In 1995, Educational International, which represents 30 million teachers and education workers in 171 countries, from pre-school to university, the world’s largest Global Union Federation representing teachers in every corner of the globe, had already stated that that there is a strong current in favour of the privatisation of certain sectors of economic activity that have traditionally been the preserve of the public sector. This pressure was and is exerted by various governments and international financial institutions. Some governments wish to extend these policies to social sectors such as health and education by setting up competing structures and market mechanisms, which will, in their opinion, improve the efficiency of these services, but which give rise to deep questioning among education personnel and trade unions. This privatisation movement, which is generally justified by the need to gain the best economic results in international competition, has not always lived up to the hopes pinned on it.

Teachers’ unions throughout the world have made it very clear that serious accusations of inefficiency in public services including education are purposely exaggerated by a media that is too close to the economic interests of those who promote privatisation policies. There is, of course, deep concern and anxiety among young people and their families faced with the uncertainty of their future, notably on a professional level.

Education International is there to protect the rights of every teacher and other education workers and every student they educate. It is no wonder then that it remains deeply attached to the ideas of solidarity and social justice. When these two principles are allied to the education sector, they imply firstly, equal access to free and compulsory education for all young people and secondly, equal opportunities for all young people to follow studies beyond compulsory level regardless of the financial situation of their families. The privatisation of public education services, which implies competition between school establishments, presents the danger of placing young people in separate schools organised along social and linguistic lines, and of exacerbating differences instead of reducing them, thus creating societies where the risks of non-understanding, intolerance will be not inconsiderable.

What I am writing is not a fairy tale. Forms of privatisation are being introduced into public sectors around the world. Many of the changes are the result of deliberate policy, often under the banner of “education reform”, and their impact can be far-reaching – for the education of students, for equity, for the conditions of teachers and other education personnel. Other changes may be introduced unannounced: changes in the way schools are run, which may be presented as “keeping up with the times” but in reality reflect an increasingly market-based, competitive and consumerist orientation in our societies. The Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) has also experienced something like this not so long ago. During the negotiations leading to the Reform Agreement signed in July 2007, the MUT strongly opposed and resisted government plans to have teachers and all other teaching grades employed by the different colleges according to their particular needs. This would have meant that newly employed teachers in the public sector would no longer be considered as employees under the public service employment regulations and would, therefore , not be considered as government employees. This would have had very serious consequences on teachers’ conditions of work. The MUT believes that public education is a system open to all without discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, culture or social class, free of charge, publicly funded, and managed and evaluated in accordance with the objectives and principles established democratically by public authorities. Education is not a commodity and should not be privatised. Of course, in some countries, the trend towards the privatisation of public education is hidden. It is camouflaged by the language of “educational reform” or introduced stealthily as “modernisation”. Let us not forget that even in our public schools, non-governmental foundations and other entities seem to enter our schools through the window under the pretext that they are “offering a service”, or that “they have been asked “to outsource”. The MUT had also issued a press release strongly criticizing the so-called “outsourcing” of personnel who were and are still “teaching” drama in a few Primary Schools without even holding a Teacher’s Warrant.

Education Management Organisations (EMOs), for profit and non-profit management companies engaged in take-over and operation of public education, are becoming big business in the UK. In the UK, it is estimated that about £5 billion worth of services in public education could be contracted out to private organisations per annum. There is nothing new in making a profit from education, although profit making has historically occurred in many forms. What is relatively new is the recent development of private enterprises taking over public schools and education authorities and engaging directly in teaching and learning activities for fees or profit.

The questions one must ask are: Is education about giving each child, each young person, the opportunity to develop his or her potential as a person and as a member of society? Or is education to be a service sold to clients, considered from a young age to be consumers and targets for marketing? What is all this talk about “Public Private Partnership”? Forms of privatisation are pursued explicitly as effective solutions to the perceived inadequacies of public service education. However, in many cases the stated goals of policy are articulated in terms of “choice”, “accountability, “school improvement” or “effectiveness”. Privatisation may also mean the importing of ideas, techniques and practices from the private sector in order to make the public sector more like business and more business-like. It may also mean the opening up of public education services to private sector participation on a for-profit basis and using the private sector to design, manage or deliver aspects of public education.

Forms of hidden privatisation – market forms, competition, choice and a focus on performance management – carry ethical dangers and many examples of opportunistic and tactical behaviours are already apparent in schools and among parents in such systems.

Educational International will continue to lobby at all levels by showing that public education services are most often effective, contrary to the affirmation of numerous government and employer forums. Even in the UK, the largest teachers’ union, the National Union of Teachers (NUT), has opposed and still opposes any form of privatisation of the public education sector. The MUT is an active member of Education International. In fact, it is one of the 394 member unions that form part of this strong Global Union Federation.

The MUT is constantly watching developments and any hidden attempt favouring any sort of intrusion on our public education will be prevented.

Mr Bencini is president of the Malta Union of Teachers