Several districts have hired private firms to run some of their public schools. Is this a good idea? Do private firms have methods to improve public schools that public educators lack?
Yes. Private companies provide the children of America with food, clothing, and shelter—why not education as well? No one has a monopoly on good ideas, and private companies shouldn't be ignored by public educators.Private companies have a strong incentive to do well, for only by serving their students can they attract new business. The profit motive ensures that firms will strive to provide the best education possible with available resources. And if a private firm fails to educate its students, the district can cancel the contract.Private firms also have incentives to operate efficiently. The private firm running nine schools in Baltimore invested over $300,000 to upgrade an inefficient lighting system. Why? Because the change will generate savings of $150,000 a year in electric bills. Such commonsense investments are often overlooked in the public sector because of short-term budget constraints.Public education isn't lacking good ideas; rather, what's missing is the flexibility to implement them. All too often it is a case of good people trapped in a bad system.At first, the idea of private companies' providing public education seems strange. But as New York Governor Mario Cuomo has stated, "It is not the government's obligation to provide services, but to see that they are provided." The bottom line for school officials is to provide students with the best education with limited funds. Both business and students can profit from that.—John O'Leary is a policy analyst with the Reason Foundation and co-author of Making Schools Work: Contracting Options for Better Management.
No profit-making firm has produced academic results on a large scale, even though the concept dates back to the failed performance contracting of the early 1970s. Proponents like to invoke the efficiency of the market system, arguing that private firms will excel in the public endeavor of schooling. But public tasks are different, and mostly harder. And we shouldn't forget that although the private sector has produced many well-run operations, it has also given us the savings-and-loan debacle and defense contractor overruns.One problem is that higher test scores and fewer dropouts are not all that we ask of schools. "Education" also includes subtle factors that are hard to specify in a contract and harder still to monitor. Because of these factors, school districts may have trouble choosing the most attractive bidder among contractors. Contracting is also an easy way for school boards and administrators to get rid of their direct responsibilities for the most difficult children. While privatization plays to the inherent distrust of government and the desperation of public officials, it also confuses public accountability.But the major issue is: How do we know whether the contractor has lived up to the contract? How will performance be measured, and by whom? These measurements must be conducted by independent contractors rather than by the school board, who may be more interested in looking good than ensuring improved services for children.—Arnold Fege is director of governmental relations for the National PTA in Washington, D.C.
Private firms can serve as viable management systems for public schools. Depending on how they are used, private firms can serve as excellent vehicles for stimulating change.In reality, the methods used by private firms in running public schools are very similar to those used by educators. The major difference lies in the attitude with which private firms approach their mission.Public school educators tend to be process focused. They direct attention toward accomplishing a job, completing a task, or bringing closure to a project. The many conscientious and hard-working public school employees tend to follow existing policies, procedures, and organizational cultures in doing their jobs. This is generally true of employees in nonprofit and public institutions. Often the work concept for such organizations is "doing things right," not necessarily "doing the right thing right."Because private firms operate with a profit motive, they are outcome focused: They direct their attention and efforts toward satisfying customer needs. Within this framework, they tend to challenge existing systems that do not meet customer needs or offer opportunities to improve efficiency.Hence, the basic difference that private firms bring to the educational arena is that, as an external stimulus for change, they are willing to examine possibilities for serving the customer that we educators have not pursued proactively.—Patsy Baker Blackshear is deputy superintendent for management services in the Baltimore City Public Schools.
There's magic in the market and gold in classrooms, according to the edu-profiteers. Christopher Whittle claims profit is the engine that will drive reform and revitalize our schools. There must be something to it—at least the profit part. Whittle says Channel One is making millions; and David Bennett, president of Education Alternatives, Inc. (EAI), earned $106,000 last year plus $54,000 in bonuses and another $460,000 in stock options, according to the Milwaukee Journal.Where does all this money come from? Let's consider EAI. EAI claims it can run schools and educate students for the "average" per-pupil expenditure in a school district and still make money. But because this "average" cost formula is almost always applied to elementary schools, EAI gets more money to run its schools than those schools received when they were operated by the school district. This is because secondary schools cost more than elementary schools; therefore, the average amount spent per pupil districtwide is more than the amount spent per elementary student. When a school district pays EAI the average districtwide cost per pupil to run an elementary school, it means that other schools in the district must do with less, or spending must be increased. Not very magical.The other much-touted sources of EAI profit—efficient management systems (read reduced wages) and a restructured curriculum—are similarly much ado about nothing new.The claims of the edu-profiteers don't bear scrutiny. Nevertheless, some people appear to prefer slick packaging and flimflam to the difficult and unglamorous job of reconstructing public education.—Alex Molnar is a professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.