The Baltimore City school board voted earlier this week to renew its contract with Edison Schools to run three elementary schools for two years. Finally. We wonder what took the members so long to make the right decision.
They strung the company along for almost three months ? and parents of children at the school and their teachers, who didn?t know if they should be looking for another school or another job.
Test scores at schools managed by Edison ? Montebello, Furman Templeton and Gilmor fell last year, generating spasms of excitement among those who oppose alternatives to traditional public schools. But the students? overall performance paints a healthy picture, with those at Edison progressing at a much faster rate in both math and reading than those attending other city schools. In 1995, 8 percent of the students at the three schools Edison took over in 2000 were proficient in math. As of last year, 52 percent were. In Baltimore City public schools as a whole, scores have progressed 29 points, or 15 points less than at Edison schools over the same time period. Students? progress in reading at Edison schools also has outpaced improvements at Baltimore City as a whole.
If that isn?t enough evidence in Edison?s favor, turnover at their schools ? about 7 percent ? is less than half that of Baltimore?s traditional public schools ? showing parent satisfaction.
This isn?t to say Edison should not be scrutinized. In 2005, Baltimore?s well-respected Abell Foundation released a report criticizing Edison, a for-profit company, for costing too much and for taking some of the money as profit. Accountability is important.
That is the best thing about Edison. As Dwayne Andrews, Edison?s vice president for government relations ,said, “If we are not doing our job then we can be fired.” The same cannot be said for the city?s school system, where parents of children in chronically failing schools have few if any options.
If anything, the Abell report should highlight the waste in the city system. If Edison can make a profit and outperform city schools, what does that say about its government operators?
In renewing the contract the school board opted to pay Edison the same amount per pupil as it does charter schools ? or about half of what the system spends per pupil in traditional public schools.
That was a mistake, just as it is a mistake for charter schools. If the system intends to hold charters and Edison schools to the same standards it holds itself to, it must provide them with the resources to compete on a level playing field. Anything less is setting them up ? and the students desperate for an alternative to the city?s ailing schools ? to fail.
