Private Lessons

"Privatization does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person...it means you take a public institution and you give it to an unaccountable tyranny."—Noam Chomsky

Often when people don't like what the government does they point to the splendors of the "private sector" who will make all things better. The only problem is, the private sector often is not equipped any better than the government and often only do things cheaper or worse.

Now before I go further I want to say that the private sector does a great job, for what it is capable of doing. You want a hot dog, the private sector can furnish you any number of them and at any price. You need a basic car, the private sector can do that too. However, if you want an education, or a highly fuel efficient car for that matter, the private sector is not necessarily the way to go.

With few exceptions, private education has not, on the average, produced better students. It is true that when better students go to better funded schools, these schools can (but not always) produce better student outcomes (e.g., students who graduate, are ready for college, do well in post-secondary studies, get good jobs). The same is true of public education. As a group, students who go to well-to-do suburban schools perform better than students who either attend rural or large urban districts. However, taking into account magnet and academy types of schools, students who go to rigerous schools, take tough/upper level courses no matter where, do well regardless of where the schools are located.

The issue is one of spreading the excellence around. This is where differences in students show up. If a student arrives at a school ready to learn, they learn. That is, if they aren't hungry, have done their homework, have foundational skills, and supportive parents who read to them, they succeed. There is no private company who can do this any better.

But we do not guarantee that our children have the same footing when they enter school. The single biggest detriment to our schools is poverty. Poor kids fare worse because they come from poverty. Unless the private sector wants to take over the poverty sector, it is likely that we will always have inequality in schools.

Think of it this way, if you were asked to bid on a contract to run a school and you had to feed kids not only lunch, but breakfast and dinner too, provide afterschool care, as well as tutoring and enrichment courses, how could you do that competitively?

Does public education fail our children? Yes, it does. But not for a lack of trying. Public education suffers from protectionism to be sure. There are teachers, principals, school boards, and parents who do a lousy job where students are concerned. Schools require change agents and failing schools don't have them. Why? You have got me. However, whether the government is doing the job or private concerns are, change doesn't come without a fight.

I believe that private concerns could help out a great deal in schools--feeding kids could be done better by private companies, so could cleaning schools and transporting kids. But when it comes to education of children, nothing will ever replace a highly skilled teacher--and we need a plan to develop more of them. Perhaps there is even an opportunity for private concerns out there to get into the teacher training business.

Often people want solutions to be simple and so to posit private concerns against public concerns is a natural debate. Perhaps the real debate should be what is best for our children and to find both public and private solutions that lead to a better educated nation.