Today, many school districts are plagued with low achievement, high truancy and dropout rates, poverty, and sporadic violence. As schools evolve to address these increasingly complex challenges, the question of privatization has become part of the continuing debate about how to improve American education.
Some school leaders believe that we need far-reaching changes in the educational environment if public schools are to survive. Walter Amprey, superintendent of the Baltimore City Public Schools, contends that a "completely new culture of education must be created before educational reform can succeed." In this context, some school leaders view private management of public schools as a silver bullet for education. Privatization, these leaders believe, can bring about the radical transformation in the culture of schools that is so urgently needed.
Some urban districts are ready to act on this belief. In 1992, the Baltimore City Public Schools entered into a partnership with Education Alternatives, Inc., a Minneapolis company that specializes in school management for profit. Today, the Baltimore plan is the largest of its kind in the nation. Recently, the superintendent of schools in the District of Columbia suggested that 10 to 15 schools be turned over to private managers.
Is this a trend that will continue to grow in American schools? Does this type of privatization spell the end of schools as we know them today?
Supporters of this change maintain that innovation in our schools is often accomplished by external forces that are unencumbered by the bureaucracy and politics that stifle change. They are willing to risk letting a private company test whether it can take the most successful innovations in the nation's public schools, package them together, and improve a public school at the same cost as the ordinary public school budget—as EAI claims it can do.
Critics, on the other hand, question whether a private company has any business managing public schools. Such private-sector involvement is inappropriate, they assert, because American companies operate in a culture where the bottom-line profit is everything. Other opponents express concern that there is no concrete evidence that Tesseract (EAI's instructional program) is effective, and no proof that EAI can or has improved schools. Still others wonder if the company is being fiscally realistic.
Is privatization the silver bullet? I think not. Neither Education Alternatives, Inc., nor any other private business is a panacea.
Yes, something must be done to improve our schools. But rather than turning to private companies, school leaders need to create a culture in schools that is positive, rewarding, and fulfilling—one that allows the natural intelligence of students to flourish. An unwavering focus on students' needs and the strategies to meet those needs can help turn school success from the exception to the norm. The school's responsibility to children is not met by providing a program that works well with some children; it is met only when the school surrounds all the children with the support needed for success. School leaders, rather than for-profit companies, should provide better educational opportunities for all children.