The institutional landscape of K-12 educational contracting is fundamentally changing. Based on industry and district data, this study identifies three distinct shifts in the content and structure of interactions between suppliers of instructional goods and local school systems. These shifts include 1) elevation of test-related services and products, 2) increasing emphases on technology-based solutions. and 3) an expanding role for the state in spurring market activity. Drawing on a case study of district practice, the study provides evidence of how broader changes are influencing local contracting activities, and the dilemmas and responses generated by these pressures. The study suggests the need for new conceptual approaches to studying educational privatization that draw on the institutional analysis of organizations and also identifies critical questions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AppleM. (2001). Educating the “right” way. New York: Routledge.
2.
BaumanP. C. (1996). Governing education: Public sector reform or privatization. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
BealesJ. R., and O'LearyJ. (1993). Making school work: Contracting options for better management. Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute.
4.
BelfieldC., and WootenA. L. (2000). Education privatization: The attitudes and experiences of superintendents. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
5.
BelfieldC. R., and LevinH. M. (2002). Education privatization: Causes, consequences and planning implications. New York: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.
6.
BraceyG. W. (2002). The war against America's public school: Privatizing schools, commercializing education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
BurchP., and SpillaneJ. (2004). How the Subjects Matter: Instructionally Relevant Policy in Central Office Redesign. Journal of Education Change, Vol. 5 Issue 4.
CohenD. K. (1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and Federal policy on school governance. Harvard Education Review, 52(4), 474—499.
10.
CoulsonA. J. (1999). Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
11.
DiMaggioP. J., and PowellW. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
12.
DiMaggioP. J., and PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147—60.
13.
EDMin.com (2004). EDMin.com is pleased to welcome the following new districts to its Virtual EDucation family of users. Retrieved October 10, 2004. http://www.edmin.com/News/press-Releases
14.
MarketerEducational (2003). K-12 standardized test publishers jockey for positions in the No Child Left Behind era. Educational Marketer, 34(7), 1—3.
15.
FitzJ., and BeersB. (2002). Education management organizations and the privatization of public education: A cross-national comparison of the USA and Britain. Comparative Education, 38(2), 137—154.
16.
FlamS., and KeaneW. (1997). Public schools/private enterprise: What you should know and do about privatization. Basel, Switzerland: Technomic Publishing Company.
17.
FranklinB. M., BlochM. N., and PopkewitzT. S. (2004). Educational partnerships and the state: The paradoxes of governing schools children and families. London: Palgrave.
18.
FurtwenglerC. B. (1998). Heads up! The EMOs are coming. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 44—47.
19.
GirouxH. (2002). Schools for sale: Public education, corporate culture and the citizen-consumer. In KohnA., and ShanninP. (Eds.), Education Inc: Turning learning into a business (pp. 105—118). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
20.
HessF. M., and FinnC. (2004). Inflating the life rafts of NCLB: Making public school choice and supplemental services work for students in troubled schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 34—40, 57–8.
21.
HillP. T., PierceJ, LawrenceC., and GuthrieJ. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America's schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
JorgensenM. (2002-3). Can the testing industry meet growing demand?Issues in Science and Technology, 19(2).
23.
KaplanG. R. (1996). Profits r us: Notes on the commercialization of America's schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 1—12.
24.
LevinH. (2001). Privatizing education: Can the school marketplace deliver freedom of choice, efficiency, equity, and social cohesion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
25.
LiebermanM. (1989). Privatization and educational choice. St. Martin's Press, New York.
26.
LiebermanM., and HaarC. K. (2003). Public education as a business: Real costs and accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
27.
LipmanP. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization and urban school reform. New York: Routledge.
28.
McNeilL., and ValenzuelaA. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system on testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In KornhaberM., and OrfieldG. (Eds). Raising Standards or Raising Barriers. Cambridge: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
29.
MeyerJ. W., and RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340—363.
30.
MinerB. (2003). Keeping public schools public: Privatizers’ trojan horse. Rethinking Schools, 17, (3). Retrieved February 1, 2004 from: http://www.rethinkingschools.org
31.
MurphyJ. (1996). Privatization of schooling: Problems and possibilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
32.
MurphyJ., GlimerS. W., WeiseR., and PageA. (1998). Pathways to privatization in education. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
33.
NewmanF. (January 2004). Closing the equity gap: Addressing NCLB compliance with access infrastructure software. Boston: Eduventures Inc.
34.
O'DayJ. A., and SmithM. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S.H. (Ed.). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. (pp. 313—322), San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
35.
OsthoffE., and WhiteP. (2004). Examining the relationship between central office policies and school improvement efforts: The Milwaukee public schools. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
36.
PiphoC. (1999). The profit side of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(6), 421—422.
37.
RowanB. (2001). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. University of Michigan: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
38.
RuefM., MendelP., and CaronnaC. A (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: Transformation of a healthcare field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
SandlerM. R. (2002). The emerging education industry: The first decade. Watertown, WI: Education Industry Leadership Board.
40.
SaltmanK. J. (2000). Collateral damage: Corporatizing public schools: A threat to democracy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
41.
ScottW. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage Publications.
42.
ScottW. R., and ChristensenD. (1995). The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
43.
ScottW. R., and MeyerJ. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44.
SmithS., and LipskyM. (1993). Non profits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
SmithM. L. (2004). Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. New York: Routledge.
46.
SteinM., and BassettE. (2004a). Staying Ahead of the Curve: A Value Chain Analysis of the K-12 Assessment Market. Boston: Eduventures Inc.
47.
SteinM, and BassettE. (2004b). Uncovering K-12 Professional Development Opportunities. Boston: Eduventures Inc.
48.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Localism and Globalism in Institutional Analysis: The Emergence of Contractual Norms in Venture Finance. In ScottW.R., and ChristensenS. (Eds.), The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies (pp. 39—63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
49.
SundermanG., and KimJ. (2004). Increasing bureaucracy or increasing opportunities?School district experience with supplemental education services. Retrieved November 12, 2004 from www.civilrightsproject.edu US Department of Education, The No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, DC, 2002. Retrieved July 1, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02
50.
WalshM. (2002, January 23). Tutoring services see opportunity in new law. Education Week, 1, 19—20.
51.
WareA. (1989). Between profit and state: Intermediate organizations in Britain and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
52.
WhittyG. (1997). Creating quasi markets in education: A review of recent research on parental choice and school autonomy in three countries. In and and AppleM. (Ed.), Review of Research in Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
