For Profit Schools, like mixing vinegar with baking soda
Published at 09-09-2010 from Ilana | 794 Hits | 0 comments
Funded by the state, but run by a private company in order to make a profit, is this the last pillar of our democracy crumbling (possibly a good thing), or is it an exciting new business opportunity that has the possibility of saving struggling schools?
The problem is not that for-profit schools do not do a good job of educating students, the problem is that they do. What does it mean that a public good education can so easily turned into a privatized resource?
Similar to bottled water, if people are willing to pay for a fancy wrapper, there are those that will sell it, despite the fact that it is available for free. The problem than becomes that children who grew up drinking bottled water might not know that tap water is clean and drinkable. It is less wasteful to re-use cups, glasses and re-usable containers, than to throw a bottle away every time you open one up.
People like the fancy wrapper more than what is inside, it is not important what is inside, only that it looks good. Asking about Education is not asking about the wrapper, it is asking what is inside of the package.
Grandma do you remember when schools were free?
For-profit schools are free per-se, operating by receiving money from the state or local government to take over, open new schools in struggling districts, or just start charter schools as another option for parents. For-profit's are free but cost the government, in addition tax-payers are not given a choice about the fact that they are putting their money into a company whose business investments they may or may not support and whose financial stability may fluctuate or collapse.
"Levin says EMOs (education management organization's, another name for For-profit schools) have tried three basic strategies to cut costs: 1) hire less experienced teachers, 2) provide a bare bones pedagogy and implement standard operating procedures across sites, and 3) recruit and retain students who are less demanding of resources, meaning fewer students with moderate to severe behavioral or learning needs (3)"
Does it make sense that a business does a better job educating students to think like a business? Of course it does, and that is why it works, sometimes. Public schools operate in an ideological "gray zone" ideally they should not be teaching students what to think, but how. The separation of church and state was a great step foreword for all who believed in democratic education for all free of ideology. The problem is that the two are not easy to separate. Whether or not it is stated, there is always an ideology behind how children are taught and why. Public school has struggled with "democratically" teaching all, because literacy and education are supposedly goods which our government wishes to bestow on all, and the government believes these are things which everyone is entitled to. Somehow, all though never professed this rational is at work behind most of public education. The problem is that life isn't fair. Not everybody gets to learn, not everybody gets to eat not everybody goes to college.
How do you teach a child without teaching them why?
"What's driving the fervor is the belief that competition--driven by the profit motive--can deliver the quality education so many American parents are clamoring for. ''We're on the brink of fundamental change,'' declares former U.S. Education Secretary and onetime Republican Presidential candidate Lamar Alexander, who is on the board of Leeds Equity Partners III, an investment fund specializing in emerging education companies."(1)
What are the reasons behind the fact that some schools are well-funded, functioning seemingly good places to learn and others places where you wouldn't send your worst enemy? Why are some school districts poor and some rich when they are all funded by the state? Shouldn't funding be representative of size, why does it appear that the schools with less money are located in communities with less money?
Why is it that some schools return great test results, and others barely even make the grade?
As education in this country is required, it is not a young persons choice where they will spend 8 hours of their day but their parents.
What choices do parents have?
Remember those couple days in the year "student count day?" Whereas every day of school was required this day was extra-required, the day the students were counted to see how much money the school would get. The public school wanted everybody to show up because each student represents a very real amount of money the school needs to run the school, pay the teachers, and keep things going. What does "student count day" look like at a for profit school where every child is not just the money from the state, but the chance to maximize on that money and turn it into profit. The students themselves are both worker and product. They must perform well on tests and they are also the schools major source of income? Or are the students the products being sold to the state?
How do these schools plan to address the reasons behind the reasons why some students and schools do not perform well. A major factor in the equation of whether or not one learns is whether or not they have eaten breakfast, whether there home is a place where they can study, whether they have a parent who will support them.
"Meanwhile, many for-profits are cutting corners elsewhere. Few offer a school-lunch program or bus transportation for students in outlying towns. Expensive extracurricular programs such as sports are limited. And most aren't equipped to handle students with severe special education problems, which public schools are obligated to serve. ''It is a lot more expensive to educate a child who is disabled or emotionally troubled,'' says Education Secretary Riley."(1)
Driven by competition, and teaching kids to compete.
For: CATO Institute is a non-profit libertarian think tank. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4437
Against: Common Dreams is "A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community". http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1030-02.htm
1. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_06/b3667001.htm
2. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/classroomsinc12012002.html
3. Who profits when for-profits run schools? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3617/is_200209/ai_n9095779
The Philadelphia experiment: the story behind the Philadelphia school district's unprecedented move to turn 20 schools over to for-profit operator Edison Schools - Featurehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_1_3/ai_94893902
Edison Stays Afloat by Altering Course http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/nytimes3.html ,2003
Teachers not unionized
The company also mandates an eight-hour school day, as well as a longer school year. (2)
The problem is not that for-profit schools do not do a good job of educating students, the problem is that they do. What does it mean that a public good education can so easily turned into a privatized resource?
Similar to bottled water, if people are willing to pay for a fancy wrapper, there are those that will sell it, despite the fact that it is available for free. The problem than becomes that children who grew up drinking bottled water might not know that tap water is clean and drinkable. It is less wasteful to re-use cups, glasses and re-usable containers, than to throw a bottle away every time you open one up.
People like the fancy wrapper more than what is inside, it is not important what is inside, only that it looks good. Asking about Education is not asking about the wrapper, it is asking what is inside of the package.
Grandma do you remember when schools were free?
For-profit schools are free per-se, operating by receiving money from the state or local government to take over, open new schools in struggling districts, or just start charter schools as another option for parents. For-profit's are free but cost the government, in addition tax-payers are not given a choice about the fact that they are putting their money into a company whose business investments they may or may not support and whose financial stability may fluctuate or collapse.
"Levin says EMOs (education management organization's, another name for For-profit schools) have tried three basic strategies to cut costs: 1) hire less experienced teachers, 2) provide a bare bones pedagogy and implement standard operating procedures across sites, and 3) recruit and retain students who are less demanding of resources, meaning fewer students with moderate to severe behavioral or learning needs (3)"
Does it make sense that a business does a better job educating students to think like a business? Of course it does, and that is why it works, sometimes. Public schools operate in an ideological "gray zone" ideally they should not be teaching students what to think, but how. The separation of church and state was a great step foreword for all who believed in democratic education for all free of ideology. The problem is that the two are not easy to separate. Whether or not it is stated, there is always an ideology behind how children are taught and why. Public school has struggled with "democratically" teaching all, because literacy and education are supposedly goods which our government wishes to bestow on all, and the government believes these are things which everyone is entitled to. Somehow, all though never professed this rational is at work behind most of public education. The problem is that life isn't fair. Not everybody gets to learn, not everybody gets to eat not everybody goes to college.
How do you teach a child without teaching them why?
"What's driving the fervor is the belief that competition--driven by the profit motive--can deliver the quality education so many American parents are clamoring for. ''We're on the brink of fundamental change,'' declares former U.S. Education Secretary and onetime Republican Presidential candidate Lamar Alexander, who is on the board of Leeds Equity Partners III, an investment fund specializing in emerging education companies."(1)
What are the reasons behind the fact that some schools are well-funded, functioning seemingly good places to learn and others places where you wouldn't send your worst enemy? Why are some school districts poor and some rich when they are all funded by the state? Shouldn't funding be representative of size, why does it appear that the schools with less money are located in communities with less money?
Why is it that some schools return great test results, and others barely even make the grade?
As education in this country is required, it is not a young persons choice where they will spend 8 hours of their day but their parents.
What choices do parents have?
Remember those couple days in the year "student count day?" Whereas every day of school was required this day was extra-required, the day the students were counted to see how much money the school would get. The public school wanted everybody to show up because each student represents a very real amount of money the school needs to run the school, pay the teachers, and keep things going. What does "student count day" look like at a for profit school where every child is not just the money from the state, but the chance to maximize on that money and turn it into profit. The students themselves are both worker and product. They must perform well on tests and they are also the schools major source of income? Or are the students the products being sold to the state?
How do these schools plan to address the reasons behind the reasons why some students and schools do not perform well. A major factor in the equation of whether or not one learns is whether or not they have eaten breakfast, whether there home is a place where they can study, whether they have a parent who will support them.
"Meanwhile, many for-profits are cutting corners elsewhere. Few offer a school-lunch program or bus transportation for students in outlying towns. Expensive extracurricular programs such as sports are limited. And most aren't equipped to handle students with severe special education problems, which public schools are obligated to serve. ''It is a lot more expensive to educate a child who is disabled or emotionally troubled,'' says Education Secretary Riley."(1)
Driven by competition, and teaching kids to compete.
For: CATO Institute is a non-profit libertarian think tank. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4437
Against: Common Dreams is "A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community". http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1030-02.htm
1. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_06/b3667001.htm
2. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/classroomsinc12012002.html
3. Who profits when for-profits run schools? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3617/is_200209/ai_n9095779
The Philadelphia experiment: the story behind the Philadelphia school district's unprecedented move to turn 20 schools over to for-profit operator Edison Schools - Featurehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_1_3/ai_94893902
Edison Stays Afloat by Altering Course http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/nytimes3.html ,2003
Teachers not unionized
The company also mandates an eight-hour school day, as well as a longer school year. (2)
No comments
