Public officials are increasingly contracting with the private sector for a range of educational services. With much of the focus on private sector accountability on cost-effectiveness and student performance, less attention has been given to shifts in democratic accountability. Drawing on data from the state of New York, one of the most active contracting contexts, the authors examine how contracting poses challenges to democratic accountability and provide suggestions for how policy makers engaging with private sector providers might better attend to the broader public purposes of schooling.
AscherC.FruchterN.BerneR. (1996). Hard lessons: Public schools and privatization. New York, NY: Twentieth Century Fund Press.
3.
AscherC.GreenbergA. (2002). Charter reform and the education bureaucracy: Lessons from New York State. Phi Delta Kappan, 513-517.
4.
BiestaG. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained?Educational Theory, 54(3), 233-250.
BulkleyK. (2005). Losing voice? Educational management organizations and charter schools’ educational programs. Education and Urban Society, 37(2), 204-234.
7.
BulkleyK.FusarelliL. (Eds.). (2007). The politics of privatization in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
8.
BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
9.
BurasK.RandelsJ.SalaamK. Y., & Students at the Center. (2010). Pedagogy, policy, and the privatized city. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
BurchP. E. (2006). The new educational privatization: Educational contracting and high stakes accountability. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2582-2610.
11.
BurchP. E. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
Charter School Institute. (2009). New York State charter schools at-a-glance. New York, NY: Author.
14.
ChubbJ.MoeT. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
15.
CreswellJ. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
DeBrayE.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the Post-NCLB Era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15-42.
17.
DiMartinoC. (2009). Public-private partnerships and the new schools movement: A new form of educational management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.
FirestoneW. A.ShippsD. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to improve student learning? In FirestoneW. A.RiehlC. (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 81-100). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22.
FriedmanM. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
HemphillC. (2008). Parent power and mayoral control: Avenues for parent and community involvement in New York City schools. New York, NY: The Commission on School Governance.
25.
HoodC.PetersG. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 267-282.
HuertaL.d’EntremontC. (2010). Charter school finance: Seeking institutional legitimacy in a marketplace of resources. In LubienskiC.WeitzelP. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 121-146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29.
LipmanP. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
LipmanP.HainesN. (2007). From education accountability to privatization and African American exclusion—Chicago Public Schools: Renaissance 2010. Educational Policy, 21, 471-502.
MickelsonR. (1999). International business machinations: A case study of corporate involvement in local educational reform. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 476-506.
35.
MillerJ. J. (2003). Strategic investment in ideas: How two foundations changed America. Washington, DC: The Philanthropy Roundtable.
36.
MinowM. (2002). Partners, not rivals: Privatization and the public good. Boston, MA: Beacon.
37.
New York State Commission on Public Integrity. (2011). New York State Commission on Public Integrity: 2010 annual report. Albany: Author.
News Corporation. (2010). Press release: News Corporation to acquire education technology company Wireless Generation. Retrieved from http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_464.html
42.
NogueraP. A. (1994). More democracy not less: Confronting the challenge of privatization in public education. Journal of Negro Education, 63(2), 237-250.
43.
The Office of the New York State Comptroller. (2011). The contract between The New York State Department of Education and NCS Pearson, Inc. (CO10713). Albany, NY: Author.
44.
O’ReillyD.ReedM. (2010). “Leaderism”: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform. Public Administration, 88(4), 960-978.
ReckhowS. (2010). Disseminating and legitimating a new approach: The role of foundations, in Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 277-304). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
47.
RichardsC.ShoreR.SawickyM. (1996). Risky business: Private management of public schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
SclarE. (1997). The privatization of public service: Lessons from case studies. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
51.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106-136.
52.
ScottJ.DiMartinoC. (2009). Public education under new management: A typology of educational privatization applied to New York City’s restructuring. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 432-452.
ShippsD. (1997). Invisible hand: Big business and Chicago school reform. Teachers College Record, 99, 73-116.
55.
ShippsD. (1998). Corporate influence on Chicago school reform. In StoneC. S. (Ed.), Changing urban education (pp. 161-183). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
56.
ShippsD.KahneJ.SmylieM. (1999). The politics of urban school reform: Legitimacy, city growth, and school improvement in Chicago. Educational Policy, 13(4).
57.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
WellsA. S.SlaytonJ.ScottJ. (2002). Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter school reform and educational consumption. American Education Research Journal, 39(2), 337-362.
63.
WexlerE.HuertaL. A. (2000). An empowering spirit is not enough: A Latino charter school struggles over leadership. In FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization (pp. 98-123). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
