Relevant policies for
school education reform

Slides used at School Choice National Conference
Dec 20, 2013

CONFIDENTIAL...
Immense need for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in school education
All the possible options for
under-privileged chil...
Kinds of public-private partnerships in school education
Five kinds of public-private
partnership possible

Government
int...
A few common success factors to make any of the PPPs work…
Key success factors

▪ Adequate funding for the PPP to scale up...
…consistent with international experiences
International observations

Examples

▪ Partial operating funding from the gove...
Kinds of public-private partnerships in school education
Five kinds of public-private
partnership possible

Government
int...
Mumbai School Excellence Program (SEP) example – unique partnership
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai

Related
gover...
The Planning Commission has cited SEP in the country's 12th 5-year plan
draft as an "innovative example" recommended for o...
Asian countries dominate the top scores in all the three subjects in PISA
2012
1 Reading
Rank

Country

1

Shanghai-China
...
Qatar has shown the biggest improvement in scores in all the three subjects
followed by Kazakhstan that showed improvement...
Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Australia are among the biggest drops
in all the three subjects
Mathematics

Reading

Mea...
Conversations around the world in the last two weeks

“Shanghai
solidified its
lead since its
entry last
cycle”

“Massive ...
Example of tracking school processes – sample of 150 government schools

McKinsey & Company

| 12
A few recommendations
Recommendations
1  Launch annual national assessment of student learning – standardized,

third par...
End

McKinsey & Company

| 14
The Mumbai PPP policy has been established through a long journey

2008-09 – Emphasis of
the need
▪ School adoption with
M...
There is a gradual PPP schools movement starting around the country
Several state and city governments
considering PPP (no...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Relevant Policies for School Education Reform

834

Published on

Presentation by Ramya Venkataraman at the School Choice National Conference 2013

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
834
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
54
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Relevant Policies for School Education Reform

  1. 1. Relevant policies for school education reform Slides used at School Choice National Conference Dec 20, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited
  2. 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 Government schools improve the quality ▪ No robust selection or performance evaluation Government aided schools (an existing form ▪ Well-defined PPP needed for quality of public-private partnership or PPP) enhancement Non-RTE compliant: say, Rs. 300-700/ month fee Affordable private schools “RTE-superimposed” likely to be Rs. 1200-1500++/ month in fee Donor-funded schools (sometimes with government infrastructure) 25% reservation in elite schools as per RTE (an existing form of PPP) ▪ Quality challenges ▪ May not sustain without RTE compliance ▪ PPP critical to make them affordable and therefore scalable ▪ Very small in number/volume ▪ PPP critical to reduce donor funding and therefore make them scalable ▪ The model may need refinements to address implementation challenges McKinsey & Company | 1
  3. 3. Kinds of public-private partnerships in school education Five kinds of public-private partnership possible Government interest Private player interest 1▪ Running schools with government infrastructure and private teachers 2▪ Fully private schools with some government support (e.g. subsidy) – Greenfield (new investment) ? – Brownfield (existing) 3▪ “Turnaround” of aided schools by enhancing the PPP model ? 4▪ Running government schools with government teachers (“management and quality support”) 5▪ Holistic system level partnership with the government ? Different implications for scale, quality and effort (set-up effort, sustaining effort) in each case ? McKinsey & Company | 2
  4. 4. A few common success factors to make any of the PPPs work… Key success factors ▪ Adequate funding for the PPP to scale up ▪ Financially sustainable in the long term ▪ Not attracting the “wrong” kind of players Funding Current situation in India ▪ Most PPPs with existing infra through “excess funding” ▪ High quality selection process with sufficient focus on qualitative aspects ▪ Mitigate risk of subjectivity with strong rubric Selection and steering committee likely to have 30-40% viability gap (e.g. Mumbai) ▪ Greenfield PPPs may be fully financially sustainable ▪ Government’s preference for a largely quantitative process; however, some early exceptions (e.g. Mumbai) ▪ Sufficient autonomy to the private player (e.g. ▪ Teacher salaries likely to be Autonomy teacher hiring, teacher salaries, pedagogy, etc.); still relevant support from government leadership ▪ Regular evaluation with sufficient to student learning outcomes Outcome evaluation and consequences regulated in most PPPs ▪ Concerns about excessive information gathering ▪ Focus more on inputs for evaluation ▪ Balanced by select input metrics ▪ Consequences being thought about in a binary manner ▪ Leeway in the first 3 years; then well-defined escalating consequences (e.g. warning and support, funding reduction, termination) SOURCE: McKinsey’s experiences internationally and in India McKinsey & Company | 3
  5. 5. …consistent with international experiences International observations Examples ▪ Partial operating funding from the government ▪ Charter schools, UK Academies, and gap filled through donor funds ▪ Partial operating funding from the government; Funding gap filled through both fees and donor funds Pakistan PEF funded schools ▪ Education Voucher scheme Pakistan, South African PPP schools, Malaysian trust Schools. ▪ One or two State entities as authorizers with high ▪ Central State Board of Education political accountability ▪ Stringent selection criteria and Central Education Department for NY Charter Schools, DOE UK Selection ▪ Private player has complete autonomy over pedagogy, teachers, budget Autonomy Education Voucher Scheme Pakistan ▪ Private player has autonomy over pedagogy and ▪ Forced Academies UK, many inhours but needs to adhere to some Govt. teacher norms ▪ State level exams for comparison of charter students’ performance vs. Government schools ▪ Third party independent evaluation including Outcome evaluation and consequences ▪ New Orleans Charter schools, learning outcome exams and field visits SOURCE: McKinsey’s experiences internationally and in India district charter schools – payrolls are managed by Govt ▪ State wide exams are used in all US States ▪ Monitoring & Evaluation unit and Academic Development Unit in Pakistan, Ofsted and Ofqual in UK, McKinsey & Company | 4
  6. 6. Kinds of public-private partnerships in school education Five kinds of public-private partnership possible Government interest Private player interest 1▪ Running schools with government infrastructure and private teachers 2▪ Fully private schools with some government support (e.g. subsidy) – Greenfield (new investment) ? – Brownfield (existing) 3▪ “Turnaround” of aided schools by enhancing the PPP model ? 4▪ Running government schools with government teachers (“management and quality support”) 5▪ Holistic system level partnership with the government ? Different implications for scale, quality and effort (set-up effort, sustaining effort) in each case ? McKinsey & Company | 5
  7. 7. Mumbai School Excellence Program (SEP) example – unique partnership Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Related government bodies 4 implementation partners selected out of 62 entities MC AMC for Urdu medium SSA DMC EO Maharashtra SCERT for Marathi medium Zonal DEO’s Text book bureau DEO, SEP In-charge DEO central SI AO BO BO SEP In-charge HM Teachers Overall program design and program management Funding and governance McKinsey & Company | 6
  8. 8. The Planning Commission has cited SEP in the country's 12th 5-year plan draft as an "innovative example" recommended for other urban bodies McKinsey & Company | 7
  9. 9. Asian countries dominate the top scores in all the three subjects in PISA 2012 1 Reading Rank Country 1 Shanghai-China 2 2 Mathematics Mean score Rank Country 570 1 Shanghai-China Hong Kong-China 545 2 3 Singapore 542 4 Japan 5 6 3 Science Mean score Mean score Rank Country 613 1 Shanghai-China 580 Singapore 573 2 Hong Kong-China 555 3 Hong Kong-China 561 3 Singapore 551 538 4 Chinese Taipei 560 4 Japan 547 Korea 536 5 Korea 554 5 Finland 545 Finland 524 6 Macao-China 538 6 Estonia 541 7 Chinese Taipei 523 7 Japan 536 7 Korea 538 8 Canada 523 8 Liechtenstein 535 8 Viet Nam 528 9 Ireland 523 9 Switzerland 531 9 Poland 526 10 Poland 518 10 Netherlands 523 10 Canada 525 11 Liechtenstein 516 11 Estonia 521 11 Liechtenstein 525 12 Estonia 516 12 Finland 519 12 Germany 524 13 Australia 512 13 Poland 518 13 Chinese Taipei 523 14 New Zealand 512 14 Canada 518 14 Ireland 522 15 Netherlands 511 15 Belgium 515 15 Netherlands 522 16 Macao-China 509 16 Germany 514 16 Australia 521 17 Switzerland 509 17 Viet Nam 511 17 Macao-China 521 18 Belgium 509 18 Austria 506 18 New Zealand 516 19 Germany 508 19 Australia 504 19 Switzerland 515 20 Viet Nam 508 20 Ireland 501 20 United Kingdom 514 21 France 505 21 Slovenia 501 21 Slovenia 514 22 Norway 504 22 New Zealand 500 22 Czech Republic 508 23 United Kingdom 499 23 Denmark 500 23 Austria 506 24 United States 498 24 Czech Republic 499 24 Belgium 505 25 Denmark 496 25 France 495 25 Latvia 502 Source: PISA 2012 Results McKinsey & Company | 8
  10. 10. Qatar has shown the biggest improvement in scores in all the three subjects followed by Kazakhstan that showed improvement in Maths and Science Mathematics Reading Mean score in PISA 2012 Annualised change in score points OECD average 494 -0.3 Qatar 376 9.2 Kazakhstan 432 9 Malaysia 421 Albania Romania Science Mean score in PISA 2012 OECD average 496 Qatar Serbia 8.1 394 445 Shanghai-China Israel Annualised change in score points Mean score in PISA 2012 Annualised change in score points 0.3 OECD average 501 0.5 388 12 Kazakhstan 425 8.1 446 7.6 Turkey 463 6.4 Singapore 542 5.4 Qatar 384 5.4 5.6 Peru 384 5.2 Poland 526 4.6 4.9 Montenegro 422 5 Thailand 444 3.9 613 4.2 Shanghai-China 570 4.6 Romania 439 3.4 466 4.2 Chinese Taipei 523 4.5 Singapore 551 3.3 Bulgaria 439 4.2 Turkey 475 4.1 Italy 494 3 Brazil 391 4.1 Albania 394 4.1 Israel 470 2.8 Singapore 573 3.8 Tunisia 404 3.8 Korea 538 2.6 Turkey 448 3.2 Israel 486 3.7 Japan 547 2.6 Mexico 413 3.1 Chile 441 3.1 Portugal 489 2.5 Tunisia 388 3.1 Colombia 403 3 Argentina 406 2.4 Portugal 487 2.8 Poland 518 2.8 Ireland 522 2.3 Italy 485 2.7 Estonia 516 2.4 Brazil 405 2.3 Poland 518 2.6 Hong Kong-China 545 2.3 Albania 397 2.2 Serbia 449 2.2 Indonesia 396 2.3 Tunisia 398 2.2 Chile 423 1.9 Latvia 489 1.9 Hong Kong-China 555 2.1 Chinese Taipei 560 1.7 Germany 508 1.8 Latvia 502 2 Montenegro 410 1.7 Portugal 488 1.6 Bulgaria 446 2 Germany 514 1.4 Japan 538 1.5 Indonesia 382 1.9 Hong Kong-China 561 1.3 Liechtenstein 516 1.3 Shanghai-China 580 1.8 Argentina 388 1.2 Croatia 485 1.2 Colombia 399 1.8 Korea 554 1.1 Brazil 410 1.2 Macao-China 521 1.6 Russian Federation 482 1.1 Russian Federation 475 1.1 Hungary 494 1.6 Source: PISA 2012 Results McKinsey & Company | 9
  11. 11. Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Australia are among the biggest drops in all the three subjects Mathematics Reading Mean score in PISA 2012 Annualised change in score points Science Mean score in PISA 2012 Annualised change in score points OECD average 494 -0.3 OECD average 496 0.3 Sweden 478 -3.3 Malaysia 398 Finland 519 -2.8 Sweden 483 New Zealand 500 -2.5 Slovenia Czech Republic 499 -2.5 Australia 504 -2.2 Iceland 493 Denmark 500 Netherlands Mean score in PISA 2012 Annualised change in score points OECD average 501 0.5 -7.8 Sweden 485 -3.1 -2.8 Finland 545 -3 481 -2.2 Slovak Republic 471 -2.7 Uruguay 411 -1.8 New Zealand 516 -2.5 Finland 524 -1.7 Uruguay 416 -2.1 -2.2 Australia 512 -1.4 Jordan 409 -2.1 -1.8 Iceland 483 -1.3 Iceland 478 -2 523 -1.6 New Zealand 512 -1.1 Indonesia 382 -1.9 Belgium 515 -1.6 Canada 523 -0.9 Hungary 494 -1.6 France 495 -1.5 Ireland 523 -0.9 Chinese Taipei 523 -1.5 Canada 518 -1.4 France 505 0 Canada 525 -1.5 Slovak Republic 482 -1.4 Netherlands 511 0.1 Malaysia 420 -1.4 Lithuania 479 -1.4 Belgium 509 0.1 Greece 467 -1.1 Uruguay 409 -1.4 Denmark 496 0.1 Czech Republic 508 -1 Hungary 477 -1.3 Norway 504 0.1 Australia 521 -0.9 Costa Rica 407 -1.2 Slovak Republic 463 0.1 Belgium 505 -0.8 Ireland 501 -0.6 Austria 490 0.2 Austria 506 -0.8 Slovenia 501 -0.6 Spain 488 0.3 Slovenia 514 -0.8 United Kingdom 494 -0.3 United States 498 0.3 Costa Rica 429 -0.6 Luxembourg 490 -0.3 Jordan 399 0.3 Netherlands 522 -0.5 Norway 489 -0.3 Bulgaria 436 0.4 Croatia 491 -0.3 Austria 506 0 Czech Republic 493 0.5 Montenegro 410 -0.3 Spain 484 0.1 Italy 490 0.5 United Kingdom 514 -0.1 Jordan 386 0.2 Greece 477 0.5 Liechtenstein 525 0.4 Liechtenstein 535 0.3 United Kingdom 499 0.7 Denmark 498 0.4 Source: PISA 2012 Results McKinsey & Company | 10
  12. 12. Conversations around the world in the last two weeks “Shanghai solidified its lead since its entry last cycle” “Massive drop for Finland (which previously led PISA for multiple cycles)” “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)” “Vietnam enters at the level of Germany (very impressive)” “Lithuania (previous high-flyer) now falls to the level of the US” “Singapore regains ground it lost last cycle” “Big drop in Sweden, lot of local media reaction” McKinsey & Company | 11
  13. 13. Example of tracking school processes – sample of 150 government schools McKinsey & Company | 12
  14. 14. A few recommendations Recommendations 1  Launch annual national assessment of student learning – standardized, third party based, low stakes. For the Central Government 2  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. 1  Create and start implementation of high quality public-private-partnership For State Governments policies – financially sustainable, high quality selection, outcome evaluation 2  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. 3  Launch city by city, and district by district holistic school system transformation efforts with many of the above elements and selective welldefined use of private expertise 1  Players: develop capabilities to participate in PPPs, if you really want to For private players and donors serve under-privileged children at scale. 2  Donors: move a lot more to "catalytic funding"; e.g. funding learning assessments, making PPPs viable, helping launch system transformation, rather than direct support McKinsey & Company | 13
  15. 15. End McKinsey & Company | 14
  16. 16. The Mumbai PPP policy has been established through a long journey 2008-09 – Emphasis of the need ▪ School adoption with MCGM teachers by Naandi ▪ 2010-12 – Integration with school excellence program ▪ Policy set in the broader context of SEP and refined to ensure full integration 2012-13 – Formal approvals ▪ MC signing ▪ ▪ ▪ Education committee Standing committee Corporation (legislation) Active interaction with AMC/DMC on need for a PPP policy July/Aug 2013 onwards – Implementation starting April 2013 onwards 2012-13 2010-12 2011-12 2010, Jan, June 2008-09 2002-03 – Early initiation ▪ School adoption by Akanksha and Muktangan ▪ 2002-03 Early attempts to get “standard norms” with MCGM 2010, Jan, June – Development of the policy ▪ Committee set up by AMC ▪ Active inputs from global 2011-12 – Stakeholder syndication; e.g. ▪ New AMC, MC and others ▪ Education and Standing Committee Chairs ▪ Several NGO leaders experts McKinsey & Company | 15
  17. 17. There is a gradual PPP schools movement starting around the country Several state and city governments considering PPP (not exhaustive) However, there are several challenges to be resolved ▪ Existing policies Policies taking shape Early interest ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Mumbai Punjab Rajasthan MHRD …others Policies likely to require continued partial donor funding – Infrastructure Rs. 12–15,000/child/ South Delhi Several other interested Gujarat governments Punjab including …others Thane, Bihar, etc. 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 underprivileged children”, “ability to operate at scale” and “financial wherewithal” ▪ Several challenges in implementation Two significant forms of PPP already exist ▪ ▪ Private-aided schools 25% reservation for under-privileged children under RTE SOURCE: Source McKinsey & Company | 16
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×