As Rhee Weighs Privatization, Doubts Abound
Sunday, November 18, 2007
D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee, in considering turning over the management of 27 failing public schools to nonprofit charter education firms, is sending a clear signal that she intends to shake up the moribund bureaucracy that has failed generations of students.
But experts and school advocates say they are uneasy about the lack of details surrounding her idea, particularly given evidence across the country that charters and schools under private management sometimes fare no better than traditional public schools.
"There's nothing in the literature [to suggest] that privatization will get you revolutionary results," said Henry M. Levin, director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Columbia University's Teachers College.
Rhee, under pressure from the No Child Left Behind law, must take a drastic approach with the 27 schools deemed in need of "restructuring" -- those that have failed to meet academic targets for five consecutive years -- or risk losing federal funds. Enlisting education management firms and turning the schools into charters are two of five options the law offers.
With all but a few of the city's 140 schools designated as in need of improvement, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) hired Rhee in June with a mandate to improve student achievement as quickly as possible. But her approach is garnering criticism from parents, the Washington Teachers' Union and some members of the D.C. Council, who question the wisdom of putting public schools under the authority of private firms.
"We have a new leadership team in the city. You go to outside private entities when you give up on the government," said council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), a former school board member. "This is the wrong time, when we're making an investment and showing that government can run its own schools."
The District is not alone in its dilemma. About 1,000 schools nationwide need restructuring. Experts predict that the number will grow to 5,000 -- representing 5 percent of U.S. schools -- by the end of the decade.
The remedy options outlined under the federal law are: Bring in private firms to manage the schools; convert them into charters; keep them under the system's control but replace the principals and teachers; allow the state -- or in Washington, the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education -- to seize the schools; or devise something else.
States and districts with schools that need restructuring most often choose to replace staff and create their own solutions, such as training teachers, lengthening the school day and year, and introducing new curricula, experts say.
Last week, Rhee mentioned three national charter operators in restructuring meetings with school leaders from Cardozo and Roosevelt senior high schools in Northwest Washington. When she appeared with Fenty at a news conference Friday to discuss the issue, she said she is not favoring one school reform option over another but is researching them all.
Rhee said she will meet with more school leaders and then make a decision in January or February. Deborah A. Gist, the District's state superintendent of education, is awaiting Rhee's plan, which must be approved by her office.
Rhee is not the first D.C. schools chief to consider education management firms for troubled public schools. Frustrated by dismal test scores across the city, in 1993 School Superintendent Franklin L. Smith wanted to hire Education Alternatives to manage 15 failing schools. Amid an angry community reaction that labeled the proposal racist and elitist, the Board of Education opposed it and Smith abandoned privatization.