For-profit schools vs. For-learning schools
I hear a lot of banter about how profits are bad, people who earn them are bad. Wait what?!
Bill Gates...one of the world's most prolific philanthropists, has made A LOT of profit by creating something that a lot of people needed/could use and presenting it in an arguable user-friendly way. He made profit, which allowed him to grow, make more profit, retire, and give it all away.
Profits allow us, the public, to play a role in the firing of people/services that we don't like, or to vote with our feet. Don't like those shoes, don't go back to that store. Disappointed with the Windows OS, buy an Apple.
So what about government services? What's their incentive to provide excellent service? Profits? No.
Back to the question...what incentive do government agencies have to give a superior product. They can't fired. They have no competition. So your telling me that they do it out of the goodness of their hearts? While the greatest philanthropist worked for profit and THEN gave it away? See United States Postal Service as an example.
I believe we should have the conversation...within the current system...that school's are for learning entities. Not so much for-profit. As an aside, if the result of a pro learning institution is more money, with which they can replicate those results, power to them for so doing.
We need to re-frame the conversation around a bottom line that denotes learning. How is that defined? By us, the consumer. Same as it is when we decide what to eat or in what format we are entertained. I don't like the golden arches as a food source. Clearly so many still do. I don't understand it, don't need to, they vote with their feed and their money. I don't have wifi or cable, I don't own a TV, do Netflix, or Amazon, of Hulu...some do. How do I know this? Because those services exist by virtue of the public's choosing.
Districts seek tax payer $ through bond elections - which is a lot like marketing. The old saying "Butts in the seats" gives schools a per pupil funding model...like customers or clients who contract with an organization.
I wonder what would happen if we took away the current funding model and asked schools to actually compete for student enrollment? Which is what has, in reality, emerged as the ruling force school choice today.
Charter schools approximate this model, and the innovation/creativity is astoundingly clear. Hi Tech High, W.H.E.E.L.S., Northpoint Expeditionary Learning Academy, Great Hearts Academies, Phoenix Collegiate Academy, Pioneer Preparatory School...are prolific examples of what a dilluted funding system can accomplish when we're allowed to compete.
Parents, if you don't like your school, fire them. Vote with your feet, and your tax dollars. Vote no on bond elections. Give tax credit $ to a deserving school. Enroll your children in a program that meets their needs.
For more information on cultures of deeper learning, please visit the Center Creek Institute.
I hear a lot of banter about how profits are bad, people who earn them are bad. Wait what?!
Bill Gates...one of the world's most prolific philanthropists, has made A LOT of profit by creating something that a lot of people needed/could use and presenting it in an arguable user-friendly way. He made profit, which allowed him to grow, make more profit, retire, and give it all away.
Profits allow us, the public, to play a role in the firing of people/services that we don't like, or to vote with our feet. Don't like those shoes, don't go back to that store. Disappointed with the Windows OS, buy an Apple.
So what about government services? What's their incentive to provide excellent service? Profits? No.
Back to the question...what incentive do government agencies have to give a superior product. They can't fired. They have no competition. So your telling me that they do it out of the goodness of their hearts? While the greatest philanthropist worked for profit and THEN gave it away? See United States Postal Service as an example.
I believe we should have the conversation...within the current system...that school's are for learning entities. Not so much for-profit. As an aside, if the result of a pro learning institution is more money, with which they can replicate those results, power to them for so doing.
We need to re-frame the conversation around a bottom line that denotes learning. How is that defined? By us, the consumer. Same as it is when we decide what to eat or in what format we are entertained. I don't like the golden arches as a food source. Clearly so many still do. I don't understand it, don't need to, they vote with their feed and their money. I don't have wifi or cable, I don't own a TV, do Netflix, or Amazon, of Hulu...some do. How do I know this? Because those services exist by virtue of the public's choosing.
Districts seek tax payer $ through bond elections - which is a lot like marketing. The old saying "Butts in the seats" gives schools a per pupil funding model...like customers or clients who contract with an organization.
I wonder what would happen if we took away the current funding model and asked schools to actually compete for student enrollment? Which is what has, in reality, emerged as the ruling force school choice today.
Charter schools approximate this model, and the innovation/creativity is astoundingly clear. Hi Tech High, W.H.E.E.L.S., Northpoint Expeditionary Learning Academy, Great Hearts Academies, Phoenix Collegiate Academy, Pioneer Preparatory School...are prolific examples of what a dilluted funding system can accomplish when we're allowed to compete.
Parents, if you don't like your school, fire them. Vote with your feet, and your tax dollars. Vote no on bond elections. Give tax credit $ to a deserving school. Enroll your children in a program that meets their needs.
For more information on cultures of deeper learning, please visit the Center Creek Institute.
Comments
Post a Comment