A significant portion of the population feels that schools would run more efficiently and with better results if privately run companies were to take them over. They feel that with the existing large, obstructing bureaucracy, the government is simply unable to provide what is necessary to support a successful school system. The proponents of privatized school systems have long maintained that governments are not as knowledgeable about individual school environments as the owners of a specific private subsidized school would be about a school's c

The most obvious benefits of privatizing education are the initial economic benefits which are certainly greater in a decentralized school structure given the readily available private funds of a company or corporation (Bennett, 1994). Secondly, there would be no extensive bureaucracy to cut through in order to make the simplest decisions. For example, the system would provide the teachers with greater freedom in decision-making for their individual schools or even classrooms. Contracts which elect private companies to run formerly public schools free the administration at all levels from the extensive negotiation of every decision and therefore can provide improved, smoother running management (Bennett, 1994). Urban school administrators often feel trapped by their circumstances and see privatization as the only viable option for a variety of reasons, not just because it would decentralize management (Molnar, 1994). In addition, privatization is appealing because privatization – according to its advocates - will provide a better education for the same amount of money or less than the amount spent by the government on the same school. If this holds true, privatization is certainly a beneficial step for the system. There are clearly a variety other benefits to privatization but clearly none that are as concrete as the aforementioned given that many are a matter of controversy and debate and an abundance of accredited research exists which supports both sides of the argument. Most of these contested benefits rely on research that suggests that market driven schools are superior to democratically controlled schools in producing higher cognitive outcomes among its students (Cookson, 1994).

Edison’s stock price was down 85% since January and the company is suddenly scrambling to raise enough cash to continue its operations into the next school year. Company executives are expected to present a financing plan intended to reassure investment analysts, educators and parents who have grown skeptical of some of the company's claims about its growth prospects and its academic success; meanwhile, analysts have estimated that Edison needs to raise as much as $40 million before next fall to fulfill the Philadelphia contract and to sustain the schools it already runs, which educate 75,000 children in 22 states (Miner, 2002).

Clearly, given the examination and analysis outlined herein it is clear that much can go wrong in a privatized school, especially from administrative and budgeting/finance perspectives. Although there are many drawbacks, privatization schemes will most likely continue to attract school districts, especially urban ones that are facing chronic underfunding and a dramatic increase in the number of poor students (Miner, 2002). The big unknown question is whether for-profit companies will ever be able to prove that they can make money in the K-12 market, which has an estimated potential value of $350 billion dollars and show improvement in the student achievement(Miner, 2002). To date, privatization may be seen as risky given case studies for a variety of reasons, the simplest of which being that it has not proven to be cost-effective. In other words, if EAI schools cost more money, then why not eliminate EAI and its profits and invest public money directly into the schools?

ircumstances and needs. Proponents of privatization believe that the government’s role should become merely that of regulator and given that private schools do not face the political constraints that the municipal governments face , they would be more able to adapt to change. Since the operation of public schools is more bureaucratic and centralized than private subsidized schools, it is expected to inhibit rather than promote educational innovation. Private schools, being less bureaucratic and more decentralized, are expected to be more efficient organizations and to have a better perspective than their public school count

Some topics in this essay:
Heritage Academies, Alternatives Inc, Capitol Hill, Rigert Command, Francisco California, Edison EAI, Smith Meier, Howe Borders, EAI-City Baltimore, Baltimore EAI, school system, public schools, miner 2002, privatizing education, public school, leak 1996, nine schools, molnar 1994, public school system, private sector, rigert command 1994, rehfuss 1993, education alternatives inc, initial economic benefits, henriques steinberg 2002,