Moving in different circles: Global Schools Forum, human rights activists and US school choice advocates

I recently participated in two conferences organised by constituencies outside of Global Schools Forum’s (GSF) typical orbit of global education. First, the human rights community, represented at the UNESCO ‘International symposium on the future of the right to education: Renewing global commitments and charting future direction’ (Paris, 10 December 2026). Second, the US ‘school choice’ community, represented at the ‘International School Choice and Reform Conference 2026‘ (Rome, 8-11 January 2026).

These are two communities with whom GSF is only partially aligned. We align with the human rights activists on the importance of applying human rights law to protect the right to education. We don’t align with sections of this community, who assert, falsely, that basic education must be provided solely by governments: “UN Statements indicate that States are required as a matter of human rights law to directly provide public services or ensure their provision by a public body” (Policy Brief, Global Initiative for Education, Social and Cultural Rights). This is just not true.

We align with the US ‘school choice’ community on the importance of policy and regulatory environments that support both public and private education. Where we diverge is that GSF works in lower-income countries, whereas the focus of this conference is the US, and a bit Europe. The US spends around USD$20,000 per student per year in basic education. Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, where GSF members operate, spend under USD$20. Is there anything the latter really learn from the former? Here are my take-aways from the two conferences.

International symposium on the future of the right to education (UNESCO, Paris, December 2025)

This conference was the culmination of a six-year process on examining how the Right to Education (RtE) – largely codified through International Human Rights Law (IHRL) in conventions written decades ago – needs to be updated to reflect modern realities (e.g. climate, digital & AI, increasing role of private sector). It’s a process through which a lot of ‘anti-privatisation’ dialogue has played out over the years (see GIESCR quote above, as an example).

The centre-piece of the meeting was the launch of a new report (The Rights to Education: past, present and future directions) that summarises the consultations over the last six years and makes recommendations on how to strengthen IHRL. These issues are important for GSF members because IHRL provides the legal and normative frameworks within which national laws, policies and regulations are set, and in which our members operate.

GSF has been engaged in this process, both in contributing to consultations and participating in meetings, as well as publishing joint research with UNESCO on Regulating Non-state Actors in Education (referenced in the report). The basis of our engagement – which has also included engagement in related RtE processes such as the Abidjan Principles and the work of the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Education – has been to change the narrative from ‘private sector as a threat’ to ‘private sector as partners’. My main take-aways from the meeting and report as follows:

• The report / meeting / background documents do indeed reflect a change in narrative: from ‘private sector bad’ to ‘private sector part of the picture but risky, and requires regulation’. This represents progress.
• While the report is much heavier on risks of the private sector than on the benefits, the narrative is much better than it was a few years ago: importantly, the conclusion of the report on where to plug IHRL gaps is balanced: “Clear regulatory frameworks are needed to balance educational freedom with accountability, inclusion, and equity in IHRL.” This provides a good basis to move forward.

International School Choice and Reform Conference (EdChoice, Rome, January 2026)

International School Choice and Reform Conference (ISCRC) is an annual conference of over 200 researchers and policy professionals – mostly from the US, with some from Europe – focussed on ‘school choice’. Things like: charter schools, independent schools, home schooling; the policies, regulations and financial mechanisms that support them; and whether and how their performance differs from traditional public schools (TPS). I presented a paper I co-authored with GSF Founder and CEO, Aashti Zaidi Hai.

The conference is an opportunity to learn about education in the world’s largest economy, and, to some degree, Europe. Here are my top five top research findings, with two provisos: (i) not all this research was presented for the first time at the conference (though it was all referenced), (ii) where papers below are not referenced nor linked, it’s because they’re not yet in the public domain.

• Charter schools are outperforming traditional public schools in the US: a study across 23 states finds a learning premium of 16 additional school days for reading (benchmarked against a 180 school day year), and 6 for maths, when comparing Charter Schools with TPS. Performance is higher for Black, Hispanic & low-income communities, but lower for children with disabilities; and is driven by Charter Management Organisations (chains of Charter Schools, which average around 16 schools per CMO) rather than single Charter Schools. CMOs show learning gains of a whopping 27 days for reading and 23 for maths. This is the third round of the same study which has been conducted in 2009, 2013 and now 2023. In the first round, Charter Schools performed much worse than TPS. Important to note that they have taken time to succeed.
• More broadly, there is some evidence that ‘educational freedoms’ in the US are positively correlated with increased achievement: this study examines the association between ‘education freedom’ (using the 2019 Education Freedom Index) and education achievement (using 8th grade test scores from the 2019 US National Assessment of Education Progress). It finds that more education freedom is significantly associated with increased test scores and gains, “supporting the claim that choice and competition improve system-wide achievement”.
• In some countries in Europe, private schools are more efficient than public schools; in others, they are not: economic theory suggests that private schools should be better than public schools at converting inputs into outcomes. While raw scores favour private schools, after applying controls: (i) private schools are more efficient in Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Greece and Lithuania, while (ii) public schools are more efficient in Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and Slovakia. So, pretty much split down the middle.
• Private schools globally are slightly better at producing civic outcomes than public schools: a statistical meta-analysis seeking to understand the association between different types of schooling and four civic outcomes (political tolerance; political participation; civic knowledge and skills; voluntarism and social capital) identified 57 qualified studies (36 from the US and 21 from 12 other countries). On average, private schooling boosts civic outcomes by 0.055 standard deviations over public schooling. Religious private schooling do particularly well.
• School choice globally mostly has a positive effect on education attainment: an ongoing meta-analysis on the impact of private school choice on student attainment has identified 17 qualified studies (to date) covering the US, Chile and Colombia. Effects are largely positive (by a ratio of around over two positive effects for each negative), with just under half of positive effects being statistically significant.

I draw three main conclusions from these studies and from the broader conference:

• We shouldn’t assert that public is better than private; nor that private is better than public. As the Sierra Leonean Minister David Sengeh once wrote: “Governments financially support non-state schools in 171 out of 204 countries…This makes the arguments that stake positions on clear dichotomies between either private-or-public increasingly irrelevant.” Let’s not get fixated on public versus private. Let’s focus on what delivers equity and learning, and how.
• The meta-analyses presented showed clearly the paucity of datasets and research from Low-Income Countries (LICs) and Middle-Income Countries (MICs). We need more research on, in and by LICs and MICs. And we need to grow the researchers, lobbyists and policy wonks in LICs and MICs who can help apply that research for better education policy and delivery.
• As in most (all?) realms of life, politics plays a part. Support for school choice in the US comes more from red states than blue, though there are Democrat legislatures that are supportive of school choice policy measures such as vouchers. I’m reminded of the UK, where Academy schools (publicly-funded, fee-free and privately-run) were an invention of the Labour party (political left), before their expansion and re-definition by successive Conservative governments (political right). I think it’s healthy that noone owns educational freedoms politically.

So, two conferences, two different worlds. But each with insights I hope for GSF and our members.