American liberals love running down Edison Schools, a for-profit corporation that manages public and private schools under contract. And in their most recent problem area the move to privatise schools has allegedly collapsed ... except that if you read the fine print, you'll see that like most other alleged moves to privatise or deregulate a given sector there is virtually nothing resembling a private market at work.
So begins this article at CNN.com about the failure of "privatisation" at a low-income school district in Pennsylvania. Many ills are brought forward, including (suprisingly) the problems that the school board created for the system, but the slant against a private company managing education on the part of both the editors and the school board is obvious from the article.
This is an amusing quote. You can't blame just the school board adminstration for the problem, despite the fact that the reasons why Edison is pulling out of the contract include:
-->$ 4 million in unpaid fees
-->Lack of control over hiring or firing of teachers
-->Lack of control of budgetary issues
-->An accounting scandal at the school board that masked a $ 35 million budget shortfall
Edison gets its share of scandals too: a principal was charged with having sex with a student. These charges were subsequently dropped when the student admitted the story was concoted, but it still "left the school shaken." Because, as everyone knows, public school teachers and officials never, ever, ever have sex with students. Market failure! Damn greedy child-molesting corporations!
Another principal was fired because it was discovered that she had helped children cheat on exams at a previous job. Damn privateers and their lack of time travel capabilities! All that money and they can't undo the past! Damn them all to hell! (In an apparently irrelevant aside, no charges or even an accusation have been made regarding helping students cheat on tests at the actual schools being run by Edison in Chester.)
All the same groups like Take Back Our Schools, the IndyBay media organisation, etc. that love to have a dig at Edison and privatisation in general will no doubt have a field day once this story has been disseminated. But the question foremost in my mind on the issue is: what kind of private company isn't paid for its services, isn't allowed control over personnel, and is powerless to allocate budgetary items? i.e. Why is the word "privatisation" being used to describe this arrangement in the first place? The only apparent market transaction taking place is, the local school board will pay Edison Schools to take a dive on their behalf.
Phaedrus
So begins this article at CNN.com about the failure of "privatisation" at a low-income school district in Pennsylvania. Many ills are brought forward, including (suprisingly) the problems that the school board created for the system, but the slant against a private company managing education on the part of both the editors and the school board is obvious from the article.
This is an amusing quote. You can't blame just the school board adminstration for the problem, despite the fact that the reasons why Edison is pulling out of the contract include:
-->$ 4 million in unpaid fees
-->Lack of control over hiring or firing of teachers
-->Lack of control of budgetary issues
-->An accounting scandal at the school board that masked a $ 35 million budget shortfall
Edison gets its share of scandals too: a principal was charged with having sex with a student. These charges were subsequently dropped when the student admitted the story was concoted, but it still "left the school shaken." Because, as everyone knows, public school teachers and officials never, ever, ever have sex with students. Market failure! Damn greedy child-molesting corporations!
Another principal was fired because it was discovered that she had helped children cheat on exams at a previous job. Damn privateers and their lack of time travel capabilities! All that money and they can't undo the past! Damn them all to hell! (In an apparently irrelevant aside, no charges or even an accusation have been made regarding helping students cheat on tests at the actual schools being run by Edison in Chester.)
All the same groups like Take Back Our Schools, the IndyBay media organisation, etc. that love to have a dig at Edison and privatisation in general will no doubt have a field day once this story has been disseminated. But the question foremost in my mind on the issue is: what kind of private company isn't paid for its services, isn't allowed control over personnel, and is powerless to allocate budgetary items? i.e. Why is the word "privatisation" being used to describe this arrangement in the first place? The only apparent market transaction taking place is, the local school board will pay Edison Schools to take a dive on their behalf.
Phaedrus
