[lbo-talk] Recipe for "privatizing" schools

Joanna 123hop at comcast.net
Fri Nov 6 21:06:29 PST 2009


From Ken Libby at Schools Matter http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2009/11/from-vault_06.html

This is part of an essay <http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-172292777/wave-future-why-charter.html> written in early 2008 by AEI/Fordham's Andy Smarick <http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/bio.cfm?id=483&name=Andy-Smarick&page_id=>, a former Bush II Domestic Policy Council member tasked with K-12 and higher education issues (my bolds):

Here, in short, is one roadmap for chartering's way forward: First,

commit to drastically increasing the *charter market share in a few

select communities* until it is *the dominant system* and the

district is reduced to a *secondary* provider. The target should be

75 percent. Second, choose the target communities wisely. Each

should begin with *a solid charter base* (at least 5 percent market

share), a policy environment that will enable growth *(fair funding,

nondistrict authorizers, and no legislated caps*), and a favorable

political environment (friendly elected officials and *editorial

boards*, a positive experience with charters to date, and

*unorganized opposition*). For example, in New York a concerted

effort could be made to site in Albany or Buffalo a large percentage

of the 100 new charters allowed under the raised cap. Other

potentially fertile districts include *Denver*,*Detroit*,*Kansas

City*, *Milwaukee*, *Minneapolis*, *New Orleans*, *Oakland*, and

*Washington, D.C*.

Third, secure proven operators to open new schools. To the greatest

extent possible, growth should be driven by replicating successful

local charters and recruiting high-performing operators from other

areas. Fourth, engage key allies like *Teach For America, New

Leaders for New Schools*, and* national and local foundations* to

ensure the effort has the *human and financial capital* needed.

Last, commit to rigorously assessing charter performance in each

community and working with authorizers to close the charters that

fail to significantly improve student achievement.

In total, these strategies should lead to rapid, high-quality

charter growth and the development of a *public school marketplace*

marked by parental choice, the regular startup of new schools, the

improvement of middling schools, the replication of high-performing

schools, and the shuttering of low-performing schools.

As chartering increases its *market share* in a city, the district

will come under growing* financial pressure*. The district, despite

educating fewer and fewer students, will still require a large

administrative staff to process payroll and benefits, administer

federal programs, and oversee special education. With a lopsided

adult-to-student ratio, *the district's per-pupil costs will skyrocket.*

*At some point along the district's path from monopoly provider to

financially unsustainable marginal player*, the city's investors and

stakeholders--taxpayers, foundations, business leaders, elected

officials, and editorial boards--are likely to demand fundamental

change. That is, eventually the financial crisis will become a

political crisis. If the district has progressive leadership, one of

two best-case scenarios may result. The district could voluntarily

begin the *shift to an authorizer*, developing a new relationship

with its schools and reworking its administrative structure to meet

the new conditions. Or, believing the organization is unable to make

this change, the district could gradually* transfer its schools to

an established authorizer*.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list