Le Courrier

sommaire
d'ici... opinion notre planete
ethiques signes connexions dires
dossier
2. Catering to demand
| Objetivo: brand-name schooling | Private education: the poor’s best chance? | South Africa: the race for portable qualifications | When parents want out | Wiring up the ivory towers |
Edison’s third way

Mark Walsh, associate editor of Education Week (U.S.).
photophoto
photo
photo
Team work and technology: a sampling of activities in an Edison school.




An investment in knowledge pays the best return.

Benjamin Franklin, American statesman and scientist (1706-1790)

In a less than a decade, a New York-based company has established a reputation for managing troubled public schools, but the venture is still struggling to make a profit

Benno C. Schmidt Jr. stunned many when he quit one of the most prestigious positions in academia in 1992 to help lead a controversial educational venture that had no guarantee it would ever open its first school.
Schmidt was lured from the presidency of Yale University by media entrepreneur Christopher Whittle to bring some educational prestige to what was then known as the Edison Project, a venture launched in 1991. The goal: to try new approaches in elementary and secondary education that Whittle believed would be as revolutionary as Thomas Edison’s replacement of the candle with the electric light bulb.
Nine years later, Edison Schools Inc. is viewed as the leading company in the movement towards private management of public education in the U.S. It now manages 108 public schools serving some 57,000 students, up from 25 schools in 1997-98. Many are so-called charter schools, namely public schools that are largely independent of the traditional school districts and operate free of many state bureaucratic rules. They receive funding from the state government on a per-pupil basis and parents pay no tuition. But Edison also contracts with school authorities to manage traditional public schools using its educational model.
“Most people thought of this as a kind of experiment on the edge of the possible,” says Schmidt, “and a lot of people are distrustful of how a private firm would operate public schools. But we’ve seen a broader and broader acceptance by public educational institutions that good, high-quality private firms have a lot to offer.”
In many districts, authorities have turned over some of the worst performing schools to Edison. While the company has a well-oiled marketing machine, a number of school administrators have been attracted by Edison’s all-encompassing expertise and bold approach. The company offers a complete package, which cost $40 million to develop. Its curriculum is regarded as rigorous, exceeding requirements of most states. School days are longer than normal, students take Spanish in kindergarten and can study for the International Baccalaureate. The schools have at least three computers per classroom, and students can take home a personal computer to work on projects and surf the Internet as well as to link parents and teachers.
The company has a touchy relationship with the country’s two teachers’ unions, which have been generally critical of private management. The unions’ chief concerns are that the company uses relatively inexperienced teachers, and that the teacher turnover rate is high. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has paid particularly close attention to test scores and argues that the achievement record is not as rosy as the company paints it. “Some of their schools have improved and some have really struggled. There’s no magic in being private,” says Celia Lose, an AFT spokeswoman.
Despite criticism, Edison Inc. is confident. Enrolment has increased eightfold since 1996, revenue stands at $225 million, financial losses are shrinking ($37 million) and its stock has inched upward since the company went public in November 1999. While the company’s priority is to get a firmer footing in the U.S. —it has to manage several hundred schools before realizing economies of scale— it will seek to expand internationally. “Edison genuinely represents what people in the U.K., especially Tony Blair, call a third way,” says Schmidt. “It’s not fully private, and not fully public.” He notes that to many in Europe, privatization of public services has been an “all or nothing” proposition. It has meant taking a state enterprise “and converting it completely to private management,” he says. “Edison offers more of a partnership with government.”