Figuring something had to be done to shake up the pathetic status quo in its worst city schools, Philadelphia recently decided to turn control of 42 of its 264 schools to seven private companies, universities and non-profit organizations.
Of those seven groups, the one causing the most controversy is Edison Schools, a for-profit outfit out of New York City that this summer is to start managing 20 of Philadelphia’s lowest-performing schools.
Nobody ever complains about the likes of Crayola or Houghton Mifflin making money off of public education, but when it comes to a school management company, suddenly it is held to a level of scrutiny and a standard that never would be applied to a public district.
Among the country’s emerging crop of private, for-profit school management companies, Edison Schools is the biggest and the best. Its excellent model is backed by many of the brightest lights in the school reform movement, including former Yale University President Benno Schmidt and Edison CEO Christopher Whittle.
With its strong emphasis on reading, longer school days, longer school years and foreign language instruction at the elementary level, Edison cannot be accused of skimping to make a buck.
In fact, it has not made any bucks so far. A decade after Chris Whittle introduced his adventure in education entrepreneurship, Edison Schools has yet to turn a profit.
Unfortunately, that’s only one of Edison’s problems. The firm recently settled a complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had provided inaccurate information about its past revenue and maintained inadequate financial controls. It faces class action lawsuits from investors who allege that it overstated revenues. Its stock price has spiraled steadily into the gutter–it now hovers a little over $1 from a high 15 months ago of nearly $37.
Boston public school officials recently cancelled their contract with Edison at Boston Renaissance Charter School, which, when its doors opened in 1995, was among Edison’s first four schools. Boston officials cited poor test performance as a factor for terminating the management contract three years early.
Edison also has had a rocky experience in Las Vegas, where it has run seven schools since September, because it has been unable to raise as much philanthropic money as it pledged.
Edison officials boast that their 75,000 students over 22 states gain more than 5 percentage points a year on nationally normed tests, on average. Larger jumps at the outset of a reform effort tend to be common, though. Sustaining them is another matter. Over time, Edison has done about as well academically as average public schools. Many Edison schools have shown stunning improvement; some others have fared poorly.
In Philadelphia, union and district officials are haggling over important details–for instance, should the principal report to Edison, the district or both?
That goes to one of the unfortunate problems faced by Edison. It has had to vie with all kinds of competing constituencies that want to exert influence over its schools–school boards, teacher unions, community groups. That doesn’t mean Edison should ignore them. But if the Philadelphia School Reform Commission is going to give 20 schools to Edison, it should give 20 schools–completely.
Academically Edison has been solid, if not quite spectacular. Financially–well, there are some unhappy investors holding stock worth far, far less than they paid for it.
Edison has not provided a return on investment. It has provided one critical element of school reform: an education option for parents and children. It has been a pioneer in efforts to create a genuine marketplace for public education. A fervent wish for its success extends beyond the pocketbook.
