|Page 2 of 2 <|
Setback for Philadelphia Schools Plan
One 2007 study, by Rand, looked at reading and math scores and concluded, "There were no statistically significant effects, positive or negative, in reading or math in any of the four years after takeover."
That study found that "the achievement gains in Philadelphia's privately managed schools were, on average, no different from Philadelphia's district-wide gains." The study noted that some might say the competition with the privately run schools spurred the public schools to improve, but added that "we found little reason to believe that competition from private providers spurred the district-wide improvement."
Edison provided another 2007 study, co-authored by Paul E. Peterson of the Hoover Institution and written for Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, which concluded that "the average student at schools managed by for-profit firms learned more in math than would be expected had the schools remained under district management." This study found no statistically significant reading gains.
Among other factors that should be considered, McIntire said, was that Edison in 2002 took over the management of some schools that were already among the city's lowest-performing, and that improvement should be measured against the starting point.
"The district did not share with us specifically what criteria they used to make these judgments," McIntire said in a telephone interview. "We certainly would like to know more about how these determinations are being made.
"These schools had all shown improvement over the six years that we worked with them," McIntire said. He said that at one of the Philadelphia schools, 95 percent of students were functioning below their grade level when Edison took over in 2002 and that now the proportion has dropped to about one-third.
The privatization effort was highly controversial from the beginning, with the arguments shaded by politics and ideology, and was vehemently opposed by many in the community who feared that their schools were being used essentially to test an unproven theory: that using market principles, the private sector could manage schools and make more progress at lower expense than the government.
Philadelphia's schools were largely considered as failing and in financial distress when they were taken over by the state in 2002, and the local school board was replaced by the state School Reform Commission, which still has oversight. At the time of the takeover, the State House was in Republican hands; then-Gov. Mark Schweiker in 2001 had replaced Tom Ridge, who went to Washington to join Bush's administration.
Also, in 2001, Congress had passed Bush's signature education bill, the No Child Left Behind Act, that sanctioned aggressive intervention for chronically failing school districts, including state takeover, restructuring and privatization of the school management.
Edison was initially being considered to manage all the city's public schools, but after widespread community protests, that number was pared to 20, with other schools going to a variety of other firms and universities.
What has changed in Philadelphia, as elsewhere across the country, appears to be the political atmosphere. Pennsylvania's governor is now a Democrat, Edward G. Rendell. And the privatization wave now seems a little passé.
Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia, a longtime opponent of the privatization plan, said the experiment vindicated his belief that for-profit entities with an eye on Wall Street and the bottom line should not manage public schools.
"This has been the pattern -- the kids have not improved substantially," Fattah said in a telephone interview. "Everyone is looking for a quick fix. What they sell you on is they can do it cheaper and better."