Great topic. CCS has been quite persistent in their message. While I agree that the government has to considerably reduce the barriers to set up private schools, I am not sure how the implementation/ accreditation process work.

However, I also think
1. Education is not a commodity. The horrors of undergrad education, parents complaining about teachers, students' hunger for 'fun' in the classroom, students posing as consumers, and student ratings in the US (nanga nachna baki hai, bas).
2. There is a special relationship between the teacher and the student.
3. Schools should enhance curiosity in the child rather than make the child obsessed with coping with the market right from kindergarten. (be assertive, be very very boastful, blow the trumpet, make it effortless through practice)
4. Other derivations - e.g., there is no market for languages. It is at best, a distorted power relationship. In other words, parents of a child, whose mother tongue is Tamil or Telugu or Bengali, 1) need not check in what language call centers are talking nowadays, 2)look for schools that teach that language, and 3)because the poor child cannot comprehend more than 1.4 dialects stuff him or her with pidgin English only.

Great post Vinod. I am simultaneously angered by the govt.'s inability to deliver and encouraged by the resourcefulness of the poor. In "Maximum City" Suketu Mehta writes briefly about a family of slum dwellers whose twenty something daughter teaches at one of these unrecognized schools.

It would be great if forward looking corporations in India would recognize credentials from these schools and thumb their noses at the govt.

the Desi example flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that better teacher (and by extension administrator) pay is the #1 solution to what ails public education

V true. What is needed is not better pay but greater accountability. And this applies not only to schools but all across the Indian bureaucracy.

my understanding is that widespread schooling in the USA preceded mandatory public schooling. from what i recall the rise of public schools was a combination of a) progressive standardization b) progressive aversion to immigrant subcultures which they wanted to re-educate (recall that the catholics had their own school system, and offering a free gov. subsidized education that inculcated protestant american values was critical). the point is that 19th century USA is more like india, so a grassroots market solution is prolly more practical since it isn't like "cradle to grave" is anywhere near the reality for most brownz.

but the question is: how is china doing it? ;-)

"In contrast, private-school teachers are paid one-fifth to one-tenth of government salary levels and have more flexibility to innovate and improve learning outcomes."

Sorry, Vinod, but just what are you and these guys smoking? Have you ever been in or experienced the Indian school system, or is it simply something you want to marshall to prove your economic ideology? Even teachers at decent private schools in well-off areas often make so little that they essentially pressure their students to take their "private tuitions" in order to do well in exams. Even if there isn't pressure, subtle or otherwise, that Rs. 10,000 a month salary and no pedagogical training hardly make a teacher likely to "innovate"! I'm all for reducing the regulatory burden that ties up the time of school administrators and teachers in sending reports to govt authorities, I know what it's like as I have family members who run schools. But I can't believe that a thinking person with some economic literacy could assume that a lower salary is going to produce more innovation.

James Tooley found that children in low-budget unrecognized private schools did 246% better than government school children on a standardized English test, with around 80% higher average marks in mathematics and Hindi

Most students in private schools also go to private tutions which brings the average student upto scratch and the bright ones to outstanding. In year 12, the high school fees could be between Rs 3000- 10000 a year but tutions would be Rs 15- 20,000 a subject.

for bollywood gupshup pls visit our webiste www.insidebollywood.blogspot.com

kajal

there is no market for languages. It is at best, a distorted power relationship. In other words, parents of a child, whose mother tongue is Tamil or Telugu or Bengali, 1) need not check in what language call centers are talking nowadays, 2)look for schools that teach that language, and 3)because the poor child cannot comprehend more than 1.4 dialects stuff him or her with pidgin English only.

I can't quite understand your three points (please, keep it simple), but you're right that there is no market for Indian languages, and it is a VERY distorted power relationship. I would never begrudge education of any kind to people whom the state has failed so miserably, especially if it leads to improved socioeconomic status, but these schools are another nail in the coffin of Indian languages. You just have to look ahead a generation or two. In any case, comparing these schools to government schools doesn't make sense...everyone knows government schools in India (for the most part) are terrible.

It was a case of TWA (typing while agitated). I wanted to say education is not about buying or selling in the marketplace. It is not a commodity. Nor are students (or their parents) consumers.

An efficient and effective accreditation system should be put in place to ensure quality. I was wondering what all criteria need to be considered for accreditation, that will allow the government to intervene in a constructive way.

But I can't believe that a thinking person with some economic literacy could assume that a lower salary is going to produce more innovation.

As prior commenters have said, I don't think a lower teacher salary necessarily leads to innovation. Rather, I believe its the absence of outside government interference with respect to cirriculum and such. Also, aren't there similar statistics with respect to home schooled children in the U.S.?

Of course it isn't an argument just for lower salaries. But it suggests that the main dif between govt schools and these new hole in the wall schools is overfed and less innovative govt teachers vs low-paid but innovative private teachers. It doesn't take into account the fact that one of the reasons govt teachers aren't terribly good, in addition to the fact that they are difficult to fire, is that even they don't make that much money and focus more on tuitions or other jobs. As for unregulated private schools, the soc-ec status of families who send their kids to these schools is higher than that of those who send their kids to public schools, and they will push their kids more, plus get them private tuitions as soon as they can, which probably contributes to better student outcomes as well. And none of these low-cost unregulated schools will produce results that are as good as those of more expensive private schools where the teachers are better paid.

India already spends way too little on primary education, the budget has long been skewed towards subsidizing higher ed and "prestige" institutes, in short, helping out those who can probably afford to pay for college. A lack of investment in public ed has been one of the factors holding India back from more equitable East-Asian style growth. And so it's disturbing to hear an argument that seeks to address the pitifully funded primary public education system with a "get rid of the damn thing" argument. Many people in rural areas can't afford even the low-ish fees of the hole in the wall slum schools, and if they are left behind, you're neglecting 60+% of the population.

I can't believe that a thinking person would use the reductio absurdum paper tiger that this post is simply an argument for lower salaries.

So what do you think this post is an argument for? And according to you, what position does this post take on the question of teacher salaries?

Seems pretty impressive and exciting to this despairing buearocrat. Education on a local basis, almost like small businesses. Capitalism (in the good sense)...I mean "capitalism" of human potential. Hope this doesn't sound too NGOish. Although education does not in itself guarantee success of an individual, in the big picture, it is absolutely necessary for success of any society. Perhaps the U.S. should take a cue from these efforts (an earlier commenter noted it was this way in the 19th century.) The U.S. has gone through quite a few reincarnations since its inception, and we are firmly into the latest one. While my crystal ball is not to be totally trusted, it seems to predict that cradle to grave assurance is not in the cards for the future of the U.S., anymore than for India. The same things that weigh down other countries--limited resources and unlimited population--will try America.
Anyway, the small, local schools described in this post would make more difference in current American education than all the donated computers available.
btw, what ARE they doing in China. oops--wrong blog.

It was a case of TWA (typing while agitated). I wanted to say education is not about buying or selling in the marketplace. It is not a commodity. Nor are students (or their parents) consumers.

Why is education not about buying and selling in a marketplace?

So what do you think this post is an argument for? And according to you, what position does this post take on the question of teacher salaries?

"SP"'s retort gets intellectually sloppy because he assumes that the 2 positions are the converse of each other.

Venkat: Nonsense. The paragraph Vinod excerpted at the end of his post, and the lead-in sentence that he offers in presenting it, go a long way toward arguing that lower pay actually breeds innovation. I don't think that's the overall point of either the post nor the article it discusses, and yet the way both are presented certainly gets pretty damn near to making that claim. I think -- I think! -- that you are actually agreeing in your own way that that claim is indeed absurd. Also, while we're at it, why do you assume that SP is male? SP is actually female. I know, how were you to know? Well, if you didn't know, then why did you assume? Have a lovely day.

Here in the US a teacher can be a failure in one zipcode and a success in another.

I personally know several teachers like this.

Any thoughts?

(I have more to say on this but I've got kids coming in 9 minutes-my planning period is almost over....)

this is rapidly becoming a he-said / she-said ;-)

The paragraph Vinod excerpted at the end of his post, and the lead-in sentence that he offers in presenting it, go a long way toward arguing that lower pay actually breeds innovation. I don't think that's the overall point of either the post nor the article it discusses, and yet the way both are presented certainly gets pretty damn near to making that claim.

I can't believe that a thinking person with some economic literacy could assume that a lower salary is going to produce more innovation.

Analogy -- "Detroit's higher-paid, unionized workforce is making crappy, expensive cars vs. the lesser paid, non-unionized Toyota workforce in Mississippi". The implication is NOT that reducing Detroit salaries will result in better cars than Toyota's. Similarly, the implication in the article is that better teacher salaries don't 1:1 correlate with better education.

Upwards of 1/2 of state Indian teachers don't even show up for class. Some positions are doled out as spoils from the bid for political power; some don't bother to show up because there are no facilities. Corruption is circumabient, and the results are generally poor. These initiatives are actually quite remarkable and demonstrate that the aspirational class is getting larger.

So Venkat, would you go and take one for the entrepreneurial side by teaching school for Rs. 3000 a month? What sort of talent do you think that kind of money can buy?

And even if you introduced flexibility in hiring and firing govt school teachers and increased accountability (both of which I support), do you think you could improve the quality of education by keeping the salaries as low as they are now? Studies of contract teacher absenteeism in India (they are the ones that can be fired) show that they are actually worse than full-time teachers.

A large percentage of Indian govt schools esp in rural areas have only one teacher or not enough teachers and inadequate basic resources like blackboards and bathrooms. That's a funding problem, and it keeps motivation low. Those folks can't afford to pay the Rs 500 a month for a private school, and nor would many teachers want to go out to poor rural areas. And there is evidence that higher pay, linked to performance, works in private schools, so why shouldn't it work in public schools too, if we introduce more accountability?

As a side note, please don't assume everyone is male till proven otherwise. I know it's unthinking, but just a reminder.

I think it would be helpful to focus on the specifics of the topic, i.e. education in India, and not let one's leanings on public and private sector efficiency in the US interfere too much with the argument. And BTW, Venkat, do please read the full para(s) and not just cherrypick the line that incensed you. I know it was provocative - it was meant to be. It was in response to a provocative point in the original post, which I thought was by and large reasonable except for the suggestion that lower pay won't hurt educational innovation and outcomes so long as it is combined with flexibility.

SP & Siddhartha,

You two are the ones who need to be economically literate. Very grand to be populist, looking out for the little guy and thinking of short-term benefits.

Education is a marketplace. Families, parents, graduate students make rational choices to invest time/effort/money to get a desired job, which then pays back on the investment.

That said, I do think that education should not be left entirely to market forces. Education is the key enabler of class mobility. So, as a society, we must be prepared to even the the playing field in terms of access to education.

i know hedge fund managers that charge a 20% performance fee, making investing in their fund pointless. I know others who charge 30-40%, but their performance justifies it (amazingly). Warren Buffett will charge you hardly anything to manage your money, and still gets stellar returns. It can work either way, sometimes increasing compensation just eats into performance, other times it gets youi superour results. The point is I can choose where I put my money, and that makes things very efficient.

I thought that was Vinod's point, which he spells out colloquially in his last sentance.

How much of this benefit could be explained by smaller class sizes and individualized attention, though? Possibly even from family members, if the school is small enough?

Also, how much skill training is available to kids at these bravely entreprenurial startup schools? Hindi and math are unquestionably important, but do they even have a chance to learn New Economy skills? I don't see a computer lab -- or a chemistry lab -- in that picture. It seems to me that providing those kinds of opportunities would require a capital budget these schools couldn't provide.

Do these schools provide a foundation for higher education in the future? Do colleges admit kids from unrecognized schools?

And of course, the million things that separate Indian schools from American ones ARE relevant to this discussion. It's unfair to try and connect the two.

Most students in private schools also go to private tutions which brings the average student upto scratch and the bright ones to outstanding. In year 12, the high school fees could be between Rs 3000- 10000 a year but tutions would be Rs 15- 20,000 a subject.

Those are recognized private schools, where students can afford to high fees and for those kind of tuitions. These private schools are unrecognized, which means they cannot even issue transfer certificates when a student decides to move schools. That is a major handicap in the Indian setup. These private schools have come up as an alternative for people who could only afford to send their kids to government schools earlier, and their fees are perhaps much lower than that of the usual private school in India.

The comparisons made in the study are only to government schools and not to recognized/regulated private schools. I find the statistics believable, though I am sure in a comparison to regulated private schools, these schools will come way behind.

"Inadequate education in India is not only a funding problem but also a result of over-regulation of the school market. The burgeoning market of low-budget private schools has enormous potential to do public good"

@ SP
"Many people in rural areas can't afford even the low-ish fees of the hole in the wall slum schools, and if they are left behind, you're neglecting 60+% of the population"

Totally true. My parents, after working as teachers in a Government school for 15 years, were completely dissatisfied at the infrastructure and quality of education. So they started this small school in a remote rural town in Tamilnadu with English as primary language. There was a lot of support from the local community to get it started. I was one of the four proud students in the first batch. Classes were added year after year (First to Sixth grade). To encourage enrollment, education fees were set very low: Rs 50 per month (Approx $1). Many parents were unable to pay even $1 and my father, on many occasions, allowed their kids to study. The management spent all the money to pay for labor and running the school. At that time, each staff was paid Rs 1000 or less which is a lot of money for a rural teacher . I don’t have accurate numbers but my guesstimate is, in the last 16 years, at least 2000 students had finished Sixth grade. Normally, they continued their high school and college in nearby big-towns. There is no doubt the school changed their career and way of life. You can find hundreds of such schools and management in rural areas.

Private schools in rural big towns, semi-urban, urban cities have a completely different picture: education fees are quite steep and the staffs, although well paid, force the students to take private tuitions. It could cost anywhere between Rs 10, 0000 and Rs 16,000 (almost $200 to $300) to finish school. This is a huge financial task for any family earning average income. Parents who can afford to pay send their kids to private schools; others send their kids to Government schools. I also have to mention parents have to pay a "donation" in addition to the tuition fees.

"A majority of these private unrecognized schools are operating outside the scope of policymakers’ radars. It is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation"

Wrong. This might have been correct 5 years ago but not now. The government clearly knows that private education is becoming a small business. Starting 2004, every District Educational Officer (DEO) (county level in-charge) has to investigate every school running in his district. He certifies if a school is good enough to be recognized. If inadequate, the school is given an official notice to upgrade its infrastructure, facilities, etc. One chance only. After one year, on second investigation, the school is either recognized or notified to transfer all the students and close during the next educational year.

Government school teachers are well-paid. I know many trained teachers who waited for 5+ years to get that job because it gives "I'm a government employee" status, steady salary with guaranteed increase and pension. Teacher salary has very less to do with the quality of education.

Almost all the private schools have English as the primary language and regional languages as option. It is quite the opposite in Government schools. First of all, Education needs more budget allocation.

For 2007, the government has actually committed six percent (of the budget) to education. Even though the budget is touted as "Budget for Education", in reality, almost all going to Central universities and other institutions allowing them to expand. Unfortunately, even for higher education, there has been hardly any provision in the Budget for expansion in the form of new public universities and other institutions, which the country desperately needs. This is the root cause.

SP & Siddhartha, You two are the ones who need to be economically literate. Very grand to be populist, looking out for the little guy and thinking of short-term benefits.

And who the hell are you? And how do you draw such absurd inferences from my comment on this post? What the hell do you know about my level of economic literacy? Give me examples of my ignorance please, or be quiet.

In the CCS study, wish they had clarified the key point of private schools outperforming public "after controlling for background variables." I didn't see a discussion of background variables like family income and the famiy's expenditure on private tuitions.

And given that govt school teachers have classes that are more than twice as large as those of the private unregulated schools, the cost is not that much higher in govt schools, and large classes do make it harder to teach effectively. The study also shows that govt schools have fewer resources like desks for students. The comparison of teacher salaries is one way of going about making the argument, because it sounds dramatic, but it might have been better to focus on investment per student in different schools. They mentioned in the survey that the private unrecognised schools were reluctant to divulge full details on resources and income, which perhaps makes a fuller comparison difficult.

One point that I very much agree with is that when parents feel they can hold teachers accountable (in this case, because they pay the teacher's salary), results will be better. There has to be a way to introduce accountability in free schools too.

I'm with SP on this - the prevalence of "tuitions" is huge. I wish I could find the link, but my favorite economists have a paper on the quality of education received at private schools and disincentives for teachers based on their desire to keep up tuition-demand. I have a feeling that, excluding tuition, the differences in performance would be much less astounding. I also seriously doubt that low pay encourages flexibility, etc., as well. I think it would be more useful to take the wages perspective out of it and examine all the other factors that contribute to, or detract from, education in the public v. private model in India.

Something I always find interesting is the high prevalence of schools in many urban/poor areas, yet there is almost no market for these skills. I'm not saying folks shouldn't have access to an education -- I personally find the whole idea of a "free market for education" to be hugely counterproductive --, but it does open a new conversation regarding the nature of the labor market.

Upwards of 1/2 of state Indian teachers don't even show up for class. Some positions are doled out as spoils from the bid for political power; some don't bother to show up because there are no facilities. Corruption is circumabient, and the results are generally poor. These initiatives are actually quite remarkable and demonstrate that the aspirational class is getting larger.

Another reason that Govt schools suck so bad is because the teacher is overburdened in duties other than just education. A friend of mine went down to India and volunteered at this Balwadi for 6 months. Balwadis are supposed to be similar to kindergarten in private urban schools, except that they are run by the Govt. The Balwadi teacher was taking are of two different 'classes' of relatively large size for that age group and besides teaching students, she also had to do various other things like double as a person maintianing weight and nutrition charts for the kids, etc. Par consequence the 'education duties' suffered sicne she did not have enough time. Similarly, primary school teachers have to double as Govt employees for holding elections and other such events.

The second problem which has already been touched here is that due to lack of adequate salaries, a bad procedure for hiring teachers and lack of accountability, a lot of Govt school teachers suck and the good ones instead take other jobs on the side (have not really heard of Govt school eachers taking tuitions, their sphere of influence is usually the poor). Thus there are many Govt schools where the teacher never shows up or rarely shows up. The idealistic and highly admirable school master like Babu's parents or shown in Bollywood is a rare phenomenon in the urban slums.

We have to consider the fact though that the NGO sector in India is a lot stronger than other similar countries. In fact the same Indian Economic Blog mentioned here had another post recently and it pointed to some reports which in fact take into consideration the strength of the Indian NGO sector while coming up with growth projections for the future, such is it's considered influence. Thus if you look at the Southern states, Maharashtra or Delhi, you will see a lot (and it is a lot and thus the proliferation rate in the IEB post is not surprising) of NGOs running schools. These schools are usually much better than Govt schools and in fact even try alternative means of imparting education instead of the traditional bookish method of instruction. I am not sure if the IEB posting differentiates between these NGO run private schools and the 'for money' slum private schools (I need to check the IEB references, they look interesting, especially the Harvard study). In the case of the NGO run schools the teachers are usually motivated (a lot of times people who give up better paying jobs to do that), the funding is non governmental and thus there is more flexibility in the curriculum, method of instruction and hiring/firing. Thus it is not a big surprise if students out of such schools do well. However, if the 'for money' hole in the wall schools are doing just as well, it would be very interesting to hear from someone who has in fact seen/heard about such a school.

This reminds me of another silent revolution that I read in the media about. This is an article by Vir Sanghvi (who I dont always like) talking about the rise of middle class activism in India

There has to be a way to introduce accountability in free schools too.

Vouchers/Charter Schools !
Although this is not within the school. It affects adjacent school districts.

'what is the real failing of public education in India?'

Camille to quote the rotund Eric Cartman most Indian folks (like Kenny) are 'POOR!' and therefore neglected.

Sorry, Vinod, but just what are you and these guys smoking?...I can't believe that a thinking person with some economic literacy could assume that a lower salary is going to produce more innovation.

....Exactly what it says... that raising teacher salaries -- one of the most commonly cited cures -- isn't the cure.

...I thought that was Vinod's point, which he spells out colloquially in his last sentance.

Correct... SP's need to comment on my econ literacy notwithstanding, my point is that the desi example shows that the $$$ the govt spends on teacher salaries is orthogonal to results. By contrast, most of the rhetoric argues that it's the central variable.

"Orthogonal" doesn't mean that I advocate raising / lowering / whatever the salaries... It means that I look elsewhere for causality for this result.

Vinod, there have been other studies by WB/UN affiliated researchers about primary education reform in India that, IMO, treat the issue more rigorously and less ideologically than the article you quoted and its interpretation of the CCS study. I can agree with the suggestion that teacher pay isn't the only answer, but I think your argument above was an endorsement of some sort of imagined lean-mean-efficient-machine unregulated school system, and I disagree with that wholeheartedly. In education, I'm afraid, you do get what you pay for, even if the wider public education system is all kinds of fucked up (and yes, every education policy type and education-related NGO is busy producing ideas for how to reform it) and the money could be spent much more efficiently. There's a huge crisis of primary education funding and a good chunk of the population is poor and lives in rural areas, so Amartya Sen's argument for investing in education for future growth makes a lot of sense in the Indian context. The rah-rah India Shining leave-it-to-the-market crowd have repeatedly failed to grasp this and are then surprised when their people lose elections because they haven't focused on inclusive growth.

How many of those who supported the CCS report got their start because the govt paid for their top-notch education at IIT? Didn't hear much complaining about the waste of govt money on that.

It means that I look elsewhere for causality for this result.

You are asking for accountability.... you can as well ask for utopia :)

Vinod, there have been other studies by WB/UN affiliated researchers about primary education reform in India that, IMO, treat the issue more rigorously and less ideologically than the article you quoted and its interpretation of the CCS study...your argument above was an endorsement of some sort of imagined lean-mean-efficient-machine unregulated school system..The rah-rah India Shining leave-it-to-the-market crowd have repeatedly failed to grasp this

Trust me, the difference isn't one of Goals (just like you, Amartya Sen, etc, I agree that "investing in education for future growth makes a lot of sense in the Indian context").. the difference is instead one of Process ("low-budget unrecognized private schools did 246% better than government school children on a standardized English test, with around 80% higher average marks in mathematics and Hindi")

Vinod, I think the first step is to address the CCS study and its claims and gaps, which many have discussed above. The better outcomes in English tests had a lot to do with the fact that the private unaided schools studied were English or mixed-medium and the govt schools were Hindi-medium. It's the Hindi-Hindi comparison that is more significant, as the study also notes (though it doesn't look quite so splashy). There is the additional, serious problem in the CCS study of not being able to get reliable cost data because the informal private schools are evasive about their finances, and there is the parallel tuition system, and so the CCS study compares only teacher salaries rather than investments per student. And while the private unaided schools were about twice as cost-efficient per student as the public schools in the CCS study, there was no mention of infrastructure costs, which is an area in which public schools really suffer. There's the donation that parents often make to get their kids into private schools, which is a way of getting around taxes IIRC but it's part of the cost even if it doesn't count under school fees for the purpose of the stufy. There's the question of class hours and teaching hours, which might be higher for the private schools because a) there's more accountability and less absenteeism and b) because the low-paid teachers have an incentive to pressure their students to take private tuitions with them, extending the teaching hours and one-on-one contact, which should also be factored into the costs and analysis, and which is probably a sound lesson of the private-public comparison (i.e. teachers need incentives to put in more time and effort) even if it often means that teachers do a lousy day-job and only focus when they have private lessons. Anyone familiar with the Indian education system would notice these gaps and want them filled, and there was much about the study that didn't pass a basic reality gut-check.

For additional studies on cost and performance, check out the link to a study I provided above (post 21). Also check out these two studies - the Kingdon one is older but very rigorous, the other one discusses teacher absence and motivation in public schools. They don't suggest that it's possible to get a better education system on the cheap.

It's also a considerable leap from "the private schooling market in India is booming" to "this is the answer for India's education needs" which is a point that came across from your original post. A lot of these new private schools can address primary education needs up to a point but not secondary education. As the Kingdon study points out, the children who attend private unaided schools will still probably end up in the public secondary system. And they will have to pass through the school certificate exams, not standardised tests in basic language and maths skills. As for the question of public school teachers sending their own kids to private schools, well, anyone who has some money will do that, and public school teachers are comfortably lower middle to middle class so they will be able to afford better schools for their kids, not the cheap hole in the wall schools. How about asking the board of CCS if they'd send their kids and grandkids to the private unaided schools? Of course they wouldn't. They know the low-paid teachers aren't going to be much good.

Sorry I was abrasive, but I was surprised that you would not have given the CCS study a close reading and relied mainly on the ideological piece pushing it, given that economics is your thang.

"In this particular case, the lessons from the piece seem directly targeted at some of the biggest dogmas which dominate education reform debates here in the US.

For example, rather than our own Government’s progressive nationalization & stricter oversight of the educational process, the explosion of Indian private schooling is coming primarily from the unregulated sector."

I agree with earlier posts that the lessons from this Indian study cannot be applied to the US system. I lived for several years in Texas on the Mexico border in one of the poorest "large" rural counties in the United States. Several school districts had been investigated for fraud and corruption and were regularly cited for being among the poorest performing in the state - a state that ranks low in education on a National level. Obviously, there are problems with public schools that need to be fixed. I do not know the specific statistics, but I am sure that students in charter and private schools in that county out-perform their public school counterparts. However, statistics do not tell the whole story since charter and private schools have the luxury of expelling students for minor infractions or for not meeting minimum grade requirements. On the other hand, the Texas Constitution mandates that the state provide free public education to all students, and the state imposes criminal penalties on parents of children (17 and younger) who have more than a few unexcused absences from school. This means that the public schools are required to absorb students who would not be admitted to private schools. If you believe in providing free public education to all students, then you have to question whether a free-market system without any government mandate would really commit to educating all kids including the "bad" ones.