Sir Michael Barber - Chief Education Advisor, Pearson PLC HARDtalk

pay substantial fines for making false submissions about LIBOR. A

Barclays spokesman said the company would study the report. Now on BBC

News it is time for HARDtalk. The United Nations had hoped that

by 2015 every child would be able to go to primary school. But the

last time they reported on progress to that goal they said 69 million

children were still not getting an education, most of those in sub-

Saharan Africa. Michael Barber has advised governments around the

world about education. He's now working for the international

company Pearson. It recently announced it would invest millions

in private schools for the world's poorest families. Is that the right

way to tackle the problem or could it undermine what governments are

trying to do? Welcome. Thank you. This has been

called the affordable learning fun, how easy-going to work? -- how is

this going to work? We are going to invest in chains that are for the

poorest families, to provide education for their families. There

is a huge increase in the numbers of children attending low-cost

private schools. In Dehli, only 30% of children are now in public

schools. You will find similar numbers in Lahore and in cities in

Africa. If governments are going to solve the problem of education for

families in the developing world, we have to have the government

system improving and we have to invest in the quality of private

schools. At the moment, the parents are leaving the public schools to

go to private schools because many schools are still of poor quality.

70% are choosing private schools and that shows you the quality of

government schools. Let's just look first at how you are proposing to

use this fund. $50 million is not a lot of money? It will go a long way

to get started. There are lots of one-school or two-school, little

companies and we are going to find large chains of schools that are of

high quality but still low cost and much more reliable than the current

private sector. And they are going to be run by Pearson? Not just by

Pearson. We will be a minority shareholder. You talk about a

private school in places like Africa and one presumes this is

going to be for the middle-classes and this really cannot be for the

millions of children from families on less than $1 a day? On the

contrary. These are schools for the very poor people. We are talking

about at the lowest level, $4 a month, and at the highest level,

$10 a month. So you are saying for a private school, a child would pay

$3 a month? That is the lowest end of the spectrum, yes. If you think

of it as a day's wages for a labourer, for one month's schooling,

this is low-cost education. This is not Pearson building this sector,

it has created itself over the past 15 years. There has been a huge

increase in parents choosing low- cost education. The higher cost of

private schools the more likely that there will be public schools

in the area. It is still a significant amount of money, yes.

When you are earning $1 a day... Although government schools are

officially free, they charge for uniforms, textbooks... They can

come to 70% of the cost. That is something to take into account.

Most people in the developed world have a choice. It is very

patronising to say to the poor people, you only have one choice.

It is this government school. there hidden costs in the schools

you are investing in? The first investment we have made is in Ghana,

and there are no hidden costs. The children pay each day. They walk

into the school with a wristband. That is based on consultation with

the parents in the area - rather than paying out a lump sum

quarterly, they would rather pay a small amount every day. This

includes a meal and books and everything. If they cannot pay one

day a week it is not a problem. Pearson, this is about making

money? For Pearson, this is about demonstrating that for-profit

education can provide higher quality at lower cost to poor

people across the developing world. It is absolutely for-profit. It is

important to demonstrate profit because we want other investors to

come in. It is not a huge part, as you mentioned. It is a small amount

of money but we want to demonstrate that profit education can work in

the developing world. We see a huge need and when you ask parents what

they want they say they want good quality education and in government

schools they often see a poor education. As soon as they get some

extra money they choose to pay for it. So you need to show that for

profit works? For Pearson, that will go back to shareholders.

profit will be made by the schools. So you do not get some sort of

return from that direct return? are not doing any return in the

short-term, we want the full profit in the education. I just want to

nail down how this works so people can understand. You put this money

in, expecting at some point in the future you will get capital gain

from this over the future because you will sell it on to another

investor? Maybe in ten years' time, it will go back to the owners of

the school. Who knows. But you are not expecting some dividend? We are

not trying to get a monthly return on it. Is part of the deal that

they should buy Pearson items? Pearson is a huge global enterprise.

And there is no quid pro quo that you expect something in return? No.

If that is what the school wants to do they can do that but we are not

going to make that demand. OK. get to the... You make the point it

is patronising to suggest it is the poorest in the world who should not

have a choice. There is an argument that what you are doing undermines

the government system. The head of education at Save the Children says

it diverts attention away from the problem. Even if you have this

sector as a low-cost, it is not doing anything to address the more

fundamental problem and you could be driving down costs. Many people,

governments, aid agencies - all of these people are investing and that

is right. Pearson works for governments all over the world.

you undermining what they are doing? I have worked for government.

It is a huge part of solving the education of citizens in the

developing world. And we have to improve government systems. That is

good but there is lots of investment there. The low-cost

private sector is undoubtedly part of the solution. Remember what I

said - 70% of the children in Delhi are in low-cost private schools.

Even if you make the public sector perfect - and it is a long way from

that - there needs to be low-cost private so we are investing in that.

We are in favour of people investing in government. The low-

cost private schools are cheaper per person than the government

system. Before we look at that and the quality - ideally, would the

state be providing education and would they be providing that for

free? In an ideal world I would like the government to provide free

education for everybody but also I would like somebody to be able to

choose a school with the option of choice. I know you do not like a

false dichotomy but what you are actually doing is trying to prove

that there is an expanding market for profit education and there will

be some - there are people - who say, what are you trying to do? You

are getting to the point way where you are going to effectively

control education. Government will say let's contract it out. Maybe

they will be contracting out the eduction to non-profit and profit

organisations, but the most important thing is that governments,

instead of saying "All they have to do is fix the government sector",

they should ask the question, how do we get all of the children a

good education as fast as possible? We are going to have 9 billion

people on the planet in 2050. This will only be done if we get an

improved education system. If you were to win the argument, people

need to know the intentions of Pearson. An influential American

commentator says she opposes because the idea is to get the

system up and running and then get the government to foot the bill.

This implies there is global domination. Education around the

world is a huge enterprise. More and more money is going in and I

think governments, for the foreseeable future, should be the

major provider of education. I work with governments all the time to

help them in improving their eduction systems and I am in favour

of governments but there are many parents across the developing world

who cannot get the good education they need and are choosing low-cost

private schools. If we invest in some of those changes we can

demonstrate that you can get high quality, consistent, good education

at a low cost. That is what we want to demonstrate. It is one part of

the solution in developing countries. Some say there must be

some questions raised about the ideological concern that is

provided. What kind of teachers will be hired for the schools? Will

they be teachers or computer monitors? Could there also be

teachers with different agendas? How can you ensure the quality?

you are providing education in any country, there are some regulatory

obligations. Pearson, or any other provider - and we are in a minority

stake - any provider needs to work within a regulatory framework. The

curriculum will be set by the country they are in and the

teachers will be good, young people who are going to turn up and do a

good job. In Bangladesh, there is a wonderful NGO which you may have

heard of, a fantastic organisation, which runs 30,000 primary schools.

They are not for profit but they are outside of the government

sector. The people they recruit are young women from their local

community who have a good secondary education, who are reliable and

turn up every day, are well trained, get mentored well and do a

fantastic job. If you go to those schools you will see the children

happy and learning. If you went to a government school in the same

area you will not see that. example you have cited is a not-

for-profit organisation. You are a former Labour candidate. A long

time ago. Here you are, arguing and saying that we have to show that

for-profit works. How comfortable are you with that? You know that

people will be suspicious that you may be just about making money.

am comfortable with this. The burning passion for me and for

Pearson is that there is a burning issue right now of millions of

children around the world who are not getting the education they need.

They need it now, not in ten years' time. If you look at youth

unemployment in places like Pakistan, North Africa, this is a

huge social issue that is very urgent. I hope we will work with

governments to improve their systems but in the meantime we have

millions of parents across India, Pakistan, North Africa, choosing

low-cost private schools. What is wrong with investment to improve

and get consistency in schools and get what the parents want? They

know it is important. We are going to help the parents get that.

if you do not get it right? If you are the investor... I did not mean

I am wondering about the millions who don't get an education. Let's

get back and take that broad question. Take climate change, the

future of the economy, war and peace, the distribution of wealth

around the planet. All of these things are huge problems. Take

conflict. Take the risk of nuclear weapons and all those other things

getting into the wrong hands. All the problems we know about. I'm not

saying education can solve those, but I am saying this. Education is

a key part to the solution. Unless, as a global community we really

improve the quality of education, we have very big problems ahead.

I'm pleased we're making progress. I hope we get close. Can we meet

them? We're two or three years away. I think it will be a push but

everybody should get behind them. It is global, with the right will

in the right countries. And the private sector is part of that

solution? Of course. Take the work I have been doing with the minister

in Punjab in Pakistan. His enrolment drive has been focused on,

not can I get these children out of government schools into those

schools, it is, let's get children who are out of school, into school.

We have thought about Pearson being, well, it describes itself as the

world's leading learning company. It provides training, funding for

schools. It also has an opportunity, with the dramatic reforms going on

in the British scoring system, to actually run schools. It could set

up a free school. Would Pearson be interested? I just want to make

this point. There will soon be 20 billion people on the planet. There

are 7 billion people on the earth now. The demands of the labour

market is such that each of those people need to learn more and

better than ever before to succeed as a citizen in the fast-moving

world. The demand for education is going to be vast out there. Pearson

will be part of that. They are the people we want to serve. One of the

things we're obsessed with is not just whether our products satisfy

consumers, it is whether they achieve outcomes. That is part of

my job. Just to come to the British example, massive changes going on,

with these free schools set up one year ago based on a Swedish model.

The idea is that a school is free of constraints that have typically

been on it, but still funded by the state. In one sense I can see you,

given your history, as someone being interested in that idea.

Right. Just to make this clear for viewers, I was a big part of the

Tony Blair administration's education reforms. We have had a

20-year trend towards the devolution of resources, autonomy

to school level. That is a good thing. The growth of the academies

which are a bit like charter schools and now the free schools

where individuals can come into the system... That is good. For Pearson

specifically, the regulatory framework does not allow for the

private sector to set up free schools. And it is not a priority

for us. You have pointed out the regulatory framework, but the

Swedish model does. There is an expectation that it may be a matter

of time. Is that right? Is there an inevitability that free schools

will be able to be run for profit? I don't think it is remotely

evitable. There is one free school we have been supporting. I

personally have been arguing in favour of this back when I was in

the Tony Blair administration. I am in favour of it. I didn't win the

argument inside. You didn't win. Was it the unions? Tony Blair? You

were his education guru. It would have been a big battle in the

Labour Party obviously. But my argument is this. Your job as a

government is to get children a good education as fast as possible.

I was arguing, where you have poorly performing schools, finding

ways to replace them. Which was the point of academies. And the

academies did that. For Pearson, it is not a priority, this is not

something we are urging government to do. We are in dialogue with

government about a range of things but this is not a priority. But you

would like to see it move towards profit? I have always thought that

should be an option, particularly for replacing failing schools. That

is what I have argued in the past. The jury is still out on academies,

because of the various ways of testing. As it is on free schools.

Clearly the jury is out on free schools because the first one just

finished the academic year. Some of those are very experimental. The

jury is still out on free schools. But the idea you can set up a

school if you have a good idea and there is some parental demand,

seems to be extending choice, giving parents the opportunity. It

seems very sensible. I am curious about this. When people look at the

record of charter scores in the United States, or in Sweden, it is

still not clear if they are successful. The early round some

academies are undoubtedly outperforming the rest of the

system. Are they? When you look at the data you get different

arguments. We will see the A-levels in August. I want to say another

thing. I have looked at data on charter schools in the US. If you

have a general answer, are charter schools outperforming all public

schools? You're not going to find that answer. The policy on its own

is not the answer. What is the academy doing? How do they work?

You need to translate that around. The good chains are undoubtedly

having better results. The United Learning Trust. Ark. The Harris

group in South London. These are excellent groups. If you go to

Hackney, which is where I have lived for much of the past 30 years,

it used to be known as the worst education system in England. Back

in 1995 I was involved in the closure of Hackney Downs school.

Now it outperforms many other schools. Do you find yourself in a

strange situation of telling the Conservative Education Secretary to

go for it, to push further? When I look back on the Blair

administration, and I think you asked Tony Blair, he would give the

same answer, I don't think we went fast enough. We should have gone

further. I cannot impress enough on you how much I think it is

important that we improve the quality of education, not just here,

but around the world. I think we could have gone further. We could

have gone faster. Is it unions and their vested interests holding it

back? There are unions all around the world and they take varying

positions. I don't want to sweep them away in a broad brush. But we

need people in our school systems who see the importance of improving

the quality of education rapidly to give young people the best chance

they can have in life. Obviously in any large system there are people

afraid of change who defend the status quo, and who find change