1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3661/private-schools-a-failure/

Private Schools a Failure?

June 2, 2005 by

This CNN article explains a failed “privatization” attempt. I put that word in quotation marks because, as the article reveals, it seems that the government still interfered. I don’t know any more details, but I bet this is comparable to the failure of “deregulation” in California electricity.

{ 7 comments }

Brad Dexter June 2, 2005 at 10:48 am

Well it is debatable just how ‘private’ this all really is when the compulsion component is still their and the money still comes from the State it sounds about as ‘private’ as Bush’s SS plan). There is little difference between the district hiring a cooking staff directly and hiring a service subject to regulation and calling the food prep private.

Also, I wonder if most of the schools that ‘went private’ weren’t the bad schools in the first place hence why people wanted a change. Just as the former Soviet Union has struggled to implement purer markets after years of ravaging Statism, bad schools aren’t going to be turned around instantly. There is a whole Statist mentality that needs to be flushed from the system first.

Curt Howland June 2, 2005 at 11:05 am

Brad, I agree completely. The compulsion factor is never discussed, and it is a substantial element in the emotional atmosphere of a “school”.

It’s easy to argue about the format, the absurdity of jumping up and running to a different subject after only 45-55 minutes, or dragging subjects out for year after year so students are bored to tears.

But the day-in day-out threat of violence, of punishment for choosing to study something other than what is on the schedule, that cannot be conducive to actually learning anything more than what a foot soldier learns.

….which, as has been amply pointed out, is the real point of forced public schooling.

Brian Moore June 2, 2005 at 11:11 am

Hah, “private?” The first poster is dead-on. This was exactly as private as Bush’s SS plan.

From the article:

Edison also found itself in a perpetual three-way power struggle with the board and the central administration. The contract did not allow Edison to hire or fire teachers. The company also did not control the district’s finances and had limited ability to shift resources to places that needed them. It was not involved in generating the faulty information that hid the system’s budget deficit.

So, this “private” school didn’t have control over human resources, budget, budget allocation or accounting? That’s a new definition of “private” to me.

Michael June 2, 2005 at 12:58 pm

Brian: Nah, that’s the same definition of private the media always work with — what do you expect — they have journalism degrees after all, not economics degrees.

Glen June 2, 2005 at 1:53 pm

A little more than 10 years ago, I wrote a manual on privitization for a Federal Government customer, I was asked if I understood what I wrote. I asked if they wanted me to explain it better. “No”, they said, “So we can implement the privitization the way we want, make it so you cannot understand it.”

mikey June 2, 2005 at 2:47 pm

FWIW I worked for a large North American railway.
They had “in house” training for our department,
the instructor had no formal teaching credentials.
He was one of two truly great teachers I’ve had,
the other being my genetics prof at the Uof A.
Among other stuff he taught us DC theory AC theory
series parallel analysis, resonance, semi-conductor theory.I had been over this stuff in high school and in university, but this was the
first time I actually understood it.

If this is what all education could potentially be
like, then lets privatize.

sam June 3, 2005 at 5:04 pm

blog are for me a good type of teaching tools, because i go where someone have the time and the pleasures to help me, or to discuss with me.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: