• Report proposes SA Govt. authorities should highly consider private sector partnership in education and set up effective oversight systems and ensure equal access to quality education

Non-State actors in South Asia grew to meet several education related demands, and factors such as the desire for higher quality education closer to home, the preference for religious values in a changing world, the persisting demand for English language education, the rise of a market for tutoring to make up for where schooling had failed, and the need for quick solutions to cover in times of crisis, all of which play a part in the region’s now diverse education systems. One of the critical questions in this regard is how Governments can establish a just and effective oversight of the multiple actors.

This was mentioned in the recently issued global education monitoring report 2022 titled “South Asia: Non-State Actors in Education: Who Chooses? Who Loses?” which was issued jointly by several entities including the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and Institute of Policy Studies, Sri Lanka. 

Adding that the rise of non-State actors in education has helped contribute to the fact that access to education has expanded more rapidly in South Asia in the past three decades than the rest of the world, however the report queries relevant Ministries to consider who loses when choices of different forms of education are made available and the mechanism to ensure that people’s right to a quality education is not put at risk.

Sri Lanka and key messages

Early childhood care and education provision is dominated by non-State providers in the region, and the private sector is often the main provider at this level in many countries, accounting for 71% in Sri Lanka, as per the report. Iran and Sri Lanka have the highest shares (80%) in pre-primary education, while their respective shares in primary and secondary education have historically been well below the average, as have those in Afghanistan, Bhutan and the Maldives. “In Sri Lanka, the Government has traditionally seen itself as the sole provider of education. It has considered schools that are catering to children aged 5 - 14 years registered as business organisations under the supervision of the Registrar of Companies or the Board of Investment, as illegal. More recent policy documents indicate a change in perceptions towards the non-State sector. Objectives under Proposals for a National Policy on General Education in Sri Lanka 2016, Reimagining Education in Sri Lanka 2020 and the Sri Lanka General Education Sector Development Plan 2020–2025 recognise the need for these schools to be regulated and monitored at the national and Provincial Government levels.”

International schools

The report stated: “In Sri Lanka, networks of international schools have highly competitive admissions, teach an international curriculum and expect students to study at higher education institutions abroad. A study conducted in four international schools in Sri Lanka showed that, in addition to the English language fluency, foreign curricula and certification mattered to parents. They also perceived access to education technology and online resources as beneficial. International schools offered flexibility in subject choices and parents said that they thought that their children’s education, general knowledge and social skills were markedly better than those of their public school counterparts. But, a major concern is their use of foreign curricula, which produces a generation of Sri Lankans with knowledge about the outside world but little awareness of Sri Lankan history, culture and geography.”

It added that private tutoring is highly prevalent, partly due to quality related concerns but primarily because of the competitive formal education and employment landscape, and that in Sri Lanka, the percentage of households spending on private tutoring has increased between 41% in 1995-1996 to 65% in 2016 for urban households and from 19% to 62% for rural households. In Bhutan and Sri Lanka, the share of private institutions in tertiary enrollment is about 12%, the lowest in the region. However, still limited Government capacity, the tightening of public budgets and fear over high levels of brain drain have led both countries to ask non-State providers for support.

Among the key messages of the report were that non-State actors are significantly involved in every aspect of education systems in South Asia; that the inadequate supply and law quality of public education, combined with parental aspirations, have driven private education expansion from early childhood to tertiary education; that a highly competitive education system and labour market in the region have led to a major boom in private tutoring and that the growth of education technology companies, non-profit actors and civil society institutions have played a major role in improving access for girls and the marginalised communities and in holding Governments and the private sector accountable; that the expansion of access primarily through payment/fees based non-State activities has not been equitable; that quality education is not the exclusive preserve of any one type of actor; that innovation is often led by non-State actors, but that no type of institution has a monopoly on it; that existing regulations focus more on entry and input requirements than equity and quality; that the lack of adequate Government capacity, and mutual mistrust between Government and non-State providers hamper regulation enforcement; and also that public–private partnerships in technical and vocational education attempt to catalyse private sector support for skills training.

The way forward

To address the aforementioned issues, the report recommended a number of steps, which it explained should include partnerships, the support of both public and private entities, and the improved support of the Government. Recommending to fulfill the commitment to make a year of pre-primary and 12 years of primary and secondary education free, the report noted that publicly financed does not have to mean publicly provided if equity can be ensured. “Any substantial commitment to increase financing should be complemented by Government efforts to bolster the public sector’s capacity to plan, absorb and dispense funds, and ensure proper oversight. Otherwise, existing governance related challenges will greatly reduce the efficacy of any increased financing as when Governments financially support privately operated institutions, they need to ensure that the financing mechanisms are equitable. Contracting out management, subsidising operational costs and funding households may not always reach those left the furthest behind. The careful regulation of fees and the monitoring of commercialisation are critical to limit exclusion.” It stressed that the existing inequitable education financing system thus needs to be better monitored. Setting quality standards that apply to all State and non-State education institutions and improving the State capacity to ensure their application, are also a part of these recommendations. “Governments need to establish quality standards on inputs, processes and results and efficiently apply them to all education institutions. Standards should help schools improve. Teachers need to be valued as professionals. Governments need to gradually address challenges such as segmented teacher labour markets and the wide inequality in pay and conditions. Government acknowledgement of problems and efforts to improve public schooling quality are essential in order to ensure that similar standards are achieved in all types of schools. Some non-State education providers may enjoy considerable autonomy, for historical or cultural reasons, and be reluctant to accept scrutiny whether they are faith based or profit oriented. Government oversight through school inspections, evaluations and learning assessments should apply to all providers. The State capacity to implement these mechanisms should be factored into their design.” The establishment of common monitoring and support processes that apply to all state and non-State institutions was also recommended. “All education providers should be regulated as education entities under a common umbrella to facilitate coordination, information sharing and planning. Some providers are regulated as businesses in early childhood care and education, private tutoring and vocational training. This allows them to exist outside the regulatory control of education systems. Similarly, other providers are supervised only by social protection Ministries or religious authorities. Such fragmentation of responsibilities can lead to gaps in authority and limit the holistic treatment of the education system,” according to the report, which further noted that regulations need to be simple, transparent and efficient. In addition, it was further recommended that Governments build a relationship of trust with non-State providers, encouraging them to register, eliminating arbitrariness in rules and communicating the right incentives for them to run schools effectively for the learners’ benefit, to protect children whose families have placed them in private schools and to convey the message that they care for all children’s education, irrespective of the type of school that they attend, and lastly, that Governments develop regulatory frameworks to prevent private tutoring from undermining the quality and equity objectives of the formal schooling system. Another recommendation was facilitating the spread of innovation through the education system for the common good, regarding which it was noted that policymakers should encourage the identification of good practices and innovation and give good ideas time and space to develop, while Governments should use a consultative approach and work in partnership with all actors. “Governments need fresh ideas in education and should bring together those who can develop them. To achieve that, they need to train education officers and managers to be able to identify and develop such ideas. Governments also should look for lessons from non-State actors, especially on the use of autonomous and contextualised, flexible approaches to teaching and learning for marginalised learners.” it added. In addition, among the recommendations were maintaining transparency, inclusivity and integrity in public education policy processes. In this regard, it was recommended that the Government capacity to manage the diverse set of actors seeking to influence policy be strengthened, that communications with public officials about education legislation, policy and regulation be transparent, and that policymakers be open to listening to multiple stakeholders. It was noted that to maintain the integrity of policymaking processes, a range of accountability and transparency measures need to be in place.

Bullet points

Early childhood care and education provision dominated by non-State providers in South Asia, 71% in Sri Lanka