Given EAI's current program and track record, the results are not likely to change.
The long-awaited independent evaluation of private management in Baltimore public schools came out this month. It shows that the millions of extra dollars Baltimore taxpayers spent on schools managed by Education Alternatives, Inc. (EAI), got them nothing more -- and maybe a little less -- than they got from any other district schools. EAI promised to produce "immediate" and "dramatic" gains in academic achievement. But at the end of three years, the only difference between the EAI schools and other city schools is the profit carted off by the Minneapolis-based firm.
The new evaluation deserves close public attention because it is the first in-depth examination of EAI's management record by an outside research organization.
The researchers, who are from the Center for Education Research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), spent last year examining test scores and other data from the seven elementary schools in EAI' s group of nine schools, and comparing them with seven other Baltimore elementary schools. In addition, they conducted surveys and interviews with parents, principals, and teachers at all the schools and evaluated their responses to questions about the academic program, physical facilities, books and supplies, and learning climate of each school. The researchers also rated the interior and exterior physical condition of the schools. Here is what they found:
• No difference between the EAI schools and the comparison schools in overall educational "effectiveness."
• No difference between the EAI schools and the comparison schools in the general condition of the grounds, security features, maintenance efforts, interior halls and offices, and classrooms.
•No difference between the EAI schools and the comparison schools, according to surveys and interviews with parents and teachers, in such school characteristics as school pride, safety, classroom learning environment, level of homework, student enthusiasm, parental involvement, and professional development programs. No difference in parent ratings of school cleanliness and adequacy of books and materials.
• No difference between the EAI schools and the comparison schools in the impact of technology on learning. The researchers concluded that EAI's touted computer-assisted reading program did not produce any measurable success in two years. On the other hand, they found that the comparison schools had also made significant investments in classroom computers to provide students with access to new technology.
• No difference between the EAI schools and the comparison schools in the progress of students in reading and mathematics over the three years of EAI management. EAI students actually slipped in reading relative to both the comparison schools and the city schools overall; and in math, EAI students advanced a little but so did the comparison group and students citywide.
School officials even switched the rules in the middle of the game, perhaps to try to make the EAI test scores look better. In the first year of the EAI program, they chose a group of schools that were like the EAI schools for purposes of comparison. Then test scores at the EAI schools nose-dived, while scores at the comparison schools -- and at all other city schools -- continued to rise. So for the UMBC evaluation, officials replaced some of the comparison schools with lower-scoring ones, including the only elementary school in Maryland that has been targeted for state takeover. But even the new comparison group did better in reading over the three-year period than the EAI schools, and just as well in math.
In other words, EAI students have not improved their poor performance among students in the district at all, even though EAI was given $18 million more to run its program than the city otherwise would have spent on those schools.
The study does not provide a financial analysis of EAI's work in Baltimore, so there is still is no independent examination of the firm's money management. But the UMBC researchers conclude on the basis of their observations that the promise EAI made to improve learning without spending more than Baltimore already was spending "has been discredited." They also charge that EAI's "management expertise" has not measured up to the firm's boasts. And they criticize EAI for spending too much time on "test preparation" when academic improvement efforts should emphasize instruction in core subjects.
Baltimore leaders apparently view the UMBC study as positive enough to keep EAI on for another two years. They are, however, renegotiating the terms of the contract to add tough performance requirements and decrease the amount of money the firm can receive per school. But given EAI' s current program and track record, it is not very likely that the results will change. EAI will just keep skimming as much profit as it can for as long as it can, and kids in EAI schools will end up about where they started -- behind.