relevant policies for school education reform

Relevant policies for school education reform

Dec 20, 2013

Slides used at School Choice National Conference

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARYAny use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited

McKinsey & Company | 2

Immense need for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in school education

All the possible options for under-privileged children… …can benefit significantly from PPP

▪ Well-structured private expertise could help improve the qualityGovernment schools

▪ No robust selection or performance evaluation ▪ Well-defined PPP needed for quality

enhancement

Government aided schools (an existing form of public-private partnership or PPP)

Affordable private schools

▪ Very small in number/volume▪ PPP critical to reduce donor funding and

therefore make them scalable

Donor-funded schools (sometimes with government infrastructure)

▪ Quality challenges▪ May not sustain without RTE compliance

Non-RTE compliant: say, Rs. 300-700/ month fee

▪ PPP critical to make them affordable and therefore scalable

“RTE-superimposed” likely to be Rs. 1200-1500++/ month in fee

▪ The model may need refinements to address implementation challenges

25% reservation in elite schools as per RTE (an existing form of PPP)


Kinds of public-private partnerships in school education

Five kinds of public-private partnership possible

Government interest

▪ Running schools with government infrastructure and private teachers

▪ Fully private schools with some government support (e.g. subsidy)

– Greenfield (new investment)

– Brownfield (existing)

▪ “Turnaround” of aided schools by enhancing the PPP model

▪ Running government schools with government teachers (“management and quality support”)

Private player interest

3

4

5

1

2

▪ Holistic system level partnership with the government

?

?

? ?

Different implications

for scale, quality and

effort (set-up effort,

sustaining effort) in

each case


A few common success factors to make any of the PPPs work…

SOURCE: McKinsey’s experiences internationally and in India

Current situation in IndiaKey success factors

▪ Most PPPs with existing infra likely to have 30-40% viability gap (e.g. Mumbai)

▪ Greenfield PPPs may be fully financially sustainable

▪ Adequate funding for the PPP to scale up

▪ Financially sustainable in the long term

▪ Not attracting the “wrong” kind of players through “excess funding”

▪ Government’s preference for a largely quantitative process; however, some early exceptions (e.g. Mumbai)

▪ High quality selection process with sufficient focus on qualitative aspects

▪ Mitigate risk of subjectivity with strong rubric and steering committee

▪ Teacher salaries likely to be regulated in most PPPs

▪ Concerns about excessive information gathering

▪ Sufficient autonomy to the private player (e.g. teacher hiring, teacher salaries, pedagogy, etc.); still relevant support from government leadership

▪ Focus more on inputs for evaluation

▪ Consequences being thought about in a binary manner

▪ Regular evaluation with sufficient to student learning outcomes

▪ Balanced by select input metrics

▪ Leeway in the first 3 years; then well-defined escalating consequences (e.g. warning and support, funding reduction, termination)

Funding

Selection

Autonomy

Outcome evaluation and consequences


…consistent with international experiences

SOURCE: McKinsey’s experiences internationally and in India

ExamplesInternational observations

▪ Charter schools, UK Academies, Pakistan PEF funded schools

▪ Education Voucher scheme Pakistan, South African PPP schools, Malaysian trust Schools.

▪ Partial operating funding from the government and gap filled through donor funds

▪ Partial operating funding from the government; gap filled through both fees and donor funds

▪ Central State Board of Education and Central Education Department for NY Charter Schools, DOE UK

▪ One or two State entities as authorizers with high political accountability

▪ Stringent selection criteria

▪ New Orleans Charter schools, Education Voucher Scheme Pakistan

▪ Forced Academies UK, many in-district charter schools – payrolls are managed by Govt

▪ Private player has complete autonomy over pedagogy, teachers, budget

▪ Private player has autonomy over pedagogy and hours but needs to adhere to some Govt. teacher norms

▪ State wide exams are used in all US States

▪ Monitoring & Evaluation unit and Academic Development Unit in Pakistan, Ofsted and Ofqual in UK,

▪ State level exams for comparison of charter students’ performance vs. Government schools

▪ Third party independent evaluation including learning outcome exams and field visits

Funding

Selection

Autonomy

Outcome evaluation and consequences


Kinds of public-private partnerships in school education

Five kinds of public-private partnership possible

Government interest

▪ Running schools with government infrastructure and private teachers

▪ Fully private schools with some government support (e.g. subsidy)

– Greenfield (new investment)

– Brownfield (existing)

▪ “Turnaround” of aided schools by enhancing the PPP model

▪ Running government schools with government teachers (“management and quality support”)

Private player interest

3

4

5

1

2

▪ Holistic system level partnership with the government

?

?

? ?

Different implications

for scale, quality and

effort (set-up effort,

sustaining effort) in

each case


Mumbai School Excellence Program (SEP) example – unique partnership

MC

AMC

DMC

EO

Zonal DEO’s DEO, SEPIn-charge

DEO central

SI

AO

BO

HM

Teachers

BO SEPIn-charge

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

for Urdu medium

for Marathi medium

SSA

Maharashtra SCERT

Text book bureau

4 implementation partners selected out of 62 entities

Related government bodies

Overall program design and program management Funding and governance

http://www.ei-india.com/


The Planning Commission has cited SEP in the country's 12th 5-year plan draft as an "innovative example" recommended for other urban bodies


Asian countries dominate the top scores in all the three subjects in PISA 2012

Reading Mathematics Science1 2 3

Rank CountryMean score

1 Shanghai-China 570

2 Hong Kong-China 545

4 Japan 538

7 Chinese Taipei 523

11 Liechtenstein 516

3 Singapore 542

5 Korea 536

8 Canada 523

12 Estonia 516

16 Macao-China 509

6 Finland 524

9 Ireland 523

13 Australia 512

17 Switzerland 509

20 Viet Nam 508

10 Poland 518

14 New Zealand 512

18 Belgium 509

21 France 505

23 United Kingdom 499

15 Netherlands 511

19 Germany 508

22 Norway 504

24 United States 498

25 Denmark 496



2 Singapore 573


7 Japan 536

11 Estonia 521


5 Korea 554

8 Liechtenstein 535

12 Finland 519

16 Germany 514

6 Macao-China 538

9 Switzerland 531

13 Poland 518

17 Viet Nam 511

20 Ireland 501

10 Netherlands 523

14 Canada 518

18 Austria 506

21 Slovenia 501

23 Denmark 500

15 Belgium 515

19 Australia 504

22 New Zealand 500

24 Czech Republic 499

25 France 495




4 Japan 547

7 Korea 538

11 Liechtenstein 525

3 Singapore 551

5 Finland 545

8 Viet Nam 528

12 Germany 524

16 Australia 521

6 Estonia 541

9 Poland 526


17 Macao-China 521

20 United Kingdom 514

10 Canada 525

14 Ireland 522

18 New Zealand 516

21 Slovenia 514

23 Austria 506

15 Netherlands 522

19 Switzerland 515

22 Czech Republic 508

24 Belgium 505

25 Latvia 502

Source: PISA 2012 Results

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-snapshot-Volume-I-ENG.pdf


Qatar has shown the biggest improvement in scores in all the three subjects followed by Kazakhstan that showed improvement in Maths and Science

Mean score in PISA 2012

494 -0.3OECD average

Annualised change in score points

Mathematics

376 9.2Qatar

432 9Kazakhstan

421 8.1Malaysia

394 5.6Albania

445 4.9Romania

613 4.2Shanghai-China

466 4.2Israel

439 4.2Bulgaria

391 4.1Brazil

573 3.8Singapore

448 3.2Turkey

413 3.1Mexico

388 3.1Tunisia

487 2.8Portugal

485 2.7Italy

518 2.6Poland

449 2.2Serbia

423 1.9Chile

560 1.7Chinese Taipei

410 1.7Montenegro

514 1.4Germany

561 1.3Hong Kong-China

388 1.2Argentina

554 1.1Korea

482 1.1Russian Federation


501 0.5OECD average


Science

425 8.1Kazakhstan

463 6.4Turkey

384 5.4Qatar

526 4.6Poland

444 3.9Thailand

439 3.4Romania

551 3.3Singapore

494 3Italy

470 2.8Israel

538 2.6Korea

547 2.6Japan

489 2.5Portugal

406 2.4Argentina

522 2.3Ireland

405 2.3Brazil

397 2.2Albania

398 2.2Tunisia


502 2Latvia

446 2Bulgaria

382 1.9Indonesia


399 1.8Colombia

521 1.6Macao-China

494 1.6Hungary


496 0.3OECD average


Reading

388 12Qatar

446 7.6Serbia

542 5.4Singapore

384 5.2Peru

422 5Montenegro


523 4.5Chinese Taipei

475 4.1Turkey

394 4.1Albania

404 3.8Tunisia

486 3.7Israel

441 3.1Chile

403 3Colombia

518 2.8Poland

516 2.4Estonia


396 2.3Indonesia

489 1.9Latvia

508 1.8Germany

488 1.6Portugal

538 1.5Japan

516 1.3Liechtenstein

485 1.2Croatia

410 1.2Brazil

475 1.1Russian Federation




Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Australia are among the biggest drops in all the three subjects


494 -0.3OECD average


Mathematics

478 -3.3Sweden

519 -2.8Finland

500 -2.5New Zealand

499 -2.5Czech Republic

504 -2.2Australia

493 -2.2Iceland

500 -1.8Denmark

523 -1.6Netherlands

515 -1.6Belgium

495 -1.5France

518 -1.4Canada

482 -1.4Slovak Republic

479 -1.4Lithuania

409 -1.4Uruguay

477 -1.3Hungary

407 -1.2Costa Rica

501 -0.6Ireland

501 -0.6Slovenia

494 -0.3United Kingdom

490 -0.3Luxembourg

489 -0.3Norway

506 0Austria

484 0.1Spain

386 0.2Jordan



501 0.5OECD average


Science

485 -3.1Sweden

545 -3Finland

471 -2.7Slovak Republic

516 -2.5New Zealand

416 -2.1Uruguay

409 -2.1Jordan

478 -2Iceland

382 -1.9Indonesia

494 -1.6Hungary

523 -1.5Chinese Taipei

525 -1.5Canada

420 -1.4Malaysia

467 -1.1Greece

508 -1Czech Republic

521 -0.9Australia

505 -0.8Belgium

506 -0.8Austria

514 -0.8Slovenia

429 -0.6Costa Rica

522 -0.5Netherlands

491 -0.3Croatia

410 -0.3Montenegro

514 -0.1United Kingdom


498 0.4Denmark


496 0.3OECD average


Reading

398 -7.8Malaysia

483 -2.8Sweden

481 -2.2Slovenia

411 -1.8Uruguay

524 -1.7Finland

512 -1.4Australia

483 -1.3Iceland

512 -1.1New Zealand

523 -0.9Canada

523 -0.9Ireland

505 0France

511 0.1Netherlands

509 0.1Belgium

496 0.1Denmark

504 0.1Norway

463 0.1Slovak Republic

490 0.2Austria

488 0.3Spain

498 0.3United States

399 0.3Jordan

436 0.4Bulgaria

493 0.5Czech Republic

490 0.5Italy

477 0.5Greece

499 0.7United Kingdom




Conversations around the world in the last two weeks

“Shanghai solidified its lead since its

entry last cycle”

“Shanghai solidified its lead since its

entry last cycle”

“Massive drop for Finland (which

previously led PISA for multiple cycles)”

“Massive drop for Finland (which

previously led PISA for multiple cycles)”

“Lithuania (previous high-flyer) now falls

to the level of the US”

“Lithuania (previous high-flyer) now falls

to the level of the US”

“Big drop in Sweden, lot of

local media reaction”

“Big drop in Sweden, lot of

local media reaction”

“Big surge for Poland (story there getting better with

every cycle)”

“Big surge for Poland (story there getting better with

every cycle)”

“Meaningful gain for Brazil, but local media

concerned with increases flattening (though recent

efforts' children still to see PISA)”

“Meaningful gain for Brazil, but local media

concerned with increases flattening (though recent

efforts' children still to see PISA)”

“Singapore regains

ground it lost last cycle”

“Singapore regains

ground it lost last cycle”

“Vietnam enters at the level of

Germany (very impressive)”

“Vietnam enters at the level of

Germany (very impressive)”


Example of tracking school processes – sample of 150 government schools


A few recommendations

Recommendations

For the Central Government

For private players and donors

Players: develop capabilities to participate in PPPs, if you really want to serve under-privileged children at scale.

Donors: move a lot more to "catalytic funding"; e.g. funding learning assessments, making PPPs viable, helping launch system transformation, rather than direct support

Launch annual national assessment of student learning – standardized, third party based, low stakes.

Develop 2-3 possible templates for a financially sustainable brownfield (i.e. with current infra) PPP policy, that includes high quality selection and evaluation of players. States can then use this template as a guiding post and customize to their needs.

For State Governments

Create and start implementation of high quality public-private-partnership policies – financially sustainable, high quality selection, outcome evaluation

Get headmasters to do self-assessment of schools on a set of well-defined processes and start at-scale dialogues with the administration on this basis. Use the national standardized assessments or launch state level versions to get a view of student learning.

Launch city by city, and district by district holistic school system transformation efforts with many of the above elements and selective well-defined use of private expertise

1

2

1

2

3

1

2


End


The Mumbai PPP policy has been established through a long journey

2008-09

2002-03 – Early initiation

▪ School adoption by Akanksha and Muktangan

▪ Early attempts to get “standard norms” with MCGM2002-03

2008-09 – Emphasis of the need

▪ School adoption with MCGM teachers by Naandi

▪ Active interaction with AMC/DMC on need for a PPP policy

2010, Jan, June – Development of the policy

▪ Committee set up by AMC

▪ Active inputs from global experts

2010-12 – Integration with school excellence program

▪ Policy set in the broader context of SEP and refined to ensure full integration

2010-12

2011-12 – Stakeholder syndication; e.g.

▪ New AMC, MC and others

▪ Education and Standing Committee Chairs

▪ Several NGO leaders

2011-12

2012-13 – Formal approvals

▪ MC signing

▪ Education committee

▪ Standing committee

▪ Corporation (legislation)

2012-13

July/Aug 2013 onwards – Implementation starting

April2013

onwards

2010, Jan, June


There is a gradual PPP schools movement starting around the country

SOURCE: Source

Several state and city governments considering PPP (not exhaustive)

However, there are several challenges to be resolved

Two significant forms of PPP already exist

▪ Private-aided schools

▪ 25% reservation for under-privileged children under RTE

Existing policies

Policies taking shape Early interest

▪ Mumbai

▪ Punjab

▪ Rajasthan

▪ MHRD

▪ …others

▪ South Delhi

▪ Gujarat

▪ Punjab

▪ …others

Several other interested governments including Thane, Bihar, etc.

▪ Policies likely to require continued partial donor funding

– Infrastructure Rs. 12–15,000/child/ annum, with teacher salary same as government

– No fee-paying students

– No alternative uses of infrastructure

▪ Very few private players with the combination of “keenness to serve under-privileged children”, “ability to operate at scale” and “financial wherewithal”

▪ Several challenges in implementation