Mark Claypool wrote this column in 2015 to argue that contracting with private companies can give a school district more control, not less. The section added below looks at what the evidence says about public private partnerships in education and what a district’s contract has to contain for Claypool’s argument to hold.
Most people would agree: Public schools are strapped for resources and overburdened with responsibilities that go far beyond education. These institutions must be a safe harbor for neglected children, instill social values, provide resources for children with autism and other conditions, and be a warrior against drug and alcohol abuse, just to name a few.
Education leaders are challenged to consider new ways to address these 21st Century demands. While it might not be “the way we always did it,” those new ways might include taking a fresh and honest look at the value of contracting with private companies for specific projects or services.
It’s understandable that school districts are hesitant to alter their education delivery model. With innovation there comes risk, and there is an unspoken but fairly pervasive belief among district leaders that a school district must do everything itself and with its own employees. There can be pressure to keep their school self-sufficient.
Increased control
Some school districts believe that asking an outside organization to help it address a specific academic issue is an admission of failure. In my opinion, it is a demonstration of its commitment to meeting the need of its students, no matter how diverse and challenging.
While some might be concerned about loss of control, in many ways entering into a public-private partnership (PPP) increases control by the school district. PPPs are contractual arrangements in which the school district holds the balance of power, and the private organization acts as the contractor. As such, the district has the opportunity to create the service or solution it seeks and the contractor acts at the behest of the customer. It’s that simple.
With every partnership comes an obligation on the part of the private company to meet or exceed expectations and to be accountable to its customer.
Such partnerships are designed to accomplish objectives that the district has not achieved or has not been able to attempt. At the outset, they should include clear measures of performance accountability as well as how and when those measures should be taken.
It’s also important to note that while districts may face similar challenges, the extent of the challenges may vary by location. Public-private partnerships give school districts a wide menu of options and contractors from which to choose. They also allow districts to make short-term commitments, which they can end at almost any time.
If a district is not sure a service is needed or how it might be shaped or staffed, making a short-term agreement can be a good way to test the waters. Perhaps the private partner stays indefinitely with the district; perhaps the district ultimately takes the service “in house” after working in collaboration with a specialty partner.
Partnerships in practice
The truth is, public school districts already take extensive advantage of public-private partnerships for transportation, food and custodial services. They enter such a partnership every time they need something that cannot be provided with district personnel, including legal services, health services, building and grounds maintenance, environmental management, facilities construction, risk and insurance management, afterschool care and many other functions.
Moving forward, these partnerships have the potential to make a real difference to an important part of our society, namely, students struggling for an education, whether that includes students with academic, emotional or behavioral issues that can put them at risk of school failure.
When a partnership works efficiently and successfully, what the district, the community and students get out of it is invaluable. Done correctly, it creates opportunities for students, improves outcomes, maximizes cost benefits, and increases enrollment and retention.
Public private partnerships in education: what the evidence says and what a contract must contain
Public private partnerships in education cover very different arrangements. Some are everyday service contracts for buses, meals or custodial work, which is the kind Mark Claypool describes above. Others hand a company the management of whole schools, or finance and maintain school buildings for decades. The two ends of that range raise different questions, so a district leader gains from asking which kind of partnership is on the table before judging it.
Where the research points
Claypool’s central claim is that the district holds the balance of power because it is the customer. That is true on paper, and the research on larger partnerships shows what decides whether it is true in practice. A randomized evaluation of privately managed public schools in Liberia, summarized by the Center for Global Development, found that the schools improved learning. The same summary reports that the largest contractor ran up high costs and brought negative unintended consequences for some pupils and teachers. The page notes that the government agreed to an impact evaluation one year into the program, which is how those results became known. Liberia differs from a U.S. district buying a bus service, and the study concerns whole-school management, so it is best read as a reminder that outcomes, costs and side effects all need measuring, and that one result does not settle the matter in either direction.
A second source concerns contract management rather than results. In 2010 the Auditor General of Nova Scotia examined the province’s contracts for 31 public private partnership schools, worth roughly $830 million over 20 years. The audit concluded that the Department of Education had not met the duty of care such contracts require. Of 40 contracted staff tested, 20 had no child abuse registry check on file, and 14 lacked the required emergency first aid and CPR training. Nine of 13 schools examined did not have all required fire safety inspections. The contract terms did not give the province audit access, did not set measurable levels for all services, and did not include an adequate way to adjust payments when terms were missed. The department relied on negative feedback to monitor compliance, which the auditor judged not sufficient. This case concerned school buildings and their upkeep in Canada, not a U.S. school district, but the lesson transfers: a contract gives a district control only when the district checks what it paid for.
What a district can decide before signing
Claypool recommends clear measures of performance accountability and a short first term. The audit findings suggest several concrete additions.
- Write service levels that can be measured, and name who measures them and how often.
- Keep the right to audit the contractor’s records, including proof that staff screening, training and inspections were completed.
- Tie payment to performance, so that a missed term has a financial consequence and does not depend on someone complaining.
- Assign one person in the district to manage the contract, since the Nova Scotia audit found weak management processes as well as weak terms.
- Plan the exit at the start. Claypool notes that a district may take a service in house after a trial, and a contract that makes that difficult removes the control Claypool describes.
Both sides of the argument
Supporters point to specialist skill, flexibility and the ability to try a service on a short commitment. Critics point to cost, loss of public oversight and the risk that a contractor’s incentives differ from a school’s. The sources above support a middle position. A partnership can work well, and the contract and the district’s own monitoring decide whether it does. Claypool’s examples of transportation and food service suit that approach because the work is easy to specify and to check. Services that touch teaching and learning are harder to specify, which is a reason for a district to run a smaller trial and collect its own evidence first.
Board members and parents can ask three questions of any proposed partnership: what result is the district buying, how will the district know the result was delivered, and what happens if it was not.
Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.
Related reading
More on Education Policy and Government
