1. Private and public partnership in education: Charter schools in the USA With notes about Grundtvig, Monty Python, and trends in school choice internationally Gary Miron, Professor of Evaluation, Measurement, and Research Western Michigan University Conference on The State and Market in Education: Partnership or Competition? 19 March, 2014

2. 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

3. 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

4. Figure 1. Illustration of the Charter School Concept (adopted from Miron and Nelson, 2002, p.4). Charter school concept

5. 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.

6. Summary of state studies of student achievement in charter schools

7. 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

8. 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

9. Questions policymakers should 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.

10. 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?

11. Even as original goals for charter schools are largely ignored, charter schools fulfill other purposes 1.Charter schools facilitate privatization of our public school system 2.Charter schools accelerate the re-segregation of public schools by race, class, and ability 3.Charter schools provide model for reform, even though evidence shows that they do not work Who stole my charter school reform?

12. 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.

13. 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 – 14 th Edition released in 2013

14. Number of EMOs by Size and Year For-profit EMOsNonprofit EMOs

15. Number of Schools Operated by EMOs by Size and Year For-profit EMOsNonprofit EMOs

16. Number of Students in EMO-Operated Schools, by Size and Year For-profit EMOsNonprofit EMOs

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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”)

28. 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

29. Actual School Choice Provisions in OECD and Select PISA Countries

30. Support for School Choice in OECD Countries

31. Money following the student in OECD countries

32. 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

33. 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