In 2002, the nation of Malawi had one of the worst famines in living memory—more than 50,000 people died because of hunger and hunger-related causes. But even that number understates the devastation. Many families clung to survival only by selling all of their possessions, land, and livestock, leaving them no livelihood. Malnourished children contracted debilitating illnesses like kwashiorkor, decreasing their resilience and likelihood of surviving future hardship. Communities were broken by distrust, children sent away from their families, and countless other tragedies occurred that most of us can only imagine. Floods were the natural cause, but government policies were the true disaster.
Education policymakers are rarely faced with such clarity of failure. But I often think of this story when leaders talk about new initiatives or recommendations, because it provides such a stark example of policy backfiring. (I studied and worked in international development before moving to domestic education.) There was a common belief among development “experts” at the time that governments were too involved in their economies and in service provision, and that introducing market forces would improve the system. There are many education leaders today who say the same thing, and it’s this thought process that underlies the premise of charter schools. In urban areas, with more infrastructure, money, and greater population densities, it’s a solid premise with a lot of potential. But rural charters are a bad idea for many of the same reasons “market liberalization” was a disaster in southern Africa.
Education policymakers are rarely faced with such clarity of failure. But I often think of this story when leaders talk about new initiatives or recommendations, because it provides such a stark example of policy backfiring. (I studied and worked in international development before moving to domestic education.) There was a common belief among development “experts” at the time that governments were too involved in their economies and in service provision, and that introducing market forces would improve the system. There are many education leaders today who say the same thing, and it’s this thought process that underlies the premise of charter schools. In urban areas, with more infrastructure, money, and greater population densities, it’s a solid premise with a lot of potential. But rural charters are a bad idea for many of the same reasons “market liberalization” was a disaster in southern Africa.
RSS Feed