On June 27, 2017, the New York Times magazine published the chosen current in action news story. The article focuses on a set of schools known as the Bridge International Academies, which are low-cost private schools with the primary goal of providing education, particularly to disadvantaged students around the world (Burke et al. 23). The author extensively analyzes the Bridge school in Kawangware, Nairobi, Kenya. This is a poor area with a high rate of HIV infections and waterborne diseases. The houses are single-room structures made of corrugated iron sheets; they lack electricity, running water, and are not plumbed on the interior. This story can be used as a good example to outline the main economic models discussed.
In relation to the theory of marginal analysis/the economic perspective, the marginal benefit is that in four hundred and five Bridge schools located in Kenya education is provided from preschool all the way to the eighth grade charging only $54 to $126 in a year as school fees. This is a good gesture since it benefits the poor children whose parents cannot raise the lump sum of school fees required in the expensive private schools (Druin and Allison 25). The children in these schools are taught using a uniform curriculum applied to all other Bridge schools in the country. There is a huge demand for cheap education and especially in the African nations, and, therefore, Bridge schools will eventually benefit many children.
The marginal cost of starting this group of schools was that funds were required to build the schools, feed the children, buy teaching materials, train and pay teachers, and buy land where the schools would be established. Therefore, the founders had to do a massive mobilization of well-wishers in order to raise the required amount of funding. The schools were initially built with an objective of profit making, but the founders had to forgo this in order to help the poor children who would otherwise not be educated (Rolnick et al. 36). The directors of the schools had to utilize cheap and most available materials still maintaining high standards. This option helped to lower the cost of construction. By the year 2015, the schools were providing education for 100,000 pupils spending less than 30% of the budget allocated per child for primary school education by an average third world country. The initial costs of creating the Bridge’s software and system of collecting and storing data were extremely high.
Amid all the struggle of the founders in establishing these learning centers, they still faced over-allocation. This was mainly experienced in Kenya which served as the founding country. Kenya experienced slower enrollment in the schools than the founders presumed it would be. The main barrier was the teacher unions which opposed the schools stating that they were substandard and lacked certified staff (Wagner and Tony 27). Therefore, the directors had to incur a great amount of over-allocation costs since they had built over four hundred schools and outflow of pupils did not conform to their anticipations. The founders had invested resources and time in these schools, and, therefore, it would be a huge blow regarding costs and expenses.
Bridge had to increase the number of schools in order to meet the high demand for education among the many marginalized families who struggled a lot even in getting basics like food, clothing, and water (Trow and Martin 13). The company should, therefore, consider investing in more schools in Nigeria to meet the rising demand for education among the most disadvantaged children in Africa.
Economically, allocative efficiency was evidenced in that the Bridge schools were constructed using the immediately available inexpensive materials and funds. The institutions were also located strategically in the poor parts like Kawangware in Kenya. The need for education among the poor children was growing, and the allocation of these schools was just in time. Since the learning centers did not require certified instructors, the workforce was readily available due to the high rates of unemployment experienced in Africa (McManis et al. 32). The structures did not require high levels of technology to construct and, thus, they were easily established within the shortest available time.
Economic inefficiency of these academies was witnessed in various aspects. Their standards were very low. The classes had no electricity and could not be used at night. The instructors were uncertified and therefore faced opposition from teacher unions in the nations the system was introduced. The directors who developed the idea initially lacked funds to start up the schools (Druin and Allison 33). The money charged as of school fees was very little compelling the founders to source for more donors and well-wishers to help meet the daily costs of running the institutions. The institutions, especially in Kenya, faced with low enrollment whereas so many Bridge schools had been established in consideration of the high demand for standard and cheap education among the low-income families. The administrators had to introduce small amounts of payments, thus burdening the poor parents whose children were sent home to collect money.
The economic shifts experienced in this article were several. The guardians were compelled to make small cash payments to cater for the daily child and school expenses. They didn’t anticipate for this; thus, it was hard for them to support their children. Most of the learning institutions had to be diversified to other African countries and this involved funds (Burke et al. 27). The progressive campaigns affected the schools financially since some of them had to remain closed. The funds invested in these institutions had to be shifted to other areas to be utilized in different ways.
Economic movements were observed in the discussed Bridge schools in a few ways. For example in Liberia, the government offered to pay salaries to the teachers employed in Bridge schools and provide houses to be used as classes (Rolnick et al. 21). The Bridge foundation would move the money collected to run the project to cater for the daily expenses incurred in the learning institutions. The directors had to move the funds raised to run the schools established in Kenya to other countries since the institutions experienced a slow enrollment and teachers unions opposition.
Conclusion
The Bridge schools were a credible move by the founders since many children in the developing economies lacked an opportunity to access good education at such a low cost. This article is useful in the study of various economic models and concepts which are very evident and can be easily outlined. The idea of starting these institutions was very significant and enabled many impoverished children in the developing world to access quality and standard education.
Works Cited
Burke, Catherine, and Ian Grosvenor. The School I'd Like: Revisited: Children and Young People's Reflections on an Education for the 21st Century. Routledge, 2015.
Druin, Allison. "The role of children in the design of new technology." Behaviour and information technology 21.1 2002, pp. 1-25.
McManis, Lilla Dale, and Susan B. Gunnewig. "Finding the education in educational technology with early learners." YC Young Children 67.3 2012, 14.
Rolnick, Art, and Rob Grunewald. "Early childhood development: Economic development with a high public return." The Region 17.4 2003, pp.6-12.
Trow, Martin. "From mass higher education to universal access: The American advantage." Minerva 37.4 2000, pp.303-328.
Wagner, Tony. The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need and what we can do about it. Basic Books, 2014.
