United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office Health, Education, and Human Services Division author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 1996-04-19 monographic deposited born digital 80 p. GA 1.13:HEHS-96-3 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3 P0b002ee18037d1f1 f:he96003 DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3 HEHS-96-3 Management consultants Public schools Privatization Service contracts Education or training costs Facility maintenance Students State and local procurement Baltimore (MD) Dade County (FL) Hartford (CT) Minneapolis (MN) Chapter Report HEHS Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the experiences of four school districts that contracted for public school management, focusing on the effects of private management contract arrangements on students.<p/>GAO found that: (1) in Baltimore, Maryland, one contractor used its average per pupil allocation to manage 9 of the district's 183 schools, implement an instructional approach, and pay employees' salaries and benefits, utilities, and leasing and maintenance costs; (2) the Dade County, Florida, contractor raised $2 million to implement its instructional approach in one school and hire principals and teachers, but the district retained its responsibilities over the school's budget, food service, and maintenance and repair; (3) in Hartford, Connecticut, the contractor received district, state, and federal funds to manage the district's 32 schools and made recommendations for improving instruction; (4) the Minneapolis, Minnesota, contractor served as the district's superintendent and was paid for achieving specific goals, objectives, and assignments; (5) while the school boards and teachers unions supported implementation of private management in Dade County and Minneapolis, there was opposition to private management in Baltimore and Hartford; (6) in Baltimore, teaching assistants with college degrees were placed in each class, students had access to more computers, and schools were cleaner and better maintained; (7) in Dade County, attendance rates improved, teaching assistants with college degrees increased, and students had access to more computers; (8) in Hartford, students had access to more computers and the contractor was in the process of repairing school buildings and installing computer labs in five schools; (9) in Minneapolis, attendance rates improved and suspension rates declined; and (10) in each of the four districts, standardized achievement test scores did not significantly increase or were not available. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3/html/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3/pdf/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3.pdf GAO/HEHS-96-3 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-96-3 Chapter Report GAO/HEHS-96-3; Private Management of Public Schools: Early Experiences in Four School Districts; Management consultants Public schools Privatization Service contracts Education or training costs Facility maintenance Students State and local procurement Baltimore (MD) Dade County (FL) Hartford (CT) Minneapolis (MN)