Efforts to infuse market forces into public education are based on the supposition that these forces can improve student outcomes. This assumption does not consider the politics of implementation. This article examines state-initiated school privatization and reveals factors that influence translation of theory to practice. The cases depict what instigated privatization and procedures utilized to select providers, negotiate contracts, and manage relationships with management organizations. The cases demonstrate that compromises negotiated in the interest of expedient implementation can undermine the potential of the market and increase bureaucracy, thereby raising questions about the validity of the assumption that market forces can improve public schools.
Ascher, C., Frucher, N., & Berne, R. (1996). Hard lessons: Public schools and privatization. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
2.
American Federation of Teachers. (1994). EAI’s mismanagement of federal education programs: The special education and Chapter 1 track records in Baltimore. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
American Federation of Teachers. (1995). Privatization update: A report to the American federation of teachers’ executive council and the K-12 and PSRP program and policy councils. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Bell, C. (2005). All choices created equal? How good parents select “failing” schools (National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from: http://www.ncspe.org/readrel.php?set=pub&cat=120
5.
Bowie, L., & Donovan, D. (2006, September 19). Schools in spotlight: State official says she would allow three Edison-run schools to be controlled by city. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 19, 2006, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/balmd.edison19sep19,0,4047331.story?coll=bal-local-headlines
6.
Bulkley, K., Mundell, L., & Riffer, M. (2004). Contracting out schools: The first year of the Philadelphia diverse provider model. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
7.
Christman, J. B., Gold, E., & Herold, B. B. (2006, June 2). Privatization “Philly style”: What can be learned from Philadelphia’s diverse provider model of school management. Philadelphia: Research for Action. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from: http://www.researchforaction.org/publication/details/37
8.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
Cibulka, J. (2003). Introduction: The evaluation of the Baltimore’s city-state partnership to reform BCPSS: Framing the context, national trends, and key findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(1), 1-14.
10.
Cibulka, J. G., Reed, R. J., & Wong, K. K. (1992). The politics of urban education in the United States. London: Taylor Francis.
11.
Clune, W. H., & Witte, J. F. (1990). Choice and control in American education: Vol. 1. The theory of choice and control in education. New York: Falmer.
12.
Comprehensive School Quality Center. (2006). Comprehensive school reform quality center: Report on education service providers. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.csrq.org/documents/ExecutiveSummary_002.pdf
13.
Cornfield, J. (2005a, February 25). It’s official: Chester Upland in major financial meltdown. DelcoTimes. Retrieved February 24, 3006, from http://www.delcotimes.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=14033598&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18171&rfi=8
14.
Cornfield, J. (2005b, January 24). Report scores C.U. schools. DelcoTimes. Retrieved January 24, 2005, from http://www.delcotimes.com/site/index.dfm?newsid=13809390&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18171&rfi=8
15.
Donahue, J. (1989). The privatization decision: Public ends, private means. New York: Basic Books.
16.
Education Empowerment Team. (2000). Chester Upland School District, school district improvement plan. Chester Upland, PA: Author.
17.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
General Accounting Office. (1996). Private management of public schools: Early experience in four school districts. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
Gittell, M. (2001). State power, suburban interests, and city school reform. New York: City University of New York, Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center at The Graduate School and University Center.
20.
Handler, J. F. (1996). Down from bureaucracy: The ambiguity of privatization and empowerment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Holding schools accountable: Improving performance and controlling cost. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
22.
Hardy, D. (2006, October 14). Chester teachers out; school closed. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B5-B5.
23.
Hassel, B. C., & Ayscue Hassel, E. (2006). Starting fresh: A new option for school district leaders under NCLB. Chicago: National Association of Charter School Authorizers.
24.
Hess, F. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
25.
Hess, F. M. (2002). Revolution at the margins: The impact of competition on urban school systems. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
Hill, P. T., Pierce, L. C., & Guthrie, J. W. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America’s schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press;
27.
Kemerer, F. R. (2000). Legal issues involving educational privatization (Occasional Paper No. 6 for The National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.
28.
Lessinger, L. M. (1970). Every kid a winner. Accountability in education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
29.
Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395-443.
30.
Maryland State Department of Education. (2002). Maryland school performance program. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org
31.
Maryland State Department of Education. (2003). Maryland report card. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from http://msp2003.msde.state.md.us/
32.
Maryland State Department of Education. (2004). School performance index. Retrieved November 12, 2004, from http://mdk12.org
33.
Maryland State Department of Education. (2006). 2006 Maryland report card. Retrieved October 10, 2006. from http://mdreportcard.org
34.
McDermitt, K. A. (2000). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 83-89.
35.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morrison, P. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
36.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
37.
McLaughlin, M. (1989). The RAND Change Agent Study ten years later: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Teaching.
38.
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
39.
Molnar, A., Wilson, G., & Allen, D. (2004). Profiles of for-profit education management companies: Sixth annual report 2003-2004. Retrieved online March 1, 2004, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0402-101-CERU.pdf
40.
Mowery, H. (2000). Legislature approves Education Empowerment Act. Retrieved April, 8, 2004, from http://www.halmowery.com?Releases/2000/sb652.html
41.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). 100 largest districts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved December 1, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/100_largest/table01.asp
42.
National Education Association. (1996). For-profit management of public schools. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). 20 U.S.C.A. §6301-6578 (West Supp. 2002).
44.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004a). Chester Upland School District, management assessment study. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
45.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004b). Public, private, and nonpublic enrollments 1994-1995 through 2003-2004. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12statistics/lib/k12statistics/03-04ppnpenrolltbl2.pdf
46.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004c). Chester Upland school report card. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/PerformanceLevels2004mathandreadingIU25.pdf
47.
Persing, T. (2002). Privatization in Chester Upland: Off to a rocky start (Governance notes). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
48.
Philadelphia School District, Office of Accountability. (2005). 2003-2004 PSSA Results by 2004 EMO classification. Philadelphia: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from: http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/accountability/emocharts.htm
49.
Rhim, L. M. (2001). School privatization and the goal of greater efficiency: A case study of the relationship between theory and practice of privatization in an Edison charter school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
50.
Rhim, L. M. (2004). Restructuring schools in Baltimore: An analysis of state and district efforts. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
51.
Rhim, L. M. (2005a). Restructuring schools in Chester Upland, Pennsylvania: An analysis of state restructuring efforts. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
52.
Rhim, L. M. (2005b). State mandated school restructuring: Management lessons from Philadelphia 2002-2005. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
53.
Richards, C., Shore, R., & Sawicky, M. (1996). Risky business: Private management of public schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
54.
Rose, A. (2006, October 14). Suspected “sickout” closes Chester High. DelcoTimes. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www.delcotimes.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17327083&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18171&rfi=8
55.
Saltman, K. (2005). The Edison schools: Corporate schooling and the assault on public education. New York: Routledge.
56.
Sclar, E. D. (2000). You don’t always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. New York: Cornell University Press.
57.
Stanley, L. S. (2006, October 16). Chester school problems persist. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B1-B1.
58.
Thompson, J. (1995, December 1). City school board ends effort to privatize: Contracts with EAI are severed, halting 31/2-year experiment. The Baltimore Sun, p. A1-A1.
59.
Williams, L. C., & Leak, L. E. (1995). The UMBC evaluation of the Tesseract program in Baltimore City. Baltimore: University of Maryland, Center for Educational Research.
60.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61.
Ziebarth, T. (2004). State policies for school restructuring. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
