Educational Management Organizations Research Articles

School Choice: How an Abstract Idea Became a Political Reality

When Diane Ravitch mentioned that she was putting together a collection of Brookings papers on hopeful developments in American education, I told her that it would probably be the shortest volume in the series. I was then reminded of an essay we had written together for the Public Interest in 1996 that began on a similarly upbeat note, declaring, "Yes, there is hope."1 Encouraged by the varied initiatives that were already taking hold around the country, we envisioned a transformation in the basic character of schooling, one that would replace the existing bureaucratic system that prizes compliance with a deregulated system focused on performance. Parents would be able to choose from a range of educational options, delivered by an array of educational providers beyond public schools run by local school districts. At the time we were pleased to observe that Wisconsin and Ohio had passed far-reaching voucher laws and that nineteen states had enacted charter school legislation. The Edison Project (later, Edison Schools) and Educational Alternatives offered living examples of how private companies could manage public schools; and it was already apparent that whereas the former was well on its way toward developing an innovative model that could reshape the institutional structure of schooling in some places, the latter was quick on the path to self-destruction. As I write today, school voucher laws have been enacted in Florida, Colorado (halted by litigation), and the District of Columbia. In 2004 similar proposals came under serious consideration in Arizona, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. Only nine states do not have charter school laws. Privately financed scholarship programs sponsored by groups such as Children First America and the Children's [End Page 137] Scholarship Fund now operate in nearly every state. Brand-name schools like the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) academies have sprung up all over the map. Fifty-one for-profit education management organizations (EMOs) currently operate 463 public schools in twenty-eight states, compared with thirteen operating 135 schools in fifteen states just five years ago.2 At the urging of President George W. Bush, the Congress passed legislation that has engaged the states in a dialogue on accountability that is unprecedented in American education. Change has not occurred overnight, but it has occurred in a big way. This paper takes a retrospective and prospective look at the phenomenon of school choice to measure the distance we have come and to assess what needs to be done to advance choice further. It is a case study of how an idea was converted into policy through the political process. Some pessimists might claim that the process of political compromise has denuded the idea of its power to exert real change. Optimists, to the contrary, might argue that the idea of choice has become an unstoppable force that can only gain strength with the passage of time. In accord with the spirit of the present symposium, I take the latter position. Because politics is the apparatus that converts ideas into policy, my analysis is very much a tale—not too tall a tale, I hope—of how an abstract notion came to be translated into a plausible and appealing proposal for improving American education. When contemplating the phenomenon of choice, scholars tend to focus on research; pundits, especially in a presidential election year, are taken with the national political scene. In the end, research and national politics will prove to be peripheral in determining the future of school choice. If we can learn anything from the experience thus far, the real story of school choice will be written at the level of local politics. The Market Concept The choice idea is commonly traced to a fifty-year-old essay by the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who advocated a market approach to education.3 Friedman wanted to give all parents a voucher so that they could...

Scale of Operations and Locus of Control in Market‐ Versus Mission‐Oriented Charter Schools*

Objective. The objective of this article is to investigate two distinct strands in the charter school movement: one that emphasizes school‐based management and another that emphasizes market efficiency. We were interested in whether charter schools that were founded or co‐founded by for‐profit education management organizations (EMOs) tend to pursue economies of scale and are less likely than others to implement school‐level decision making in key areas.Methods. The analysis uses data drawn from a survey we conducted of the population of charter schools in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC.Results. We find that charter schools that were founded or co‐founded by EMOs tend to be larger and are less likely to exhibit decision‐making control at the school level.Conclusions. Our analysis underscores the importance of disaggregating the charter school phenomenon into its distinct constituent parts in order to draw meaningful lessons from this evolving and significant experiment in alternative education delivery mode.

Do EMO-operated Charter Schools Serve Disadvantaged Students? The Influence of State Policies

There is a paucity of research about how the policies enacted by states either foster or hinder charter schools’ service to disadvantaged students or how the characteristics of charter schools themselves affect this outcome. By combining data from the US Department of Education’s Schools and Staffing Survey with data on the characteristics of state charter school policies, this article examines how different types of charter schools respond to the policy and market signals established by state charter legislation, and the impact of such signals on the willingness and ability of charter schools to serve disadvantaged student populations. With a sample of 533 charter schools in 13 states, models are estimated to discern whether specific state policies and whether being managed by two types of for-profit educational management organizations (EMOs)—large and small ones—encourages or discourages schools from enrolling low-income and minority students. The results suggest that certain policy characteristics are important for encouraging schools to serve low-income and minority students. Specifically, having multiple chartering authorities and requiring the transportation of students are important for explaining charter schools’ service to low-income and minority students. Being managed by a large-EMO was positively but not significantly related to charter schools enrollment of low-income and minority students. The results differed for small-EMO managed schools. Small-EMOs served significantly lower percentages of minority students. The results suggest that not all charter schools are the same and that policy design and organizational form matters for determining whom charter schools will serve.

What is a ‘Public School’? Principles for a New Century

Recent developments in the provision of education in the U.S. mean that the old definitions of no longer hold. Mr. Hess offers his suggestions for a broadened definition that will help education regain its status as a shared ideal. THE PHRASE has become more a rhetorical device than a useful guide to policy. As our world evolves, so too must our conception of what public means. James Coleman eloquently made this point more than two decades ago, implying a responsibility to periodically reappraise our assumptions as to what constitutes schooling.1 In a world where charter schooling, distance education, tuition tax credits, and other recent developments no longer fit neatly into our conventional mental boxes, it is clearly time for such an effort. Nonetheless, rather than receiving the requisite consideration, has served as a flag around which critics of these various reforms can rally. It is because the phrase resonates so powerfully that critics of proposals like charter schooling, voucher programs, and rethinking teacher licensure have at times abandoned substantive debate in order to attack such measures as anti-public schooling.2 Those of us committed to the promise of education are obliged to see that the ideal does not become a tool of vested interests. The perception that schooling has strayed from its purpose and been captured by self-interested parties has fueled lacerating critiques in recent years. Such critics as Andrew Coulson and Douglas Dewey find a growing audience when they suggest that the ideal of schooling itself is nothing more than a call to publicly subsidize the agendas of bureaucrats, education school professors, union officials, and leftist activists.3 While I believe such attacks are misguided, answering them effectively demands that we discern what it is that makes schooling and accept diverse arrangements that are consistent with those tenets. Otherwise, growing numbers of reformers may come to regard schooling as a politicized obstacle rather than a shared ideal. While I do not aim to provide a precise answer as to what schooling should mean in the early 21st century, I will argue that are broadly defined by their commitment to preparing students to be productive members of a social order, aware of their societal responsibilities, and respectful of constitutional strictures; that such cannot deny access to students for reasons unrelated to their educational focus; and that the system of available in any community must provide an appropriate placement for each student. In short, I suggest that it is appropriate to adopt a much more expansive notion of schooling than the one the education community holds today. What Isn't Public? Traditionally, schools are deemed to be those directly accountable to elected officials or funded by tax dollars.4 As a practical matter, such definitions are not very useful, largely because there are conventional public that do not fit within these definitions, while there are private providers that do. We generally regard as schools those in which policy making and oversight are the responsibility of governmental bodies, such as a local school board. Nongovernmental providers of educational services, such as independent or educational management organizations (EMOs), are labeled nonpublic. The distinction is whether a formal political body is in charge, since these officials are accountable by election or appointment to the larger voting public. There are two particular problems here. First, how hands on must the government be for us to regard a service as publicly provided? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Education, and most other state, federal, and local government agencies contract with for-profit firms for support, to provide services, and to evaluate service delivery. …

New Schools for Chelsea

One of Boston University's stated aims as it went into partnership with the Chelsea Public Schools was to achieve something that has not been accomplished for over sixty years to build new schools as replacements for the out-of-date facilities now in use. During the 1950s, Harvard University had recommended replacing Chelsea's schools, but the city's leadership at that time did not support numerous requests from the Chelsea School Committee and from parents to act on Harvard's recommendations, and nothing was done. Many of the buildings still in use contain asbestos, have erratic heating systems which break down frequently, have leaky basements and inadequate plumbing, have no access for handicapped children, and have no auxiliary lighting. The newest structure is a 1926 addition to the Shurtleff School, which was constructed in 1909 at the same time as the high school. The oldest school building in use is the Burke School, erected in 1881-1882. As a member of the Boston University Management Team, which acts as the governing body for the schools, I was asked to help coordinate efforts to secure the new schools. As a start and using its own resources, Boston University hired The CO/OP, a nonprofit educational management organization based in Waltham, Massachusetts, to assist in the task. The CO/OP prepared an educational and facilities plan, and hired an architect to prepare schematics and estimate costs for the project. Edward Kazanjian and Oliver Brown, from The CO/OP, and I met with Representative Richard Voke to request his assistance. Mr. Voke responded enthusiastically by introducing legislation, which was eventually