Introduction
For many years, the higher education in North America and in many other parts of the world has been run on a private-public partnership basis which involved a form of partnership between the private and the public sector.
Though the difference between the private and the public sector was not very elaborate, the higher education sectors, which included universities and colleges, still run very effectively, though not without their challenges.
Over the past few decades, there has been a lot of evolution and changes in the whole education sector, and in the stakeholders of the higher education.
These changes have led to a growth of a large gap between the private owners and the public sector, forcing a need for a more elaborate difference in ownership and functionality of the higher education sector. This has hence led to the privatization of most of the higher education institutions including universities and colleges.
Causes and the Process of Privatization
Privatization came mainly as a result of a conflict between the stakeholders of the education sector in the functionality, financial aspects and even the ownership of the colleges and universities.
There was a great need for there to be well-laid lines on who owned what in the former setup of the private-public partnership, forcing each of the stakeholders to demand their share of contribution and an equivalent share of the benefits from investment into the higher education sector.
Mostly, the public sector always took a larger share of both the investment and the benefits of the investment and this caused chaos between the public and the private sectors. The private sector hence opted to run their own institutions their own way and this was a lead to a new era of privatization of the higher education institutions (Giroux, and Giroux, 2004).
The other reason for privatization of Higher Education institutions was the need for more improved and competitive institutions. The institutions needed to be more improved in terms of facilities, both academic-oriented and recreational ones.
In this area, the private-public partnership did not help in improvement of such conditions and mostly all the institutions were almost similar in their functionality and in terms of the availability of facilities. This in return did not result to any competition among the institutions as they were all under the same ownership which did not encourage competition neither facilitated improvement of available facilities.
However, since there was a need for improved facilities and competition among the institutions and in the whole education sector, the private-public partnership had to fail and pave way for privatization of some of the institutions. The results have been improvements in the level of learning, facilities and even stiff competition in terms of education, facilities and even student membership among the institutions (Bruce, 2005).
Another cause of privatization of the higher education institutions was the generation of income as most of the stakeholders came to realize that investment into higher education provided a great opportunity for the private sector to gain a source of income.
Since in the current generation higher education is viewed as a prerequisite and not as a luxury or an option, then increase in the tuition fees and other payments by students had little effect on the admission of students into those institutions.
In fact, it has been noted that the most students no longer consider the high fees charged in institutions but are keen on the available facilities and the competitiveness of the institution in the education sector both nationally and internationally (Thrift, 2010).
Consequences of Privatization of Higher Education
The privatization of higher education was not without its consequences, both positive and negative. There were a lot of benefits that were to be realized from the privatization process, both to the owners of the institutions and to the students. The students were able to access better, more improved and modernized facilities, both educationally and recreationally.
They were also able to access better and more efficient and effective education levels that were more specialized and making them more competitive in the labor market and generally in their professions.
In addition, the students were able to venture into more activities that were aimed at enhancing them not just academically but in many other areas of life. This way, the students could be able to become more independent and responsible members of the society (Giroux, and Giroux, 2004).
The private sector that gained ownership of the higher education institutions benefited in a great way from the process. The owners were able to get a reliable and competitive source of income, resulting to more returns from their investments. They were also able to allocate more funds to the different departments and hence got more financial gain out of it.
The use of contracting out and outsourcing of labor and other activities within the institutions also reduced expenses for the institutions leading to higher returns. There was also an improvement in the management of the institutions hence enhancing service delivery and competition with other institutions (Cote, and Allahar, 2007).
The process of privatization was not without its negative effects. The most notable one was the rise in fees paid by students in order to gain admission and access facilities within the institutions. This way, students had to pay a higher price in order to access education facilities.
References
Bruce, D. (2005). Privatization in and of Higher Education in the US. London: John Willey& Sons.
Cote, E., and Allahar, L. (2007). Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Giroux, A., and Giroux, S. (2004). Take Back Higher Education: Race, Youth, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Post?Civil Rights Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thrift, N. (2010). Across The World: The Privatization of Higher Education. Web.