Should UK aid money be propping up private schools in developing countries?

School pupils in Sogakope, Ghana. Public education in the west African country is in urgent need of investment. Photograph: Alamy

In the past three years the Department for International Development (DfID) has made the controversial move to support low-cost privateschools in countries such as Nigeria, Ghana and Pakistan, where public education systems are in desperate need of investment.

In so doing DfID is following in the ideological footsteps of the World Bank. Indeed, a recent DfID guidance note on low-cost private education argues that these schools have a key role to play, despite acknowledging the "lack of data and comparative analysis on education outcomes to assess value for money". So is it a good use of UK taxpayers' money to invest speculatively in for-profit private schools in poor countries?

Low-cost private schools thrive in specific contexts. They flourish in illegal slum settlements in marginal urban areas, where governments fail to provide public schools because they do not recognise the settlements. Yet most slum dwellers would prefer their governments to open schools, and we should support this.

They arise, too, in other contexts where government services are largely absent, such as in rural Pakistan. Analysis shows this is the result of a lack of investment in education. Pakistan spends only 2.4% of its gross domestic product on education against a benchmark of good practice of 6%. In this context, DfID ought to be making the case for increased national investment as the only sustainable solution.

UK aid is supposed to be focused on ending extreme poverty. Support for low-cost private schools contradicts this. In fact, these schools exacerbate inequality. DfID concedes that in India, "no schools charging below $8 [£5] are able to perform well". For parents with four children living on a dollar a day, a fee of $8 a month or more per child remains out of reach.

In such contexts, parents may choose to send just one child to the low-cost school – usually boys, not girls and children with disabilities. DfID says: "Evidence does suggest there are serious equity and choice barriers associated with the growth of low-cost private schools." But it seems these concerns are not enough to halt new DfID investments.

The biggest gains in education in recent years occurred when governments eliminated school fees to deliver on the right to education. This has led to tens of millions of children enrolling in school for the first time. Supporting low-cost private schools flies in the face of this evidence.

A recent survey in Ghana found that of 450 children enrolled in low-cost private schools, 449 were previously enrolled in government schools – which will face a spiral of underinvestment. Even the private schools with the lowest fees will not help extend access to the 57 million children worldwide not at school.

Successful expansion of enrolment in public schools has often led to a dip in quality. Proponents of low-cost private schools argue they offer a model of better quality, but. their evidence is contested and inconclusive.

Proponents tend to be selective in quoting what is often flawed and superficial research on improved learning outcomes. The biggest problem is that most comparative studies fail to consider the socioeconomic status of children or the motivation of parents. This latter point is crucial, as mothers and fathers who opt to pay for their child's schooling have evidently prioritised education and are, therefore, more likely provide a supportive environment at home, which is a key determinant of educational success.

The main argument for causality of any (flawed) claims of difference in learning outcomes tends to point to teacher attendance and school accountability. Private schools make a difference by ensuring that teachers are in the classroom and that schools are accountable to parents, say proponents. If so, the coherent response should be to invest in these within the public system, expanding and improving teacher training and support, making school inspectorates work effectively, and strengthening school-management committees.

Such investments yield systemic, nationwide returns in improving quality – a much more strategic and effective use of public money. Thankfully, most DfID funding for education is spent on such efforts.

We urgently need to improve the quality of public schools, and this needs concerted attention and support, rather than toying with unproven and divisive experiments.

If a public education system is broken, it needs fixing. For many years, DfID has been a global leader in supporting public education reform through the Global Partnership for Education. Let us hope they do not break the broad global consensus on education reform by pursuing ideological distractions that threaten to undermine the right to education