Upload
nona
View
30
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Private and public partnership in education: Charter schools in the USA With notes about Grundtvig , Monty Python, and trends in school choice internationally. Gary Miron, Professor of Evaluation, Measurement, and Research Western Michigan University Conference on The State and Market in - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Private and public partnership in education: Charter schools in the
USA
With notes about Grundtvig, Monty Python, and trends in school choice
internationallyGary Miron,
Professor of Evaluation, Measurement, and ResearchWestern Michigan University
Conference on The State and Market inEducation: Partnership or Competition?
19 March , 2014
Overview
• School reform in the USA• Charter schools• Private Education Management Organizations
(EMOs)• School choice in international context• Patenting and copying ideas across countries• What we know about school choice outcomes
School reform in the states• Grundtvig has had influence, both direct and
indirect. There are also parallels between Gruntvig’s ideas and the ideas of some progressive school reformers in the USA.– Dewey, Highlander Center, Alternative schools,
and charter schools– Alternative schools recaptured by traditional
public schools (LEAs)– Charter schools hijacked by private sector interests
STRUCTURAL CHANGES:
Choice
Deregulation/ Autonomy
Accountability
OPPORTUNITY SPACE / INTERMEDIATE GOALS:
Governance Parental and Community Involvement Teacher Autonomy and Professionalism Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations
Privatization
OUTCOMES / FINAL GOALS:
Increased Levels of Student Achievement
Customer Satisfaction
Figure 1. Illustration of the Charter School Concept (adopted from Miron and Nelson, 2002, p.4).
Charter school concept
Original goals for charter schools• Empower local actors and communities.
• Enhance opportunities for parent involvement.
• Create new opportunities for school choice with open access for all.
• Develop innovations in curriculum and instruction• Enhance professional autonomy and opportunities for professional development for teachers.
• Create high performing schools where children would learn more. • Create highly accountable schools.
Summary of state studies of student achievement in charter schools
Very Positive 2. IL3 US2 US6
UT
MO WI
CT MI2 US4 CA3 OH1 PA AZ3
CA1 TX4Mixed 0. FL2
AZ1 CA2
NY1 US5 US3 MI3 MI4
OH2
Very Negative -2. TX1 US1 MI1 DC US8 NC1 NC2
Lowquality
Quality of the study
Highquality
NY2 IL1
AZ2 DE
MA TX2
IL2 ID FL1 CA4
Imp
act
of
refo
rm
Figure 1. Quality and Impact Ratings for State and National Studies of Student Achievement in Charter SchoolsNote: This map provides an illustration of estimated impact and quality ratings for 39 studies completed during the past 9 years.
Slighty -1.Negative .
Slightly 1.Positive .
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 32
OR CO GA
NJ US7 TX3
Reasons why goals for charter schools have not been achieved
• Lack of effective oversight and insufficient accountability
• Insufficient autonomy• Inefficient use of resources• Privatization and pursuit of profits• High attrition of teachers and administrators• Rapid growth of reforms• Strong and effective lobbying and advocacy groups
for charter schools
Current trends in charter schools• More homogeneity among the charter schools
• Increasingly stronger role for school leaders and management companies
• EMOs now start their own schools rather than wait for an invitation from existing schools or a community planning group to start a school
• An increasing number of charter schools
• Further segmentation of public schools by race, class, and ability
• Decreasing provision at secondary level• Increasing school size
• Rapid growth of virtual schools
Questions policymakersshould be asking
• Can we create better public schools through de-regulation and demands for greater accountability?
• How are charter schools using the opportunity provided them?
• The answers to these questions require comprehensive evaluations—resisting the dodge that every charter school is its own reform and should be looked at separately.
More specific questions policy-makers should be asking
• How can charter school laws be revised to create more accountable schools?
• How can funding formulae be changed to ensure that charter schools will seek to enroll more ‘costly-to-educate’ students.
• How can incentives and regulations be used to ensure poorly performing charter schools will be closed?
• Are there better uses for public resources than charter schools?
Even as original goals for charter schools are largely ignored, charter
schools fulfill other purposes1. Charter schools facilitate privatization of our
public school system2. Charter schools accelerate the re-segregation of
public schools by race, class, and ability3. Charter schools provide model for reform, even
though evidence shows that they do not work
Who stole my charter school reform?
Recommendations for legislation• Create or refuse to lift caps on charter schools in
order to exert pressure for accountability.• Leverage federal funds to ensure greater
accountability for charter schools.• Provide funding for oversight, but require
repayment of funds from authorizers when the schools they oversee are failing.
• Curtail the influence and power of the charter school establishment.
Education Management Organizations (EMOs)
• EMOs: What are they?– Private contractors that operate public schools
• Executive control, accountable for outcomes
– Vendor vs. EMO?– For-profits vs. Nonprofits & CMOs
• EMO Profiles Project: What is it?– Statistical digest
• Profiles of EMOs & lists of schools
– Project of the National Education Policy Center– 14th Edition released in 2013
Number of EMOs by Size and Year
0
50
100
150
200
250
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Num
ber
of N
onpr
ofit
EMO
s
Number of Large EMOs
Number of Medium EMOs
Number of Small EMOs
Total Number of EMOs
0
20
40
60
80
100
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Num
ber o
f EM
Os
Number of Large EMOs
Number of Medium EMOs
Number of Small EMOs
Total Number of EMOs
For-profit EMOs Nonprofit EMOs
Number of Schools Operated by EMOs by Size and Year
For-profit EMOs Nonprofit EMOs
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Num
ber
of S
choo
ls O
pera
ted
by N
onpr
ofit
EM
Os
Large EMOs
Medium EMOs
Small EMOs
Total # of Schools
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Num
ber o
f Sc
hool
s O
pera
ted
by E
MO
s
Large EMOs
Medium EMOs
Small EMOs
Total # of Schools
Number of Students in EMO-Operated Schools, by Size and Year
For-profit EMOs Nonprofit EMOs
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Num
ber o
f St
uden
ts in
Sch
ools
Ope
rate
d by
Non
profi
t EM
Os
Large EMOs
Medium EMOs
Small EMOs
Total Number of Students
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
Num
ber o
f St
uden
ts in
Sch
ools
Ope
rate
d by
EM
Os
Large EMOs
Medium EMOs
Small EMOs
Total Number of Students
Estimated Actual # of Students
General trends regarding EMOs• Trend for single school operators to move to
multiple school operators• Small-scale or limited service operators moving
toward full service operators• Private conversions and some founders now
starting their own company to retain/gain financial control/interest in the school
• The number of EMOs and their portion of the education market is increasing rapidly in the nation, the charter school sector, the contract sector and the provision of other services such as tutoring, after school care, vocational programs, juvenile services, etc.
Safeguards to restrict EMO involvement
• Enforce requirements to recruit students from all sectors of the district
• Restrict maximum enrollment of charter schools to between 250 and 350
• Require provision of transportation and other services, or deduct the cost for these from per pupil grants to charter schools
• Require full disclosure of how public funds are used by private companies
Safeguards to restrict EMO involvement
• Require charter school boards to consider two or more different bids from different EMOs
• Make efforts to ensure that the board members are not personally or professionally connected with the EMO
• Limit length of contracts between charter schools and EMOs to no more than the length of the charter, but preferably less
Safeguards to restrict EMO involvement
• Provide more, not less money for start-up
• Ensure equal access to start up money based on projected enrollments. Competitive applications for start up money favor EMOs who have experience and qualified personnel for grant writing
• Base per pupil grants on average district costs for students at same level (elementary, middle and high school) rather than on average costs across all 3 levels
EMOs: So What?• Horse in front of the cart• Veil of privacy?• Lack of accountability• Stockholders vs. taxpayers
• Require competitive bidding?• Require arms-length agreement?• Distortion of charter school concept
School choice reforms• School choice is a reform idea that is widely
debated and contested (school choice means different things to different people)
• The debate often overlooks the diverse forms of school choice and the differences in how these reforms can be designed
• School choice can be designed to pursue a range of outcomes
• Choice rules can be written to reduce isolation by race, class, or special needs status. Or, they can be used as a vehicle for accelerating resegregation of our public school systems.
School choice reforms• Choice reforms can promote innovation and
diverse options from which parents can choose; or, they can result in a stratified marketplace that appeals to conservative consumers who eschew innovation.
• School choice reforms have the potential to promote accountability or—if the oversight mechanisms are not in place—choice plans can facilitate the circumvention or avoidance of oversight
Why school choice: Review of relevant theory
• Parents right. School choice as an end in itself.
• Market accountability on new schools• Market theory: threat of choice• Economic theory on sorting effect and
efficiency• Belief in innovation in private organizations
What is school choice?
• Parents and students choosing schools• School choice always exists, at least for some• For choice to be meaningful, there needs to
be a diversity of options• Most say they want choice, but most still do
not exercise choice
School choice: Why not?
• Segregation. Winners and losers.• Hank Levin: framework for evaluating
vouchers – Social cohesion, Productivity, Efficiency, Equity
• My own thinking: Splitting limited resources across dual or parallel systems.
School Choice - When?
• As policy objective we can see most current school choice reforms with roots in 1980s and 1990s.
• Some school choice reforms have existed for more than a century in countries like Netherlands.
• Old choice reforms actually choice in provider but not real choice in school profiles, etc.
• Shifts in goals and purposes of public schools over time.
(Miron 2009. “Shifting notion of publicness”)
School Choice - Where?• UK 1987-88• Sweden 1992• USA - magnet
schools in 80s, charter schools in 90s, exploration of vouchers since 50s
• New Zealand @1990s - Independent schools
• Back to the UK
Actual School Choice Provisions in OECD and Select PISA Countries
Support for School Choice in OECD Countries
Money following the student in OECD countries
How: Diverse types of school choice
• Private providers and public support for private providers (vouchers)
• Intra-district choice • Inter-district choice• Charter schools• Homeschooling• Virtual schools
• Other thoughts: – Choice by location– Choice within schools
So what? What have we learned?
• Parent satisfaction• Segregation based on race/ethnicity, social
class, ability, language of instruction• Innovation/lack of diversity of options• Empowering teachers?• Impact on student performance on
standardized assessments• Effects of competition