Education International, which represents teachers unions around the world, sent out notice of a disturbing new development. International groups have determined to introduce Marley forces and payment for test scores as their response to educational needs in Africa and the Middle East. The Business-School graduates discovered a “crisis” that has existed since time began: children in impoverished countries are not getting a decent education—or, in some cases, no education at all. Yes, it is outrageous. Why are these great minds not using their brainpower to promote economic development? Asia is booming. Why not transfer some lessons learned to reduce poverty and create good jobs, rather than bring in the hedge funds and social impact investors to monetize education?
Angelo Gavrielatos of Educational International writes:
A new financing facility, the Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East is in development – with plans to become operational in the coming year. The fund commercialises and commodifies education, using tax-payer aid budgets to support private actors and investors to profit from education provision. Similar funds are being developed targeting India and Latin America.
EI responds
EI has responded directly to the EOF and publicly.
Mobilisation of Member Organisations
Education International is mobilising our Member Organisations in potentially targeted countries, which include Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, recommending that they take action to pressure their governments not to engage with the EOF.
What is the EOF and how does it work?
EOF is an initiative of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity (the Education Commission) and the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment (GSG).
As a so-called innovation in education financing, the fund aims to raise $1 billion in development impact bonds (DIBs). DIBs work by employing investment capital to pay services, in this case education provision or education related services, offered by private actors in Africa and the Middle East. If ‘outcomes targets’ are met by the service providers, investors and providers receive a return, financed in part by bilateral donors through national aid budgets.
Putting private actors in the driving seat, disregarding democracy
EOF disregards democratic governance of education by choosing to directly fund private education providers rather than strengthening public systems through the elected national government. Giving investors control and influence over their investments is given precedent over governments’ sovereignty to define their own priorities.
What is more, as reporting systems for outcomes are geared to the needs of private funders, it becomes more difficult for educators, their unions and the broader community to hold their government to account to fulfil their obligation to provide quality education for all.
Funding outcomes narrows education
The EOF argues that its model’s strength lies in the fact that it will only pay for outcomes achieved. However, results-based financing actually negatively distorts quality teaching and learning processes by focusing on narrow outcomes rather than the development of the whole child.
With funding based on students’ test score outcomes, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test. Furthermore, results-based financing creates perverse incentives to invest in short-term gains rather than long term system strengthening. Outcomes in education are not immediate, but take time to manifest, such as its contribution to social, cultural, democratic and economic development.
Apart from the fact that the commodification of education by incentivising private providers and investors by profit-making is highly unethical and in disregard of the right to education, there is no substantial evidence of DIBs in the education sector.
Outcomes bonds leave the vulnerable behind
Importantly, a quest for outcomes and the involvement of profit-making organisations in the education sector leads to the further marginalisation of the most vulnerable groups in society. Evidence shows, when funding depends on test scores, private actors’ student selection processes can discriminate against less able students or alternatively encourage certain students not to participate in tests.
In clear contravention of the global commitment made through SDG4 to leave no-one behind, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, students from minority groups, refugees, students with disabilities or special needs and students living in remote areas lose out.
Proliferation of education privatisation and marketisation
To achieve SDG4, public systems must be strengthened and education must be universally embraced as a human right and a public good, not a market commodity.
Education financing must be sustainable and predictable, there are no shortcuts. It is only through well-funded public education that we will achieve quality education for all, not through attempting to establish new finance mechanisms that undermine the right to education.
Rather than strengthening public systems in regions where increased public financing for education is desperately needed, EOF will finance non-state actors, including for-profit companies and so-called ‘low-fee’ private schools that charge poor families for education of questionable quality.
‘Prime contractors’ will be commissioned by EOF to lead ‘whole-community based interventions’, suggesting that the fund will operate as a massive market creation scheme. Public-private partnerships will also be supported, with Partnership Schools for Liberia (PSL), Liberia’s disastrous experiment with outsourcing education to private providers, held up as a model.
Education is a public responsibility. The SDGs are about assuming those responsibilities. They are essential to the future and cannot be contracted out or sacrificed to the market. And, yes, they require political will to ensure a sufficient and sustainable source of public funding. We cannot rely on charity or the private sector.
If we believe that all children, regardless of their background or circumstances, regardless of the community, country or continent in which they live have a right to quality education, governments and the international community must invest in the expansion and strengthening of quality, free, universally accessible public education.
More information
Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East: Is it a Game Changer? by Keith M Lewin, Emeritus Professor of International Development and Education, University of Sussex, provides a detailed critique of the EOF.
Angelo Gavrielatos
Project Director – EI
Angelo Gavrielatos
Project Director
Email: Angelo.Gavrielatos@ei-ie.org
Tel: +32 2 224 06 11
Fax: +32 2 224 06 06
5 bd du Roi Albert II | 1210 Brussels | BELGIUM
http://www.ei-ie.org

The thinking is contractors will be less corrupt than public actors. No one knows why they believe this, but they do. When they sold charters in Ohio that’s what they told us- we should get rid of those icky corrupt public employees and hire private contractors who are not “self interested” and care only about children. No one ever explained why the private contractors wouldn’t also be “self interested” under privatization schemes- it was just a given – pronounced as fact.
Private contractors are apparently intrinsically more honest than public employees. Better people.
I don’t know how anyone can doubt it. The contractors all say it.
LikeLike
” Furthermore, results-based financing creates perverse incentives to invest in short-term gains rather than long term system strengthening. ”
Everyone knows this, by the way. It isn’t unique to education. It’s a constant (and valid) criticism in the private sector that companies focus on short term gains for investors and don’t invest in long term outcomes.
Ed reform is often the worst of both the public sector and the private sector. For some strange reason they assumed they would get the best of both, when that was never guaranteed or even likely. They could (and did) instead end up with the worst of both.
It’s not even that they’re “reckless”. They don’t even recognize downside risk exists, and it does. They could easily end up with a privatized system that is worse than the public systems they seek to eradicate. That is wholly possible and it’s especially possible because they refuse to admit that risk is there.
LikeLike
We actually have a privatized system that looks a lot like what ed reformers envision for K-12 education- the health care system.
Raise your hand if you think that’s working out well for people in the US. We have the most expensive health care with the worst outcomes among the rich countries.
Why do ed reformers want to export that model to K-12 education? It’s not efficient, it’s ruinously expensive and it’s not AT ALL equitable. Why in God’s name would anyone take a universal public system and turn it into the health care system? Why would it work any better for K-12 education than it does for health care?
No one even LIKES our health care system. Not the people who work in it and not the people who use it. They like it LESS than they like the public K-12 system.
LikeLike
“We have the most expensive health care with the worst outcomes among the rich countries.”
And not just among the rich countries. Cuba has better health care outcomes for all, not just the elite few.
LikeLike
Two words: “Profits & Control.” I feel sorry for those countries who sign up for this madness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The script adopted by these global capitalists is too familiar to those of us that have been following privatization of public education for many years. The idea and desired perception that want to present is that they are investing in “doing good,” The actual objective is the monetization of a nation’s young people so that corporations will move a public asset into their corporate pockets. It is an asset shift. The goal is to undermine the public sector so that it will whither and die along with public sector employees. In such a market based system they will create “winners and losers.” These global capitalists know there will be no oversight or accountability in poor countries, and they will be free to plunder.
Social impact investing is a Trojan Horse that purports to “help” people. Helping people is a marketing ploy for what is actually exploitation of vulnerable populations. We have witnessed this type of unethical investment in privatized prisons, drug companies, our market based health insurance, charter schools and social impact bonds. The losers are the weakest, the poorest, the sickest and the disenfranchised. The winners are, of course, the investors.
LikeLike
“The losers are the weakest, the poorest, the sickest and the disenfranchised. The winners are, of course, the investors.”
Yup. Worth watching…
LikeLike
An awful, dystopian future unless we fight back! Everyone should view this clear, logical home made video that connects all the dots in social impact bonds to the bigger picture. This is vulture capitalism at its worst.
LikeLike
Nothing to see here … just the latest in Cradle2Slave Indoctrination from the same old forces of imperial colonialism that we New Worlders and New Dealers once or twice had the guts to revolt against but now just BlockChainGang along with like so many dumb-as-dust zombies.
LikeLike
I spent two years in East Africa. When Mozambique obtained independence in 1975, literacy for African males was about 12%. Literacy for African females was about 3%. The socialist government which took over in 1975, attempted to increase the educational level of the native population. Nearly every Portuguese national, left for Portugal at independence.
The socialist government fouled everything up, as governments usually do. One thing the government did right, was it permitted foreign missionaries to set up schools.
As a person who has seen the absolute disaster of socialist educational policies in this part of world, I applaud additional educational organizations moving into these nations.
I wish them well.
LikeLike
Socialist boogeymen are everywhere on the planet, eh Chas! It’d be nice if you reactionary regressives would come up with a different, more up-to-date boogeyman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I lived in a socialist nation. There is a saying there “A minnow is a whale that has been through socialism”. It was amazing to me, to see the Mozambicans, who lived in a black-ruled socialist country, lining up at the border crossing at Ressano Garcia, to get into white-ruled apartheid, capitalist South Africa.
If you had ever experienced socialism up close, you would have a greater appreciation and understanding of its failures.
LikeLike
We were not socialist when Eisenhower was President. At that time, the marginal tax rate for the top earners was 91%.
There was far less income inequality than now.
Do you think President Eisenhower was a socialist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
such an important distinction: capitalism with regulation offers strategic care for those who would be used by a NON-regulated capitalism…
LikeLike
Charles, why are you blabbering on about Socialism. The United States has never been and never will be a Socialist state … unless you listen to Fox News.
There is a HUGE difference between a socialist state and a country with a social safety net. Even China isn’t a pure socialist state.
“The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs.” …
“it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.
“Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.” …
“If the left insists on naming a system of generous government benefits combined with a free market democratic socialism, I cannot stop them. That seems unnecessarily confusing since the government is actually running no industries other than education (and meddling somewhat in healthcare). It certainly isn’t socialism. In fact, the only reason most such countries can afford those benefits is that their market economies are so productive they can cover the expense of the government’s generosity. Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#4eabc73474ad
LikeLike
I do not believe that Eisenhower was a socialist. The president does not set tax rates. The congress controls taxation.
For the record, I am not in favor of confiscatory tax rates.
It is not the function of government to arrange income equality.
LikeLike
Of course it is government’s role to set tax rates and determine how much inequality is tolerable.
LikeLike
I am not asserting that the USA is a socialist nation. Make no mistake. It is just that I have lived under socialism, and I did not like it.
LikeLike
I like Ike.
91% marginal tax rate.
LikeLike
The wealthy didn’t pay 91% tax on all their earnings. Just $200,000 or more per year for individuals and $400,000 for a married couple.
In 2018 dollars, that means the individual didn’t start paying the 91 percent tax rate until after they’d earned more than two million dollars and for a married couple it would be more than four million dollars.
Imagine the lifestyle someone could afford on $2 to $4 million a year before that 91-percent tax rate kicked in.
That means someone like Betsy DeVos couldn’t own ten yachts and multiple mansions with hundreds of bathrooms and Donald Trump would probably have to give up his jet, his yacht, and his gold plated toilets. Poor Trump, he wouldn’t have enough cash to pay hush money to all of his mistresses so they wouldn’t talk before the 2016 election, and the Koch brothers wouldn’t have had enough money to launch their Kochtopus machine that’s designed to subvert the US Constitution and destroy the US. With that 1950s tax rate, there wouldn’t be much dark money out there influencing elections.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/
LikeLike
Chilling … we are living in an era where there is a decades long effort underway based on fraud and lies to create a corporate global government (controlled by billionaires that are mostly white men) to rebuilt the world on a platform of racism and “greed is a great god to worship”, while getting rid of all other forms of governance including real religions, dictators, kings, and democracies.
In recent years, China has increased its defense spending and I think we can expect China to continue to increase that spending.
Why?
China will probably be the most difficult country for these mostly western white male billionaires to buy and subvert.
There was already one attempt by Bill Gates and that failed.
“Bill Gates urges China’s richest to give to charity in People’s Daily article”
I’m sure that Gates wanted, his goal, China’s wealthy to hand much of their wealth over to his foundation so he could use their money to subvert China’s government in an effort to achieve Gates draconian-dystopian goals and make them pay for it sort of like Trump getting Mexico to build and pay for his wall.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china-insider/article/1499064/bill-gates-urges-chinas-richest-give-charity-peoples-daily
LikeLike
China has already invested heavily in Africa. China is holding the debt for several African nations. The exact nature of the relationship is not fully known at this time. What is clear is that China intends to profit.
LikeLike
China already belongs to Chinese billionaires.
LikeLike
Once someone in China becomes successful and wealthy the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invites them to join the CCP where they are carefully watched. The CCP is the largest political party in the world with more than 80 million members and it is still growing because of those invites. If one of those billionaires steps out of line and commits a crime of any kind, the CCP’s leadership will arrest them, judge them guilty, grab all their wealth and toss them in prison or execute them.
LikeLike
“Why are these great minds not using their brainpower to promote economic development?”
Nice sarcastic touch!
LikeLike
If you think there are great minds at Stanford, Look at some of the issues ( education) and views aboutgovernance here and internationalluy promoted by this publication Stanford Social Innovation Review– what’s “hot” is agnosticism about means and a focus only on goals that offer some promise of profit. Hostility of governance by “the people” is clear.
https://ssir.org/topics/category/education
LikeLike
Don’t know about Stanford’s minds. I suspect that they are pretty similar to everyone else’s because as far as I know they do come under the species designation of “Homo Supposedly Sapiens”.
LikeLike