December 17, 2004
-
topic: public vs. private
First of all…the debate between public and private is not a winner-takes all debate. It’s not always so clear what the two mean on any given issue. As most of you know, my interest is primarily education. While many are arguing for private schools, their aim to discredit and destroy public schooling complicates the debate.
There are several reasons why people support private vs. public schools. One reason is, public schools fail children in many areas. To this, many would agree. But…is that a reason to destroy public schools, or a reason to improve them?
A second reason to support private schools, is that people don’t want the government to control how and what their children learn. They want, “freedom,” or “choice,” which are buzzwords for privatization, or ownership, (which have become Republican words…although for the moment I’m trying not to look at this from a political party angle). Most people who support public schools support the same values. They want local ownership of schools, and in fact, they’re freaked out by how much government has seeped into public schools.
But…it does appear that this is really where the private vs. public debate heats up. Those who support privatization of education, do so with philosophical beliefs in a market-place of ideas. Where public schools fail, they believe private schooling will drive innovation to provide the types of school parents want for their kids.
I am noticing that most of the leading educators I have discovered, vigorously defend public schools. They are educators who are not only involved in the private vs. public debate of education, but they are educators themselves, involved in the debate about best practices for student learning. While this is not absolute, those who support privatization, tend to be those who will not only profit, but those who support educational practices, such as standardized testing, that most students, teachers, and parents are opposed to.
So…while most people will have concluded this from the start, that the debate is purely profit vs. what’s best for students, we still need to find evidence for this…
McGraw-Hill is one of the leading creators of standardized testing. What sort of influence do they have? Well…they own Business Week, which naturally leans towards free-markets and privatization. In April 2000, Charlotte K. Frank joined the state of New York’s top education policy-making panel, the Board of Regents. Ms. Frank is also the VP of McGraw-Hill.
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/500pound.htm
Here’s a question I have…what would a non-profit private school look like? We’re assuming all private schools will be profit drive monstrosities, but what about benevolent aiming private schools? And…does anyone know how charter schools work. I know they’re public, but it sounds like they’re run independantly. How is that?
Here’s an assessment w/ what can go wrong w/ privately run schools.
“In the final analysis, the problem with letting business interests shape our country’s educational agenda isn’t just their lack of knowledge about the nuances of pedagogy. The problem is with their ultimate objectives. Corporations in our economic system exist to provide a financial return to the people who own them:they are in business to make a profit. As individuals, those who work in (or even run) these companies might have other goals, too, when they turn their attention to public policy or education or anything else. But business qua business is concerned principally about its own bottom line. Thus, when business thinks about schools, its agenda is driven by what will maximize its profitability, not necessarily by what is in the best interest of students. Any overlap between those two goals would be purely accidental – and, in practice, turns out to be minimal. What maximizes corporate profits often does not benefit children, and vice versa. Qualities such as a love of learning for its own sake, a penchant for asking challenging questions, or a commitment to democratic participation in decision making would be seen as nice but irrelevant – or perhaps even as impediments to the efficient realization of corporate goals.”
