What was Old is New Again

Abstract

Out with the In with the old. That seems a twisted way to think about the beginning of the school year, a time of change and openness to fresh ideas, but several events of the summer make such thoughts seem very fitting. With No Child Left Behind decisions somewhat dormant until a new administration takes over, it is possible, thankfully, to think about policy issues that ultimately are more important to schools and children. One event was the reported demise of the new. Sixteen years ago, Chris Whittle, a media entrepreneur out of Tennessee, launched Edison Schools, a network of for-profit, exemplary schools. He predicted that Edison would have 1,000 schools with one million students by 2010. The first years were promising and rode atop growing interest in the industry as a profitable place for investments. Edison invested heavily in developing software, professional training, and a core curriculum. According to Tom Toch of Education Sector, who has documented Edison Schools, the peak year was 2001 when its stock was worth $2 billion. But Edison stumbled badly and finally announced this summer that it would focus on software for managing schools and change its name to EdisonLearning. Edison began as a promise for a vast network of new schools that would stimulate change throughout public education. But the company had to adjust its priorities and settle on running existing schools for districts and then to just using its products for school management. The network has or will fade into oblivion. Toch's analysis attributes Edison's misfortunes to a number of factors. Its financing, though considerable at first, never was stable and came under scrutiny by federal officials. The company ran into intensive union-led opposition and learned that improving schools for low-income children could not be achieved through a bells-and-whistles strategy. My own limited observation of Edison Schools found obstacles outweighing the good. Low-income Edison-run schools in Hartford provided facilities better than anything children had ever known, but teacher union grievances and foot-dragging made instructional improvements impossible. At Chester-Upland, a poor district south of Philadelphia, the state created the barriers, turning over control of most of the schools to Edison but leaving responsibility for the teachers to the district. Edison's principals, hired to produce change, could not work successfully under those conditions. The real lesson from the Edison Schools, however, is that a lot of development resources, high technology, new leadership, and a more coherent curriculum are not enough to spur higher academic achievement among poor and minority children. Overall, Edison Schools did not perform any better than regular public schools. Old Is New This is why the second half of the equation--in with the old--fits so well as a counterpoint to the Edison experience. There is a growing acknowledgement of the limitations on public schools to turn around every underachieving child in the country and to provide each with well-rounded skills. This point was forcefully made in the manifesto, A Broader, Bolder Approach, issued by researchers and other educators this summer as a guide to setting education policy. The manifesto recognizes the centrality of formal schooling but also insists that out-of-school learning is critical to help students learn at high levels, as is physical, character, and social development. …