Contracts,Choice,and Customer Service: Marketization and Public Engagement in Education

Abstract

Background/Context

Market models of school reform are having a major impact on school districts across the country. While scholars have examined many aspects of this process, we know far less about the general effects of marketization on public participation in education and local education politics.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This article uses an examination of marketization in Philadelphia over a six-year period (2001-7) to explore its implications for public engagement—or the ability of individuals and groups to work with and influence the school district and hold officials accountable.

Setting

The research was conducted in Philadelphia, the sixth largest city in the country. In 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took over the School District of Philadelphia, citing on-going fiscal crises and poor student achievement. The resulting reforms included new leadership, new governance structures, and significant privatization.

Research Design

This is a qualitative case study of school district change in Philadelphia, focusing on the implications for public engagement.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data included over 50 interviews with education administrators, civic and political elites, and representatives of grassroots and community groups. Data also included six years of participant observation at public meetings and in reform coalitions. Analysis followed a grounded theory approach designed to identify district policies and practices related to public participation and to document how these practices shaped the ability of individuals and groups to engage productively with the district.

Findings/Results

We find that the marketization of education in Philadelphia had a major impact on the district's institutional structure and practices for interacting with local stakeholders. Our data point to several changes that were particularly consequential in shaping the opportunities for engagement and the direction such engagement took. These are: a corporate governance structure, an emphasis on communication, widespread contracting out for services, an increase in school choice, and a focus on customer service.

Conclusions/Recommendations

These changes have resulted in channeling of public participation along individual lines at the expense of collective forms of action and, more broadly, undercutting of the understanding of education as a public good. Given the continued influence of market models of education reform at the local and national levels, it will be important for policymakers to pay close attention to the ways by which marketization can limit engagement and to develop strategies, such as increased transparency and new vehicles for public input, to address this tendency.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abowitz

K. K.

(2005). On the public and civic purposes of education. Educational Theory, 58(3), 357–376.

Anderson

, & Pini

(2005). Educational leadership and the new economy: Keeping the “public” in public schools. In English

F. W.

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadershiop: Advances in theory, research, and practice. (pp. 216–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Apple

(2001). Educating the ‘Right’ way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York: Routledge.

Asher

, Fruchter

, & Berne

(1996). Hard lessons: Public schools and privatization. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.

Bartlett

, Frederick

, Gulbrandsen

, & Murillo

(2002). The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(1), 5–29.

Boyd

W.L.

, Christman

J.B.

, & Useem

(2008). Radical Privatization in Philadelphia: The Role of School District Leaders as Policy Entrepreneurs. In Boyd

W.L.

, Kerchner

C.T.

, & Blyth

(Eds.), The transformation of great American school districts: How big cities are reshaping public education. (pp. 33–60). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Bryk

, Bebring

, Kerbow

, Rollow

, & Easton

(1999). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bulkley

K. E.

(2007, Feb). Bringing the Private into the Public: Changing the Rules of the Game and New Regime Politics in Philadelphia Public Education. Educational Policy. 21(1), 155–184.

Bulkley

K.E.

, Christman

J.B.

, & Gold

(2010). Learning from Philadelphia's experience with diverse providers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

10.

Burch

(2006). The new educational privatization: Educational contracting and high stakes accountability. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2582–2610.

11.

Chubb

J.E.

, & Moe

T.M.

(1990). Politics, Markets, and America's Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings.

12.

Christman

, Gold

, & Herold

(2006). Privatization “Philly Style:” What Can Be Learned from Philadelphia's Diverse Provider Model of School Management. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.

13.

Collins

(2006, Fall). Informal Bidding Process: Cause for Concern? Philadelphia Public School Notebook, 19, 23.

14.

Covaleskie

J.F.

(2007). What public, whose schools? Educational Studies, 42(1), 28–43.

15.

Cucchiara

(2003). The evolution of reform: Studying “community partnerships” in Philadelphia. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 2.

16.

Fruchter

(2007). Urban schools, public will: Making education work for all children. New York: Teachers College Press.

17.

Gill

B. P.

, Zimmer

, Christman

J. B.

, & Blanc

(2007, Jan). Student achievement in privately managed and district-managed schools in Philadelphia since the state takeover. Pittsburgh, PA: RAND Corporation.

18.

Glaser

, & Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

19.

Gold

, Christman

, & Herold

(2007). Blurring the boundaries: A case study of private sector involvement in Philadelphia public schools. American Journal of Education, 113(2), 181–212.

20.

Gold

, Cucchiara

, Simon

, & Riffer

(2005). Time to engage? Civic participation in Philadelphia's school reform. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.

21.

Gold

, Rhodes

, Brown

, Lytle

, & Waff

(2001). Clients, consumers or collaborators? Parents and their roles in school reform during Children Achieving, 1995–2000.

22.

Gold

, Simon

, & Brown

(2002). Strong neighborhoods, strong schools: Successful community organizing for school reform. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

23.

Gold

, Simon

, Cucchiara

, Mitchell

, & Riffer

(2007). A Philadelphia story: Building civic capacity for school reform in a privatizing system. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.

24.

Gutman

(1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Henig

(forthcoming). The contemporary context of public engagement: The new political grid. In Orr

, and Rogers

(Eds.), Public engagement for public education. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

26.

Henig

J. R.

, Holyoke

T. T.

, Lacireno-Paquet

, & Moser

2003. “Privatization, Politics, and Urban Services: The Political Advocacy Behavior of Charter Schools.” Journal of Urban Affairs. 25 (February), 37–54

27.

Henig

, & Stone

(2008). Rethinking school reform: The distractions of dogma and the potential for a new politics of progressive pragmatism. American Journal of Education, 114(3), 191–218.

28.

Hess

, Maranto

, & Milliman

(2001). Small districts in big trouble: How four Arizona school systems responded to charter competition. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1102–24.

29.

Katz

(1987). Reconstructing American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

30.

Katz

(2001). The price of citizenship: Redefining the American welfare state. New York: Metropolitan Books.

31.

Kuttner

(1999). Everything for sale: The virtues and limits of markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

32.

Kwong

(2000). Introduction: Marketization and privatization in education. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 87–92.

33.

Labaree

2000. No Exit. Education as an Inescapably Public good. In Shipps

, and Cuban

(Eds.). Reconstructing the common good in education. Coping with Intractable American Dilemmas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

34.

Levin

(2001). Privatizing education: Can the school marketplace deliver freedom of choice, efficiency, equity, and social cohesion?. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

35.

Lubienski

(1998). Market challenges to public education in the U.S.: Michigan's charter schools and enclosures of the common good. Paper presented at the 1998 annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

36.

McAdams

(2000). Fighting to save our urban schools… and winning!. New York: Teachers College Press.

37.

McDonnell

(2009). Repositioning Education Politics in Education's Circle of Knowledge. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 417–27.

38.

Mediratta

, Shah

, & McAlister

(2009). Community Organizing for Stronger Schools: Strategies and Successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute on School Reform.

39.

Mickelson

R.A.

(1999). International business machinations: A case study of corporate involvement in local educational reform. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 476–513.

40.

Minow

(2003). Public and private partnerships: Accounting for the new religion. Harvard Law Review, 116, 1–41.

41.

Mintrom

(2008). Promoting local democracy in education: Challenges and prospects. Educational Policy, 23, 329–354.

42.

Molnar

(2005). School commercialism: From democratic ideal to market commodity. New York: Routledge.

43.

Mok

K.H.

(2000). Marketizing higher education in post-Mao China. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 109–126.

44.

Munene

(2008). Privatising the public: Marketisation as a strategy in public university transformation. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 13(1), 1–17.

45.

Nevels

(2005, March 14). Reading, writing, ROI. Forbes.

46.

Pick

(June, 2003) Duncan puts new emphasis on the business of education. Catalyst.

47.

Puriefoy

(2006). The education of democratic citizens: Citizen mobilization and public education. In Furhman

, & Lazerson

(Eds.), The Public schools. New York: Oxford University Press.

48.

Richards

, Shore

, & Sawicky

(1996). Risky business: Private management of public schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

49.

Rotella

(2/1/10). Class Warrior: Arne Duncan's bid to shake up schools. New Yorker.

50.

Sclar

(2000). You don't always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

51.

Scott

, & DiMartino

(2009). Public education under new management: A typology of educational privatization applied to New York City's restructuring. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 432–452.

52.

Shipps

(1997). The invisible hand: Big business and Chicago school reform. Teachers College Record, 99(1), 73–116.

53.

Shipps

(2006). School reform, corporate style: Chicago, 1880–2000. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

54.

Shipps

, & Kafka

(2009). Introduction to the special issue on the new politics of educational leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 279–282.

55.

Shirley

(1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

56.

Simon

, Gold

, & Christman

(2008). The ascent of privatization policies in public education: The case of Philadelphia. Anthropology News, 49(5), 36.

57.

Socolar

(2006, Fall). Quest for Contract Documents Became Summer-Long Ordeal. Philadelphia Public School Notebook. 26.

58.

Stone

C.N.

, Henig

J.R.

, Jones

B.D.

, & Pierannunzi

(2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence, KS: Kansas University Press.

59.

Useem

(2008). Learning from Philadelphia's School Reform: The Impact of NCLB and related state legislation. In Sadovnik

A. R.

, O'Day

, Bohrnstedt

G. W.

, and Bowman

(Eds.). No Child Left Behind and the Reduction of the Achievement Gap. pp. 297–321. New York: Routledge.

60.

Useem

, & Rinko

(2006, Fall). Turning to Outside Organizations to do More Jobs. Philadelphia Public School Notebook. 18, 20

61.

Viteritti

J. P.

(2009). When mayors take charge: School governance in the city. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

62.

Whitty

, & Power

(2000). Marketization and privatization in mass education systems. International Journal of Economic Development, 20(2), 93–107.

63.

Woodall

(3.28.02). Local advisors will play role in Philadelphia school reform. The Philadelphia Inquirer.