1. International Policy Dialogue Forum on Teacher Challenges for EFA in India 29-30 May 2012

2. Education as a public good, and public sector as guardian of equal access to that public good vs Hard realities of public sector inadequacies and corresponding view that limiting government intervention is intrinsically good 5/20/20122

3. UN Global Compact (launched 2000 more than 600 members) World Bank and IMF (specific program, EdInvest) EFA high-level group has private sector participation UNESCO and WEF Bilateral donors (DFID, GTZ, Netherlands, USAID, among others) New initiatives such as Global Compact on Learning and Global Business Coalition for Education 5/20/2012 3

4. On the one hand, trends towards ntional development plans, including donor cooperation On the other hand, encouragement for private development efforts, that take place outside sector planning 5/20/2012 4

5. What the business sector is unlikely to contribute without regulation and accountability  Substantial additional new funding  Disinterested contribution  Long-term commitment  Last mile/equity  Spontaneous compliance with standards for access, provision and learning outcomes  Spontaneous compliance with public sector planning and financing mechanisms  Transparent financing and management 5/20/2012 5

6. There is no international standard gathering of information about private money going to education, aside from private education. Terminology varies, figures are partial or anectdotal. Overall, private giving to public education is significant in sums but not in percentages of education budgets.  From US corporations to developing country education: $500 m/year  Increase in philanthropy emerging countries, notably India and Brazil  Teachers: no clear indicators of what PPPs do for them that have an impact on learning outomes 5/20/2012 6

7. Results in terms of learning outcomes vary: generally, when adjusted for socio-economic background, private education is no better. Can be much worse, where controls are lax. In private education or privately-supported education, family involvement is high; Private schools attract cohorts from higher socio-economic status families; When socio-economic background is taken into account, learning outcomes not consistently different : Pisa, WB studies, etc.; Anecdotal evidence, and some statistics, show that private funds flow more to higher socio-economic cohorts, therefore potentially contributing to widening inequality 5/20/2012 7

8.  Weak or non-existent regulation means weak oversight  Distortion of national plans by private sector interests  Public sector responsibility for cost overruns and TCO  Distortion of competition  Additional costs of partnership  Complex accountability:each partner with own objectives, procedures 5/20/2012 8

9.  Shared investment, risks and benefits  Assigned responsibility for total cost of ownership  Joint decision-making and accountability  Adherence to international norms and standards 5/20/2012 9

10.  Positive branding: demonstrated interest in the public good  Enhancing complementary aims: private sector gain in exchange for help with the last mile  Harnessing short-term investment for longer- term goals: consider national plans  Exchange of skills:, e.g.  pedagogy ↔ innovation  Share evaluation strategies and results: understand what works 5/20/2012 10

11. Definition of needs Ownership by stakeholders Focus on long-term impact Transparency and democratic participation in mangement and decision-making Strong regulation and accountability Sustainability 5/20/2012 11

12.  21 st century skills  Innovation in uses of ICTs for distribution and new pedagogy  Institutions of excellence  Diversity and alternative approaches  Education linked to local or regional economy  Whole community development  Diversification pool of teachers  Motivation 5/20/2012 12

13. 5/20/2012 13 Thank you! a.draxler@gmail.com