Kevin's got another good post (On "Privatization") on his blog, and another long excerpt from an outside source. His point is that privatization in the education context rarely means private-sector outsourcing, since most of the organizations coming in to do work in schools are nonprofits. I could sum up more of what he has to say and give you a link to go there, but instead I'll just let you read it here:
It's worth noting that
the word "privatization" means different things in different contexts.
In health care, for example, it can mean selling public or non-profit
hospitals to private companies, which then own them outright and run
them at a profit. That seems like a reasonable use of the word
"privatize."
Then he focuses in on the DC public schools:
What Rhee is considering, by contrast, is hiring
either a for-profit or a non-profit organization to take over certain
administrative and management functions for a fixed period of time,
with the schools, teachers, and students remaining firmly in the public
realm--accountable to public officials, paid with public funds,
remaining public employees, etc. That's a lot different then selling
off a hospital, to the point where I'm not sure using the same word to
describe both scenarios is useful.
Wrapping up with a flourish, Carey makes the case for ... privatization:
If I said, "Hey, I'm thinking about
renovating my bathroom, any advice?" and you said "There's nothing to
suggest that hiring someone to renovate your bathroom guarantees that
you'll end up with a great bathroom, or a better bathroom than you'd
get if you did the work yourself.
These are the good parts, but you can of course click over to read the rest of Carey's post on his site.
