In a bottom-line world let's examine the bottom line
Published February 6, 2014
by Scott Mooneyham, Capitol Press Association, The Insider, February 3, 2014.
A top executive from a for-profit online education company has been making the rounds lately trying to sell the idea of a virtual charter school to state policymakers.
Mary Gifford, who is senior vice president for education policy at K12 Inc., spoke to a study group made up of state education officials last week. Gifford was scheduled to speak to state legislators this week.
Gifford's expertise regarding the company that she works for is probably unquestionable, but those legislators and education officials are probably quizzing the wrong person.
Instead of hearing from the company's academic expert, they should be talking to the firm's chief accountant.
After all, if a for-profit company is looking for a slice of taxpayer money and some of that money will ultimately go to investors in the company, shouldn't the guardians of the taxpayer dollar have a clear understanding of the financial pressures facing the firm?
Shouldn’t they, for example, know about the company's current profit margin, and how the company has responded historically when that margin rises or falls? Shouldn't they know, when the number has fallen, whether the company has cut expenses, and what kind of expenses might have been cut? If they have responded by trying to increase revenue, shouldn't they know that too?
If educating kids is now a simple financial proposition, and taxpayers are the paying customers, then let's allow the customers to have a good look under the company's financial hood and kick the tires a bit.
And let's examine the warranties provided by the company and whether they have made good on them in the past.
Maybe we can also look for a copy of Consumer Reports, and find out how the magazine ranks the widgets coming off the K12 assembly line.
Of course, education is not a simple financial proposition.
The state has a duty to provide for an education to school-age children. The state constitution mandates that the elected officials of North Carolina "guard and maintain that right."
Allowing profit motives to enter into the equation is a clear dereliction of that constitutional duty.
For years, state legislators, policy wonks and educators in North Carolina have been battling over school choice and what kind of balance regarding choice is best for all children.
With its embrace of private school vouchers and the elimination of a cap on charter schools, the Republican-controlled legislature has sided with more choice. Even as critics question whether those decisions might erode resources for public schools, the moves are still part of a legitimate debate about where the balance should be struck.
The idea that for-profit schools are a part of that same legitimate debate is delusional when considering that children may suffer so that investors might profit.
The mere entertainment of the idea is mark against those doing the entertaining.
February 6, 2014 at 9:04 am
Richard Bunce says:
Allowing year after year the government school system to produce a majority of student not proficient in basic skills is of course the real problem. Provide parents the resources to get their children out of failed government schools and into alternative school systems including for profit systems. The parents can decide if they are working for their children... no government education bureaucrat incompetence needed.
February 6, 2014 at 11:56 am
Norm Kelly says:
The questions asked by the lib author of this editorial are exactly the questions EVERYONE should be asking about the education establishment. But, like big education, libs refuse to allow these questions to be asked, and forbid anyone to have access to the information that might possibly answer these questions.
When big education fails students, how does the system respond? Libs always, constantly, consistently complain of a lack of funds. Libs always, constantly, consistently blame someone else for the problems in the education establishment. When Wake County chose a non-education superintendent, the reaction from the libs was predictable, but shameful. It's unforgivable for anyone who does not come from education to be in charge of education. There is no way the education establishment wants to have any business influence. Business and education are polar opposites, and one should have no impact on the other.
Competition to the education establishment, regardless of how good it is, regardless of how well it performs, regardless of how much choice it provides to FAMILIES, it MUST be opposed. The education establishment has proven that they will fight anyone who wants to take power and/or control for your kids away from them. They will fight you if you want to take control over your family.
The editorial writer puts it this way: 'The state has a duty to provide for an education to school-age children. The state constitution mandates that the elected officials of North Carolina "guard and maintain that right."' So?!? To a good lib, to the author of this editorial that MUST mean, absolutely HAS TO mean that ONLY government run schools are the way to do this. Really? Show me the wording in the state Constitution that says the state is the only provider of school-age child education. When it comes to finding stuff in constitutions that don't actually exist, libs excel. But when it comes to finding what's actually in constitutions, libs are clueless. Where does our state constitution say that the education establishment is THE ONLY OPTION that should EVER be available as a choice to ANY resident? Why is it that the education establishment continues to produce kids who fail to meet standards, yet are continuously promoted through the system?
