I don't understand this reasoning. When there is competition, which there is here, profit means the customers are getting value from the service. They aren't being coerced into buying anything. It's not like BIA has a monopoly and the poor have no choice in the matter.
Maybe in 10 to 15 years it turns out that all graduates amounted to nothing because the education was not good enough and they had no future anyway. But by then thousands of very poor families would have been paying large sums of money for years to put their children through this useless school system.
Lots of potential for harm.
Notice for example that while there are a lot of private universities in the US, there are very few for-profit ones and none that are prestigious.
That's a very limited perspective. I enjoy reading history books, many written by people who studied history and teach history at institutions of higher education. Are you saying that everyone is just going through the motions to send a social signal, except for STEM?
Also you didn't address the question of for-profit vs private education. For-profit tends to be inferior because profit is the only mission; private institutions have a mix of goals, including solvency. BIA is by all accounts for-profit.
The BIA schools are teaching numeracy and literacy
Education at every level consists of showing someone how to act in the world. It's not just "this is what a number looks like, this is what a word looks like." I haven't been to a BIA school, but I've seen a lot of concerns that their method is to cheapen education by removing any human guidance, and divert money from the World Bank away from traditional education.
For example, "adding that privatization of education goes against human rights principles" seems to be entirely unsubstantiated to me. If private schools can offer a superior education at a lower cost than public schools, what human rights have been violated? Arguably it's against human rights to ban such schools when they're educating students.
If I'm being even more cynical, I'd say it's probably because CNN is owned by pro-socialism special interests. They are monetarily invested in convincing the public that government services cost nothing and solve everything.
A for-profit school has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits. If it can make more profits by providing an inferior product at inflated prices, and convince consumers it buy it - then it basically has to do that, or they are defrauding their shareholders. Otherwise the shareholders should pull there money and invest it elsewhere.
Private schools, by contrast, have an obligation to remain solvent, but also a broader mission to educate people, promote learning, make the world a better place and so on.
The word "privatization" in this context implies BIA is pursuing the for-profit model. By contrast a charter school in the US, or religious school, may be either for-profit or private and not-for-profit.
No, it doesn't. A for-profit corporation has an obligation to serve it's shareholders interests faithfully, but that is not, generally, a narrow obligation to profit maximization.
Thinking about non-profit vs for-profit as a strict dichotomy is unhelpful. There are plenty of investors who shy away from particular for-profit investments and prefer other ones for entirely non-financial reasons.
You'll see plenty of people complaining about the "privatization" of public schools when they're replaced by (non-profit) charter schools.
Also, the strict dichotomy of non-profit vs. for-profit isn't always enlightening. Particularly in the education sector, you'll find there are investors who are not exclusively looking for the highest possible return.
In this specific case, I am 100% positive that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are not investing in BIA to maximize their profit. They both have access to far more lucrative investment options.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/06/...
In this specific case, I am 100% positive that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are not investing in BIA to maximize their profit. They both have access to far more lucrative investment options.
I don't think this follows. You can't put all of your money into the most lucrative investment option. You have to diversify. For example people often invest in fine art, not because they're trying to make the world a better place by encouraging art, but as a hedge against other investments.
In this case there are assertions that BIA has a strategy of providing less individual attention to students in order to minimize costs, while taking money from the World Bank which could have gone to free public education otherwise. Sounds like Gates and Zuckerberg aren't in this to lose money.
It was about the dogmatic preaching of people that "privatization" is inherently evil.
In terms of Gates and Zuckerberg, I obviously can't offer you concrete proof. But I can ask you to seriously reconsider about the motives you ascribe to people. That investing in third world schools would be their best investment option (ignoring altruistic intentions) defies belief. Especially when they both have directly donated hundreds of millions of dollars to schools.
I am fairly confident that Gates and Zuckerberg are in this to lose money. They both have more money than they could ever do and have signed pledges to donate the majority of their fortunes before their death.
What seems more likely?
A. Billionaire philanthropists (who have donated millions to education already) invest in a small chain of private schools in order to fool millions of poor children and to enrich themselves.
B. Billionaire philanthropists are interested in improving education around the world and have donated millions of dollars to that cause, including to some for-profit ventures.
It's a mistake to think that because a country is underdeveloped, there's little opportunity for return on investment. Actually that's where there's the most opportunity. The first investment doesn't have to pay off - just put a stake in the ground. Do you think China is also building infrastructure in Africa for philanthropic reasons?
No, but China is not generally giving away billions of dollars without getting anything in return.
Gates at least has been consistently doing that.
Like I said, there's nothing I can say to convince you that they're not secretly evil capitalists hell-bent on making money from poor people around the world. All I can say is that it seems rather unlikely that they would go to so much trouble to hide their intent if that were the case. There are plenty of billionaires who exploit humanity without bothering to sign philanthropy pledges.
This is using the fact that profiting from the poor is possible to help poor people efficiently. Free markets generally work better than planned economies. Why should the poor be cut off from the free market?
The program does not generate profits.
It's completely absurd to suggest 'capitalists' are going into an extremely unprofitable industry, targeting the poorest people in the world who have no money.
Nobody is every going to make a profit teaching poor Africans anything.
The issues is not about private/public - the issue is Uganda is not doing a very good job with their public schools, and they are embarrassed by the presence of the NGOs, who are obviously doing a better job in the minds of many parents.
Free markets might work for some things well, for education they don't, not in development countries nor in developed countries.
Learning to read and write in a for-profit school >> not learning to read and write at all because nobody could figure out how to build a not-for-profit "good education" school.
I also think that locally run schools, either by the government or by the municipality give the people back their agency.
How much agency have the people with a school company headquartered in another country? To which the school only has contact via a smartphone?
How much agency does people who don't have a school at all have?
If you're out there with your wholesome non-profit locally run good education school, competing with a foreign run for-profit school, I'm all with you, hand down, no competition. But you're not, so I'm cheering for the guys actually (if imperfectly) changing facts on the ground.
It would be condescending if anyone had actually said that. Saying "one part of the education is easy to measure" is not the same as saying "no other part of the education matters".
The question is not whether these schools "work". The question is whether they are better for the students than the alternative. Measuring the ability of students to read and write is one useful way of assessing that. If it is dramatically worse or better that would be a helpful indicator (although still not the "whole story").
Simply not true. Plenty of proof that private schools in the UK (weirdly referred to as public schools) provide a far better education than "bog standard" State Comps.
You don't get that unless you pay a lot and subsidize. A lot of people are not willing or unable to pay that cost. Your wants have nothing to do with the matter. A lot of people want the amount of education they can afford, no more, no less.
> Everything else is IMO pointless.
This is why your viewpoint is pointless. No point in learning your times tables or how to read, just because you're not being taught finger painting or how to play a violin? Grow up.
A good teacher is needed to integrate academically weak pupils as well as academically strong pupils.
reading and writing is important, very important but so is math, biology, physics, geography, history, and more.
The best education ever possible is going to be cheaper than today's educational system? What gives you this idea?
> Also it will be paid for by everybody and since all school are equally good it is much easier to get good teachers.
Why would everybody pay for good education? I don't have children. And good teachers are rare no matter what. I certainly have no inclination to discipline 30 kids for 8 hours a day. Why is it easier to get good teachers?
> reading and writing is important, very important but so is math, biology, physics, geography, history, and more.
Yes, would it be better to learn reading and writing and miss out on some math, biology, physics, etc etc? You said there's no point in education unless it's "the best".
What color is the sky in your world? None of your statements make logical sense or form a consistent view of reality. It says you've been a member of HackerNews for 5 years, it seems like a long time to finally unleash your inner troll.
This is definitely not the issue.
A) The schools are 'not or profit' - they don't make money.
B) It's absurd to suggest a company would try to 'make money' by targeting literally the poorest people in the world, that have no money. $6 a month. Thin margins. Do the math. You think a big American corp is interest in that?
The 'real story' is that the Ugandan government is severely neglecting their own population, and that the schools are embarrassing them and showing their incompetence.
So the corrupt government wants to shut it down.