Low-fee private schools, the state, and globalization: A market analysis within the political sociology of education and development

Abstract

This study investigates the emergence and supply-demand dynamics of a market for low-fee private schools (LFPS) at the level of early childhood care and education (ECCE) in a slum of Lusaka, Zambia. Based on data collection over 1.5 years, the study reveals that, despite a government policy to support ECCE, over 90% of ECCE centers are private; that school operators tend to be former teachers, businessmen/women, and religious leaders; and that LFPSs charge, on average, 2.5 times as much as government ECCE centers for tuition, not including additional indirect costs. The paper discusses how teachers in LFPSs are caught in the middle, making less than the average income earned by others in the surrounding slum, and are unable to afford LFPS fees themselves. Importantly, the paper highlights that lower income quintiles spend a greater percentage of their income on ECCE, and that a majority of families in the study must make tradeoffs between ECCE, food, housing, and other basic expenditures in order to afford private ECCE, which is a necessity given the inadequate supply of government ECCE centers. In addition to addressing school strategies for keeping costs down, this study reports on parental decision-making when it comes to school selection. Finally, beyond a straight market analysis of LFPSs at the ECCE level in Zambia, this article also comments on how this market fits into the dialectical nature of local and global contexts. That is, it draws attention to the workings of the Zambian state and its precarious position in the global capitalist economy.

(Un)intended consequences in current ECEC policies: Revealing and examining hidden agendas

“…The most extreme example is Liberia, which has outsourced all primary and pre-primary schools, opening the door to far-ranging privatization of its educational system (Akoojee, 2017). PPPs are indeed often based on the needs and the demands of the local community, as governments are not able to meet the demand for ECEC (Edwards et al., 2019). Therefore, many international actors are happy to step in and promote LFPSs as quality education, all while profiting from the needs of families and children.…”

“…Therefore, many international actors are happy to step in and promote LFPSs as quality education, all while profiting from the needs of families and children. Thus, they offer education at low cost but also predominantly low quality, due to the poor infrastructure; multi-grade classrooms; and low-paid, young teachers with minimal qualifications who must follow prescribed curricula (East African Centre for Human Rights (EACHRights), 2017; Edwards et al., 2019). Nevertheless, they are quite successful in convincing parents of the superiority of LFPS.…”

“…Furthermore, families must make welfare sacrifices and forego basic needs. Edwards et al. (2019) point out with regard to the situation in Zambia thatthe poorest parents spend a larger portion of their earnings on schooling—when these earnings should arguably go to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, etc.—only to send their children to ECECs that are more lacking in terms of resources, teacher qualifications, and the quality of the physical space.…”

“…(2019) point out with regard to the situation in Zambia thatthe poorest parents spend a larger portion of their earnings on schooling—when these earnings should arguably go to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, etc.—only to send their children to ECECs that are more lacking in terms of resources, teacher qualifications, and the quality of the physical space. (Edwards et al., 2019: 26)Governments, which are not willing to invest in a sustainable system of ECEC and instead allow, or even support, the spread of LFPSs, are aware of these side effects, yet still let it happen.…”

“…the poorest parents spend a larger portion of their earnings on schooling—when these earnings should arguably go to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, etc.—only to send their children to ECECs that are more lacking in terms of resources, teacher qualifications, and the quality of the physical space. (Edwards et al., 2019: 26)…”