Maoism but were allowed to stay under local control for many years.

The question is really, is a locally run non-profit school a public school or a private (non-state) school? Good question. To me, they are locally controlled public schools but others may see them as a form of private school.

Newsweek Comments Interesting

That Newsweek article, Why We Need to Fire Bad Teachers, has generated over 600 comments.  It’s interesting how similar the concerns are to those we experience here in Canada.  Quite a number of comments, from teachers and citizens, agree that the system is more at fault than individual teachers. 

I really hope that policy people or at least researchers and policy advisers to government read and analyze these articles and the comments engendered.  Isn’t it so frustrating to think that no one really pays attention to all this valuable information to help improve education?

Relating to the item about private education and Dr. Tooley’s insightful observations – especially, “… if governments can’t get basic education right then what can they get right?”—I’ve come across a comment from the Newsweek story that’s interesting.

Principle1 in two long entries on pg 14 of comments makes this pitch: “I’m a teacher … It is arguable whether or not the state should even be involved in education the same way it should not be involved in religion …WE, as schools and teachers, are the ones hurting children by institutionalizing them from the age of 5 …Our current system is NOT NATURAL, it is NOT EFFICIENT and it never will be as long as government stays involved …”  And his outpourings go on…….

But, other comments have taken up the fact that the system is unnatural, it is forced, coerced, etc.  More people are seeing that naturalness—that if you invest in something—you will—whether parent or student—be more committed.  This notion of a forced labor camp, a one-system-fits all, with ideological agendas, is being increasingly challenged.

“But, other comments have taken up the fact that the system is unnatural, it is forced, coerced, etc.  More people are seeing that naturalness—that if you invest in something—you will—whether parent or student—be more committed.  This notion of a forced labor camp, a one-system-fits all, with ideological agendas, is being increasingly challenged.“
The public education system is build around the employees, and where students are force to adapt to the completing agendas. Policies are designed with purpose of targeting a narrowing student population, that meet specific criteria measures. As a result, all students are seen as groups, and not as individuals, with their unique learning needs.
One response from the education system, to the complaints voiced on one-system-fits-all, is to change the accommodation model, from one that was mainly for students who needed accommodations to meet their learning needs in the classroom, to one where it has been expanded to include, social factors. As a result, the new policy has made it that much harder for LD students in the classroom, to obtain accommodations such as taped books, to having a quiet room to write exams,  because the shift has moved from education needs to social needs. For example, a student in my daughter’s grade 9 class, has the highest grade average,  no learning problems, and comes from a low-income family, and she is on pathway 2 accommodations for two subjects. This child is obviously doing well, and has no need for accommodations, and as a parent with a LD child, I do get steamed after winning battles of getting accommodations for my child, other children without learning problems are receiving accommodations on income level alone.
The policies are designed, to exclude children who do not meet the norm. As a result, their learning needs, are of a lower priority than the needs of the normal student population.

This is a theory Tunya that has not worked out in practice in the USA. Nobody wants vouchers, they lose every single vote when people are allowed to vote. Charters have demonstrated zero ability to improve outcomes. The simple elegance of Linda Darling-Hammond’s statement “that is simply not the way that the successful nations are doing it” sums up the whole debate. The countries like Finland, Japan, Korea, Singapore, other Scandinavian countries are investing massively in their public systems and racing ahead while the uber testing charter disaster in the USA sinks like a stone.

“nobody wants vouchers”
Tsk. Only the poor, marginalized, unempowered parents want and LIKE vouchers and charters.  They are the ones that demanded them.  Black Democratic politicians in the US are in quite a pickle when whats good for their average constituent is at odds with their natural lobbyist allies (i.e. teachers unions) want.  Ask Howard Fuller.

Successful nations like Japan, Korea, and Singapore do not teach the way western nations do.  They do not use “progressive” constructivist methods but stick to the tried and true methods of direct instruction.  They “simply” do it because they have high standards, clear curricula, longer school days and year, larger classes, and lots of testing to measure results.

Every single time people have the opportunity to vote on vouchers in a state wide referendum or “initiative” they go down to igominious defeat which is why the privatizers have largely switched to charters. Charters on the other hand, have sucked up all the air in the room and produced nothing. In most cases their results are lowers than PSs. Japn, Korea and Singapore have taught in the way you suggest for generations with only moderate success but in recent years, Korea has stashed its class sizes and shot forward. They have all radically increased their investments in public education which is why they do so well.

They are not following the American privatization plan.

Doug, where are you getting your information from?
Korea, Japan and the other Asian countries, have schools that are highly structured, and furthermore the Asian culture prizes an education above all other things, An education is the status symbol. Here is a Washington Post article, that talks about their saving rate, and what they spend their money on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072903191.html
After you read that, I see no evidence while I was searching, that Korea or Japan have change their teaching instruction, nor their cultural values of education. There are at the top, because basics are taught first, and where in North American schools, many of the basics are skimmed over, or omitted, in favour of knowledge.
Blog - http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/07/south-korea-fact-of-the-day.html

Vouchers ‘go down’ because rich, powerful teacher unions fight against them. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/obama_and_vouchers.html)

Listen to the real poor people who fight for them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM

Doretta, you are talking about pedagogy I am talking about ideological direction. The Asian nations among other highly successful nations are “investing in their public education sectors”. They are cutting class sizes like Korea. They are not privatizing.

BTW North American teachers would just love to get Asian style prep time.

It is facinating that SQE denies its underlying privatization while Doretta gives a full court press defence of vouchers. Privatizers love vouchers, PS supporters hate them. Which is it?

Vouchers don’t lose because of the big bad unions. They lose because when you ask people “Do you want public tax dollars spent on private schools?“ the overwhelming opinion is no they do not. The entire concept is so widly unpopular that American privatizers, (Bill Gates, Eli Broad, The Waltons of Walmart) have switched to charters. This allows them to make a big profit from corporate charters like KIPP and still try to call them a public school which, of course, is a joke.

Support for vouchers is not the same as “privatization” whatever that means.  The tone of your comments just prove why you continue to perpetuate the hysterical myths that you do.

Vouchers are the definition of privatization. Privatization is a process not a product. You don’t need to advocate the privatization of the entire system. Advocation of giving any money whatsoever to private, independent or other non-accountable schools constitutes privatization of education. The vast majority of parents and citizens oppose it. It seems that you Doretta, support it.

Doug, vouchers are not the same as privatization, nor should it be interpreted as being privatization.
Vouchers would work well, within the public education system, especially in rural areas. To give an example, there is a school 45 km away from me, that offers the type of programing that would be ideal for my child. I suspect other parents would jump at the chance for the very same reasons, The vouchers could be used as payment for bus services running back and forth, over some of the most dangerous roads in the province. It takes about a hour to do the run, one way. There is another school, 54 km away that offers French Immersion. Here too, would have their fair share of parents enrolling their child. There is another school, that offers a great selection of athletics, that some parents would jump at the chance, and that school is, 75 kms away.
In urban areas, and the big cities, parents of low income, would love to be able to send their children away from the drugs, violence that their children see daily, to other schools, where the neighbourhood, have far less crime. Here too, low-income parents have a difficult time to find the money for transportation. In fact Doug, it has been going on for years, where parents of low-income, will lie on current address, just to get their own kids out of the local school, to a better school. The usual MO, they used addresses of a close relative or family friend. There has never been data collected on it, since the schools or the boards do not have the manpower to check out every student’s addresses. Vouchers can be use for a variety of purposes, and one day it may be the Saviour of the public education system. As for charter schools, and private schools, the main concentration will still be in heavily built-up areas, and far less of it in rural parts. For rural parents choice may lie where vouchers can be use for transportation costs to go to another public school, or stay at the local school, without a voucher or decide to take the home-school route. I bet for the most part, parents will elect to take the voucher and stay within the public education system, as opposed to taking the charter route, where extra costs over and above and other social factors, may be difficult for both child and parent(s).
I have observed it through my life, since high school, and know many, personally who lied about their addresses, to get their child in School B, rather than School A. I also experience the bureaucratic nightmare in the Ontario’s education system, the hoops that a parent has to jump through, to transfer to a school, that is just outside the zone. I know, it took me 3 months, and I discovered how phoning the premier’s office, can moved mountains with one phone call. Before you response, it does not matter what party is ruling in the Premier’s office. When a parent takes the time to phone the office, and voiced a complaint, in a civil tone without sarcasm, you be surprised how the very top of the political ladder, they will use their power to solve the problem of a parent. The only reason why, their hope is that we are an isolated case, and are praying to their gods that most parents stay ignorant of the political structure of the education system. Soon, that will come to an end, because their is a network being build, and it is a very loose network, composed of parents who are trading their expertise with other parents expertise. My last bit of advice to a parent who lives in Western Canada, was about the structure, and what makes it tick. That little piece of knowledge, her problem was successfully solved, and she was very happy with the final solution for her child, but the school in question, and the board were not happy campers, especially now that operations and the administration is being look at with a fine-tooth comb, from the upper levels of education system.
The public education system will rue the day for building a system, that does not necessarily meet the needs of children and their parents. There is a ground swell of parents, who have been busy over the last 10 years, building crucial knowledge, educating themselves, reading heavy duty tomes as our leisure reading material, to understand the public education system and all its parts. The last thing, I would described the public education system, would be accountable and transparent. But these are the words that are often used by our public education system, and these days, when I hear those words, I know they are hiding something from the public and it usually signifies a furthering erosion of education that matters.

It may be a moot point because vouchers are never coming to Canada and dying out in the USA but as long as it is possible to cash a voucher at a private school then it is privatization pure and simple full stop, nobody wants it.

I don’t support privatization.  What didn’t you understand in my last post?

I support individual families being allowed to make choices for their children.  This is not the same thing.

I suppose the Ontario medical system is “privatized” because my family doctor who runs his/her practice, pays office rent, hires and pays for a staff, etc. gets paid for his/her services with public health care funds?  What’s the difference? 

We get to choose our doctors so why can’t we choose our schools?

Considering all those years ago in the early ‘70s I likely sat next to our Premier at those rallies protesting the lack of funding for secondary schools, or the years when my own children attended publicly-funded Catholic schools and we were asked to write letters to minister after minister to ask for equal funding for our schools,
did the education system get “privatized” when education funds got extended to private Catholic high school grades 11-13?

Funny, I thought that made them public—hardly privatizing education then is it?