Assistance and Accountability in Externally Managed Schools: The Case of Edison Schools, Inc.

Abstract

Edison Schools, Inc., is the largest and most visible among a growing number of Education Management Organizations that have entered into contracts to manage public schools, including both conventional and charter schools. Edison's approach to managing schools is comprehensive, and it distinguishes itself from most other school improvement strategies by simultaneously addressing both the resources and assistance provided to schools and the accountability systems under which school staff operate. In this article we explore the ways in which the assistance and resources provided by Edison (including diverse professional development opportunities, materials, technology, and other tools), as well as accountability mechanisms (such as monitoring and rewards), have translated into principal and teacher actions, and the factors that facilitated or constrained educators' efforts to implement the Edison design and improve teaching and learning. Drawing on data gathered from extensive interviews, observations, and document reviews collected during a four-year comprehensive study of Edison schools, we demonstrate how Edison intends to promote not only educators' capacity but also their motivation and opportunity to deliver high-quality instruction. We examine variation that occurs across schools as teachers and principals respond to these system-level efforts. In addition, we identify several important predictors of variation in implementation, including the strength of instructional leadership provided by the principal and the presence or absence of district-imposed constraints such as union contract rules.Portions of this article were drawn directly from a RAND report (see Gill et al., 2005). Correspondence should be sent to Julie Marsh, RAND,

Research on Data Use: A Framework and Analysis

“…Finally, for district administrators, changing practice may mean altering the ways they go about the task of making decisions or setting new policies, but it may also mean changing the way that they work in relation to each other and those in schools. 5 Like organizational change, it is important to remember that change in practice may not always be positive, as when teachers and administrators game the system (Booher- Jennings, 2005;Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008), take measures to narrow the curriculum (Diamond & Cooper, 2007;Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris, 2001;Marsh, Hamilton, & Gill, 2008;Ogawa, Sandholtz, & Scribner, 2004;Sloan, 2006;Wright & Choi, 2006), or make short-term, superficial changes in practice (Diamond & Cooper, 2007).…”

Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround

“…As noted in our review of the literature, stakeholder involvement, understanding, and support are key conditions for successful implementation of any reform initiative (Bodilly et al, 2004;McLaughlin, 1987;McDermott, 2006;Marsh et al, 2008;Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1979), particularly school reform. Without this basic support and understanding, individuals may be less inclined to work toward reform goals and to implement an initiative with fidelity.…”

Principals’ Sensemaking of Coaching for Ambitious Reading Instruction in a High-Stakes Accountability Policy Environment

“…Teachers also are more likely to commit to and implement an instructional reform when principals actively promote new teaching practices and devote resources toward realizing this vision in classroom practice (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978;Marsh, Hamilton, & Gill, 2008;Quint et al, 2007). Through their management of the school budget and schedule, for example, principals influence the amount and type of professional development available to teachers, as well as the amount of time teachers have to collaborate and plan with colleagues (Goldenberg, 2004;.…”