The defunding of public
education has resulted in the broad and contested trend of privatization.
To advocates, a privatized school system offers the efficiency
of a free market rid of bureaucratic bog. To those in opposition,
the commercialization of education means inequality and a worsening
social plight. As the dispute continues so does the suffering
of our public schools. To find a solution, we must first do
our homework.
<< top >>
The Root of the Problem
Theoretically, public education is structured under the ideology
of equity. Provincial/state government tax revenue is the primary
source of funding and legislature dictates mandatory policies
and the general curriculum. Similar to other government services,
efficient practice is subject to variable social, economic and
political factors
The Oregon State School Board reports that last year's severe
economic recession has drastically impacted school funding.
The BCTF (British Columbia Teachers Federation) estimates
that similar cutbacks in the 2002-03 school year will reduce
the teaching force by about 2,000 full-time teachers. BC school
boards are now forced to cut programs and services to pay
for the government legislated (but not funded) 2.5 salary
increase for teachers. Bill 28, (the legislation that ended
the recent teacher strike), also stripped class-size and non-enrolling
ratios from the collective agreement. These and many other
prevalent effects of shrinking budgets and decentralized responsibility
of public education have created the need for alternative
sources.
<< top >>
The Growth of Privatization
Coining it the "privatization of content of education"
Erika Shaker (Director of CCPA Education Program, Ontario),
states that the decline of public funding has drastically
increased commercial involvement in our schools. "Exclusive
marketing, sponsored educational materials, sponsorship agreements,
fundraising, and corporate partnerships are becoming further
institutionalized. School boards are now setting up non-profit
organizations to offer tax credits to sponsorships",
explains Shaker. Kit Krieger, (President of the West Vancouver
Teacher's Association), agrees. "Schools have made major
commitments to technology and few, if any, ministries provide
the funding. The investment in technology is both a major
pressure on school budgets and a significant door for private
involvement in schools". Although corporations are supplementing
public education, schools offer these companies a virtual
monopoly and a major advertising platform to an extremely
captive audience, thus allowing corporatization to exist on
public time and money. Krieger also points out that the result
of corporate participation is inequity, as wealthier school
districts are much more appealing to potential sponsors.
<< top >>
Education as a mutual program
Shaker also describes how the 'privatization of the structure',
(charter schools, voucher or tax credit legislation, outsourcing
of services, and private management of schools), has enabled
education to become big business. Second in size to healthcare,
the global education industry is estimated to be worth $2
trillion, annually. Since the early 90's "Educational
Maintenance Organizations' have emerged. Convincing school
boards that they can run schools more cost efficiently, these
private companies are combining education budget money with
their own capital and overseeing school operations.
Advocates of these privatization ventures see an opportunity
for parents to have choices they deserve, especially in urban
school districts. Appealing to many under funded schools,
for-profit education companies are multiplying with revenues
of $100 billion in 2001. Others argue that the contrast between
private and public interests put schools at risk. More responsible
to shareholders than students, these companies may either
pull out or sacrifice education for profit. And as was the
experience in Baltimore, the substandard business practices
of EduVentures Inc. resulted in a major public expense.
<< top >>
Problem Solving
The negative implications of privatization do not erase the
circumstances that require it to exist. Marshall Fritz, (President
of the Alliance for Separation of School and State, California),
reports that the declining quality of public schools has increased
the support of complete privatization to one quarter of the
American population. Erika Shaker rejects any private reform.
"To knowingly restructure a public system so that it
requires a proportion of those who invest in it to fail for
the system to operate correctly is not just, or right, or,
frankly, even civilized." But until the government commits
to adequate education budgets, the prevention of corporate
takeover must be met with alternatives.
Is it possible to restructure a public system that will benefit
from private involvement yet maintains the vision of equity
and collective good? Implementing laws that have corporations
pay taxes instead of benefiting from free advertising and
tax breaks and that regulate the management of schools are
some suggestions that may offer solutions to this difficult
equation.
<< top >>
|
