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