More than 250 million children in developing countries are not in school. Those who do attend classes often fail to learn anything. According to a study of seven African countries, primary-school pupils receive less than two-and-a-half hours of teaching each day; teachers are absent from class about half the time. Even when they do show up, theirs is a Potemkin pedagogy, lecturing to nonplussed pupils. Only about a quarter of secondary-school pupils in poor countries would reach the basic level of attainment in standardised international tests.

Into this void have stepped low-cost private budget schools. For a few dollars each month, they give parents an alternative to public education. Such schools are common — about one million of them are scattered across developing countries (there are an estimated 300,000 in India) — but until recently this has been a chaotic cottage industry of tiny, unregulated providers. Only now are private chains emerging, offering the promise of innovative education at scale. The prospect of change ought to be embraced. Instead, it’s being challenged.

One chain in particular has attracted stiff opposition. Since it opened its first branch in 2009, Bridge International Academies has expanded to 520 schools across Kenya, Uganda, Liberia, Nigeria and India. To keep costs low, the firm uses one of three standard templates to build its schools; it makes its uniforms, textbooks and furniture in-house. To keep standards high, its teachers read from scripted lessons on a tablet computer. Remote teams use data from these devices and pupils’ test scores to monitor the quality of teachers. Investors include Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and the development-finance arms of the British and American governments.

Bridge continues to open new schools. But its overall pupil numbers are below their peak. This is a result of roadblocks in its two biggest markets, Kenya and Uganda. Teachers’ unions there criticise Bridge for often hiring unlicensed teachers; they also argue that the chain funnels money away from public education. 

Such concerns stretch beyond East Africa. Education International, a global group of teachers’ unions, accuses the firm of “robbing students of a good education”. But worries about private education providers in poor countries are either overblown or solvable. One fear is they could end up replacing a public monopoly over education with a private one. But governments have plenty of ways to foster competition. They could introduce school vouchers or conditional cash transfers for parents to spend on eligible schools. Liberia is running a randomised controlled trial in which eight different private operators run publicly funded schools.

Another worry is that companies have an incentive to flout sensible regulations in their desire to gain scale. The answer is for policymakers to strengthen the institutions which monitor educational performance. Better school inspectors and measures that identify which schools are improving academic outcomes would be a boon in any case. Developing countries are estimated to spend 2 percent of GDP a year on education which has no discernible effect in terms of learning outcomes.

All the while, it pays to remember the alternative. Private school chains aren’t perfect, but their rivals are usually worse. Of the 337 million primary-school-age children who look likely to fall short of basic international standards, three-quarters are in school. Most of them are in public schools. Not to try something different would be shameful.