This discussion often implicitly argues public : non-public education (for a discussion of this, see here and here) as by definition, public cannot be for-profit. (Although many people make significant profits from non-public education!) However, being public does not guarantee or even promise quality which I discuss elsewhere. This is not a discussion of public v non-public education which I also discuss elsewhere; I refer here to non-public entities.
I believe that for-profit and non-profit schools are and should be the same, and they should be run the same way with the same focus on quality, satisfaction, value and so on. Both should operate at the same levels and to the same standards, and both should be able to offer niche programs, or to serve defined audience segments. They should be subject to the same health and safety requirements, employment legislation and corporate reporting. The difference should be concern with what happens to the profit or the surplus; the former goes to the owner ("for.profit), the letter stays within the entity (non-profit).
Much of the negativity towards for-profit seems to come from four places. Firstly, there is the position that all non-public provision is morally dubious or unacceptable, intrinsically bad, socially divisive etc. Similarly, public schools are not permitted to specialize and must serve anyone and everyone, thus the playing field is seen to be uneven. And of course, public funding means public regulation and oversight with which non-public schools do not have to comply. However this public : non-public discussion is not relevant to the for-profit : non-profit debate.
Such a stance is linked to the idea that education is a public good and that private providers should not make money from providing a public good. This interesting argument depends entirely on what "public education" is and means. Ultimately, any such discussion will lead to a definition of a minimum or core provision, and that raises the question of what to do when someone wants or needs more than the minimum. The answer is of course additional provision which public education cannot or will not, or possibly should not, provide, and this opens the door to non-public provision. In turn, this public : non-public discussion coincides with the separate for-profit : non-profit debate.
Thirdly, the charge is often leveled that "excessive profit" should not be made which also is an interesting argument. However, this applies to any for-profit enterprise and is often directed at Apple / Jobs, Microsoft / Gates, Facebook / Zuckerberg, Amazon / Bezos et alia. The obvious questions prompted here are "why not?" and "what is excessive?"
In terms of schools, the same arguments, and any subsequent regulation and restrictions, would and should apply. The root problem is of course that entrepreneurship means risk and entrepreneurs should be rewarded for taking risks. This is true just as much of education as it is of tech. Of course, non-profit schools also take risks and so really are no different to for-profit; the difference comes with the treatment of any surplus or profit.
Fourthly, for-profit schools too often do not deliver the promised quality. This is not a for-profit : non-profit matter, but market and customer satisfaction considerations and non-profits also often fail to deliver. The entire ethos of any and all non-public education can be summarized in two points : state clearly who you and what you are offering, and then provide it. For-profit and non-profit schools both can and do close, viz the current state of catholic schools in the US, and raise the same concerns as to the effects on students, families and communities. Again, this question of quality raises the public : non-public discussion and is not relevant to the for-profit : non-profit debate.
So in summary, for-profit : non-profit is often conflated with the separate and unrelated public : non-public debate. and the only real argument against making profit from education is the same as against making profit from any enterprise. As long as society allows any form of entrepreneurship, then for-profit education should also be permitted and accepted. Caveats : (1) for-profit and non-profit schools should be regulated the same way in terms of educational provision, health and safety and so on, and (2) for-profit schools and any other for-profit entity should be regulated the same way in terms of structure, reporting and so on.
I think two additional concerns are not articulated. The first is that non-profits have a status granted by both the state of incorporation and the IRS which is often seen as some kind of stamp of quality or purity of purpose. A non-profit baseball league is often seen more favorably than a for profit competition for example. This is a matter of perception which is not linked to reality, but it does exist.
The second is where a for-profit provider receives public funding, without providing or without being seen to provide "value for money". We often see this in the for-profit college world where they can and do rely on public funding. This of course raises the questions of (a) should any non-public provider receive public funds and (b) if it does. what regulation and oversight should apply? Once again, this falls within the public : non-public discussion.
I believe that non-public providers should not receive public funds, irrespective of whether they are for-profit or non-profit. If they do, it is entirely appropriate for the state to attach strings, "he who pays the piper calls the tune", and to exercise oversight. If a school receives a grant for a horticulture program, then it is perfectly acceptable for an inspector to appear unannounced to see the garden, greenhouse and tools. (I have heard that 40 - 60% of a government grant is taken up with paperwork and compliance, but that is another matter.)
I also believe that public funds should be available to purchase services from a non-public provider, making the state or agency a customer like any other as often a private provider can be better placed, for example with specific programs for behavior or psychological needs. In this case, a "Sales & Purchase Agreement" would be appropriate, defining expectations on each side and including reporting, KPIs etc. Again, for-profit or non-profit status is not relevant.
The "for-profit college scandal" relates to a lack of oversight and of clearly defined deliverables, and is unrelated to the for-profit nature of the providers since non-profit colleges also receive public funds without the same stigma.
In the discussion of for-profit education, the real question is whether education should be run as a business and the answer is yes.
**Please leave your comments and questions below.**
No comments :
Post a Comment