School Privatization
Our society, as a whole, has been heading
toward a decentralized system of
conducting its affairs. Large corporations
have been getting larger , meanwhile
governments have been giving up
increasing amounts of their control. This
decentralization has affected even
former mainstays of government control, such
as phone and power companies. As
decentralization becomes more of a reality,
there has been a great deal of
debate over what controls the government should
maintain or relinquish. The
public school system has long been a source of
frustration. Many feel the
schools would be run more efficiently and with better
results if privately
run companies were to take over. They feel that with the
existing large,
encumbering bureaucracy, the government is simply unable to
provide the
proper base that is necessary to support a successful school system.
The
proponents of privatized school systems have long maintained that
governments
are not as knowledgeable about individual school environments as
those who
and they have to manage many schools, whereas the owners of a
specific
private subsidized school would be well informed about the
school's
circumstances and can concentrate on that school alone. They say
that the
governments role should become that of regulator, not schoolmaster,
and that
since the private schools do not face the political constraints that
the
municipal governments face,they would be more able to adapt to change.
Since the
operation of public schools is more bureaucratic and centralized
than private
subsidized schools, it is expected to inhibit rather than
promote educational
innovation. Private schools, being less bureaucratic and
more decentralized, are
expected to be more efficient organizations and to
have a better perspective
than their public school counterparts. They are
also expected to provide a
greater incentive and opportunity to come up with
more innovative programs than
public schools in order to stay competitive.
Bureaucracy is expected to hinder
initiative and efficiency, whereas the
private sector in general is expected to
be more dynamic and responsive
because of their need to stay competitive. It is
hoped that this
competitiveness will foster innovation. On the other side of the
debate is
the group that favors continued government control over the school
system.
They argue that privatizing the schools would lead to a decreased focus
on
the needs of the children with an increased emphasis placed on the
bottom
line. They maintain that the companies taking over for the government
would
focus their attention more on cutting corners to make larger profits
rather than
on the education of children. With continued government control
over the school
system, there will remain a stability that is necessary to
insure a full and
equal educational opportunity for all. Having the education
system privatized
would create inequalities in the method that education
would be provided. Those
who oppose privatization agree that not only would
municipal control maintain
stability, but would also ensure fair and equal
teatment for all. The same would
not hold true if the schools were placed in
private hands. Schools that do not
make a profit along with teachers that are
no longer needed would simply let go
in order to save money or maintain
profits. I can see that there are several
benefits on both sides. The
economic benefits are obviously in favor of a
decentralized school structure.
There be no bureaucracy to wade through to make
the simplest decisions, in
the system would allow teachers to make important
ground level decisions as
they see fit. This increased efficiency includes many
benefits, but with what
cost? What about the special needs children, or the
under privileged, will
the private companies take care of them? What happens
when these companies
don't make enough money on a school, will they close it
down? The children
whose schools have been closed will have to travel further
and further just
to get to school, if they even go. Maybe there should just be
mega-schools
were ten schools are combined into one, all to save the managing
company
money. With government control, there may not be efficiency but there is
some
stability. That is the important thing. Companies can open and close
their
doors in a day, but schools are more important than companies.
Education is the
key to our futures, can we afford to gamble with what is a
stake? The government
must become more efficient at doing its job in managing
our schools, and
business has proven itself to be efficient. Maybe there is a
way to combine the
two and receive the best of both worlds.