 Editor:
Michael Stagliano, Ph.D.
For some time now the conventional and mass media have been trumpeting
the merits of private education while lambasting public education.
However, within the last month or so the National Assessment of
Educational Progress or NAEP has shown that private school students do
no better, in many instances, than their traditional public school
counterparts on measures of academic progress. This was demonstrated by
researchers who controlled (or took into account) the demographics of
the student populations such as race, economic status and other home
and school factors. While this was not totally unexpected by those who
perform rigorous educational research it points out a reality that when
researchers make claims about the advantages of one system vs. another
it is important to cross all t's and dot all the i's otherwise one is
comparing apples to oranges.
The point to be made at the most
basic level is that when the media talks about private and public
education it is important to know which aspects describe or define
these forms of school organization. This is easier said than done since
recent trends have identified different forms of school organization
that are neither private nor public, but a hybrid of the two. However,
I will not throw fuel on the public vs. private debate, instead this
article will explore some of the differences and similarities of these
two forms of school organization, keeping in mind that this contentious
[political] debate pits the state against the forces of the public
market.
Historically and in simple terms, public schools are
supported by public funds in the form of property taxes and state and
federal moneys. Private schools, on the other hand receive the bulk of
their assistance from private foundations, individuals and tuition from
parents and guardians of students. In terms of regulation, public
schools are governed by Boards of Education and abide by Federal and
State legislative guidelines. Private schools, in some cases, are
mostly regulated by market forces and take the form of Charter Schools,
Vouchers and so on. But here the differences get blurred when public
schools display some characteristics of private schools and vice versa.
A recent example of public schools taking on characteristics of private
schools is a public school district, like the Peoria District 150 City
Schools contracting with private, for-profit Edison Corporation. Also,
the Chicago public school system has shared collaborative programs with
the city's parochial schools. Furthermore, the Detroit school system
also contracted with a private company to run a for-profit school in
the inner city on a tuition basis. In this example the for-profit
school also receives state aid and any surplus funds generated by this
new alliance or school organization is shared with other schools in the
Detroit system. As one can see the relationships are not as clean
between public and private schools. Polices govern these transactions
and moneys flow both ways and include state, federal and local sources.
Researchers and education officials usually look at the following
variables to help define and classify public and private schools: How a
school is governed, the economics of the school or organization, how
the school is financed, how it is organized, to whom is ownership
ascribed, and finally, the politics of the organization. Most
individuals agree that public schools have an enormous amount of
governance and oversight while private schools can "do their own
thing".
|
When one talks about economics, public schools tend to be motivated by
politics while private schools are competitive and market driven. Who
sponsors or finances schools, for the most part, is basic: public
schools receive public moneys and private schools receive non-public
moneys. However, this too is not so clear as one would like to believe.
Ownership falls into the category of who sets policy, curriculum, the
mission and so on and who will be served by these schools. Again, most
agree that public schools are "owned" by the state while private
schools can be owned by individual(s) or corporations, like Edison in
Peoria. Last politics in public and private schools is intertwined.
Many believe politics is the bane of public education while market
forces determine the effectiveness of private schools as some contend.
The point in bringing up this seemingly illusive debate concerning
those forms of school organization (public and private) that are
difficult to tease apart neatly is that the trend towards hybridization
of forms of school organization contribute to the difficulty in
ascribing merit and value to each form of school organization. The
bottom line is that simply taking the stance that private education
receives private funds and public education receives public funds for
operational purposes is oversimplified. To fully appreciate the
similarities and differences in making sense out of private and public
forms of education one must take into account those factors described
earlier such as governance, the economic environment, methods of
finance, organization (including leadership), politics and finally
ownership. Each of these factors must be defined independently and
interdependently as each factor and its relationship to the other
defines the totality of the school's organization.
In essence, today's educational environment is rich in the variety of
configurations that fly in the face of what was once simply the
traditional beliefs that public schools are defined by regulation and
that private schools are driven by market forces. These two forms of
schools in what we believe to be public and private in traditional
terms are far more complex and different and ever-changing. Time and
space did not allow a deeper explanation of the many aspects of private
schools that are embraced by public schools and vice versa. Each form
of school organization can benefit from aspects of the other, and in
real life they do. Whether we want to believe it or not, the debate of
public vs. private is being fought daily by local communities, state
and federal government and the political arena as a whole.
Misunderstanding and the application of various factors described
earlier make for contentious debate and unfortunately missed
opportunities for seriously attending to the academic and social
benefits of each form of school organization as it applies to our
nations' children.
Michael Stagliano, Ph.D. is an educational consultant and writer and former superintendent of schools.
| To reply to this editorial please send your comments to Your letter will be published in the email section. Viewers are welcome to submit a guest editorial. | |