Washington, D.C., school superintendent Franklin Smith has had a tough time. Almost everything he's tried to do has been severely criticized. Now, Smith is getting his first good reviews from the press because he wants to hire a private company to run some D.C. schools.
Why not? When we need expertise, we usually turn to law, accounting, architecture or engineering firms. They have the expertise. If D.C. schools need good management, why not go to a company that can provide it?
The company Smith has in mind is Education Alternatives, Inc. (EAI). But unlike established law and accounting firms, EAI is new to school management. It doesn't have a staff with a track record of having managed and improved tough urban schools. Expecting EAI to make substantial improvements in D.C. schools, where all others have thus far failed, is like asking a kid fresh out of law school to handle the case of the century.
But hasn't EAI been successful in Baltimore? (Weren't Smith and D.C. school board members impressed with what they saw there?) That depends on what you mean by success. EAi was brought in because of very poor student academic achievement, but it's being proclaimed a success-- in an educational version of bait-and-switch-- because schools look so much better. Parents, students and teachers are thrilled that the schools have been painted, trash removed and some computers brought in. These are all desirable, but proclaiming this educational success is like awarding four stars to a greasy spoon because someone has renovated the booths and bought the waitresses new uniforms.
One of the strong selling points for EAI is that it provides better management for the same cost. This, it turns out, is just not true. Baltimore spends an average of $5500 a year for each pupil. Since there are overhead costs, no school actually gets $5500 per student, but EAI does. Furthermore, if schools lose students during the school year, they lose money or staff, but EAI keeps the full $5500 per pupil, even if some kids never show up after the first few days. Contrary to what the public has been told, EAI schools are getting more money to educate each child than any other schools in Baltimore.
Should school systems hire private companies? That question is no different from one facing companies in the private sector that must decide what they will manufacture and do for themselves and what goods and services they will buy from other companies. Can the outside company provide higher quality? At the same, or lower, cost? Does it have a track record of reliability? Of course, if you're buying door knobs or hub caps, these questions are easier to answer than with more complex items and services. Determining whether or not student achievement has been improved will be very tough.
We may never know whether EAI improves student achievement in Baltimore. Suppose that test scores go up a few points. Is the same test being used throughout so that there's comparability? Is there any control for the high rate of student mobility? Have some low-scoring students been encouraged to go elsewhere so they don't pull down the averages? Are children who are not proficient in English excused from taking the test? Are students coached on the tests before taking them? To the extent that these practices exist, have they increased, decreased or remained the same since EAI took over? Unless we know the answers to these questions, we won't really know if EAI made a difference since there are many ways of improving test scores without improving student achievement.
If we are to know the truth about EAI's results, it is essential that there be evaluations of their program by a group that is independent, knowledgeable about measuring student achievement honestly and accurately, and has a reputation for doing it right. Schools are political institutions. Mayors, superintendents and school boards who hire outside companies have a vested interest in getting results that look good-- whether or not student achievement has improved-- because the political stakes are high. Those whose political careers are on the line can no more be trusted to give an honest evaluation than a for-profit company that wants to hold on to a lucrative contract.
If Superintendent Smith and the D.C. board are smart, they'll think twice about hiring a company that has yet to produce academic results. But if they do hire an outside company, with or without a track record, honest, competent, independent evaluation must be part of the game plan.