In 2005, 35.5% of the school districts in my home state (Michigan) privatized at least one of the three major noninstructional services most districts offer — custodial, transportation, or food services. This, of course, is met with much hand-wringing from state and national educational unions.But why? If we can save $200,000 to have our custodial services taken care of by a private company, why wouldn’t we? If we can hire a company to provide our school’s lunches, saving another $100,000 in the process, why would we refuse to do so?
That money would be better used for supplies, to reduce class sizes, to pay for a reading specialist, and in any other number of ways that directly impact classroom instruction and student achievement.
Some educators and union leaders say that these professional companies will cut corners, or that they won’t have a positive impact on the students that they serve. The opposite is more likely to be true. Because these private companies know that they are on a short leash (it is much easier to fire such a company than to fire a district employee), they are actually likely to be MORE responsive to the needs of the school district they serve.
When the unions (and some educators) start to entrench themselves in battle against these forces of privatization, they are battling against their own districts. I call on all educators to think twice about supporting the NEA on this front.
June 26, 2007 at 12:02 am |
I don’t disagree except when it comes to your job and mine those same arguments could be used and I think that’s what unions are worried about. There may be a slippery slope in privatizing education eventually leading to the privatizing of actual teachers and instruction.
Unions also need to support other unionized workers in their own interest. So if you’re talking about firing union bus drivers to hire non-union bus drivers just to save money it could be your own bottom line you’re eventually affecting.
There is, however, much waste in most school districts. It’s not the workers on the ground though who are sucking up the money.
June 27, 2007 at 1:30 am |
http://pressposts.com/Education/Privatization-Public-Schools/
Submited post on PressPosts.com – “Privatization and Public Schools”
June 27, 2007 at 8:19 am |
Usually anything the NEA is for, I’d be against. However, the only reason I’d agree here is if the quality of services/goods is better than what the school district is supplying/has. (School lunches are still pretty bad. Healthier, but still barely paletable.)
We’ve already found out that not enough money isn’t the reason students are going to college not knowing all their multiplication facts. Kansas City is the poster child for this tidbit of knowledge. They threw 2 BILLION dollars at the problem over 20 years. Every year, schools receive more and more money. There was a 4% school tax increase here in my district which everyone has to pay regardless if they have kids in the school system or not. I’m willing to bet dollars to doughnuts there will still only be 75% who graduate with a regents next year…and the next.
“The United States spends a larger percentage of its total GDP on educating its students than just about any other country in the world. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development statistics also show that we expend more money per student for primary and secondary education than almost any other nation.” (This paragraph from CNN.com.)
You, Mark, are the reason kids go on to the next grade level fully prepared. You make the same amount of money as other teachers. You have the same resources as other teachers yet, not many other teachers get the good results that you do. When those kids walk into your classroom every day you take responsiblity for them. To you, they are YOUR kids.
You spend your spare time on how to make your classroom better suited to the kids needs (and the cafeteria too, lol). You look for ways to improve your teaching style. You participate in math competitions. I’m willing to bet you stay after class a couple of times a week at least just in case one of your students needs help. You may even offer some sort of free tutoring for kids are are failing.
There are teachers out there (and quite a few) who are lousy. They hate their job. They are sick of kids. They are bored teaching the same material over and over. And at 3:00 they are gone…zoom, no where to be found. They have no idea how the NEA stands on any issue. They don’t look anywhere to find out how to better their teaching style because they don’t have one!
I say, if more teachers were like you, more kids would be successful, no matter how much money was saved, freed up, or spent. This is the main reason I pulled my kids out of public schools. Yet, I support what you’re doing. If my kids were in your class, I’d beg for them to be taught by you every year…because you care!
June 27, 2007 at 11:46 am |
Outsourcing non-educational services are actually the best way for a school district to save money and manage services. You are actually dead on, a company under contract to provide services can be fired much quicker than a union employee. That is not a knock against union employees, but really do we really have to have unionized custodians? Do we really need to have cafeteria workers be government employees?
With proper oversight and management, which can be done with far less cost than actually providing the service, outsourcing is always going to be cheaper and more effective.
If the NEA is worried about a slipper slope toward privatization, they should. Teachers going “private” would be those teachers who aren’t members of the union and therefore might agitate for individual teaching contracts–at market rates. We still require teaching credentials.
July 8, 2007 at 10:50 pm |
Unions are right to oppose the erosion of unionized jobs with decent wages and health insurance. I think they are on the losing side of history at this point, but they are fighting the good fight. “Professionals” are not immune to this trend. Kelly Services is now in the business of providing substitute teachers. Speech therapists and diagnosticians could go this route, and could actually be supplanted to a great extent by sophisticated software and paraprofessionals making low wages supervising kids at computer stations. Teachers might be next. Be careful what you wish for.
July 9, 2007 at 1:01 pm |
Catherine — if a speech therapist can be replaced by software that is run by a paraprofessional, and IF that results in speech instruction that is just as good or better than before, we should do it! We can’t allow our desire to protect people and their paychecks to get in the way of being efficient — remember, this is taxpayer money we’re talking about! The same thing holds true for teachers: If my district could replace me with a cheaper alternative, and IF the instruction the students receive would be just as good or better than it would with me teaching, they should do it in a heartbeat!
We need to lose the survivalist mentality. No, I wouldn’t like being “outsourced,” but I could find another job if I needed to. Unions fight to protect their members even when that contradicts with what is good for the school district and the students those members serve. I think that’s just plain wrong.
July 13, 2007 at 12:08 am |
“That money would be better used for supplies, to reduce class sizes, to pay for a reading specialist, and in any other number of ways that directly impact classroom instruction and student achievement.”
Or it could be returned to the taxpayers.
October 23, 2007 at 10:55 am |
In theory it is an excellent solution, but will these companies do thorough background checks on the employees that will be brought into the schools or will it be a matter of who will work the cheapest like it often is with corporations?
April 27, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
DriveWithHerbie.com is presenting Driver’s Ed on the Net. One of the Cheapest and Best Online Driver Education courses money can buy!…
When you have finished taking our on-line Drivers Ed course you will receive certificate of completion…