| In this paper,
the author has strong favored the Edison Project
for-profit schools by explaining its advantages
over non-profit schools.
Started in 1995 by entrepreneur Christopher Whittle,
Edison now operates 51 schools and plans to expand
to 70 schools by next school year. Roughly half
of the company’s schools are charter schools,
while the other half are under contract to school
boards. (Halloran, 1992)
Options of magnet schools, vouchers, charter
schools and inter/ intra-district public school
choice are all approaches to overhauling public
education. One of the most ambitious examples
of the new relationship forming between public
education and private enterprise, however, is
the work of the for-profit Edison Project. It
is a plan for a new kind of school. Private management
of public schools is not a new idea. Attempts
in the early '60s failed, but the country's economic,
social and technological environment has changed
greatly. The end of the Cold War has shifted the
economic focus away from defense and toward more
service industries and a rebuilding of the country's
infrastructure, including education. The expected
growth of education from 8 to 8.5 percent of the
U.S. gross national product is predicted to be
in the portion not publicly funded. Education
is being viewed in terms of consumption -- an
emerging industry. Partnerships with private industry
are a promising way to create schools with autonomy
and accountability -- key elements in school restructuring
and reform. (Ramanathan & Zollers, 1999)
As such, the concept of education as private
enterprise is gaining attention, and in some areas,
momentum. Media entrepreneur Chris Whittle's plan
to operate schools at a profit has begun in the
fall of 1995 with the opening of three charter
schools in Massachusetts and the managing of three
other already existing schools in Wichita, Kansas.
The Edison Project is designed to operate one
or more schools in a local district under a contract.
It invests a substantial amount of private capital
in every partnership school. Along with managing
public schools, the project operates charter schools
-- publicly funded schools that are free from
bureaucratic and regulatory constraints and where
state money follows the student. (Ray, 1997)
Through these contracts, Edison receives per-student
revenue from state sources for the charter schools
and state and local sources to manage the public
schools. The Edison Project charges only what
would be spent on their students if they attended
other schools in the local system. And how can
that be? Because they are depending on economies
of scale. Their plan is to run schools more efficiently.
What Edison expects to do is take per student
revenues, coupled with its own investment and
use those monies in such a way to still cut a
profit. Edison Project President Benno Schmidt,
a former Yale University president, said the company
will invest most heavily in technology and development
at each of its schools. (Toch, 1993)
Edison Project stresses a rigorous curriculum,
a longer school day, and the heavy use of technology.
Teachers are trained and buildings renovated;
and ultimately classrooms and students' homes
are linked by a national computer network. The
curriculum in each school is tailored to the local
community, but will also be based on a ten-point
design which groups students in "academies"
with the same teachers over a period of several
years.
Heavier emphasis is placed on the arts and humanities,
and morality and ethics receive a share of the
focus. Approximately 75 percent of the curriculum
is stipulated by Edison, and its schools emphasize
cooperative learning in a mixed age group setting
under the auspices of teams of teachers. Their
curriculum reflects the best that they know about
how children learn and what they need to be successful
in school and beyond. For example, every student
studies a second language beginning in the first
academy, which is akin to traditional preschool.
Also, they study the fine arts and social sciences
and must master physical fitness training. The
continuation of the contracts in the Edison Project
hinges on results; namely, high levels of student
achievement, parent involvement, and teacher satisfaction.
Contracts allow the school districts to cancel
at any time should Edison not meet the agreed-upon
performance standards. (Toch & Wagner, 1993)
Free of most traditional constraints, Edison schools
have more latitude in purchasing, budgeting, scheduling,
and the hiring and dismissing of teachers. (Edison
does not offer tenure to teachers or follow union
pay scales and work rules. Rather, it treats teachers
much as the private sector treats salaried workers:
paying the high performers more than the average
and dismissing unsatisfactory performers.) (Vogl,
1998)
A privately held school management company has
reported significant rises in student test scores
for the second straight year, a finding that privatization
advocates say bodes well for the future of their
movement. Students in public schools run by the
for-profit Edison Project firm have boosted their
scores on achievement tests an average of nearly
6 percentage points per year. In contrast, public
school students increase their scores on tests
by about 1 percentage point a year.
The results are compelling since Edison schools
serve higher proportions of low income students
than do the school districts of the communities
in which the firm operates. Better in-service
training for teachers, more focused reading instruction,
longer school days and the use of technology were
key reasons why the company’s schools again
posted strong results. While supporters of greater
school choice say the Edison results are evidence
that new approaches to public education can work
and should be encouraged, the nation’s largest
teachers’ union still opposes privatization
as harmful to its members and children. (Walsh,
1999)
|