At Issue
Privatization: At what cost?
Classrooms aren’t being cleaned. Halfday kindergartners can’t ride the bus home at lunchtime. School employees are earning lower wages and no longer have health insurance. Parents are enrolling their kids in other districts because their home districts no longer meet their needs—and as students leave, so does their state funding.
This is just a sampling of the negative impact of privatization in several districts in Muskegon County, where school employees have been fighting to block privatization attempts for more than a year.
 |
| Wall Ochs, a Mona Shores custodian and local association leader, talks with other Muskegon County support staff personnel about school board elections. |
“Our superintendents meet at least monthly, and they’re telling the boards of education and parents that they have to privatize support personnel to save programs for the children,” said Wally Ochs, a custodian and association leader who works in the Mona Shores Public Schools. He’s working with other MEA members and leaders in Muskegon County to track and fight privatization.
Fending off privatization
An anti-privatization task force has helped to fend off privatization of support services, including transportation and custodial and maintenance work, in some of the county’s schools, though the tradeoffs haven’t been easy.
Cuts to services—kindergarten busing in one district, for example—have hurt students and inconvenienced parents. Cuts to wages and benefits for school employees who work and live in rural west Michigan communities have impacted scores of families, not to mention the local economy.
“They say that privatizing is going to save money,” Ochs said. “Well, at what cost?”
Putting the squeeze on employees
Privatization is a popular buzz word in public education today. Districts facing budget crises—or looking to win concessions from employee groups during bargaining—claim that firing district employees and hiring private, for-profit companies to do the work instead will cost less, or at least force employees to agree to lower wages or other changes to their working conditions, such as fewer hours.
From local mom-and-pop shops to international corporations, there’s no shortage of private companies willing to work in public schools.
“Once privatization starts happening, it catches on like wildfire,” says Lisa Conner, an organizational specialist for the National Education Association, whose job involves helping members fight privatization.
Not limited only to support staff
 |
| Pontiac ESP members Shirley Fredericks and Charita "Rita" Wright. |
Over the past decade, more schools have considered privatization. And while traditional public schools have mainly opted to privatize support services only, some school boards have voted very recently to subcontract administrators and substitute teachers from private firms.
Privatization isn’t limited to support staff in K-12 schools only. Many public charter schools hire for-profit companies that, in turn, employ teachers. And community colleges and public universities have privatized some services, too.
Privateers see big bucks
Why do private companies want to work in public schools?
Consider the money:
During the 2004-05 school year, the most recent year for which data is available, schools spent more than $1.3 billion in wages, benefits and FICA, for transportation workers and custodians, two of the primary employee groups threatened by privatization to date, according to MEA research.
Under the radar
“Even though contracting has been going on, it’s been almost subterranean,” says David Plank, a professor and researcher at Michigan State University.
Support staff issues don’t resonate with the general public, he said, adding that little bonafide research has been done to investigate the claims by or contracts with privateers.
Education support personnel account for more than 40 percent of the total K-12 workforce in the United States. They serve in critical roles in our nation’s schools, yet funding for their jobs is often cut during difficult budget times in order to preserve (or lessen cuts to) classroom teachers.
In Michigan, association leaders and members continue to lobby lawmakers for adequate funding for public education. Without it, services to students—including those performed by education support personnel—will continue to be at risk.
Forging a winning strategy
In Muskegon County, association members have countered the ongoing privatization threats with their own regular meetings. The Muskegon County Privatization Steering Committee helps local association leaders stay up-to-date on privatization news. The committee also trains leaders to fight privatization.
Last November, the group gathered to talk about the issue and to learn how to elect school board members, one of the key ways to influence any district decisions to privatize.
“We have to do a better job than we have in the past,” said Ochs, who leads the Muskegon County committee. Electing school board members who value support staff is just part of a winning strategy, he said. “We also have to attend school board meetings religiously to know what’s going on and we have to market ourselves and get our stories out into the community,” Ochs said. “If we do that, we won’t be looking at privatization.
” In Pontiac, school support personnel were surprised by a 2005 proposal to the school board to privatize their jobs. The proposal was considered just hours after the local association was informed that the district might lay off a few employees— instead, the board of education considered a bid to privatize several employee groups, including secretaries, skilled tradesmen and engineers.
“My mouth actually dropped open, literally,” recalls secretary Shirley Fredericks, who had met with the superintendent regarding potential layoffs. “I was as white as a ghost.”
Another Pontiac secretary, Charita “Rita” Wright says the experience led to much distrust and animosity toward administrators.
One of the biggest lessons learned is that it’s all right to communicate with board members, even though some administrators had previously advised against doing so.
“As a support staff employee, you’re not just an employee,” says Wright, who is serving as an MEA intern this year. “You’re an employer, too. You live in the community and you pay taxes.
” Pontiac support personnel have spent time over the past couple of years getting to know board members and learning more about the district’s finances. They elected a new member to the school board continued from page 7 in 2006 and took legal action against the district.
Still, it’s hard for those left behind.
“I felt so unwanted—like my years did not matter,” said Fredericks, who’s worked for the district for more than 28 years. “I felt very disheartened.”
Cutting corners for profit
MEA is working with local members and leaders to fight privatization. In addition to a new staff position dedicated to helping members, association leaders and staff are working on several initiatives to increase public awareness of the value of support staff as well as the problems associated with privatization.
Advocates of privatization argue the profit motive provides an incentive for efficiency, but all too often it is actually an incentive to cut corners by skimping on the quality of the work performed.
Little accountability
Another problem that frequently arises in privatization is a lack of accountability. Private companies cannot be held to the same standard of public scrutiny as school districts because they aren’t subject to the same requirements for open meetings, public information and public input. When services are outsourced, problems can’t be as easily or directly addressed as when services are directly provided.
Overstated savings
Promises made during the heat of a privatization bid aren’t always kept, says Kathleen Oakes, an MEA UniServ director in Muskegon County.
In one of the districts she works with, Reeths-Puffer, the superintendent promised annual savings totaling $480,000 for the first year when the school board voted to privatize 29 custodians. The actual savings was later reported less than $70,000 in a $34 million budget.
In Ravenna, the district cut bus runs and saved $85,000, but subsequently lost 54 students (and their state foundation grants) to another district. When asked why they moved their children to another district, many parents cited the elimination of midday busing for kindergartners and other bus route changes that resulted in children of all ages on the same buses at the same time.
“We’ve had nothing but problems,” said driver Kathy Bensinger. “We don’t like it, but what’s the alternative?”