It seems that one cannot pick-up a newspaper, watch
the TV news or even go the coffee shop without being exposed to the issue of
privatization and/or subcontracting for jobs that have been historically part
of the public sector. Since our course
deals with site-based business and operational functions within public schools,
please answer the following question from that vantage point. How should decisions be reached regarding use of
contracted versus system-supplied operations/maintenance services?
Contract versus system- supplied operation and maintenance services is an important discussion to have. There are many considerations which a school leader must consider in making decision in this regard. First appearances may be deception. A school leader may immediately think that he or she is already paying the maintenance personnel so this is the best option. However, there are many considerations to be thought of before a final decision is made. The leader must consider if the maintenance personnel have the necessary talents, do they have the time to dedicate to this project or will other areas of the building be neglected because of dedication to the project. On the other hand, time and money might be saved by having the maintenance personnel do this instead of investing time and resources in finding an external contractor, avoiding overhead costs, etc. A leader may also need to consider the liability of having an external company doing a project or introduced to the school environment. As well, what are the time constrains on the project? Will an external contractor meet the time constraints better or worse than the maintenance staff? While the project be done during regular school hours or on the weekend. Is there flexibility with scheduling the regular maintenance staff to work off hours? All of these questions must be carefully weighed in order to make the proper decision that will meet the school's needs.
ReplyDeleteAs a school leader, it is important that these considerations be guided by the ultimate educational goals of the institution. What is the main gain - uninterrupted educational experience, conserving the budget, maintaining the building in the best possible way? The school leader is responsible for guiding the decision making process keeping in mind the goals of the institution, weighing all the possibilities and the pros and cons of each possible solution. It is a great responsibility which involves much more than may be apparent at first glance.
In my experience, we have invested a lot of research into looking at the best maintenance solution - although it may be more expensive, it may be a longer lasting solution which over time will cut costs even though it means contracting outside services. On the other hand, sometimes the maintenance staff can come up with surprising solutions. On one occasion the garbage disposal in our kitchen broke. We looked as prices of repairs, parts, and new equipment. In the end the best solution was to order new equipment but have our existing staff install it. In the meantime, the maintenance staff made a temporary repair with existing materials. This temporary repair has held until this day - several months later. Sometimes we are surprised despite our best efforts to consider all possibilities.
Regarding the second question of this week's assignment, this was addressed in the previous blog post regarding accounting, from a facilities perspective - the value of staff development for custodial staff is the consideration of most effective preservation and maintenance of the facility. If staff development will aid the custodial staff in maintaining the facility more effectively, then it is definitely a worthwhile investments - to introduce new procedures, products, etc. in order to help maintain the facility in the best possible way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEvery day that passes, there is a new technology, new process, and new ways of doing business. The same goes for decisions made within our schools. As school leaders, we need to always be looking into the best ways to maintain our buildings and environments. The decision that ultimately needs to be decided is where do we find our staff and how long do they stay on staff.
ReplyDeleteIn many districts in Southeast Michigan we have seen the idea of transportation move from in-house employees to contracted services. Ultimately the decisions came down to money and what works best for the school. This same question comes up when looking into custodial and maintenance staff. Where should we find our staff and is it better to just contract it out to a different company.
In this decision making process it is important to take into consideration what the pros and cons would be for each scenario. Is it better to have the staff be employees of the school/district where they are directly managed, evaluated, and benefits provided by the district or is it better to pay a separate company to contract employees where that company could manage payroll, benefits, and other issues that come up with staff? It would also be important to understand how the school itself works. In a smaller setting it may be better to have in-house employees where they can be trained and sustained by the actual school whereas in a larger school/district it may be more of a benefit to contract out the staff for maintenance and custodial staff.
It is another thing to take into consideration the type of job. If it is a temporary job to repair or construct something it may be more beneficial to contract the job outside because it is not long term and the other employees can still focus on their own job responsibilities rather than take on another project. On the other hand if it is painting at the end of the school year though it may be better to keep the job in-house because other daily job responsibilities change during the summer months and it would work into the schedules of current employees.
In the end, the main question comes down to assets and liabilities. Is it going to benefit the school in the long run to have a staff that can construct, clean, and maintain the building(s) or is it a long term liability with the payroll, days off, benefits, and other costs? This decision needs to come from an informed view of the actual school and see how either school will provide the most beneficial solution.
I will respond as I reflect on what has happened at my school this year in regards to custodial staff. We have had one custodian at our school at least for the last 5 years. He would arrive at the school during the last hour of the day and clean into the evening. During this time, other staff would always joke that this wasn't clean or that wasn't clean and I would just brush it off as not a big deal or that they were just being nit picky. This custodian would attend staff meetings after school and other school functions like the beginning and end of school parties. They were a part of the school family. I felt that this was a good thing, all staff should be included and it was nice to know the custodian on a personal level and not just have them be 'that person that cleans the school'. It is important that if you have staff like this that they be a part of the family so that they have that care and concern for the well-being of the children and be a part of the school mission and vision.
ReplyDeleteFlash forward to this year, a new management company takes over, a new principal does not like how the building is getting cleaned or not getting cleaned, and so a decision needs to be made. Do you keep the current staff and hire an additional one to help, or do you contract out the cleaning of the building and not have custodial staff at all? Well, my first opinion was, "How could you do this to that poor person, they will lose their job?" But then I looked at the numbers, the school could contract out for a day and night person to be at the school cleaning for a lower costs then the one person we had now. Ignoring the money for a second, after the change occurred and I saw how good of a job the cleaning service did, I couldn't believe what the school was supposed to look like and how clean it was compared to before. It is amazing how clean it is, they wipe down the tables and chairs, they vacuum every night, not just if you have your chairs up (that was the rule before). They clean the bathrooms two to three times a day, etc. I am not just bashing the custodian we had, it is a big job and one that needed more than one person to keep up. It is just like our homes, if you let it go for awhile, it seems much harder to get it all clean, than if you are able to do that little bit every day to keep it up. Anyways, my point is that you have to look at the purpose of the job. What is the custodial staff's purpose? To keep a clean environment for the students and staff so that everyone in the school can stay healthy. I personally would not care how that goal is accomplished (whether with school staff or contracted employees), but the task needs to be done. At my school, it was not getting done, and so when we looked at all of the options, the best decision was made in regards to costs, the people involved and the students health. The question is raised about the loss of jobs when school districts choose to contract out like this. It is a tough decision but I can say that our school specifically made sure that the company we contracted with hired locally, so one person lost a job but two more were hired and the employee had the opportunity to apply for one of the positions. One could argue about the economics of this, but that is another topic and debate. So now my perspective changed after all of this happened, I now believe that decisions regarding use of contracted versus system supplied services should be made that guarantee that whatever the goal,task, or need is, that it is being met and whichever way accomplishes that need best for the school system. My school is one school, so hiring a company to service our school was the best solution. In a large, multiple school district, another system may work best.
How should decisions be reached regarding use of contracted versus system-supplied operations/maintenance services?
ReplyDeleteI think decisions of contracted versus system-supplied operations/maintenance should be thought out and decided very carefully. Those services are also a very crucial and big part of the budget. However, the thought of being contracted out would seem easier because you would not have to monitor them as much or include in their salary that would probably include benefit. But, however the easy way is not always the best way. But the other side to contracting out is keeping all staff in house which would probably be more ideal because you have a better view of what is being done with the in house maintenance service. Everything they do would have to be accounted for and you are better able to monitor and self-improve the maintenance where need be.
I also think the maintenance personnel would be more on its job knowing that they are an in house employee and is being monitored at any given time.
How should decisions be reached regarding use of contract versus system-supplied operations/maintenance services?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to contract versus system-supplied operations/maintenance services a school leader must weigh the pros and cons of each. A school leader must think about the costs right away as well as the costs in repairs and maintenance down the road. Questions like- Will this equipment last? Is this a purchase or a lease type item? Will the district be prepared to repair or perform maintenance on this item in a timely manner?
The advantage of using contracted services is that the school is not liable for anything more than making sure the staff uses the machinery properly. The company is responsible for the upkeep of the product and for regular maintenance services. Additionally, after a certain amount of years (or months- depending on the contract), the company supplying the service will return to switch out the machines.
On the other hand, a school leader who chooses the route of system-supplied operations/maintenance services also has the obligation of making sure the staff uses the machinery properly. The difference between the two; however, is that the school district also has the responsibility of maintenance and upkeep.
When it comes to cost, I believe that a combination of both contracted equipment and system-supplied maintenance would be best simply because in some cases it makes sense to allow the company that makes a product to take care of it through regular check-ups and preventive repairs when needed or as scheduled.
How should decisions be reached regarding use of contracted versus system-supplied operations/maintenance services?
ReplyDeleteWhen making decisions regarding site–based operational functions several factors must be considered. An extensive review of the pros and cons of each choice will aid in decision making and aid in an effort to help all parties affected by such decision to better understand why the choice was made.
When considering contracted vs. system-supplied operations/maintenance, cost-effectiveness of each must be assessed. A proactive long-term comparison should be clearly outlined. Short-term fixes may look good on paper but cost efficiency for a substantial time period is necessary. Contractual obligations must also be considered. Is there an obligation to in-house operations staff? Will conflict arise? What steps are necessary to obtain bids from vendors? What type of contract is being considered with vendors? Evaluation of current operations based on job description & job duties should be considered. While cost-effectiveness plays a major role; job performance, job efficiency, and staffing numbers should factor into decision making. In other words, is the current operations/maintenance staff satisfactory, is work done in an acceptable amount of time & at acceptable times throughout the day, and are there enough or too many on staff? Other considerations such as time & cost involved in HR and supervision. In-house staff will require the work of other in-house staff. For example, HR must “oversee” each individual on paper. Payroll, benefits, employee files, scheduling, absenteeism, etc. must all be completed by another in-house employee. An operations/maintenance supervisor will be required (on the payroll) to oversee all other aspects of each individual. These factors are eliminated when outsourcing.
When an administrator is considering contracted vs. system-supplied operations/maintenance, the first thing that must be considered is cost effectiveness and the impact this decision will have on the overall effectiveness of the school's mission. Another thing the administrator has to consider is how this will effect the climate and culture of the school. Which system will coincide best with the school's culture and climate? If there is a change, how will that change impact student learning and current employee satisfaction?
ReplyDeleteI have seen both systems being utilized with effectiveness, but under differing circumstances. I've also witnessed both systems being used under the same circumstances with vastly different results. Our school decided to go away from a system supplied maintenance program to a contractual one because the custodial personnel were not operating at an efficient level. Unfortunately, the contractual system brought with it a new set of problems, as the contract was not as thorough as it needed to be. Because several tasks were left out of the contract, it actually became more expensive to have the contracted personnel complete all of the tasks previously accomplished by the system-supplied personnel. At the end of the contract period, our school ended up going back to hiring their own custodial personnel. Had the correct personnel been hired in the first place, this two year problem for the school would have been avoided. To me, this situation reinforced the idea that you need to hire highly qualified personnel for all positions. With that said, there are places where a contracted maintenance task can be more valuable than utilizing system-supplied personnel, especially when it comes to specialized tasks. Some examples of these would include cleaning windows in excess of one story, roof repair, major plumbing repairs, and other areas where custodial staff would need additional, intensive training.
I would like to believe that it is a high priority of a principal to ensure that there is enough funding for all staff to attend some type of staff development every year. Realistically though, given the state of school finance, and lack of funding, I believe most school principals would not put a high priority on staff development of the custodial personnel unless it involved ensuring the school was in compliance with state and federal health and safety requirements. An exception I could see to this would be training a newly hired custodial person who had an identified need of training when they were hired.
ReplyDeleteAny staff development for custodial personnel would need to be evaluated by what the impact of the training had on the school, and how the school benefited by the training. I think the principal would have the custodial supervisor complete a report requesting the training and its benefits, and then an after training report which would explain what was gained and if the training was worth while. The principal would need to evaluate the value of the training against the cost of the training to see if the benefits were of high enough value to the school to invest in.
I think the decision of using contract versus system supplied operations should be on a case by case basis. The size of the school district is going to be a factor in that decision. For example, if you are in a smaller school district it may be feasible to have an “in house” copy machine repairman. This person would be able to get around to all the buildings in an efficient way. If you were in a larger district it would probably make more sense to contract out the copy machine repair to multiple people and it may cost less. A district-operated maintenance system could save money for the district by not having to take bids and negotiate for services. The district would be able to start working on maintenance issues faster with a “in house” system because there wouldn't be a delay brought on by the bidding and negotiating process. However, contracted maintenance may be more economical in terms of specialized projects especially ones that require expensive equipment that the school district doesn't already own.
ReplyDeleteThe value of staff development for the school site is extremely beneficial. We switched over this year from the North Carolina Standard Course of Study to the Common Core Standards. Due to this switch we have numerous professional development opportunities and “in house” workshops to help us with this transition. Without the training and the resources, I don't think our staff as a whole would be as successful with implementing these new standards in their classrooms. The value of staff development for custodial staff is beneficial as well. Custodial staff and cleaning products are costly to a district. Custodial staff should be trained as a group on how to quickly and efficiently clean all areas of the building.
Professional development should be evaluated on how it benefits the school district. For example, I think the Common Core professional development in my district was critical for proper implementation of these standards. Some other workshops may not benefit the district as a whole. The custodial staff development should be monitored and evaluated on a monthly basis. A “sparkle inspection” is conducted at my school roughly every three months. Upon completion of the inspection a meeting is called with the custodial staff to let them know areas that they are doing well on and areas that need improvement. They then receive training on the areas that need to be improved.
How should decisions be reached regarding use of contracted versus system-supplied operations/maintenance services?
ReplyDeleteIn my view, the number one factor in deciding whether to use contracted or system-supplied operations and maintenance services is cost-effectiveness. However, in my eyes, another major factor is in the ease of use. As a principal, I would want my focus to rest largely on instruction and student achievement. It would be highly frustrating to have to personally handle a lot of the headaches that come with building maintenance just to save a few dollars. I don’t believe that would be the best use of my time and attention – particularly because my expertise lies elsewhere. Therefore, I would base my decision on a combination of factors, but largely, cost and the ability for my building maintenance staff to operate smoothly without my constant oversight (which would require high levels of competence and accountability).
As we attempt to discuss the economics of both plans, examining the maintenance and operations programs is needed to decide whether to use contract or system-supplied services. Yes there are several factors in examining system-supplied operations/ maintenance services such as cost utility, which you will find is a major asset in determining the best program.
ReplyDeleteDistricts that operate their own maintenance program, find that they can avoid delays and costs associated with taking bids, opening them, and even negotiating for services or materials of equal quality; overhead charges of companies performing maintenance functions can be eliminated. If there is in-house maintenance system, we must understand that it should be part of contingency planning, because there is a possibility of making more efficient use of personnel in terms of scheduling efficiency in work-load and or operations.
In -House
1. Compared to contracted services, school personnel may find it easier to communicate and develop a rapport with students, teachers, staff and other school employees. Cooperation with all individuals in the school is
needed for the program to succeed.
2. When a school employee performs services, schools may find it efficient
to incorporate some activities with other maintenance activities performed by certified in-house employees, as long as the employee is a certified operator.
3. Because in-house personnel are always around the schools, they are more likely to
identify problems before they become too serious.
3. When in-house personnel perform services, there is no need to develop a bid
invitation and therefore the potential difficulty of choosing a vendor based
on reliability rather than simply on lowest bid.
4. Maintenance or buildings and grounds supervisors have greater control over
personnel selection and performance, and subsequently the quality of the services.
Virtually all school systems have historically used and continue to use private vendors to some degree. In many cases, contracting out is simply the most efficient, practical and prudent path. Yet, the appealing promises of commercial vendors to provide higher quality services at cheaper prices while relieving administrative headaches are not always realized.
It is very important to review critical considerations for school officials considering
contracting out. These include hidden costs, quality control. impact on
administrative time, social costs, and loss of control and restricted
flexibility.
When deciding whether to contract out, it is recommended that school
leaders first:
• Analyze the reasons for considering a private vendor and determine
whether underlying administrative and cost issues might be more
efficiently and economically resolved internally. Often, a consultant
can expedite this review.
• Conduct a careful cost analysis of contractor proposals, including
hidden, indirect, and administrative costs to the district. Such an
analysis is essential to determine if contracting out is cost-effective.
• Weigh the social costs of privatization, such as possible economic harm
to employees and to the community and potential disruption of school community
relations.
• Determine if there are enough qualified potential bidders to provide the
effective competition and substantial cost reduction that the market
model promises.
Making a wise decision depends on the degree to which school
leaders dispassionately, objectively, and wisely review the circumstances.
They must distance themselves from undue influence, particularly by
vendors. Such distancing is simply good management.
I think the decision of using contract versus system supplied operations should be on a case by case basis. If a school district has put the necessary funds to hire knowledgeable maintenance personnel, which has accomplished the necessary certification for the jobs, then the jobs ought to be system supplied. However, it is out of the realm of knowledge, then the job should be contracted out to the public, which could be more costly.
ReplyDeleteIn any school district, maintaining a safe and productive learning environment is key. If there are hazards or potential hazards, the school district should get it taking care of in timely manner. If it is within the school system or contracted, the goal of maintaining a safe learning environment is paramount.
The head administrator at a school (principal or dean) needs to make notes of potential hazards in a school. In the world of site-based management, the principal is the key figurehead in analyzing and ensuring the school's upkeep is maintained. If not, it is his/her responsibility to appoint personnel or contractors to accomplish the task(s).
There are many factors that need to be considered when determining whether or not to contract the operations and maintenance of the school district. First, the size of the district may have an impact on the decision, as well as the specific needs of the district. The cost effectiveness of the contracted or system supplied maintenance program should also be considered. The view of the community members and stakeholders would also play a role in the decision. When my district looked into privatizing the custodial staff, there were some negative thoughts that came from community members. There was a fear that local people would be losing their jobs so that other people from out of the area could come in and take these jobs. However, when the contracted company explained that they would be hiring local people to work for them to work in the district, community members backed off a little. Ultimately, the decision should be based on what is best for the district and all of its stakeholders. While cost effectiveness should be taken into consideration, the overall effectiveness of the program should also be considered.
ReplyDeleteThere can be great value in the staff development of the maintenance employees. The more training the employees have, the more they will be able to keep the district running efficiently. There are many things that need to be done to keep the district running. Therefore, the district would greatly benefit from training its employees. My district is relatively small and employs a small team of maintenance personnel. The more that they are able to learn, the less that the district has to spend on outside sources to make repairs or to ensure safety to the entire district. By being trained and learning things such as OSHA regulations, they are better able to keep the district running as efficiently and as cost effective as possible.
I would look at it being the most cost effective way to go about it. If you contract out the maintenance and custodial services you will no doubt save money in your general fund. The way many districts are moving towards privatized services is by allowing the current employees a chance to get a job working for the private firm. I have heard successes and failures pertaining to this subject, but I do believe schools can try to hold on to individuals because they believe ethically it is the right thing to do. However, we are here for the students and creating a safe environment for those students. Having a less expensive option that will provide more workers is a very cost effective way to solve the issue.
ReplyDelete