Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Getting past the privatization argument

Earlier this week the Atlanta Journal-Constitution launched this broadside against private educompanies:

Studies on America’s schools appear with the regularity of weather reports, but the forecast is rarely for sunny days to come, only gray skies and storm clouds.

Now, two more research studies rain on the assumption by some that public education can be saved by wresting it from government bureaucrats and handing it over to private, independent operators.

In one study, a federally funded review of the seven biggest education-management firms, operating 350 public schools, found that bringing in private companies to run schools is not a panacea.

After reviewing data from those 350 schools, the American Institutes for Research found that only one of the seven private groups had solid evidence of improved learning. That firm, the for-profit Edison Schools, only rated a "moderate" grade for its effect on achievement. (In Georgia, Edison operates Atlanta’s Charles R. Drew Charter School.)

Those findings come on the heels of another study that found Philadelphia math students in privatized middle schools don’t fare any better than their peers in publicly managed schools. The state of Pennsylvania took over the troubled Philadelphia schools in late 2001, creating a School Reform Commission that delegated management of 46 schools to independent contractors, including 26 middle schools. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University have tracked the impact of that effort.

"So far, this experiment has not paid off by producing consistently better math achievement gains in the privatized schools," concluded Douglas J. Mac Iver and Martha Abele Mac Iver.

Before certain anti-school-choice types gear up to declare victory, consider the remarks of Todd Kern, Alexander Russo’s victim subject for this week’s Hot Seat interview:

What did you learn from your stint in the private sector that you didn’t know before — and that most folks in education probably still don’t know?

TK: For three years I helped manage a small investment bank/consulting firm in the emerging education industry. Some of the things I learned: the “industry” includes a hell of a lot more than schools (ranging from early childhood to corporate training – or “K to gray,” as they say); profit motive is not necessarily a bad thing (and not just in the Gordon Gekko good greed way); and finally, and perhaps most important, this genie definitely will not go back in the bottle.

How is the profit motive “not a bad thing”? These are helpless children, for god’s sake.

TK: Sure, some folks might be out to make a quick (or not-so-quick) buck, but there are also many others who care about kids and view the for-profit industry as a wedge strategy to improve a public system that clearly isn’t working as well as it needs to.

So are you still pro-private sector?

TK: I’m not for privatizing the system – education is our most precious public good – but I welcome anything that spurs innovation. And the problem is so big that I think the private sector will have to be part of the solution.

With all that as a backdrop, allow us to make a couple of observations to the anti-school-choice folks.  First off, as Kern pointed out, private involvement in education is here to stay.  Exhibit A:

Back in 1990, when Milwaukee adopted the nation’s first modern school choice program, few people thought the movement would be as successful as it is.

There are now 17 school choice programs in 11 states plus the District of Columbia. Over 100,000 students attend private school using vouchers and tax-funded scholarships–and over 400,000 families can receive personal tax credits to offset private-school tuition for their children.

And the momentum is getting stronger, not weaker. Last year, 33 state legislatures introduced about 60 school choice bills. Two new voucher programs were created in Ohio and Utah, and existing school choice programs were expanded in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

That continues a 10-year trend toward more, not less, school choice.

In short: school choice opponents need to read the tea leaves.  

Furthermore, what the AJC article was describing had less to do with school choice and more to do with outsourcing.  We in the school choice movement are really only after one thing: allowing parents to put their kid in whatever school they deem appropriate, be it public or private.  Farming out the work of a public school to a private provider, which is what happened in Philly and is what was done with many of the schools in the study cited, isn’t the same thing. 

Which brings us to the more fundamental point of what we want to change.  We’re not arguing "that public education can be saved by wresting it from government bureaucrats and handing it over to private, independent operators".   What we are saying is that educational decisions should be wrested from the grip of government bureaucrats and turned over to the parents. 

We say Kern hit the nail squarely on the head with respect to the ultimate direction of school choice.  Simply put, it’s not a zero-sum game.  In spite of accusations to the contrary, parental choice in education does not translate to dynamiting the public school system currently in existence and making private companies the only providers in existence; it means giving parents as wide an array of educational options as possible. 

Let’s say you’re upper-middle class, earning well into six figures.  You can live pretty much wherever you want, so you’ve moved to the suburbs where there are some high-quality public schools nearby recognized for their excellence.  Hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  Not only should your child be entitled to continue attending that school, but that school would only continue to thrive under true school choice. 

What is most interesting is the choice schools that seem to achieve the most success are nonprofits.  Two of the more storied examples from the Milwaukee program, Notre Dame Middle School and Messmer High School are Catholic schools (insert ACLU shrieking and lawsuits), so they’re hardly in it for the almighty dollar.

To sum up: we see the privatization argument as more than a bit silly.  Just as the Internet will coexist with Big Media rather than replace it, choice schools will never replace public schools.  All we want–in fact, all we’ve ever wanted–is for children, especially the disadvantaged, to have as many options, public and private, as necessary to give kids the best education possible.  Is that really too much to ask?