salaries demoralizes instructors so that effective performance cannot be guaranteed.
The movement for public institutions to charge higher fees may indi-rectly help nongovernment training providers. So far, for-profit training providers have faced major financial constraints in expanding their services.
Now that charging more realistic fees is becoming commonplace, non-government training providers have more opportunities to enter this mar-ket (Haan 2001, p. 177). The competitive advantage enjoyed by public institutions based on fees has been reduced and may eventually disappear as the institutions become mainly self-financing.
are enough to bring nongovernment training centers any closer to the job market than their public counterparts” (Atchoarena and Esquieu 2002, p. 135). Part of the reason for indifference to employers may be the obses-sion of both public and nongovernment providers with teaching official cur-ricula and preparing students for state-administered final examinations. In Uganda, most nongovernment training providers follow official standard-ized training curricula, since their main goal is to prepare trainees for government-run trade tests for an official certificate (Haan 2001, p. 101).
Performance on final examinations can be considered a proxy for effec-tiveness, but the information available or generated by surveys was too fragmentary to produce firm conclusions. Figure 4.5 compares the examina-tion results for nongovernment instituexamina-tions in Mali in 1999–2000 with public school results.
The success rate of nongovernment school candidates in Mali seems to sur-pass results for public institutions for both the CAP and BT (figure 4.5). Within that total, however, the public institutions do marginally better in industrial fields and the nongovernment institutions do better in service subjects.
Pass percentage
Public Private 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
23 36
83 81
32 49
40
75 71
67
47 74
Total BT
industry BT
service Total
CAP CAP
industry CAP
service
Figure 4.5. Mali: Examination Results, Nonpublic and National Totals, by Type of Diploma (1999–2000)
Note:BT, Brevet Technique (nondegree technical education); CAP, Certificat d’Aptitude Professionnelle (Vocational Training Certificate).
Source:Calculated from tables 17 and 18, Atchoarena and Esquieu 2002, p. 128. Data for providers come from the IIEP survey and do not cover all candidates from private institutions.
In Senegal, a comparison of the sample of 28 nongovernment training institutions yielded the comparisons with national results (public and nongovernment) presented in figure 4.6. The overall success rates for nongovernment institutions did not appear particularly good, but they equalled or bettered those reported for all schools in most categories.
Specifically, the nongovernment sample surpassed the national results in three of four examinations (except for the BT examination) and matched those for the BEP.
The results presented in figures 4.5 and 4.6 suggest that students from nongovernment institutions may perform better than those from public institutions on examinations. However, the sample is too small for firm con-clusions. Data for Zambia are not available to compare the performance of public institutions with nongovernment organizations, but the latter seem to be doing well in preparing trainees for both local and foreign examina-tions (figure 4.7).
0 10 20 30
36.6 43.9
31.0 31.0
79.1
30.9
44.3 91.3
17.0 40 36.2
50 60 70 80 90 100
Successful graduates as
% of successful candidates
BTS T. Bac. Serv.
BT BEP
CAP
National Private
Figure 4.6. Senegal: Success Rates for State Diplomas, 2000
Notes:BT, Brevet Technique (nondegree technical education); BEP, Brevet d’Études Professionnelles; BTS, Brevet de Technicien Supérieur (nondegree postsecondary technical education); CAP, Certificat d’Aptitude Professionnelle (Vocational Training Certificate). T. Bac.
Serv., Technical Baccalaureate (Service Sector). National includes both public and nongovernment.
Source:Atchoarena and Esquieu 2002, table 11. Data for providers come from the IIEP survey and do not cover all candidates from private institutions.
In the nongovernment sector, quality varies greatly from one institution to another. The IIEP study concluded that it is “likely that variations in stan-dards are much wider within the nongovernment sector than for public institutions which are all subject to the same rules” (Atchoarena and Esquieu 2002, p. 11). In fact, variance in quality seems to be a major issue among nongovernment training providers, particularly among the lower third. Data from Ghana illustrate this point. Only half the institutions in the IIEP survey adhered to government policy directives on the number of teaching hours per week (theory and practical). Among the institutions, the number of hours in first-year theory in dressmaking ranged from 3 to 25 hours per week and in practical subjects from 2 to 20 hours. A similar pat-tern was found for carpentry and joinery, with ranges from 3 to 24 hours in theory and 6 to 36 hours per week in practical instruction. In addition, many institutions operate with below-standard equipment and facilities, and often with less qualified staff than the public sector does.
TEVETA in Zambia, having divorced itself from direct management of public training institutions, has been able to evaluate objectively the stan-dards of all training providers in the country, public and private. Each year
Successful graduates as
% of candidates
1998 1999 2000 2001
75.6
61.3
85.6
61.1
82.2
68.2
84.8
77.5
Local Foreign
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 4.7. Zambia: Examination Passes in Nonpublic Institutions by Type of Examination, 1998–2001
Source:Calculated from Kitaev with others 2002, table 3.4.
it evaluates all 250 training centers on the basis of open and transparent cri-teria. Evaluators are subcontracted for this purpose and paid for each eval-uation completed, and therefore have an incentive to identify “clandestine”
training providers. The evaluators must use the published evaluation instrument and discuss the findings with the school. Figure 4.8 shows the variation in standards attained by the various categories of nongovernment and government providers. For-profit providers show the greatest varia-tion, with over 60 percent ranked in the lowest category. Interestingly, gov-ernment institutions made up 19 percent of the lowest category.
The IIEP study considered, but rejected, the notion that strong student and parental demand, and willingness to pay, necessarily indicated better quality or relevance of nongovernment education. Demand for places by parents and trainees cannot be equated necessarily with demand for skills by employers. Instead, strong social demand in Senegal indicated a surplus demand for places that the public sector could not satisfy.
Percentage of VTIs
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 0
17 31
61
1722
6 0
19 8
17 5 3
38
4 3 11
19 19
100 100 100
20 40 60 80 100 120
Total Public
Trust Company
Community Church
Private
Figure 4.8. Zambia: Training Institutions by Type Ranked by Level of Standards, 2001
VTIs, Vocational training institutes
Note: Grade 1 institutions were deemed by TEVETA to have met standards fully; Grade 2 institutions met minimum qualifications; Grade 3 institutions failed to meet the minimum qualifications.
Source:Kitaev with others 2002.