Too bad, the emphasis was on ‘for profit schools’, rather than the emphasis on Pearson providing low cost alternatives on the delivery of education. And in this case, the essential tools of textbooks, and other educational materials.

The public education systems of developing countries have always done a poor job in delivering education to their citizens of low income and below. Probably the top reason why parents of low income are turning to private schools, based on quality of delivering the education to their children. In places like India and China (even though both countries have healthy bank balances), 60 percent of the population of both countries have levels of grade 6 or grade 7, and then they go to work moving from one low-skilled job to the next by the age of 13 or 14.

The private sector such as Pearson would probably do a much better job in providing the education that would help them to improve their economic conditions, by teaching the low-income students skills that would help them to move up the income ladder.

Nancy,  The for profit schools charge a very modest fee and are miles better than the public schools.  If you look up James Tooley’s work, you will see what I mean.  Here’s a quick link http://libweb.lib.buffalo.edu/emro/emroDetail.asp?Number=2971 

Getting a decent education IS the route to improving their economic conditions.

Here’s a YouTube video of Dr. Tooley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BleGqbtyfo8

BTW, SQE sponsored a talk by Dr. Tooley here in Toronto a few years ago.

And Private Schools for The Poor:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0319.htm

Sir Michael Barber did a splendid job making the case for immediate action to meet the needs of the world’s children. As Tony Blair’s former Education Advisor, he carried tremendous weight, especially in Britain. He’s becoming the “Diane Ravitch” of British education for changing his tune.

The Harvard Public Policy Institute, at the Kennedy School, hosted a Private Conference in July with Michael Barber as the headliner. It was an invitation only event, attended by Chester Finn, Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves. By some fluke, I was invited at the very last minute and was made privy to the invited guest list.

Barber, Pearson and Fullan are now somehow connected. With Dalton McGuinty’s Education spending spree over, Fullan and company may be latching onto Pearson Education and trying to tap more into Microsoft funding. Change managers go where the action and dollars are to promote their systems. Something to keep your eye on here in Canada.

Sir Michael Barber is like a gold medalist Olympic kayaker navigating the plumes and cascades of a political minefield. Without a doubt, his capacity to stay on course and get through the extraordinarily difficult buoys with nary a hesitation was a wonder to behold. One must also give the interviewer some credit for not being a total Labour sycophant while affording Sir Michael sufficient space to get through the course.

This little interview captured the essence of the education discussion/debate magnificently and succinctly. One wants the most effective and economically reliable approach to achieve successful education on a situation by situation basis regardless of whether it is for profit, government, not for profit or NGO { BRAC,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAC_(NGO) , the NGO Sir Michael mentioned is a fascinating entity}. It is about choosing the approach that will work best in a given situation. Without meaningful change, ineffective education will remain a foundational factor for most future social problems.

Swedish ?Free Schools? Don?t Convey Freedom !

I hope the ?free school? model that UK is adopting does not transfer-in the authoritarianism of Sweden.

I think the interviewer in this interview does not really appreciate the ?danger? of adopting the ?free schools? model she keeps referring to.  I?m hoping the model is working OK in the UK.

Sweden and Germany are two developed Western nations notorious in forbidding home education.  German home educating families have chosen to become ?refugees? in North America to be able to continue home education of their children. 

Swedish parents have moved to Finland to continue home education after new laws came in recently.  This is how one parent writes:

?In Finland, the parents have the authority and natural right to direct the education of their children . . .  in Sweden and in many other countries, parents must fight for the human right to home educate. In Finland, this is unnecessary. Parents do not need to fight for something they already have, something that the state cannot remove from you. Historically, this is because the Finnish population never gave this right to government, whereas in Sweden, the population failed to oppose laws that effectively removed parental responsibility for the education of children. This is known as the Swedish state?s ?school-duty,? and it continues to provide the basis for disgraceful actions such as the new Swedish education law . . .

I applaud any moves such as low-cost-private-education that Sir Michael Barber promotes as long as parents do not cede, to some other entity. their rights, duties and obligations to their children.  It seems to me that these private schools, where parents vote with their feet and scarce dollars, guarantee parent rights better than any government schools ever can anywhere.