THE SCHOOL BIZ

Already, public-private partnerships stand out as one of the few reform strategies that elicit anything less than implacable hostility from the public-school establishment. President Clinton vetoed tax-free education savings accounts. Teacher unions vehemently oppose vouchers and have criticized philanthropic scholarships that send needy children to private schools. But a number of school boards and local unions have been willing to give private “education-management organizations” a try.

In doing so, they have had to confront detractors who insist that a school can either educate children or turn a profit but it can’t do both. Supporters respond that subjecting education to the discipline of the marketplace creates accountability: Schools must deliver student achievement or lose their customers. Which view will be indicated in practice it is too soon to say, but clearly the Edison experiment is one to watch.

Of the eight education-management organizations currently operating schools from Massachusetts to California, Edison is the largest. It was launched in 1991 with a four-year, $ 40 million research-and-development effort leading to the opening of the first schools in 1995. By the spring of 1998, there were 59 public schools managed by national education organizations, 25 of them run by Edison.

Originally, the project was launched by media entrepreneur Whittle to set up the first national system of private elementary schools. But the Edison team soon turned their attention to managing public schools. In the early 1990s, many states were adopting charter-school laws, and these, notes Benno Schmidt, Edison CEO and former president of Yale University, were spurring public-school systems “to innovate in various ways, including public-private partnerships, since public schools would have to compete with charter schools.” About one-third of Edison schools are new charter schools; the rest are “contract schools” that school boards have turned over to Edison.

Edison provides all of its schools with a comprehensive package — disparaged by critics as “school in a box” — that includes a distinctive clustering of grades, starting with prekindergarten, in six “academies” (readiness, primary, elementary, junior, senior, and collegiate); a career ladder for teachers; and an integrated curriculum. Edison schools have a longer school day and year than most public schools, as well as optional before and after-school programs. Every student is given a computer to use both at school and at home. Parents, teachers, and students communicate regularly, on the telephones in every classroom and on a computer network called “The Common.” There is no tracking, though students progress at their own pace through the same academic core of humanities, mathematics, and science. All also study Spanish, as well as music, art, dance, and drama, character and ethics, the practical application of knowledge, and physical fitness. Reading is taught through the phonics-based “Success For All” program developed at Johns Hopkins University.

Reactions to Edison have varied. Although the largest teacher union, the National Education Association, formally opposes for-profit management of schools, NEA senior policy analyst Heidi Steffens concedes that the Edison Project seems to be built on a real commitment to education and public accountability. “Edison spent a long time and a lot of money developing their educational program,” she says. “It’s not the only model, but it’s a very good one.” She adds that “the leadership of the Edison Project has indicated a desire to work with, not against, the NEA and its affiliates. We believe that is a recognition of the key role of teachers.”

Still, the teacher unions are not ready to give the Edison project their endorsement. Last spring, the American Federation of Teachers released a report entitled “Student Achievement in Edison Schools: Mixed Results in an Ongoing Enterprise.” Its findings are, indeed, mixed. An analysis of test scores at 12 Edison schools shows that some fell behind comparable public schools, while other came out dramatically ahead. The report applauds the “Success For All” program and extended school time, but criticizes poor implementation of “Success For All,” large classes, and teachers’ lack of experience.

More troubling, the AFT report questions Edison’s honesty. It cites “discrepancies between the record of Edison schools as measured by standard methods of educational evaluation, and the company’s sales presentations and promotional materials,” and maintains that “Edison has exaggerated test score gains and emphasized favorable comparisons in order to show Edison schools in the most positive light.” The report recommends a list of precautions that school boards should take before contracting with Edison.

The AFT report has an obvious bias in favor of public schools. “Edison’s popularity,” the authors write, “depends on the perception that public schools are dysfunctional and helpless to change and that anyone with a fix to offer must be able to do better. . . . There are unheralded programs [going on in public schools] that are already living up to their claims, and people who are looking for ideas — good news about education — should be giving them the same kind of attention that Edison gets.”

The Edison Project issued a written response, asserting that the AFT report is flat wrong on many points and that it dismisses data inconsistent with its “glass half empty” conclusions. “Achievement is generally and clearly on the rise,” Edison asserts. “Not in every single instance, sometimes impressively and other times only moderately — but overall a promising positive trend that no amount of manipulation can turn around.”

As for the AFT’s claim that Edison schools rely on novice teachers and large classes — the implication being that these are economy measures detrimental to learning — Edison responds that “class sizes vary too much for such statistics to be meaningful” and that the AFT has relied on anecdotes. The company further argues that its hiring practices have nothing to do with cost cutting, explaining: “In their start-up years Edison schools do tend to attract greater numbers of teachers with less experience: the program demands lots of change, something that teachers with less experience are generally willing to do.”

Adds Benno Schmidt, “What is important is that the school is accountable for student performance and teacher satisfaction, not that the school be accountable for preferring senior teachers to junior teachers. Unions, understandably, have somewhat different concerns.”

Union hand-wringing does not stop there. According to Heidi Steffens, the NEA fears that for-profit education-management organizations in general will become too proprietary. “Will they let people into their public schools to make judgments?” she asks. Will their test scores and financial data be open for inspection? If contract schools need more money than the standard public expenditure, Steffens asks, “are they willing to say that loud and clear? If [money is] one of the factors that make for a successful school, then let’s be up front and talk to the education community and the public about that.”

So far, Edison cannot be accused of secretiveness. Its staffers call their schools “public” and emphasize their responsibility to the taxpayers. They suspect the criticism springs from another source. “There is a fear of competition and a fear of moving away from uniformity,” says Schmidt. “Unions and some bureaucrats believe that uniformity is in their interest because that is the way they can keep control.”

On the matter of funding, some states spend so little on education that Edison — which receives the same per-pupil public support as public schools — cannot afford to operate there. In such cases, gifts sometimes make up the difference. “If you have a low-spending district in a very high-cost area, a la most of California, then we can’t run an Edison school there,” says Whittle. “So in all of our California schools, we have managed to find philanthropic entities to support those schools, and we announce all that.” Edison has another financial advantage in that its expenditures on curriculum development and school design far exceed public-school outlays for research and development.

While union headquarters hash out theoretical positions on public-private partnerships, local union affiliates are going their own way. When Edison took over Reeves Elementary School in Dade County, Fla., the United Teachers of Dade scrapped its union contract and negotiated a new one with Edison. “We have a very good relationship with the Edison people,” says Pat Tornillo, president of the Unified Teachers of Dade. “We have worked with them in solving whatever problems come up. They created an oversight committee and a new salary schedule for us.”

On the other hand, when the Dayton, Ohio, school board planned to turn over five troubled schools to Edison, the local teacher union blocked the move. Union members voted against changes in their contract that would have enabled them to work with Edison: an extended school year and school day and a pay raise that the union leader called insignificant. Joyce Fulwiler Shawhan, president of the Dayton Education Association, told the Dayton Daily News, “We’re a public school system, and we shouldn’t be managed by for-profit companies.”

Edison’s leaders want to build many more schools — enough that students and teachers who relocate can enter an Edison school in their new community. But they also want to go where they are welcome, and not all school boards and local unions are willing to relinquish control of their students and funds. Before it can expand rapidly, Edison will have to have convincing results in hand — and both the AFT report and Edison’s response conclude that it is simply too early to reach any definitive judgment about the effect of the Edison program on students. In the meantime, students and parents are voting with their feet: The average waiting list for Edison schools is 175.

Pia Nordlinger is a reporter for THE WEEKLY STANDARD.