Content uploaded by Susan Kippels
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan Kippels on May 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
January 2015
Working Paper 08
Working Paper No. 2
Private Education in the United Arab
Emirates and Qatar:
Implications and Challenges
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami
Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
PERI Grant No.: OR201-08895
Abstract
Over the last three decades, continued expatriate population growth across the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) and Qatar has contributed to the rise of a unique set of economic and social challenges. Among
these are challenges relating to the provision of private education in the absence of a public option. In
the face of rising demand for private schooling, a lack of affordable education options, the monopolistic
behavior of private education providers, and varied government regulations have created a complex
and unbalanced education sector. While researchers have studied the nature and implications of private
education provision in the United Kingdom, United States, and other high-income states, no such research
has been done in the UAE or Qatar. This research employs a mixed-methods comparative approach to
understand the nature of the private education sectors in the UAE and Qatar, examine the ways in which
private education providers navigate the regulatory schooling environments in the UAE and Qatar, and
assess the impact on education stakeholders, in particular those at the lower ends of the socioeconomic
spectrum. The study finds that there are considerable socioeconomic differences in terms of who has
access to schooling and that a growing for-profit education market may be deepening segregation and
inequities in both countries, leaving poorer families less able to access quality education. The promise of
non-profit providers as a viable alternative is explored.
Natasha Ridge is the Executive Director of the Al Qasimi Foundation. She holds a doctorate of education
in international education policy from Columbia University.
Susan Kippels is a Research Associate at the Al Qasimi Foundation. She holds a master’s in international
education policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Soha Shami is a Research Associate at the Al Qasimi Foundation. She holds a bachelor’s in economics
from the American University of Sharjah.
The Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research Working Paper Series is designed to
disseminate ongoing research to individuals and institutions interested in the development of public
policy in the Arab world. Findings and conclusions are solely those of the authors and should not be
attributed to the Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Privatisation in Education
Research Initiative (PERI), which funded this study. They appreciate PERI’s continued encouragement
and dedication to education research globally.
5
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Contents
..................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................
............................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
7
7
11
15
14
16
24
29
31
19
16
24
26
Introduction
Private and Public Education Today
Private Education in the UAE and Qatar
The Study
Limitations
Survey Findings
Parent survey
Teacher survey
Interview Findings
Regulatory frameworks
Principal interviews
Discussion
Conclusion
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
6
7
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
The expansion of public education in the Gulf region began with the discovery of oil in the 1950s.
The accompanying rapid economic and social development that occurred across the region
at the same time necessitated the employment of large numbers of expatriate workers. Many
of these workers brought their families with them, and their children then needed access to
schooling. To meet the needs of these expatriate families, private schools offering a variety of
curricula were required. Thus, the private education sector began to expand and quickly out-
grew the public education sector as, over time, the number of expatriates in many Gulf countries
began to exceed the number of nationals.
Although the Gulf region has not engaged much in the privatization of the public education
sector (with the exception of Qatar1), the dominance of the private education market and of its
for-profit providers raises questions about issues of access and equity, in particular for medium-
and low-income families who have no access to public schools. This paper examines these issues
and explores how they impact families, educators, and society in the UAE and Qatar.
A mixed-methods approach was utilized with three key measures: (1) interviews with government
education agencies, (2) interviews with key private education providers, and (3) surveys and interviews
with individual stakeholders, namely parents and teachers. The paper begins by examining the
unique educational landscapes of the UAE and Qatar, in which private education has flourished. The
second half of the paper details the research findings and examines how various private education
providers (K-12) affect families and education professionals in the UAE and Qatar. We conclude with
a discussion of how the dominance of the for-profit sector impacts private school access and equity,
and how this may have far wider implications than governments suppose, potentially threatening
not only education quality, but also the social fabric of both countries.
Private and Public Education Today
Global education today is a mix of private and public systems, with private schools and private
operators of public schools becoming increasingly common. In Sweden, private school
enrollments soared from less than one percent in 1994 to over 10% in 2008 (The Swedish Model,
2008). Along the same lines, the number of students in private schools in Australia increased from
roughly 20% in 1970 to over 33% in 2012 (McCrindle Research, 2013). In the United States (US),
while the number of students enrolled in traditional private schools dropped by 2% from 1999 to
2013 with the closure of many Catholic schools, there has been a steady increase in the number
of private companies operating public schools through the growing charter school movement
(Jennings, 2013). Charter schools in the US rose from less than 2% of public schools in 2000 to
over 6% in 2013 (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2014).
In 2012, global education expenditure was over 4.4 trillion USD, and that number is estimated
to grow by 7.4% by 2017 (IBIS Capital, 2013), making education a lucrative market that private
1 In the early 2000s, Qatar underwent major education reforms led by RAND Cooperation. The reforms included
contracting out public schools to private operators. This is described in more detail later in the paper.
Introduction
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
8
companies are eager to tap. Government, international, and educational establishments have
influenced the popularity of private schooling, which may come in the form of community, faith-
based, entrepreneurial, corporately-financed, or philanthropic schools (Lewin, 2014). On a global
level, international organizations such as the World Bank, foundations such as the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, and universities like Harvard are increasingly advocating for the expansion of
the private sector in education (Robertson & Verger, 2012).2
Many proponents of private education fail to distinguish between for-profit and non-profit
provision, despite some fundamental differences. Non-profit schools generally have a legal
identity and reinvest in the entity, whereas for-profit schools typically have investors or owners to
whom the profits are passed back (Lewin, 2014). Since non-profits cannot distribute profits earned
among owners and managers, they have less of an incentive to employ opportunistic practices
than for-profits do (Brown, 1992; Hansmann, 1996). Some scholars have found that firms whose
primary motive is increasing business returns “cannot be trusted to place the interest of children
over profitability” (Elacqua, 2009, Abstract), and, as Bakan (2004) points out, public institutions are
required to serve the public good while “corporations are legally required to always put their own
interest above everyone else’s” (p. 118).
For-profit providers are seizing the opportunity to expand into both private and public
education markets, arguing that they can scale quality education (GEMS Education, n.d.).
Working in the public markets offers for-profit companies a steady stream of revenue from
the government and the chance of a bailout if something goes wrong (Wilby, 2010). These
partnerships are controversial as they mix education with business ventures, and little is known
about the ways the industries “not only help rationalize, industrialise[,] and professionalise this
way of governing, but ensure that policy reversals are increasingly difficult” (Greve, 2010 in
Robertson & Verger, 2012, p. 18).
The charter school system in the US is an example of such a trend, wherein some public schools
are managed by private, for-profit companies. Charter schools started to operate in the US in 1991
(NEA, 2014), and, by 2013, there were 6,000 charter schools educating 2.3 million children (Wiggin,
2013). Edison Schools Inc. was started in 1992 by Chris Whittle, and by 2002 it was the largest
private manager of for-profit charter schools in the US, operating 150 schools across 23 states
(McCloskey, 2009; Solomon, 2002). Edison Schools came under scrutiny in the early 2000s when
researchers found that Edison School students did not have higher academic performance than
students attending regular public schools. The company also faced public protests over Edison
officials’ encouraging special education students to transfer to other schools (Saltman, n.d.). In
2002, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discovered financial discrepancies, and
the mounting controversy led Edison’s publically traded stock to fall from over 20 USD on the
NASDAQ stock exchange to less than 0.14 USD (McCloskey, 2009; Henriques, 2003; Bakan, 2004).
To recover money from its Philadelphia schools, the company began to sell student learning
materials such as textbooks, school computers, and lab equipment and also considered using
student labor to cut down on costs (Bakan, 2004). Many of the contracts for public schools under
Edison’s management were revoked or not renewed, with states’ resuming control over some
2 For more information about the policy networks of private and philanthropic organizations and their growing
influence in education governance, see Ball, 2012.
9
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
of the schools (Henriques, 2003; Richburg, 2008). Edison Schools was sold in 2003 to a Florida
investment firm as part of a deal that left Chris Whittle with an estimated 29 million USD payout
over five years, even though the company had not made a profit since its creation (Caputo, 2003).
With the decline in school management contracts, Edison began to shift its focus to education
services, such as test preparation and tutoring, and the expansion of an online learning platform;
it also rebranded itself as EdisonLearning (EdisonLearning, 2014; McCloskey, 2009). Despite
this failure, EdisonLearning still markets itself as a pioneer of American charter schools, and in
2014 it was working with approximately 50 schools between the US (in 11 states) and the UK
(EdisonLearning, 2014).
Sweden is another country in which private education is growing, largely due to government
reforms passed in 1994 that allow anyone who “satisfies basic standards to open a new school and
take in children at the state’s expense. . . . Nothing extra can be charged for, but making a profit is
fine” (The Swedish Model, 2008, p.1). The law was originally passed with the public expectation that
foreign language or religious schools would open; however, there was instead an influx of for-profit
education management companies (The Swedish Model, 2008). A political adviser to the Minister
of Schools in the Swedish government from 1991-1994, Anders Hultin, was branded an architect
of the education reforms. In 1999, Anders Hultin became the cofounder of Kunskapsskolan, the
largest international for-profit education provider in Sweden (Hultin, 2007; The Swedish Model,
2008; Curtis, 2009). Kunskapsskolan has been compared to IKEA due to its standardized, largely
online curriculum in a no-frills setting (The Swedish Model, 2008). Kunskapsskolan operates 36
schools in Sweden, five in the UK (run under a non-profit trust), one in the US, and one in India
(Kunskapsskolan, 2014). JB Education was another major for-profit, private school chain in Sweden
until 2013 when it sold 19 schools and closed down eight others because its parent company, a
private equity group, found the financial loss associated with the investment unacceptable (Smith,
2013).3
Legislation passed in 2010 in England allows the establishment of academies, which include
“free schools,” that operate under private education policies similar to those in Sweden (“MPs
pass flagship,” 2010). Ed Balls, the Shadow Education Secretary, has predicted that the movement
towards free schools will “create an unfair and two-tier education system . . . with gross unfairness
in funding, standards not rising but falling, fairness and social cohesion undermined” (“MPs pass
flagship,” 2010, p. 1). Free schools can be set up by parents, teachers, charities, trusts, and religious
and volunteer groups and receive funding from the central government (“Q&A: Academies,”
2012). Unlike in Sweden, these government-funded, privately run schools cannot be run by for-
profit providers (Richardson, 2013). Yet providers such as Kunskapsskolan and Dubai-based Global
Education Management Systems (GEMS), the largest international for-profit education provider in
the world, with over 70 schools globally,4 have found loopholes and are able to run free schools
by operating under not-for-profit trusts (GEMS Learning Trust, 2014; Kunskapsskolan, 2014).5
3 Anders Hultin had left Kunskapsskolan and was serving as Chief Executive of JB Education at the time of the of JB
Education school closures (Orange, 2013).
4 From 2009-2010 Anders Hultin worked as CEO of GEMS Education UK (Hultin, 2014).
5 The trusts can still legally subcontract out daily work to the commercial, for-profit branches of the company that
charge management fees and sell supplies (“Educating children should,” 2010).
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
10
In contrast to the US, Sweden, and England, for-profit schools are not allowed to operate in
Australia at the primary or secondary levels (see Table 1). Schools must be non-profit to receive
public funding, and for-profit schools are illegal under Victorian law (Rome & Smith, 2012;
Han, 2013). Even with these barriers, international for-profit education providers such as GEMS
Education have attempted to enter the market but so far have been met by resistance and have
not succeeded in opening any branches (Han, 2013).
For-profit education providers are changing the nature and purpose of education globally.6 While
public and non-profit education provision aims to help children develop desirable qualities,
which will contribute to society in the long-term, for-profit providers are profit-driven and often
do not share such concerns about access and equity among stakeholders or the broader social
good. Even though for-profit chains often claim that they serve everyone, “the temptation to turn
away the difficult children from poorer backgrounds or those with special educational needs
might be too great to resist. For they would almost certainly be less profitable [sic]” (“Educating
children should,” 2010, p. 1).
6 According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, education is a human right (United Nations [UN], 2014).
The purpose of education is broadly defined as preparing students to live productively and meaningfully, and,
from an Education for All (EFA) standpoint, education is seen as acting to eradicate poverty, promote gender
equality, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat disease, encourage sustainability, and aid in
global development (UN, 2014).
Sources: (State of Washington, 2014),1 (“Kids of illegal,” 2012),2 (UK Visa Bureau, 2014),3 (ACT Government, 2014)4
Table 1: Comparative summary of private education in four countries
Country
For-profit
schools
allowed?
Large private education providers
Free public
schooling
available to all
children?
United States Yes
Catholic church, Gulen, Knowledge Is
Power Program (KIPP), Edison Schools
(formerly)
Yes1
Sweden Yes
Kunskapsskolan, Internationella
Engelska Skolan (IES), JB Education
(formerly)
Yes2
England Yes Church of England, Catholic church,
United Learning Trust, GEMS Yes3
Australia No Catholic church, other religious
groups
Available to all
children but
tuition may
be required,
depending on
resident status4
11
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
In the 1960s and 1970s, with the influx of oil money, Gulf countries began rapid development
projects and became increasingly dependent on foreign labor. In 1975 only 9.7% of the Gulf
population was foreign, but, by 2011, that figure had more than quadrupled to 43% (Fargues
& Shah, 2011). While public education was expanding in the region for the locals, the private
education sector was growing to meet the increasing demand from expatriate students who
were not eligible to attend local public schools. Today, there are estimated to be 4,400 private
schools (roughly 12% of all schools) in the GCC that collect 5.2 billion USD in tuition fees on an
annual basis (“Education is a big business,” 2011).
When the UAE and Qatar are examined, it becomes clear how much the two nations are fueling
the present-day growth in the private education sector in the Gulf region. In the UAE (Dubai and
Abu Dhabi only), the private K-12 education sector is valued at 1.4 billion USD (27% of the GCC
market), while Qatar’s private education sector is expected to triple from 430 million USD (7%
of the GCC market) in 2010 to up to 1.5 billion USD in 2020 (Moujaes, et al., 2011). Survey results
from HSBC’s Expat Explorer Survey (HSBC, 2012) revealed that common to all private education
systems in the UAE and Qatar is the shared parental concern over the affordability of schooling.
With schooling costs accounting for 30% and 35% of average household incomes in the UAE and
Qatar respectively, it is crucial to understand the scope of private education in the two nations
(HSBC, 2012).
In 2010, the UAE had a population of approximately eight million, with nationals composing only
11.5% of the population (National Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Qatar had a population of around
two million in 2011, with the number of nationals making up less than 15% of the population
(Kinninmont, 2013). Between the UAE and Qatar, there were almost 800,000 students enrolled
in private schools during the 2013-2014 academic year (see Figures 1 and 2). During that time,
approximately 681,500 of those students were enrolled in private schools across the UAE. These
students attended 185 private schools in Abu Dhabi, 158 private schools in Dubai, and 167 private
schools in the five smaller, northern emirates (Ajman, Fujairah, Ras Al Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm
Al Quwain) (Abu Dhabi Education Council [ADEC], 2014a; Knowledge and Human Development
Authority [KHDA], 2014; Ministry of Education [MOE], United Arab Emirates [UAE], 2014). In
Qatar, there were roughly 94,000 students enrolled at 166 private schools during the 2013-2014
academic year (Moujaes et al, 2011; Hukoomi Qatar e-Government).
While many typically think of the Gulf as being inhabited by either well-paid bankers or poorly
paid construction workers, the sheer scale of the expatriate workforce in the Gulf means there are
expatriates of every nationality and wage level. Governments have enacted regulations on expatriate
workers designed to limit their number of children. In the UAE, expatriate workers are only allowed
to obtain visas for their families if they earn a minimum monthly salary of 4,000 AED (approximately
1,089 USD) (Kannan, 2014). However, in Qatar, workers are only permitted to bring their families
with them if their monthly salary is at least 10,000 QAR (roughly 2,747 USD). This means that the
lowest paid expatriate workers, namely construction workers, with families have had to leave their
children in their home countries. Among expatriate families who are permitted to migrate to the
two nations, there are large differences in salaries based on nationality (Tong, 2010).
Private Education in the UAE and Qatar
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
12
450
Private and
public schools
185
Private schools
12%
% of private
schools that
are non-prot
200,000
Students in
private schools
65%
% of students in
private schools
25%
% of nationals
in private schools
$789 million
Annual fees paid to
private schools
25,000
Shortage of private
school spaces
50,000
Students without
school spots in the
2015-2016 school
year
234
Private and
public schools
156
Private schools
21%
% of private
schools that
are non-prot
243,715
Students in
private schools
89%
% of students in
private schools
57%
% of nationals
in private schools
$1.27 billion
Annual fees paid to
private schools
26,285
Shortage of private
school spaces
8%
% of students without
school spots in the
2015-2016 school
year
Abu Dhabi Dubai
Education Statistics
and
Figure 1. Abu Dhabi and Dubai education statistics
Data sources (Abu Dhabi): (ADEC, 2014b), (ADEC, 2014a), (“School fee cap,” 2014), (Issa, 2013)
Data sources (Dubai): (Moujaes et al, 2011), (QEI, 2012), (“Minister stresses need,” 2013), (Alpen Capital, 2012),
(Bakshi, 2014), (Hukoomi Qatar e-Government, 2014)
13
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Figure 2. Qatar education statistics
Sources: (Moujaes et al, 2011), (QEI, 2012), (“Minister stresses need,” 2013), (Alpen Capital, 2012), (Bakshi, 2014),
(Hukoomi Qatar e-Government, 2014)
Qatar Education Statistics
3-4
Minimum number of new
Indian schools needed in the
country to meet demand
$430 million
Private schools’
market value in 2010
362
Total number of schools
(independent, semi-independent,
private, embassy)
160
Number of private schools
$1.06 billion -
$1.50 billion
Expected market value
range of private education
system by 2020
29%
Percentage of nationals
in private school
30%
Percentage of private schools
that are non-prot
(includes community schools)
94,200
Number of students in
private schools
49%
Percent of all students
in private schools
In addition to receiving low salaries, parents in the UAE and Qatar frequently struggle to find
school spaces for their children. In Abu Dhabi, there was an acute shortage of around 25,000
private school spaces during the 2013-2014 academic year, and, as shown in Figure 1, ADEC
estimates that the shortage will double by the 2015-2016 school year (Issa, 2013). In Dubai during
the 2012-2013 school year, private schools were filled at 90% capacity (KHDA, 2013). However,
there were still long waiting lists at many schools in Dubai, particularly at the primary level, which
left some parents unable to secure spots for their children (Ahmed, 2013; Dhal, 2013a). In Qatar,
shortages of school spaces are also common, particularly in low-fee schools that follow Indian
and Bangladeshi curriculums (Scott, 2014). According to Alpen Capital (2012), the number of
private schools in Qatar will have to grow by a compound annual growth rate of 6% from 2011
to 2016 in order to keep up with the growing student population, which is expected to increase
quickly with the arrival of skilled expatriate workers for the 2022 FIFA World Cup (see Figure 2).
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
14
The Study
It is clear that the private education sector in both the UAE and Qatar is expanding rapidly and
shows no sign of slowing down. While schools are subject to inspections by authorities, and fee
caps are typically enforced to ensure that tuition rates are not excessive, there is still very little
authorities can do to raise the quality of or ensure the ethical treatment of teachers and families,7
especially for those in the more vulnerable communities. The remainder of this paper focuses in
greater detail on the questions below to better understand the nature of the private education
sector in the UAE and Qatar and how current practices may not only impact the most vulnerable
education stakeholders, but also threaten the long-term social fabric of the nations:
1. In what ways are governments in the UAE and Qatar regulating and developing the private
education sector?
2. How is access to education and quality of education received in the UAE and Qatar impacted
by socioeconomic status?
3. Does the abundance of for-profit school operators threaten not only access to and equity of
education, but also quality of education in the UAE and Qatar?
4. What are some long-term implications for these two countries?
To address these questions, the study employed a mixed-methods comparative approach to
capture the different perspectives of stakeholders, including education providers, policymakers,
government agencies, parents, and teachers.
Quantitative data was gathered from two surveys distributed to parents and teachers. A total
of 190 responses were received from parents of private school children in the UAE and Qatar.
Seventy-six teachers were also surveyed in order to gain insight into their perceptions of access
and equity with respect to their schools, with a particular emphasis on schools’ profit status. The
findings section reports the primary results from the survey in the form of descriptive statistics
and cross-tabulations using an SPSS statistical software package.
In addition to the surveys, the researchers also conducted in-depth interviews with five
education regulation agencies, nine school principals, eight parents, and six teachers to fill in
any information gaps that the surveys could not address regarding the four research questions.
During all interviews, the researchers followed standard human subject protocols by guaranteeing
the anonymity of interviewees, obtaining oral consent from the interviewees to participate,
and informing the interviewees of their rights to withdraw or choose not to answer any of the
questions during the interview.
7 In March 2014, a student at a for-profit secondary school wrote a lengthy suicide letter to his family on an exam
before killing himself. The school reportedly refused to give a copy of the letter to the boy’s family. A month after
the death, the school was still billing the family for school fees and mailed the family a notification that the dead
boy had been promoted to the next grade (Kumar, 2014).
15
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Limitations
As a result of the lack of publicly available data, institutional barriers, sensitivities, and travel
restrictions, there were some limitations to the study. The apparent sensitivity of the topic of
the study for those in the UAE and Qatar meant that respondents were often unwilling to speak
in detail, or to speak at all, about their experiences in the private education sector during the
interviews. This resulted in a smaller sample size than originally targeted and perhaps curbed
discussions of some of the issues. Two out of the five interviewees from education authorities
mentioned that they could not comment or asked to go off the record on particular questions
that were raised during their interviews. Interviews with principals from for-profit private schools
were more difficult to secure than those with principals from non-profit schools. In Qatar, the
researchers were turned away from most (at least three) scheduled principal interviews upon
arrival and told they needed written approval from the Supreme Education Council (SEC), the
primary regulatory body for education in Qatar. The only exceptions in Qatar were two non-
profit schools. There was a general sense of fear of being interviewed among schools that
were contacted in Qatar, and one school explicitly stated that the school board did not wish to
participate in what its members considered to be an interview with “inflammatory” questions.
After repeated cancellations of interviews in Qatar, the researchers finally received oral approval
to meet with private school principals after the second and final visit to Qatar, but, unfortunately,
this was too late for the purposes of the study.
Table 2. Parent respondent nationality distribution in the UAE and Qatar
Nationality UAE Qatar Total Total (%)
Expatriate Arab 20 19 39 22%
South Asian* 48 13 61 34%
East Asian* 311 14 7.9%
Western 34 12 46 26%
African 2 0 2 1.1%
Other 11 4 15 8.5%
Total* 118 59 177 100%
* Some respondents did not answer the questions on nationality and/or location of residence, and thus the
number of responses is less than the total number of respondents.
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
16
Survey Findings
I. Parent survey
Demographic prole. The parent survey was distributed through online expatriate social networks,
school visits, and the researchers’ personal networks and relied on convenience sampling to reach
parents. It explored demographic characteristics, access to schooling, perceptions of private
school regulation, and the impact of current government policies on expatriate families. One-
hundred-ninety responses were received, and, of the total, 125 were based in five emirates across
the UAE, namely Ras Al Khaimah, Sharjah, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Fujairah, and 63 were based in
Qatar (the remaining two respondents failed to report their locations). The nationality breakdown
of the respondents is shown in Table 2. Approximately 33.5% were male, and the remaining
66.5% were female. The majority were educated and had completed either a bachelor’s degree
or master’s degree.
Figure 3. Source of private school funds by nationality
20%
0%
40%
60%
My spouse and I pay
What is your nationality?
Arab
Western
South Asian
East Asian
African
My employer or my
spouse’s employer
pays
The government pays
through scholarships or
other voucher’s, etc.
The government pays
through public schooling
programs
Socioeconomic dierences in terms of access. The survey results indicate the existence of striking
socioeconomic differences in terms of access to quality private education in the UAE and Qatar. To
begin with, there are clear differences in the total annual household earnings of nationality groups
in the UAE and Qatar. Arab and Asian expatriate families earn, on average, 150,000–200,000 AED/
QAR (40,839–54,451 USD) annually, compared to Western expatriates, who earn a much higher
350,000–500,000 AED/QAR (95,290–136,129 USD). In addition to their higher salaries, Westerners
17
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Figure 4. Average percent of annual income spent on private school by
nationality group
Arab
Western
South Asian
East Asian
African
0 5 10 15 20
were more likely to receive educational subsidies from their employers. Figure 3 illustrates this
difference in the UAE and Qatar, where 63.9% of Westerners reported that at least 75% of their
children’s educational costs were covered by their employers or their spouses’ employers; only
37.8%, 36.7%, and 41.7% of Arabs, South Asians, and East Asians respectively reported receiving
the same benefit.
22.1
10.4
19.3
7.2
5.0
Average % of household income spent on private school
Impact of private education costs on families. The survey results also indicate that private
school costs impact nationality groups differently. Arab and South Asian parents reported paying
15,000–20,000 AED/QAR (4,084–5,445 USD) on average annually per child on school fees, while
East Asian parents paid 5,000–10,000 AED/QAR (1,361–2,722 USD). Westerners, on the other hand,
pay around 25,000–50,000 AED/QAR (6,806–13,613 USD), approximately 30% more on average
annually. Despite the higher tuition fees paid by Western parents, Arab and South Asian parents
still reported having to spend a higher proportion of their total annual income on school fees,
22% and 19% respectively, as opposed to 10% as shown in Figure 4.
Value for money of education. Not only did parents report differences in access to private
education across expatriate nationality groups, but the survey results also revealed differences in
how satisfied parents were with non-profit versus for-profit schools. Parents whose children were
enrolled at non-profit schools reported being happier with regard to the value-for-money of their
child’s education. More specifically, 50% of parents of children in non-profit schools compared to
30% of those with students in for-profit schools strongly agreed with the statement “the quality
of education [in my child’s school] is in line with school fees” as shown in Figure 5.
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
18
Figure 5. Quality of education and consistency with school fees
20%
10%
0%
40%
30%
50%
60%
(1)
Strongly Agree
On a scale of 1-4, how much do you agree with the statement,
“The quality of education is in line with school fees”?
Profit status
Non-profit
For-profit
(2) (3) (4)
Strongly Disagree
Comments and recommendations from parents. At the end of the survey, parents were given
space to add any comments or recommendations with regard to private schooling in the UAE
and Qatar. A number of topics arose including access and fees. One parent whose child currently
attends an Indian for-profit school in the UAE remarked,
“[We] need more schools with Indian curriculum as it’s a [big] community. Villa
schools were closed prior to having any alter[native] arrangements made. New
schools are charging [high fees], which [the] majority of families can’t afford.”
Parents also stressed that schools should be concerned more with education quality than with
fees and that they should take less of a commercial interest. Western parents, however, reported
fewer concerns about fees than their South Asian counterparts. Rather, Western parents were
more affected by the lack of access to other educational options. One parent reported,
“I’d like there to be more viable options—possibly a proper Montessori or a smaller
primary school with a more intimate and individualized feeling. A dual language
school where my kids could learn Arabic and Arabic speaker[s] could learn English
would be an attractive option for my family. We would happily spend more for a
different experience (even though our tuition allowance doesn’t even cover half of
our education expenses).”
Approximately 75 of 86 respondents mentioned that they would like to see improvements in
teacher quality and school facilities.
19
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Figure 6. Teacher nationality distribution from parent surveys in the UAE
and Qatar
II. Teacher survey
Demographic and professional prole. Following the parent survey, the researchers distributed
an online teacher survey through online teacher networks, expatriate social networks, school
networks, posts on online education forums, and the researchers’ personal networks and again
relied on convenience sampling. A total of 76 completed responses were received from teachers
teaching at private schools in the UAE and Qatar with 27.6% being male and 72.4% being female.
Of the total number of respondents, 47 were based in the UAE (across Ras Al Khaimah, Sharjah,
Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Ajman), and 29 were based in Qatar. The nationality breakdown of these
respondents is shown in Figure 6, with Western respondents making up the majority of the
sample, followed by Arabs and South Asians respectively.
51
32
15
1 1
Arab Western South Asian East Asian African
Approximately 94% of those teaching in non-profit schools reported holding an official teaching
certification or license, as opposed to 85% in for-profit schools. Moreover, teachers in for-profit
schools reported having an average of 13 years’ teaching experience, with five years’ in their
current schools while those in for-profit schools had around 12 years’ teaching experience, with
four years’ at their current schools.
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
20
Teacher workload, curriculum, and school prot status. While teachers came from schools
offering a wide range of curricula, the majority, 56.5%, taught at British or British/International
Baccalaureate (IB) schools with others coming from American, Indian, Ministry of Education,
Egyptian, or Iranian curriculum schools. Thirteen of the 49 respondents who taught at British
or British/IB curriculum schools were at non-profit schools, the highest proportion compared
to schools of other curricula. In terms of workload, teachers from non-profit schools reported
having to teach, on average, 105 students during the most recent term while those from for-profit
schools reported teaching 303 students a term.
Teacher salary and benets at for-prot and non-prot schools. The survey results show that
teachers working at non-profit schools reported receiving higher monthly salaries than their for-
profit counterparts, with average salary ranges of 10,000 - 15,000 AED/QAR (2,723–4,084 USD) as
compared to the average salary range of teachers at for–profit establishments, which is 5,000–
10,000 AED/QAR (1,361–2,723 USD). Over 30% of teachers at non-profit schools received monthly
salaries above 20,000 AED/QAR (5,445 USD) while less than 5% of those in for-profit schools did,
as illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Teacher salaries by profit status
20%
10%
0%
40%
30%
50%
Less than
2,000
AED/QAR
2,000-5,000
AED/QAR
5,001-10,000
AED/QAR
10,001-15,000
AED/QAR
15,001-20,000
AED/QAR
More than
20,000 AED/QAR
Monthly salary range
What is the profit status
of your school?
Non-profit
For-profit
21
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Table 3. Benefits attained by teachers at for-profit and non-profit schools
Profit status
Housing
allowance/
accomodation
Transportation
allowance
Health
insurance
Annual
flight
Funding
of
children’s
education
Maternity/
paternity
leave (if
applicable)
Non-
profit
Mean .78 .17 .83 .72 .33 .22
N18 18 18 18 18 18
Standard
Deviation
.428 .383 .383 .461 .485 .428
For-
profit
Mean .59 .33 .67 .56 .22 .37
N27 27 27 27 27 27
Standard
Deviation
.501 .480 .480 .506 .424 .492
Note: Means are reported from a range of 0 to 1, with 1 representing a “yes” response and 0 representing a
“no” response to whether or not the teacher received the benefit in question.
In addition to higher salaries, teachers working at non-profit schools generally indicated receiving
more work benefits than their for-profit counterparts. For instance, as shown in Table 3, while
78% of teachers working at non-profit schools reported receiving housing allowance or other
accommodation benefits, 59% of those in for-profit schools received the same. Teachers at non-
profit schools were also more likely to receive health insurance, annual flights, and education
allowances than their for-profit counterparts. Nevertheless, 16% and 15% more teachers at for-
profit schools reported receiving transportation allowance and maternity/paternity leave benefits
respectively.
Finally, given these salaries and benefits, 55.6% of teachers at non-profit schools and 51.9% of
teachers at for-profit schools reported that their salaries adequately covered their living expenses.
A similar percentage of teachers at non-profit and for-profit schools reported engaging in income-
supplementing activities, mainly private tutoring, outside of their school work.
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
22
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
20%
20%
20%
Non-
profit
Non-
profit
Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Non-
profit
Non-
profit
Profit statusProfit status
Profit statusProfit status
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
For-
profit
For-
profit
For-
profit
For-
profit
40%
40%
40%
40%
60%
60%
60%
60%
80%
80%
80%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 8. Students are receiving
value-for-money education at this
school.
Figure 10. Teachers are involved in
making important decisions in this
school.
Figure 9. I wouldn’t want to work in
any other school.
Figure 11. Teachers are appropriately
compensated for their work in this
school.
23
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Teacher perceptions on school quality at for-prot vs. non-prot schools. In the final section of
the survey, teachers were asked about their perceptions of their current schools and how teaching
there may or may not be living up to their expectations and needs. When asked to what extent
teachers saw their schools as offering educational value-for-money to its students, a surprising
27.8% and 25.9% of teachers at non-profit and for-profit schools respectively responded that they
either strongly disagreed, disagreed, or somewhat disagreed with the statement. Similarly, 61.1%
and 59.2% of teachers in non-profit and for-profit schools respectively indicated that they would
be happy to move to another school by responding negatively to the statement, “I wouldn’t
want to work in any other school.” However, a higher percentage of teachers at non-profit
schools reported more autonomy when it came to school matters and satisfaction in terms of
their salaries. Sixty-one percent either strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat agreed that teachers
were involved in making important decisions at school, compared to 51.9% of those in for-profit
schools. Fifty-six percent felt appropriately compensated for their work at their current schools,
compared to 50% of those in for-profit schools. Figures 8 through 11 illustrate the responses of
teachers to these questions in the form of Likert scale diagrams.
Comments and recommendations from teachers. Like the parents, teachers surveyed were
given a space to make open-ended comments and recommendations with respect to private
schools in the UAE/Qatar. One of the strongest comments came from a frustrated teacher working
at a for-profit school in Dubai and reads as follows,
“Teachers are treated as expendable servants at my school. Many of us are U.S. citizens
with master’s degrees. We do not have adequate professional development, teaching
resources, or time to plan and collaborate. The demands that are made on us by the
administration cut into our classroom teaching time and time needed to plan, prepare,
and interact with students. The administration and management company use fear
and intimidation to control teachers and keep them quiet about the unethical practices
that they employ. Parents are being sold a school that, in reality, does not exist. If teachers
were treated as experts, with respect, and if they were trusted, the retention rate would
improve dramatically. If the culture of fear and intimidation were removed, teacher
performance would improve. To feel valued, [to be] respected, and to be rewarded with
words and salary would provide teachers with a desire to stay at this school.”
Another comment from the same teacher read,
“The prots of private schools are going to pay investors their yields. Yes, investing in
schools is big business in the GCC[,] as multiple studies and consulting groups have
indicated. However, there is a tremendous problem when very few prots are going back
into the school to support teachers, enhance facilities, provide professional development,
hire additional sta, and expand much needed [sic] resources. Unfortunately, the
majority of prots are going to investors and school owners.”
Teachers working at for-profit schools frequently commented about a lack of transparency in
their schools and concerns about management. Comments and recommendations related to
this include the following,
“[I recommend] a more transparent attitude between senior management and sta.
Continuity between the three schools under the same management umbrella . . . ”
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
24
“[I want] CLARITY. NO LIES.”
“[There are] too many people in management, too much in-fighting [sic] . . . ”
“Teachers should have a voice in making decisions at school. At least, school
administrations should consult them when it comes to issues related to [the]
teaching and learning process, student behaviors, and SIP implementation.”
Only two teachers from non-profit schools had similar concerns, and their responses follow:
“In this school teachers are not supported or listened to. The school is run
autocratically[,] and parents’ wishes are paramount.”
“There are concerns about the [growing number] of children versus the physical
space [available].”
Other comments and recommendations made by both teachers at for-profit and non-profit
schools in the UAE and Qatar were primarily about salaries, benefits, and respect. Teachers
reported that they would like to receive higher salaries and pay for overtime work and that they
want to feel recognized, respected, and acknowledged by other teachers and the administration
for the hard work they put in. Interestingly, few teachers reported being satisfied with their
schools, facilities, and relationships with students and parents, regardless of profit status.
Interview Findings
Alongside the data collected from the surveys, data was collected around and interviews were
conducted with primary education agencies, private school principals, parents, and teachers8 in
the UAE and Qatar. The primary themes that emerged from each of these are reported below
after using NVivo text analysis software to code transcriptions and notes from the interviews.
I. Regulatory frameworks
The UAE follows a federal education system arrangement, which has resulted in three education
management bodies’ operating within the small nation (Nolan, 2012). The seven emirates in the
nation have varying degrees of power, and the federal MOE licenses all schools except public
and private schools in Abu Dhabi and private schools in Dubai (Nolan, 2012; Ahmed, 2012).
The KHDA, established in 2006, oversees private education in the emirate of Dubai while ADEC,
created in 2005, regulates public and private schools in Abu Dhabi. The education systems in
Ajman, Fujairah, Ras Al Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm Al Quwain function under the federal MOE,
which provides their respective “education zones” with an annual budget from which to work
(Nolan, 2012). These various regulatory bodies have given rise to a complex education regulatory
framework in the UAE, sometimes resulting in federal and emirate-level bodies’ competing for
both control and resources (Nolan, 2012). Table 4 highlights some of the regulatory differences
among the northern emirates, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi.
8 Please note that qualitative results from the interviews with education agencies, parents, and teachers are
excluded from this working paper. If you would like a complete version of the paper with these results, please
contact the authors directly.
25
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Education in Qatar is similarly complex and has undergone major reforms as part of a top-down,
decentralization process led by the Qatari royal family (Nolan, 2012). In 2002, the Supreme
Education Council (SEC) was established to oversee education in the nation, and, a year later,
the RAND Cooperation was brought on to guide comprehensive education reforms. In 2004,
Sources: (ADEC, 2014a),1 (ADEC, 2013b),2 (ADEC, 2013a),3 (KHDA, 2014b),4 KHDA (2014a),5 (Pennington, 2014),6 (S. Al
Jaber, personal communication, December 4, 2013),7 (Ahmed, 2012),8 (MOE, UAE, 2014)9
Table 4. Regulating private education in UAE
Abu Dhabi Dubai Northen Emirates
Regulatory body ADEC KHDA MOE
Number of
private schools 185115641679
Licensing
requirements
• Educational outcomes
• Health and safety
• Building requirements
• Site requirements2
• Approval of application
by licensing committee
• Compliance with fees
and license renewal
rules as approved by
the KHDA
• Educational, safety,
building requirements
• Evidence of
accreditation by
government agency
• Compliance with
periodic inspections/
review
• Educational,
safety, building
requirements
Frequency of
inspections
“Whenever the need arises”
(p. 18) or every two years2 1 time a year51-2 times a year
Ranking system
Scale of 1-8, in which
1=Outstanding and
8=Poor3
Four point scale:
Outstanding Quality, Good
Quality, Acceptable, and
Unsatisfactory5
Three point scale: Highly
Effective, Effective, and
Not Yet Effective8
Fee
determination
School proposes, ADEC
reviews proposal and
either accepts or rejects.
Fee increases are capped
at 20% and are reportedly
not related to evaluation
results.4
During the time of writing,
fee changes were positively
linked to school ranking. As
of June, 2014, fee increases
were capped at 3.5%
depending on ranking.6
School proposes, MOE
reviews proposal and
either accepts or rejects.
Fee increases cannot
exceed 10% in 1 year,
15% in 2 years, and 30%
in 3 years.7
Other
requirements
Financial capacity, Arabic language, Islamic studies (for Muslims), and civic studies
subjects
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
26
200 independent schools were established primarily to serve the national student body. The
operation of these schools was contracted out to private operators, under the belief that they
would improve accountability and efficiency within government schools (“Rand and Qatar
Foundation,” 2013; Nolan, 2012). Public-private partnership schools with the MOE were also
established, with these schools’ being labeled “semi-independent” schools. At the same time,
there was a growing number of foreign private schools operating in Qatar targeting non-national
students. The Private School Office (PSO) at the SEC regulates and monitors aspects of private
school operations (Toumi, 2011). Table 5 displays more information about government regulation
of private education in Qatar. However, events undertaken in 2013 and 2014 point to a rolling
back of these reforms in a recentralization of schools under the MOE.
II. Principal interviews
After studying the relevant government agencies and their regulation of private schools in the
UAE and Qatar, the researchers conducted interviews with private school principals. In the UAE,
principals from nine private schools were interviewed, while in Qatar, interviews were conducted
with the principals of two private schools. Analysis of the transcriptions of these interviews
revealed differences in the way non-profit and for-profit schools responded with regard to the
following: curriculum and classes, extracurriculars, governance, future plans, quality, fees and
costs, and perceived roles/purposes. These results are reported in Table 6.
Table 5. Regulation of private education in Qatar
Regulatory body Supreme Education Council (SEC)
Sub-regulatory body Private School Office (PSO)
Number of private schools11641
Licensing requirements2
• Local or international accreditation
• Promotion of national identity of Qatari students
• Educational, safety, building requirements
Frequency of inspections 1-2 times a year; more if there is an issue of concern
Ranking system No publically available formal ranking system
Fee determination3
School proposes, SEC reviews and either accepts or declines. Fee
increases capped at 10% and are more likely to be attained by top
schools.
Other requirements Arabic language and Islamic studies to Muslims; Qatari history to
all others
Sources: (Hukoomi Qatar e-Government),1 (SEC, n.d.),2 (Pathak & Mallick, 2013)3
27
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Table 6. For-profit/non-profit themes and differences
Theme For-Profit Non-Profit Both
Curriculum and
classes
Less standardized
curriculum—various national
systems and ways of
implementing requirements
like Islamic education
Very standardized curriculum
according to ministry regulations
Extracurriculars
More involvement by PTA/
community; some academic
opportunities for students
to compete locally/
internationally
More extracurricular activities like
sports offered
Provide some
sorts of
community
events to
engage
students &
families
Governance
Difficult to meet regulating
bodies’ demands on
class size, fee increase
limits, building standards;
inspections often
unannounced & source of
stress, are inconsistent
Generally see regulating bodies’
regulations as helpful & necessary &
adhere to them
Admit that
bureaucracy
surrounding
government
regulations can
be cumbersome
Beholden to systems other
than regulatory bodies, such
as boards of governors
See themselves as independent,
except in the case of community
schools
Generally reported that
while compliance can
be difficult, government
standards help schools
grow; see improving
government rankings as a
top priority
Parents disapproved when
school adhered to following new
government standards particularly
with respect to required Arabic
language teaching
Future plans
Future plans contingent on
facilities or other resource
granted by ministry;
focus on solving endemic
problems (survival)
Future plans focus on expanding/
improving facilities & improving
administrative processes
(expansion)
Quality
Poor teacher training
& difficulty finding
qualified teachers; tend to
employ teachers of same
nationality as students/
curriculum
Greater number of more qualified
teachers and teaching assistants
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
28
Fees & costs
Higher incidence of
parents’ being unable to
pay fees; more internal
scholarship programs for
students unable to pay fees;
more frequent parental
complaints about school
fees even though they are
lower
Higher proportion of fees paid by
parents’ companies
Meals not
generally
included in
tuition (but
provided at
low-cost by
for-profit
school, by
outside
vendors at
non-profit, or
by parents)
Greater need to raise fees,
but abide by MOE limits
on increases in doing
so; charge a number of
nominal fees for materials,
transportation, etc.; use
comparisons of quality
with other similar schools
to justify fee increases to
parents
Tuition generally inclusive of
school materials, extracurricular
participation, transportation, etc.
Schools with lower fees
more likely to offer low
rates for kids of staff/
faculty, siblings of current
students
Less likely to offer scholarships, but
some flexibility with regards to late
payments
Perceived role
Take pride in caring for
children well; providing
access to basic education
reported to be a priority
See schools as filling role in society
as a whole, contributing to best
practices in education and raising
standards overall
“evaluation,” “study”
mentioned more often
“building,” “support,” “community”
mentioned more often
In addition to the aforementioned themes, there were some additional observed differences
between the ways principals at for-profit schools versus those at non-profit schools responded.
For instance, principals at for-profit schools had shorter responses overall and focused on day-to-
day operational challenges in their schools, whereas principals at non-profit schools expounded
more on the ideological principles behind education at their schools. Non-profit school principals
were also more openly critical of aspects of government education policy that hindered education
quality such as overly frequent inspections and poor Arabic language curriculum (required for
both native and non-native Arabic speakers).
29
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Discussion
The UAE and Qatar provide a unique set of cases that offer us a glimpse of what a completely
privatized education sector might look like. These two countries have long extolled the virtues
of the free market and an open labor market wherein employers are free to pay people based
on their nationalities rather than on education levels or experience. The private education sector
in each country is likewise equally open and is a market in which teachers are paid according to
nationality and in which schools are segregated in terms of socioeconomic status and geography.
Founder and Managing Director of GEMS, Sunny Varkey, captures the prevailing view of private
education providers in these two countries in an article published in Gulf Business Magazine,
stating,
“Dubai is a place where, depending on your financial resources, you can choose a
school model. If you want to choose a school that is $10,000, you have it. If you want
to send your children to a school that is $3,000, you have it . . . so if you put your
children in a school that you can’t afford then you can’t grumble. You understand
what I’m saying? You must choose a school that you can afford.” (Buller, 2013, p.1)
In a nutshell, Varkey’s view indicates that parents in the UAE and Qatar should get the education
levels they pay for. In the best scenario, poorer families will have to send their children to lower
quality schools in which teachers are paid less, management is paid less, and there are fewer
resources. Wealthy families will be able to send their children to schools with ample resources,
in which teachers are paid competitive salaries and management is recruited from some of the
best schools in the West. That, however, represents the best scenario since our research finds that
with the large majority of school operators’ being for-profit, newer schools are no longer being
opened in the lowest fee bracket, even though both countries continue to take in expatriate
workers who will only be able to afford lower tuitions.
As inflation rises across the region, our research finds that poorer families are having to spend
more and more on their children’s educations, often living on the breadline and taking out loans
in order to keep them in school (Dhal, 2013b). Wealthier expatriate families are likely to have
their employers meet the cost of their children’s educations and, in a bitter irony, spend far less,
in terms of percentage, of their household incomes on education than do their less-well-paid
counterparts. Varkey’s comment about parents’ having a choice rings quite hollow since, for less-
well-off parents, there is no choice. With 25,000 children unable to find places in schools in Abu
Dhabi, and similar shortages at the low-fee end in Dubai and Qatar, many families are choosing
either to send their children back to their home countries to be educated in the public systems
there or are deciding to home-school their children (Issa, 2013; KHDA, 2014a; Bakshi, 2014).
While our findings invite discussion about the inequities inherent in the Gulf in terms of
immigration, labor markets, and human rights, we believe that more than this, the cases of the
UAE and Qatar offer a powerful cautionary tale for Western countries about what education looks
like when it is dominated by the for-profit private sector. The trend towards private companies’
operating public schools continues across Europe and North America, with for-profit education
management companies chipping away at the public education sector. This trend persists
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
30
despite study after study’s finding no differences in student achievement among equally matched
privately and publically operated schools (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006; Peterson & Llaudet, 2006).
The cases of the UAE and Qatar provide us with a reason to reflect on the notion of education as
a right and as a public good, and, in short, on the purpose of education in society.
In the UAE and Qatar, the purpose of private education is very much related to developing the
talent of the individual. Private schools market themselves to families in terms of how they can
help children who attend their schools excel, typically in terms of university acceptance and job
acquisition. For the vast majority of students in the UAE and Qatar, education is not about building
the nation, or about educating responsible citizens, but is primarily focused on creating private
returns. Yet expatriate children and their families spend several years living and working in the Gulf.
They are in the malls, they are driving on the streets, and they are interacting with Emiratis and
Qataris every day. Nevertheless, these students are being educated as if they were not part of the
country in which they live and are excluded from public and sometimes even private education.
The schools they attend are often not interested in fostering any linkage or loyalty to the countries
in which they operate, and even required subjects such as Arabic are poorly staffed, with the result
that most non-Arab expatriate children will speak no Arabic when they graduate school. With profit’s
driving the majority of schools in both countries, private operators seem not overly concerned with
the social good; they are not interested, except to tick inspection boxes, in promoting values and
beliefs consistent with local society. While crime rates have not soared in these two countries, due
largely to strictly enforced laws, there are still issues related to the environment and health that can
affect the population at large. When expatriates represent more than half of a country’s population,
one cannot contend that how they are educated will not affect society as a whole.
When governments abdicate responsibility for education to for-profit companies, social and
economic inequality will soar, as is evidenced in this research. The question for many, especially
the wealthy, is, “Why should we care?” In this sense, the US provides the most cautionary tale
with its increasing crime rates, swelling prison populations, poor healthcare, and shortened life
expectancies (Kenworthy & Smeeding, 2013). Few could argue that a nation would ever aspire
to these characteristics, yet educational trends originating in the US are sweeping Europe and
Australia for reasons that we do not have time to explore here.
In the UAE and Qatar, non-profit schools offer a glimmer of hope. These schools were originally
established by foreign missions to cater to the educational needs of their citizens living abroad in
these countries. Our school mapping shows that they are largely clustered in older areas of cities such
as Dubai. Local and expatriate philanthropists, recognizing the needs of society’s poorer members,
have also established some non-profit schools. Parents and teachers alike spoke of the difference
between for- and non-profit schools, and principals in non-profit schools talked about the philosophy
of education versus operational issues, which were the primary concern of for-profit principals.
Non-profit schools offer something closer to what public education was originally conceived as.
When profits are returned to a school and when the existence of the school is based on a belief in
the transformative power of education, all stakeholders are happier, schools and students thrive,
and schools become more connected to their local communities because they are grounded
in a philosophy of learning and learning communities (Biggs, 2014). These non-profit schools
offer a high-quality alternative to public education, but, sadly, too few of them exist in the UAE
31
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
and Qatar, and the ones that do often charge high fees and have long waiting lists. However,
with government incentives, we believe that more non-profit schools would open, perhaps more
started by nationals seeking to offer alternatives and to give back to society.
It would be unrealistic to propose that the governments of the UAE and Qatar open public schools
for all expatriate families. However, education is the one social sector that is best not directed by
market forces, as it has large positive externalities associated with it, including increased civic
engagement, lower crime rates, improved health conditions, and economic growth (Hall, 2006).
School inspections in both countries have certainly helped with quality assurance of private
schools, but the lack of resources to help schools at the lower end of the market improve means
that poorer schools remain poor, and inspections merely report these conditions; they do not
ameliorate them.
Understandably, governments might hesitate to invest resources into a poorly performing for-
profit school, but perhaps governments would be willing to help support struggling non-profit
schools and establish new ones as a way of investing in the future of their respective nations.
While all expatriates in the UAE and Qatar are considered guest workers and will eventually have
to leave those nations, the long time periods that many expatriates spend in both countries
points to a need for a more holistic vision of the population and its development—one in which
a respect for the values and culture of the UAE and Qatar is developed among all residents and
in which education serves to unite people groups rather than separating or possibly alienating
them from one another.
Conclusion
This study of private education in the absence of a public option in the UAE and Qatar has
attempted to examine what happens with regard to access and equity when private education is
the only option available to the majority of these nations’ residents. Consistent with other literature
on privatization (Ball, 2007; Atasay & Delavan, 2012; Robertson & Verger, 2012; Srivastava, 2010),
we find that inequality, in particular among socioeconomic groups, persists and that families and
educators alike feel the negative impact of this. The dominance of for-profit providers has meant
that financial returns, rather than a belief in the importance of education for both the person and
society, motivate the private education sector. Non-profit schools offer a viable alternative for
more equitable and culturally connected schools that would benefit stakeholders at the individual
and societal levels. However, there are too few non-profit options available for families in the
UAE and Qatar, especially those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. Consequently,
both governments have the opportunity to provide incentives to non-profit operators in order
to promote the establishment of more non-profit schools. More research is required in this area,
particularly on the promise of non-profit schools and on the ways in which the lack of lower-fee
private schools may threaten the ability of employers, both public and private, to attract foreign
talent needed for the continued development of both nations.
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
32
References
Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC). (2013a). Irtiqaa inspection reports. Retrieved on September 8,
2013 from http://www.adec.ac.ae/en/Education/KeyInitiatives/Pages/Irtiqaa-Reports.aspx
Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC). (2013b). Organising regulations of private schools in the
emirate of Abu Dhabi. Retrieved from http://www.adec.ac.ae/en/MediaCenter/Publications/
EnglishPublications/Private%20Schools%20Regulations%202013/index.html#2
Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC). (2014a). Private schools. Retrieved on June 13, 2014 from http://
www.adec.ac.ae/en/Education/PrivateSchools/Pages/default.aspx
Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC). (2014b). Public schools. Retrieved from www.adec.ac.ae/en/
Education/OurEducationSystem/PublicSchools/Pages/default.aspx
Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC). (n.d.). Strategic plan. Retrieved on September 8, 2013 from
http://www.adec.ac.ae/en/Education/PrivateSchools/Pages/Strategic-Plan.aspx
ACT Government. (2014). Education and training directorate. Retrieved on October 25, 2014 from
www.det.act.gov.au/school_education/international_students/temporary_residents_and_
dependents
Ahmed, A. (2011, June 7). How do regulations for school fee requests work? The National. Retrieved
from www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/how-do-regulations-for-school-fee-requests-work
Ahmed, A. (2012, September 13). ’Must try harder’ Dubai and northern emirates school told. The
National. Retrieved from www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/education/must-try-harder-
dubai-and-northern-emirates-school-told
Ahmed, A. (2013, May 14). Concerns over lack of Dubai primary schools as demand set to double by
2024. The National. Retrieved fromwww.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/education/concerns-
over-lack-of-dubai-primary-schools-as-demand-set-to-double-by-2024
Alpen Capital. (2012, June 20). GCC education sector. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from http://www.
alpencapital.com/downloads/GCC%20EDUCATION%20REPORT.pdf
Atasay, E., & Delavan, G. (2012). Monumentalizing disaster and wreak-construction: A case study of
Haiti to rethink the privatization of public education. Journal of Education Policy, 27(4).
Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation. Constable & Robinson. London.
Bakshi, M. (2014, April 24). Doha needs 3-4 more Indian schools to meet rising demand. Qatar
Tribune. Retrieved from www.qatar-tribune.com/viewnews.aspx?n=70A8517F-9BE5-4B21-9DD8-
A2AD2DA112F8&d=20140424
Ball, S. J. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. New
York: Routledge.
Biggs, M. (2014, May 3). For prot vs. not for prot UAE schools. Retrieved August 13, 2014 rom, http://
whichschooladvisor.com/guides/choosing-a-school/debate-profit-v-s-profit-uae-schools/
Brown, B. W. (1992). Why governments run schools. Economics of Education Review, 11, 287-300.
33
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Buller, A. (2013, July 3). Exclusive Interview: GEMS chairman Sunny Varkey talks profits and
philanthropy. Gulf Business. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from http://gulfbusiness.com/2013/07/
full-excusive-interview-gems-chairman-sunny-varkey-talks-profits-and-philanthropy/#.U-
hdamO4Qpo
Caputo, M. (2003, November 13). Edison Schools accepts buyout. Miami Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/articles/EPRU-0311-43-OWI.doc
Curtis, P. (2009, October 6). Should state schools turn a profit? The Guardian. Retrieved from www.
theguardian.com/education/2009/oct/06/swedish-state-schools-conservative-plans
Dhal, S. (2013a). Admission impossible in Dubai schools? Gulf News. Retrieved from gulfnews.com/
news/gulf/uae/general/admission-impossible-in-dubai-schools-1.1158113
Dhal, S. (2013b, November 6). School fees cause of stress for parents in UAE. Gulf News. Retrieved
from gulfnews .com/news/gulf/uae/general/school-fees-cause-of-stress-for-parents-in-uae-
1.1252256
EdisonLearning. (2014). About EdisonLearning. Retrieved on August 2, 2014 from edisonlearning.com/
about-edisonlearning
Educating children should not be for profit. (2010, April 4). The Guardian. Retrieved from www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/04/editorial-hybrid-schools-business
Education is a big business in the GCC. (2011, December 11). Albawaba. Retrieved from www.
albawaba.com/education-big-business-404765
Elacqua, G. (2009). For-profit schooling and the politics of education reform in Chile: When ideology
trumps evidence. Documento de Trabajo CPCE No. 5.
Fargues, P. , & Shah, N. (2014). Socio-economic Impacts of GCC Migration. Retrieved on July 15, 2015
from grm.grc.net/index.php?pgid=Njk=&wid=Mjc
GEMS Education. (n.d.). An opportunity to invest with us. Retrieved from www.google.com/url?sa=
t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%
2F%2Fwww.gemseducation.com%2Fuploads%2Fimage%2F_MEDIA_MANAGER%2FGEMS_
Documents%2FInvest-with-GEMS-Nov.-20123304908.pdf&ei=uurhU9yBObGa0QXs3ICgBQ&usg=AF
QjCNGLdAy2QR8SPp3cj1c4mEioSjQo8g&sig2=T57gCGlosruO81WgyzGhjQ&bvm=bv.72197243,d.d2k
GEMS Learning Trust. (2014). Our new schools. Retrieved on July 14, 2014 from www.
gemslearningtrust.org/contents.php?pageid=5165&submenuid=6211
Government of Dubai. (2014). Dubai in gures. Retrieved from www.dsc.gov.ae/en/pages/
dubaiinfigures.aspx
Greve, C. (2010). The global public-private partnership industry. In G. Hodge, C. Greve, & A. Boardman
(eds.), International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hall, J. C. (2006). Positive externalities and government involvement in education. Journal of Private
Enterprise, 21(2), 165-175. Retrieved August 11, 2014 from, http://journal.apee.org/images/c/c2/
Spring2006_8.pdf
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
34
Han, E. (2013, January 20). For-profit schools to cash in. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from
www.smh.com.au/national/education/forprofit-schools-to-cash-in-20130119-2czzc.html
Hansmann, H. (1996). The changing roles of public, private, and nonprofit enterprise in education, health
care, and other human services, p.245-276. In Individual and social responsibility: Child care, education,
medical care, and long-term care in America. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Henriques, D. B. (2003, July 3). Edison stays afloat by altering course. The New York Times. www.
nytimes.com/2003/07/03/business/03EDIS.html?src=pm&pagewanted=1
HSBC. (2012). HSBC expat: Expat explorer survey 2012. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.google.
com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.expatexplorer.hsbc.com%2Ffiles%2Fpdfs%2Foverall-reports%2F2012%2Freport.pdf&ei=xm_
jU_iQGKef0QWb4oCYCw&usg=AFQjCNGVwLfV_I139LYKezy8NF6Ln7veJQ&sig2=EL0_AgDHBcV
WSSgq16ogDQ&bvm=bv.72676100,d.d2k
Hukoomi Qatar e-Government. (2014). Private schools. Retrieved July 14, 2014 from portal.www.gov.
qa/wps/portal/topics/education and research/private schools/!ut/p/a1/rZHLTsMwEEV_JZss
q5k8myxDFy2PIARCJN6gqeM0htpOE7fA3-NUrBClQmJ2M5rHvWeAQQVM00FuyEqjaTvlLH1O
MQ-LMosf728uMry8XiXJ7TKMcInwBAwY17a3HdTd_tUYJb03sfa40VZo6-NX0UdreslHH0Wz58f9
HunGG8QoaOCdj_0gD2SFN_LOmO04Le65bKAO0oBEgBiHGOTYEsUxiUSIaJ62eYSBU1k7lXgiCjx
n4upcgzsQDuWi3DhJZLuZ1K2B6mcjUH034qbly27HCkdqovJuofpfVMcv_I6gdozmJz0uUnj4A_
BeqSz6mLE6s_mdUsUnogqteQ!!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/
Hultin, A. (2007). Kunskapsskolan. OECD. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&
esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fdataoec
d%2F2%2F19%2F39761768.pdf&ei=5zPfU7OrCYmy0QWjr4CYCw&usg=AFQjCNF8l0JdUcQxbjTvc
sT-BQtjPqPdTg&sig2=aFbH_m6W6fEj8-asaLgA8g&bvm=bv.72197243,d.d2k
IBIS Capital. (2013). Global e-learning investment review. Retrieved from www.google.com/url?s
a=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
smarthighered.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FIBIS-Capital-e-Learning-
Lessons-for-the-Future.pdf&ei=7yLfU-H2NOrV0QX34oCoDQ&usg=AFQjCNEVTHx6HjESlHT7G_Tv
wQzgsIM5fA&sig2=yA4DgqEAhy7CXBMFcN9xpA&bvm=bv.72197243,d.d2k
Issa, W. (2013, August 19). Abu Dhabi seeks new investors to build new schools as shortage grows.
The National. Retrieved from www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/education/abu-dhabi-seeks-
investors-to-build-new-schools-as-shortage-grows
Jennings, J. (2013, March 28). Proportion of U.S. students in private schools is 10 percent and
declining. The Hungton Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-jennings/
proportion-of-us-students_b_2950948.html
Kannan, P. (2014, May 1). Families hit by new minimum monthly wage rule for visa. The National.
Retrieved from www.thenational.ae/uae/labour-law/families-hit-by-new-minimum-monthly-
wage-rule-for-visas
Kenworthy, L., & Smeeding, L. (2013, January). Growing inequalities and their impacts in the United
States. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from, http://gini-research.org/system/uploads/443/original/
US.pdf?1370077377
35
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Kids of illegal immigrants can go to school: Sweden. (2012, October 24). The Local. Retrieved from
www.thelocal.se/20121024/44022
Kinninmont, J. (2013, January 16). Qatar’s delicate balancing act. BBC News. Retrieved from www.bbc.
com/news/world-middle-east-21029018
Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA). (2013). Private schools landscape in Dubai:
2012-2013. Dubai, UAE: KHDA. Retrieved May 20, 2013 from http://www.khda.gov.ae/CMS/
WebParts/TextEditor/Documents/PrivateSchoolsLandscapeReport2012-13En.pdf
Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA). (2014a). School Inspection Reports. Retrieved
July 10, 2013, from http://www.khda.gov.ae/en/dsib/reports.aspx?PG=1
Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA). (2014b). Schools. Retrieved from http://
www.khda.gov.ae/pages/en/schoolsen.aspx
Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA). (2014c). Dubai Private schools landscape
2013-2014. Dubai, UAE: KHDA. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&
esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkhda.gov.ae%2FCMS%
2FWebParts%2FTextEditor%2FDocuments%2FLandscapePEEnglish.pdf&ei=dnLgU4-HOrCb
1AX36oDIDw&usg=AFQjCNHKo85Njf5Obyxo2-pdQ15lACr6jg&sig2=YhlkylykmlQ42oP4ag-
DKA&bvm=bv.72197243,d.d2k
Kumar, A. (2014, May 14). Indian school in Dubai promotes dead teen, asks parents to pay his fees.
Gulf News. Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/about-gulf-news/al-nisr-portfolio/xpress/news/
indian-school-in-dubai-promotes-dead-teen-asks-parents-to-pay-his-fees-1.1332361
Kunskapsskolan. (2014). About us. Retrieved on August 2, 2014 from www.kunskapsskolan.com/about
us.4.52570e4b127643a7eac80001100.html
Lewin, K. (2014, April). Does Privatising education services for the poor make sense? Lecture conducted at
the Gulf Comparative Education Society Conference. Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New
evidence from NAEP mathematics data. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in
Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
McCloskey, S. (2009, July 30). Is profit dead? News 21. Retrieved from columbia.news21.com/2009/
index313f.html?p=752
McCrindle Research. (2013). A snapshot of schools in Australia 2013. Retrieved from Minister
stresses need to develop education sector. (2013, September 10). Tribune News Network.
Retrieved from www.qatar-tribune.com/viewnews.aspx?n=010F2664-9EE0-4A74-9A81-
294214C3C202&d=20130910
Ministry of Education (MOE), UAE. (2014). School distributions. Retrieved August 11, 2014 from, https://
www.moe.gov.ae/Arabic/Docs/2013-2014.pdf
Moujaes, C. N., Hoteit, L., & Hiltunen, J. (2011). A decade of opportunity the coming expansion of the
private-school market in the GCC (Booz & Company publication). Retrieved May 16, 2013, from
http://www.booz.com/media/file/BoozCo-Private-School-Expansion-GCC.pdf
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
36
MPs pass flagship academies bill. (2010, July 27). The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.
com/education/2010/jul/27/mps-pass-academies-billMullan, J. (2012).
Mullan, J. (2012). Abu Dhabi makes major strides in eliminating illiteracy. Retrieved from
whichschooladvisor.com/news/abu-dhabi-makes-major-strides-in-eliminating-illiteracy/
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2014). Total number of schools. Retrieved on August 2,
2014 from dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/schools/page/overview/year/2000
National Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Population estimates 2006-2010. Retrieved from http://www.
uaestatistics.gov.ae/ReportPDF/Population%20Estimates%202006%20-%202010.pdf
National Education Association (NEA). (2014). Charter schools. Retrieved on August 2, 2014 from www.
nea.org/home/16332.htm
Nolan, L. (2012). Liberalizing monarchies? How Gulf monarchies mange education reform. Brookings
Doha Center Analysis Paper, 4. Retrieved from: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/
papers/2012/2/29%20liberalizing%20monarchies%20nolan/0229_liberalizing_monarchies_eng
Orange, R. (2013, July 31). Schools - Confusion reigns after collapse of free-school chain. TESConnect.
Retrieved from http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6341728
Pathak, S., & Mallick, L. N. (2013, August 24). Tuition fee hike by schools worries parents. Qatar
Tribune. Retrieved from www.qatar-tribune.com/viewnews.aspx?n=8A996ED1-832B-4940-84B7-
8528C8C31B07&d=20130824
Pennington, R. (2014, June 11). Education regulator allows fee increases at 75 per cent of Dubai
private schools. The National. Retrieved from www.thenational.ae/uae/education/education-
regulator-allows-fee-increases-at-75-per-cent-of-dubai-private-schools
Peterson, P. E., & Llaudet, E. (2006). On the public-private school achievement debate. Harvard
University. Retrieved August 11, 2014 from, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/
PEPG06-02-PetersonLlaudet.pdf
Q&A Academies. (2012, May 10). BBC News. Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/education-13274090
Qatar Evaluation Institute (QEI). (2012). Schools and schooling in Qatar: 2011-2012, annual report on
schools and schooling in Qatar. Retrieved July 8, 2013, from http://www.sec.gov.qa/En/Media/
News/Documents/SchoolsReport2011-2012.pdf
Rand and Qatar Foundation officially part ways after 10 years. (2013, December 26). Doha News.
Retrieved from dohanews.co/rand-and-qatar-foundation-officially-part-ways-after-10-years/
Richardson, H. (2013, July 2). Profit-making academies ruled out by government. BBC News. Retrieved
from www.bbc.com/news/education-23147484
Richburg, K. B. (2008, June 29). Setback for Philadelphia schools plan. The Washington Post. Retrieved
from. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/28/AR2008062801637.html
Ridge, N. (2014). Education and the reverse gender divide in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries:
Embracing the global, ignoring the local. New York: Teachers College.
37
Private Education in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar: Implications and Challenges
Robertson, S. L., & Verger, A. (2012). Governing education through public private partnerships. Centre
for Globalisation, Education and Societies. University of Bristol, Bristonal BS8 1Ja, UK. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQF
jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsusanleerobertson.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F07%2F2012-
robertson-verger-governing-education.pdf&ei=rvfpU62fGsXmyQOwpYKIBA&usg=AFQjCNERTK
Jp_Ma8p2akeOSwHOIfch_aUQ&sig2=bf5PZL8I0WJGNL9e1ytE9Q&bvm=bv.72676100,d.bGQ.
Rome, A., & Smith, A. (2012). Do we want for-profit schools in Australia? The Conversation. Retrieved
from theconversation.com/do-we-want-for-profit-schools-in-australia-7015
Saltman, K. (n.d.). The Edison Schools: Corporate schooling and the assault on public education.
Harvard Educational Review. www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?section=educationn
ation&xfile=data/educationnation/2013/may/educationnation_may19.xml
School fee cap may be bad for education sector. (2014, May 19). The National. Retrieved from www.
thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/editorial/school-fee-cap-may-be-bad-for-education-
sector#ixzz360fAJjda
Scott, V. (2014, January 23). Some private schools close admissions early after class size crackdown.
Doha News. Retrieved from dohanews.co/some-private-schools-close-admissions-early-after-
class-size-crackdown/
Smith, L. (2013). Sweden’s top free schools provider to close, in blow to Education Secretary Michael
Gove. The Independent. www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/swedens-
top-free-schools-provider-to-close-in-blow-to-education-secretary-michael-gove-8640111.html
Solomon, L. D. (2002). Edison schools and the privatization of K-12 public education: A legal and policy
analysis. Fordham Urb. LJ, 30, 1281.
Srivastava, P. (2010). Privatization and education for all: Unravelling the mobilizing frames.
Development, 53(4), 522-528.
State of Washington. (2014). Immigrant students’ rights to attend public schools. Retrieved on July 24,
2014 from www.k12.wa.us/migrantbilingual/immigrantrights.aspx
Supreme Education Council (SEC). (2014). Admissions policy. Retrieved on July 9, 2014 from www.sec.
gov.qa/En/SECInstitutes/EducationInstitute/Pages/AdmissionsPolicy.aspx
Supreme Education Council (SEC). (n.d.). Conditions and requirements for obtaining a license for a new
school.
The Swedish Model. (2008, June 12). The Economist. Retrieved on July 17 from www.economist.com/
node/11535645
Tolofari, S. (2005). New public management and education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), 75-89.
Retrieved August 13, 2014 from, http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/files/tolofari.pdf
Tong, Q. (2010). Wages structure in the United Arab Emirates (Working Paper No. 2). Retrieved from the
Institute for Social & Economic Research website: www.iser.ae/files/contents/Working Paper No
2 Version 3.pdf
Natasha Ridge, Susan Kippels, & Soha Shami | Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research
38
Toumi, H. (2011, September 14). Qatar urges private schools to respect local cultures. Gulf News.
Retrieved from gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-urges-private-schools-to-respect-local-
culture-1.866524
UAE Government. (2014). Going to school in the UAE. Retrieved from http://www.government.ae/en/
web/guest/going-to-school-in-the-uae
United Nations (UN). (2014). Education for all (EFA). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/
globalissues/briefingpapers/efa/
UK Visa Bureau. (2014). UK education information. Retrieved on July 24, 2014 from www.visabureau.
com/uk/education.aspx
Wiggin, A. (2013, October 9). Charter school gravy train runs express to fat city. Forbes. Retrieved from
www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/09/10/charter-school-gravy-train-runs-express-
to-fat-city/
Wilby, P. (2010, May 25). Private companies will run ’free schools.’ The Guardian. Retrieved from www.
theguardian.com/education/2010/may/25/free-schools-private-companies
World Bank. (2013a). Bahrain. Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from data.worldbank.org/country/Bahrain
World Bank. (2013b). Kuwait. Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from http://data.worldbank.org/country/
kuwait
World Bank. (2013c). Oman. Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from http://data.worldbank.org/country/oman
World Bank. (2013d). Qatar. Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from http://data.worldbank.org/country/qatar
World Bank. (2013e). Saudi Arabia. Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from http://data.worldbank.org/
country/saudi-arabia
World Bank. (2013f ). United Arab Emirates. Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from ata.worldbank.org/country/
united-arab-emirates
P.O. Box 12050, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates
Tel: +971 7 233 8060 | Fax: +971 7 233 8070
Email: info@alqasimifoundation.rak.ae | www.alqasimifoundation.com
Working Paper No. 2Working Paper No. 2
