[yequalsx]

I'm unable to reply to your comment below so I'm replying here.

Edison is a for profit company that run schools in Philadelphia. It used to, I don't know if they do now. Edison has run schools in other districts. Results are mixed as far as I know.

No Child Left Behind has provisions about tutoring and many for profit tutoring companies are making money off of the mandate. Incidentally, one of George Bush's brothers is involved in with a tutoring company. There is a drive to privatize education by going to a for profit model.

For profits (and non profits) don't provide busing. They don't provide school lunches for low income students. The U.S. has dreadful public transportation in most localities and the lack of adequate transportation is a major problem for poor people who get vouchers. For profits don't normally build schools poor neighborhoods. Actually, for profits don't build schools. They get the taxpayers to pay them.

For profits provide workers with sub standard pay and benefits. That's how they become more efficient. For profits provide the corporate leaders with huge salaries though. The realized savings don't occur when one factors in long term damage that will be done.

[schmittz]

I am not advocating for the abolition of public education, but rather true equal "opportunity." You do cite valid concerns about private educational facilities, but that does not mean parents shouldn't have the opportunity to send their child to a school if they so desire. There's never anything wrong with maximizing someone's choice. I'll have to look more into these for-profit companies running schools. That's too bad that public money is being used to fund them. I also don't like the assumption that a for-profit company will do "damage" to education by virtue of the fact that it is for-profit. Although, they may ultimately not be effective in serving students needs.