reply to post by anon102
More specifically, privatization means using tax payer money to pay a company to take over the responsibility of the given sector. In the case of
education, privatizing does not mean creating private schools such as those that already exist and cater to the wealthy and practitioners of certain
Privatizing means Charter schools. They are one in the same concept. Waiting for Superman
, based on what I've read about it and the arguments
it presents is total pro-privatization propaganda couched in gushy, seemingly liberal framing. I'll have to watch it myself and be the judge, so
don't take my word on that.
It doesn't mean that there is no education for the poor. It means that the access to education they receive is fully privatized. The private company
receives funding from the government to render a service - education in this case. But, as we all know, the sole purpose of a corporation is to turn a
profit. We all know what happens when the profit-motive is central and everything else is distant second: corners are cut, safety and quality is
by-passed, quantity is weighed against quality or substance, if you will.
In a privatized system, the rich will go to the extant elaborate religious and private grade schools. The middle class will have access to first tier
charter schools where the government is subsidizing the third party (the charter) but the parents will probably pay on top of that for their student
to attend. You have to pay for quality!
The poor, on the other hand, do get jack squat to put it bluntly: the charter schools they attend will only - ONLY - be subsidized. Perhaps extra
money will have to be doled out, if possible, by the parents for meals or fieldtrips, etc. The Charter schools, whether the parents will pay extra or
not, will all operate for a profit.
The reason that does not negatively affect the affluent is that they know they are paying for quality. The reason it affects the poor is that the
Charter school knows their customer (the US government) will keep paying the bills and the their indirect clients (the students) cannot complain about
the quality in any meaningful way, assuming the poor have time to undertake such formal activities as writing to their congressman or protesting on
their day off from their second or third job.
No, privatization is most definitely not the way to go.