public-private partnerships and the small schools.pdf

8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf

1/241

Sponsoring Committee: Professor Janelle T. Scott, Chairperson

Professor Gary L. Anderson

Professor Leslie Santee Siskin

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS

MOVEM ENT: A NEW FORM OF EDUCATION MANAGEMENT

Catherine Com stock DiMartino

Program in Educational Leadership

Department of Adm inistration, Leadership and Technology

Subm itted in partial fulfillment

o f t h e r e q u i r e me n t s f o r t h e d e g r e e o f

Doctor of Philosophy in the

Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development

New York University

2009


2/241

UMI Number: 3346262

Copyright 2009 by

DiMartino, Catherine Comstock

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UM

UMI Microform 3346262

Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC

789 E. Eisenhower Parkway

PO Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


3/241

Copyright 2009 Catherine Comstock DiMartino


4/241

I hereby guarantee that no part of the dissertation which I have submitted for

publication has been heretofore published and/or copyrighted in the United

States of America, except in the case of passages quoted from other

published sources; that I am the sole author and proprietor of said

dissertation; that the dissertation contains no matter which, if published, will

be libelous or otherwise injurious, or infringe in any way the cop yright of

any other party; and that I will defend, indemnify and hold harmless New

York U niversity against all suits and proceedings which m ay be brought and

against all claims which may be m ade against New York University by

reason of the publication of said dissertation.


5/241

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to all of the individu als-princip als, teachers, parents,

members of intermediary organizations and district officials-who participated in

this study. They generously opened their schools and offices, and shared their

experiences with m e.

At NYU, my dissertation advisor, committee members and informal

men tors provided me with critical guidance and support. I drew inspiration from

Janelle Scott whose commitment to educational equity and intellectual rigor

constantly pushed me to think in new ways and deeply influenced my evolution as

an educational researcher. I feel fortunate to have had her as a teacher, adv isor

and mentor. A special thank you to Gary Anderson who has supported my

doctoral pursuits in many ways, from finding me space to work on my dissertation

to offering sage advice about my next professional steps. His commitment to

students' intellectual growth and development exemplifies good teaching and

reminds me, through his example, the great importance of sharing knowledge and

experien ce. I have also benefitted from the wisdom of Leslie Santee Siskin whose

interest in and support of my work shaped this dissertation and who in her

creation of the High School Group, created a community of scholars with whom I

could share ideas. A special thank you goes to Mary Driscoll, who was the first

professor I met at NY U. I am grateful for your good counsel and our

conversation s that span topics ranging from aviaries to roses. Last, but not least,

iii


6/241

to Elaine Chugranismy fellow doctoral studentyour great sense of humor and

unending generosity in explaining the whole dissertation process helped pull me

through

My studies at NYU would not have been possible without the support of

Dean Patricia Cary and the Office of Student Serv ices. In addition to funding m e

for three years as a graduate assistant, members of the office, especially Jean ne

Bannon, Doris Alcivar and Nancy Hall, provided me with excellent advice as well

as many laughs.

At RAN D, a special thank you goes to Team N YC w ho modeled the

practice of policy research and whose members offered invaluable support and

advice about the dissertation process.

To m om and dad who taught me the value of education and who always

urged me go for the gold Thank you. A special thank you to my mom who

always encouraged me to pursue work that I believe in and that serves a greater

good. Finally, to Daniel Blanco my partner, best friend, fellow adventurer and

editor extraordinaire. Thank you for your uncond itional love, support and

encouragement throughout this entire process; your positive energy and calming

presence helped me to com plete this journey.

IV


7/241

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii i

LIST OF TABL ES ix

LIST OF FIGURES x

CHAPTER

I THE USE OF INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS TO

REFORM PUBLIC EDUCATION 1

Introduction 1

Purpose and Rationale 6

Research Questions 8

Political and Econ om ic Context: A National Perspective 9

Political and Econ om ic Context: A Local Perspective 13

Building an Educ ational Ma rketplace 14

Partnering with the Private Sector to Run "Not a Great

School System, but a System of Great Schoo ls" 15

New Accountability Mechanisms 16

The Em ergence of Intermediary Organ izations 17

An Introduction to the Findings 19

Dissertation Overview 21

Conclusion 22

II FRAMING HYBRID SCHO OLS: CONCEPTUA LIZING

THE INTERSECTION OF EDUCATIONAL VALUES

AND POWER 24

Introduction 24

The Politics of Hybrid Schools: Crossing Sector Boundaries,

Exchanging Values and Negotiating Power 25

The Politics of Pow er and Control 30

The Spectrum of Control 32

C o n c l u s i o n 3 7

continued

v


8/241

Il l REVIEW OF LITERATURE

38

Introduction 38

Motivation and Contextual Factors that Impact

Cross-Sectoral Partnerships 39

Legal, Financial, Political, and Organizational

Incentives 39

Partnering Factors 45

The Distribution of Power and Its Impact on Governance

within Joint Ventures 52

Distribution of Pow er 52

How Success is Measured, Sustained and Replicated

within Inter-Organizational Relationships 59

Measuring Outcomes 60

Sustainability and Scaling Up 61

Conclusion and Imp lications 64

IV METHODOLOGY 66

Introduction 66

Research Questions 66

Research Design 67

Sam ple Selection 70

Intermediary Organ izations 71

School Samples 73

Data Collection 75

Identifying and Recru iting Study Participants 76

Data Sources 78

Data Analysis 83

Coding 83

Role of Researcher 86

Conclusion 87

V THE CASE OF EXCELSIOR ACADEMY: A

UNIVERSITY EDGE SCHOOL 89

Overview of the Case 89

Part I: Contextual Factors that Impact

Public-Private Ventures 91

The Partnership Quest: Alignment and Association 91

An Introduction to the University Edge and its

School Design Mod el 94

continued

V


9/241

School Accep tance, Placem ent and Regional Support 97

Teacher Motivations for Choosing Excelsior 98

Parent Motivations for Choosing Excelsior 102

Adm issions Procedures and Student

Selection Processes 103

Part II: Decision Mak ing Processes 110

The Partnership in Action: Personnel, Curricular,

and Professional Dev elopm ent Decisions 114

Part III: Sustainability and Scaling Up 126

Leaving Before Y ear Four: Teacher Attrition

at Excelsior 126

Paren ts' Dream Making and Breaking Experiences 128

University Edge: Scaling Up 129

Excelsior Academy: An Uncertain Future 131

Discussion and Conclusion 132

VI THE CASE OF METROPOLITAN UNITED

ENTREPRENEURSfflP AND CITIZENSHIP

ACADEMY 136

Overview of the Case 136

Part I: Contextual Factors that Impacted

The Partnership 137

The Partnership Quest: A Speedy Union 137

From Partner to Manager: An Introduction

to Metropolitan United 140

Teachers Motivations for Choosing ECA 147

Parent Motivations for Choosing ECA 150

Student Characteristics and Selectivity 151

Part II: Decision-Making Processes 154

Decision-Making Processes: Personnel and Budget 155

Decision-Making Processes: Teaching and Learning 158

Part III: The Dissolution of the Partnership 166

Poo r Interactions 167

New York City Department of Education Response 170

The School and Com mu nity's Response to the Break 172

Post Break-Up: Settling Accounts and

C h a n g i n g N a m e s 1 7 2

Part IV: Sustainability and Scaling Up 175

The Post Break Experience: Metropolitan United 175

continued

vn


10/241

The Post B reak Experience: Entrepreneurship and

Citizenship Academy 177

The Post Break Experience: Parents' Hopes and

Goals for Schooling 177

Discussion and Conclusion 178

VII CROSS CASE ANALYSIS AND CONCLU SION 180

Introduction and Overview of the Study 180

M icro-Po litics of Partnerships 183

Parameters ofPower:The Spectrum of

Control Revisited 183

Contextual Factors that Impact and Influence

the Partnership 188

The C ompeting Public and Private Goals Inherent

in Cross-Sectoral Collabo rations 194

The Ma cro-Politics of Current School Reform 197

Implications for Research, and Policy Recomm endations 200

Imp lications for Research 200

Policy Recomm endations 203

Conclusion - 207

BIBLIOGRAPHY 210

APPENDICES 220

A INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS 220

B OBSERVATION PROTOCOL 228

C DOCUME NT REVIEW PROTOCOL 229

V1H


11/241

LIST OF TABLES

1 Description s of Intermediary Organ izations 72

2 Descriptions of Case Study Schools (2006-2007) 74

3 Total Individuals Interviewed at Exc elsior Acad em y: A University

Edge School and at University Edge 80

4 Total Individuals Interviewed at Entrep reneurship and Citizenship

Academ y and at Metropolitan United 80

5 Total Individuals Interviewed at District 80

6 University Edge School Design Model 96

7 Teacher Dem ographics, Experience and Retention Data at Excelsior 101

8 Metropolitan United 's Principles Pre-Management Contract 141

9 Teacher Demographics and Experience at Entrepreneurship and

Citizenship Academy 149

X


12/241

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Flow of Resources between Foundation, Intermediary, Schools

and the New York City Department of Education 5

2 Spectrum of Control 34

3 Spectrum of Control 184

x


13/241

CHAPTER I

THE USE OF INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS TO

REFORM PUBLIC EDUCATION

Introduction

While reports of school vouchers and educational management

organizations (E MO s) hold the med ia's and pu blic's attention, subtler, but no less

important, privatization initiatives have taken root in some of the largest urban

districts across the United States. This new privatization

1

, often coupled with

mayoral takeover of school systems, school choice initiatives, and increased

accountability, encourages unprecedented reliance on the private sector to provide

educational serv ices at all levels. W ithin the Departm ent of Education (D OE) in

New York City, for example, private consulting firms make policy

recommendations, while at the school level, private organizations are regularly

co-founding new small schools. This dissertation focuses on the emergence of

intermediary organizations as partners to new small schools in New York City.

Using two case studies of new small schools co-founded by an intermediary

organization and the New York City Department of Education (NYC DO E), this

s t u d y e x a mi n e s d e c i s i o n - ma k i n g a k e y a r e a a r o u n d w h i c h p a r t n e r s a n d s c h o o l s

In this dissertation, privatization is defined as "the act of reducing the role of governm ent, or

increasing the role of

the

private sector, in an activity or in the ownership of assets" (Savas, 1987,

P-3).

1


14/241

negotiate pow er

2

. In particular, this study explores how partners and school-

based stakeholders make decisions over personnel, budgets, curricula,

professional development and admissions processes.

The use of public-private partnerships is not new; private sector

contracting has a long history in pub lic education. How ever, the founding and

running of schools by private sector organizations is a m ore recent phenom enon

(Colby, Smith & Shelton, 2005; Gold, Christman & Herold, 2007 ; Miron &

Nelson, 2002; Richards, Shore & Sawicky, 1996). Fueled by neoliberal ideology

which argues that markets and consumer choice create more effective and better

quality public schools (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Friedman, 1962), the influence of

these perspectives on policymakers, in concert with the decreased role of federal

and local governments in social services, has led to the reconceptualization of

how educational services are delivered. This vision involves replacing publicly

funded and run educational services with public-private partnerships or entirely

private organizations (Chubb & M oe, 1990; Handler, 1996; Minow, 2002).

Similarly, small schools are not new to public education; they have often

functioned on the periphery of the school system, residing in rural areas and in

alternative superintendencies where, with exceptions, they educate "at-risk" or

second chance students(Lief,

2001;

Raywid & Schmerler, 2003). In New York

City, progressive and equity minded educators have often been key leaders in the

2

In this dissertation, the term power refers to the ability of an individual or group, as defined by

Max Weber, "to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others

who are participating in the action" (Gerth & Mills, 1946. p. 180).

2


15/241

small schools reform movement (Meier, 1995). The current iteration of the small

schools movem ent

3

; however, seeks to pull schools from the periphery to the

norm . These new small schools are being created by a colorful mix of school

transformers, including progressive educators, standardized test developers,

Hispanic rights organizers and former real estate develop ers. Spurred by

foundational and federal funding, new small schools have been created in city

systems across the nation. In the current privatization and small schools

4

movements, schools are co-founded by local departments of education and private

sector organizations, called intermediaries (AIR,2003,Heubner, 2005, NYC

DOE, 2007). Proponents of privatization posit that these organizations will use

their outsider status and experience to access personal and professional networks

that will spark innovation in the public school system. This use of intermediary

organizations to co-found and run new small schools reflects both the current

neoliberal ideology as well as the diversity of educational values driving school

founders (Kafka, 2008).

In addition to championing the expansion of private sectors players in

public education, neoliberals have pushed for increased use of choice and markets

to improve educational o utcomes. Particular to the new small schools mov ement,

This study will focus on small school creation in Ne w York City. Other large cities, such as

Chicago and Boston, also received significant funds from the Annenberg Challenge and currently

the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to implement small school reform.

4

While many oftheseschools are high schools (9-12), some include both middle and high school

age students (6-12). On the NY C DOE w ebsite, it defines small as schools enrolling 500 or fewer

students.

3


16/241

policymakers seek to provide consumer choice to parents and students, and to

infuse market competition within urban districts, whose large comprehensive high

schools have come under criticism for fostering poor learning environments, low

daily attendance and abysmal graduation rates (Angus & Mirel, 1999; Huebner,

2005). In contrast, detractors of privatization caution that the addition of private

sector actors will alter the relationship between government and citizens,

potentially reallocating power away from citizens and toward an amalgam of

interest groups and stakeholders (Ball, 2007; Handler, 1996; Scott and DiMartino,

2009a).

Intermediary Organizations and New Y ork City

Since2003,over 260 small schools have opened in New York City (NYC

DO E, 2008). The m ajority of these schools have been founded by the Department

of Education in partnership with an intermediary organization such as New

Visions for P ublic S chools, Replications, Inc., The Urban Assembly, and The

College Board (NYC DO E, 2007). Intermediaries receive funding to co-found

and support new small public secondary schools from foundations, who also

some times donate directly to districts. For exam ple, in 2005 , the Bill and Melinda

Gates Foundation gave $11,850,000 to the intermediary College Board (Bill and

M e l i n d a G a t e s F o u n d a t i o n , n . d ) . I n e x c h a n g e , f o u n d a t i o n s e x p e c t i n t e r m e d i a r i e s

to assist in launching new small schools, but also to refine their models or core

principles so that they can be replicated. Interme diaries, for their part, leverage

4


17/241

this funding to provide start-up support during the first four years of a sc hoo l's

existence. The amount depends on the intermediary, ranging from $400,000 to

$575,0 00 dollars, or about 10% of what the district provides to each scho ol.

Refer to figure 1 for a graphic representation of the foundation-intermediary-

school-New York City D epartment of Education relationship.

Figure 1.Flow of Resources between Foundation, Intermediary Schools and the

New Y ork City Department of Education.

As figure 1illustrates, foundations allocate significant funding directly to

interm ediaries. Interm ediaries, for their part, "sell" their solutions to the call for

educational reform in order to attract foundational funding. The intermed iary

then provides its own funding contribution to schools in the form of a partnership,

with the implicit assertion that this association will lead to better outcomes in how

the school is run. Given the current policy context, and in ideological agreem ent

with this new privatization led-reform, the NYC DOE has also made decisions to

decentralize decision m aking by shifting more funding to the school level. The

5


18/241

idea is to give principals greater authority over day-to-day decision making, while

holding them to greater accountability via an array of new measurement

me chan ism s. The theory is that principals will be empow ered to better serve the

needs of their local communities, just as parents will be empowered to choose

among a marketplace of options for schools that best meet the needs of their

children.

Purpose and Rationale

This study examines the politics of cross-sectoral partnerships in the

current iteration of the small schools movem ent in New Y ork City. It explores

how various actors' values, beliefs and goals for schooling influence school

decision-m aking processes in terms of teaching, learning, and leadership. Case

study methodology reveals how this new approach to school governance affects

the experiences of principals and teachers working in schools, students who attend

them, and the members of intermediary organizations with whom the schools are

partnered . Han dler (1996) suggests that answering questions of governance

requires indicators such as "attendance, participation, control of agenda, how the

decisions are mad e (for exam ple, voting, consensus), who preva ils, how often, for

what kinds of issues and the substantive decisions that are actually made" (p.

222).

The findings from this dissertation will help policymakers and

practitioners understand the complexities of public-private partnerships and to

6


19/241

avoid pitfalls that arise from this new paradigm . In addition, this work places

intermediary organizations within the larger field of private sector organizations

that support and manage public schools. This is particularly important because

earlier studies of intermediaries (Honig, 2004) strictly defined them as

"organizations that occupy the space in between at least two other parties.

Intermediary organizations primarily function to mediate or to manage change in

both partie s" (p. 67) . W hile the intermediary organizations studied for this

dissertation occupied space "in between" two parties, they were not designed to

"mediate' or "manage" change in both parties. This distinction is significant as

the theory behind this reform was for the Bill and Melinda Gates funded

intermediaries to catalyze change on the school side, not on the foundation side.

Therefore, these intermediaries m ore closely resemble New Am erican S choo ls'

design team s, charter school management com panies (CMOs) or EMOs (Berends,

Bodilly & K irby, 2002; Bulkley, 2005; Horn & M iron, 2000; Miron & N elson,

2002;

Scott, 2002 ; Scott and DiMartino, 2009b).

Rather than looking at the intermediary construct from a mutually

mediating perspective, this dissertation focuses on how the addition of a private

sector actor impacts power sharing and decision-making among local school

stakeholders-with special focus on principals and teachers. Building on the work

o f Co l b y , S mi t h a n d S h e l t o n ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d S c o t t a n d D i Ma r t i n o ( 2 0 0 9 b ) , t h i s s t u d y

seeks to understand the role of intermediary organizations within the current push

7


20/241

for private sector involvement in public education. Having defined the goals of

this study, the research questions follow.

Research Questions

The crossing of boundaries between private and public sector

organizations raises important questions about the politics of cross-sectoral

partnerships in the new small schools mov emen t. Th e following questions

5

guide

this study:

1) W hat motivates public school principals and intermediary organizations to

partner to create and run a school?

2) W hat are the values, beliefs and goals for schooling that drive memb ers of

public small school comm unities-including principals, teachers, parents

and members of intermediary organizations?

3) W hat are the central issues around which public small school commu nities

experience conflict, cooperation and the process of negotiation?

Having introduced the purpose and rational for this dissertation as well as

the guiding research questions, the next section contextualizes the research by

l o c a t i n g t h e s e s ma l l s c h o o l p a r t n e r s h i p s w i t h i n l a r g e r p o l i t i c a l , e c o n o mi c a n d

historical contexts both nationally and in New York City.

Concepts and questions have been influenced by Scott, J. (2002).

Privatization, charter school

reform, and the search for educational empowerm ent.

8


21/241


22/241

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society plan, the post-welfare state, in which neoliberal,

neoconservative and conservative ideology dominate, champions the reduction of

government and an increased reliance on privatization, markets, and consumer

choice (Friedman, 1962, Chubb and Moe, 1990). Gewirtz (2002) describes this

change: "in the post-welfarist era the formal commitments to Keynesian

economics and distributive justice were dropped and replaced by formal

comm itments to market 'democracy' and competitive individualism" (p. 2).

Within this political and economic context, ideas expressed by market

reformers, notably Milton Friedman (1962) in

Capitalism and Freedom,

and

Chubb and Moe (1990) in

Politics, Markets and America s Schools,

became

influential with educational policymakers as a means to improve public schools,

most notably through charter schools and voucher systems. Friedman argued that

the role of government should be severely limited and that "the role of

government just considered is to do something that the market cannot do for

itself,

nam ely, to determin e, arbitrate and enforce the rules of the gam e" (p. 27). In his

view, limiting the role of government by means of privatizing former government

entities opens up a mark etplace of options for people. In this environm ent,

individual freedom of choice would be max imized. In addition, competition,

induced by the newly created marketplace, would compel schools to be run more

e f f ic i e n tl y a n d e f f e c t iv e l y ( p . 3 2 ) . F r i e d m a n c h a m p i o n e d g o v e r n m e n t r e m o v i n g

itself from running schools and instead promoted "private enterprises operated by

for-profit, or by non-profit institutio ns" delivering educational services (p. 89).

10


23/241

To this end, government would require "certain minimal standards," involving

content and attendance requirements, but otherwise a variety of self-governing

independent schools would exist.

Chubb and Moe (1990) use Friedma n's ideas and apply them directly to

schooling in a postA Nation at Riskpolicy environment. They argue that public

schools are ineffective bureaucracies and must be replaced with privately

managed institutions, which would then compete with each other for students.

Chubb and Moe advocate removing the governance of public education from the

public to the private sphere. They explain:

Ma rkets offer an institutional alternative to direct dem ocratic

control. They are not built around the exercise of public authority,

but rather around school competition and parent-student choice

which.. .tend through their natural operation to discourage

bureaucratic forms of organization and to promote the

development of autonomy, professionalism, and other traits

associated with effective schooling (p. 167).

Chubb and Moe call for removing the creation and running of schools from the

public "de mo cratic" sphere to the private. They p osit this would create an

improved model that would be mo re responsive to the demands of the consum er.

At the same time as policymakers and practitioners were pushing for

decentralization, deregulation, and increased privatization, systemic reform was

also becoming an increasingly popular approach to improving educational

o u t c o m e s . S y s t e m i c re f o r m p u s h e d f o r a n e n d t o i n c r e m e n t a l c h a n g e s t o t h e

school system and called for fundamental-system wide-reform from the bottom

up . Th ese changes would, in turn, impact govern ance structures, teaching and

11


24/241

learning and school-community relations. Implementation of systemic reform

rested on the standards mov ement and enabled site-based decision-m aking. As

the standards movement took hold, states moved to set up state standards and

assessm ents. W hile these standards and assessments would become integral to

the implementation of the

No Child Left Behind Act of

2001,and specifically to

holding schools accountable to making annual yearly progress, they also

succeeded in changing how schools were evaluated. As inputs-regulation by

districts and states-carried less weight than outcomes-usually measured by test

scores-new players were able to enter the education reform arena (Wells, 2002).

Systemic reform, market ideology, the growth of the small schools

movement, and the neoliberal desire to privatize government services created an

extremely amenable environment for the growth of private or cross-sector school

originators such as EM Os, CMO s and intermediary organizations. Arising in this

policy environment were for-profit EMOs, like Edison Schools and Mosaica, and

non-profit organizations, such as Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP).

In parallel, the small schools movement moved from functioning on the

fringe to gaining widespread support as a way to address policymakers and the

public's growing dissatisfaction with failing comprehensive high schools (Powell,

Farrar & Cohen 1985; Sizer, 1984). As large sums of foundational and federal

m o n i e s w e r e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d c r e a t i n g n e w s m a l l s c h o o l s , p r i v a t e s e c t o r p l a y e r s

reflecting the current neoliberal and neoconservative policy environment-were

invited to be part of the reform. Requiring a proving ground to demonstrate their

12


25/241

ability to prod uce m ore efficient and effective schools, private sector

organizations, such as intermediary organizations, seized on this means of

entering the public education sector.

Simultaneously, the current iteration of the small schools movement also

attracted progressive educators who desired to create new types of schooling

options within the public school system to address the needs of students not being

met by traditional public schoo ls. Social justice themed scho ols, Afro-centric

schools, schools fostering women's leadership potential and schools focused on

the needs of English language learners were a few examples that emerged from

this political and economic climate.

Having examined the national policy context that gave rise to this new

approach to school reform, the next section focuses on how this context has

played out on a local level in New York City, as the city has moved to privatize

and marketize aspects of public schooling, with an increased emphasis on high

stakes testing and accountability.

Political and Economic Context: A Local Perspective

Michael Bloom berg, the CEO and founder of Bloomberg, LP, campaigned

on, among other policy positions, gaining mayoral control of the New York City

school system. After he took office as Mayor in January 200 2, the New York

State legislature granted Bloom berg that control. Shortly after the school system

became a mayoral agency, Bloomberg hired Joel Klein, the former Ch airman and

13


26/241

CEO of Bertelsmann, Inc. to be Chancellor of the New Y ork C ity Public Scho ols.

In the winter of

2002,

Chancellor Klein began a series of reform s. First, he

launched the Children First Reform Initiative, which called for the comprehensive

reform of the New Y ork City Departm ent of Educa tion. Th is first restructuring

eliminated the city wide Board of Education and com mu nity schoo l boards and the

32 independent comm unity school districts were organized into 10 regions. These

regions became the focus of the new governance structure, with regional

superintendents reporting directly to the Chancellor (Fruchter, 2006). Five years

later, in the spring of

2007,

Chancellor Klein announced a second restructuring

which further decentralized that school system and continued efforts to build an

educational marketplace with the participation of private sector partners.

Building an Educational Marketplace

Two main ideas drove the 2007 restructuring: school-based decision

making and mark et compe tition. With this current reform, the May or and

Chancellor aim to em power principals by giving them m ore decision-making

power over their individual schools, including influence over curriculum

selection, human resources and the budget. At a Manhattan Town H all Meeting,

Chancellor Klein commented, "decisions are best for kids when they're

h a p p e n i n g c l o s e t o k i d s a t t h e s c h o o l l e v e l . S t a r t i n g in 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 , r a t h e r t h a n

being told what to do by distant bureaucrats, principals and school communities

will have decision-making pow er and they 'll be responsible for results" (Town

14


27/241

Hall Meeting, February 6, 2007). In the previous system, the region selected

curricular and intervention materials and ran programs such as summer school;

this new system gives principals the authority to make these decisions, and to

choose a "support organ ization" that best serves the needs of their schoo l. To this

end, the governance structure of 10 regions has been replaced by th ree distinct

sets of school support organizations. Tw o of these, the emp owe rmen t support

organization [ESO] and learning support organizations [LSO], remain internal to

the Department of Education, and had already existed to some extent within it.

However, the third, partnership support organizations [PSOs], represents a new

model for New York City and hails from the private sector (NYC DOE, 2007).

Differences exist surrounding the level of support offered by and the cost of the

three school support organizations.

Partnering with the Private Sector to Run "Not a Great School System,

but a System of Great Schools"

With these governance changes the NYC D OE aimed to create a

"Portfolio of New School Options" from which students and their families can

choose. As Chancellor Klein stated, the NYC DOE seeks to create "not a great

school system, but a system of great schools" (NYC DO E, 2008). Thus, the

importance ofthesmall schools movement comes into play; increasing the

n u m b e r o f s c h o o l s p a r t n e r e d w i t h i n t e r m e d i a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d c h a r t e r s c h o o l s

is an essential component of creating a diverse, choice-enabling educational

marketplace. Since2003,over 260 new small schools and over 60 charter schools

15


28/241

have been created with an additional 19 charter schools slated to open for the

2008-2009 school year (NYC DOE New s, 2008). The creation of over 300

schools in partnership with private sector organizations exemplifies the

Department of E ducation 's comm itment to private sector involvement and market

ideology.

New Accountability M echanisms

6

As a result of the 2007 reorganization, principals now have increased

authority over school-level decision mak ing and budget processes. To hold

principals accountable, the Department of Education has produced new methods

to monitor and measure school effectiveness: progress reports and quality

review s. W ith progress repor ts, each school receives a letter grade (A-F).

Standardized test scores, attendance reports and the results of surveys determine a

sch oo l's grade. In contrast to the outcom e oriented progress reports, quality

reviews provide a more descriptive overview of the school (NYC D OE, 2007 b).

For new small schools, which do not have graduations rates or local reputations to

attract new students, these new accountability measures carry significant weight

and, as the cases will illustrate, impact not only school-level personnel but also

the intermediaries with which they are partnered.

Concepts and information from this section were originally written for Scott and DiMartino

(2009a).

16


29/241

This combination of a political and economic environment which

championed privatization, mayoral control, high stakes accountability systems,

the proliferation of small schoo ls, and large scale investments by foundations with

a focus on failing high schools across New York City created a fertile

environment for the emergence of public-private partnerships targeted to improve

public education. Hav ing introduced this study and placed it within a larger

political, historical and econom ic context, the next section takes a closer look at

intermediary organizations themselves.

The Em ergence of Intermediary Organizations

Similar in concept to the school design teams

7

of the New American

Schools (NA S), the school reform models of the Comprehensive School Reform

Design (CSRD ), and the external partners of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge,

intermediary organizations' outsider status is meant to give them the ability to

"cross organizational boundaries in order to inspire vision, to focus change, to

lend support to change efforts, and to apply pressure to change" (McDonald,

McL aughlin, & Corcoran, 2000, p. 6). Terms such as school design teams,

external partner, reform support organization and school development

organization are often used to describe the intermediary con struct. The se

organizations may provide funding, technical assistance, professional

The design teams of the NAS were a precursor to the comprehensive school reform models of

the CSRD program. A s a result, many ofNASdesign teams became m odels in the CSRD

program, including Accelerated Schools and Success for All.

17


30/241

development for teachers and administrators, curricular materials and programs,

and advocacy on behalf of schoo ls. All of these functions are expected to build

the capacity of schools to nurture and sustain whole-school reform.

In their study of the external partners used in the Chicago Annenberg

Challenge, McD onald, McLaughlin and Corcoran (2000) found that:

'Regular' organizations such as schools, districts, states, and

universities, in this case, cannot reliably change themselves.

Being caught up in the dynamics of the status quo, they cannot

easily act as catalysts for redefining it, or for refocusing

policies and reform agendas that include their own (p. 6).

To this end, an outside entity, such as an intermediary organization, brings its own

unde rstandings and expertise to the organization in need of reform and can act as

an outside lever for change. For exam ple, proponents hope that an Expeditionary

Learning Outward Bound school will look different from its neighboring public

schools not only because of its small size, but also because of an infusion of ideas

from the intermediary. In this way, the presence of intermediary organizations

opens up the education system and brings new "human and intellectual resources"

into the world of educational reform (Smylie and Corcoran, 2006, p. 14). Unlike

some reforms which focus on teaching and learning practices or school

leadership, the use of intermediary organizations aims to change the governance

structure of schoo ls, which in turn affects teaching and learning, and leadership.

Foundations such as the Annenberg Foundation, the Bill and Melinda

Gates Foundation, and the Ford Foundation have championed intermediary

organizations as vehicles for school reform. The ir support reflects concern s about

18


31/241

policy implem entation, as many "interventions are never implemented as

proposed so as to have the desired effects" (Bodilly, 1996, p. 10). This challenge

of implementation cultivates a general distrust of public education's ability to

reform itself. In the Journal of the Annenberg Challenge (2002), Rothman

explains:

Private funders were reluctant to contribute to the New York City

Schools [for example] because they were concerned that the funds

might not be used the way they w ere intended. But by enabling the

funders to contribute to a private organization, which provided a

means of tracking funds and evaluating their effectiveness, the

Center [an intermediary organization] provided a 'comfort level'

for donors (p. 5).

Foundations' unease with giving directly to schools or districts belies not only

their past difficulties implementing reforms (Bodilly, 1996), but also current

neoliberal and neoconservative ideology which believes that the private sector is

more efficient and effective than public organizations (Chubb and Moe, 1990).

Given the political, economic and historical background, the purpose of

this study is to exam ine public-private partnerships in practice. Through tw o case

studies of schools and their intermediary partners, the findings from this study

will reveal the complexities of this approach to school reform.

An Introduction to the F indings

Findings from this study will ultimately show that the actual

implementation of these partnerships proved to be much more complex than

theorized and had much more mixed outcomes than expected. While

19


32/241

relationships existed between intermediaries and school-based stakeholders,

calling these associations "partnerships

8

" may be misleading. Rather than equal

partners in the relationship, the intermediary organizations, who tended to possess

more mon ey, more pow er and greater access to high status networks, assumed

managerial roles in the relationship. Th is assertion of authority created tension at

the school level as some principals, teachers and parents struggled to understand

the parameters of the school-intermediary relationship, and were frustrated by

how the addition of the "partner" restricted their ability to control the environment

in which they worked or sent their children to school.

This study will also uncover the importance of contextual factors, such as

policies that encourages partnerships to form quickly, the experience or lack

thereof of principals and intermediaries, pressures to perform on accountability

measures, and race and poverty. In addition, findings will reveal the sometim es

competing private and public goals that surface as a result of public-private

partnerships, and the nuanced and often complicated parameters of power and

control which stakeholders within these hybrid relationships must negotiate. Th e

following section provides an overview of the dissertation.

Though the term partnership is problematic, it is the term that policymakers and practitioners use

to describe the intermediary-school construct. It will be the term that this dissertation uses often to

refer to this approach to school reform.

20


33/241

Disserta t ion Overview

This dissertation unfolds over seven chapters. Ch apter 1 introdu ced the

study, its purpose and rationale, its overarching research questions and its

unde rlying political, econom ic and historical context. Ch apter 2 lays out the

conceptual framework which weaves together the theories of political scientists,

legal scholars and educational theorists to capture the complexities of inter-

organizat ional par tnerships , ra ising quest ions about a l ignm ent of educat ional

values and goals for schooling, as well as the allocation of decision-making

power. To further operat ional ize th is theoriz ing on power, C hapter 2 in troduces a

spectrum of control which situates intermediary organizations within the larger

field of private sector partners and m ana ger s. Cha pter 3 draw s on the existing

l i tera ture on small schools , New Am erican Sch ools , in termediary organizat ions,

reform support organizat ions, charter schools , EMOs and CMOs, to support and

challenge findings as well as reveal gaps in the research that this study fills.

Chapter 4 describes the data collection and analysis strategies used in this

dissertation. It defines each case as well as provid es back grou nd information

about the intermediaries and the schools with which they were partnered.

Chapters 5 and 6 are case studies of public-private partnerships.

Chapter 5 in troduces the case of Excels ior Academ y: A Universi ty E dge

School (Excels ior)

9

which w as co-founded in 2005 by the Dep artment of

Education and Universi ty Edge, an in termediary organizat ion. This case

9

Both Metropolitan United

9

and University Edge are pseudonyms.

21


34/241

chronicles the challenges and successes of a public-private partnership. Findin gs

from the case reveal points of deep m ission and goal alignment as well as areas of

profound d iscord amongst key stakeholders. Add itionally, it highlights the

importance of stakeholder buy-in, leadership capacity, and ownership and

proprietary rights.

Chapter 6 chronicles the Metropolitan United Entrepreneurship and

Citizenship Acad em y's (EC A) experiences with a public-private partnership. The

school began as a quickly formed partnership agreement between the principal of

ECA and Metropolitan U nited, and the case follows the partnership's rancorous

dissolution. This break-up story surfaces the importance of mission alignment,

leadership capacity and control in inter-sector partnerships.

The dissertation ends with Chapter 7, which provides both a cross-case

analysis comparing and contrasting the findings from Excelsior Academy and

EC A, and a conclu sion. It begins with an overview of the study and then presents

the major findings. A discussion updating the spectrum of control follows which,

considering the fluid nature of intermediary organizations, situates them on the

spectrum as well as raises questions about their futures. Implications of this study

for research, policy and practice will be discussed in Chapter 7.

Conclusion

This study concludes that the use of intermediary organizations to reform

public education requires a healthy public debate in which the overall

22


35/241

effectiveness of this approach to school reform must be weighed. If, as many

indicators suggest, using public-private partnership to improve public education

remains a key approach to strengthening public schools, then policymakers and

practitioners must: 1) improve transparency to clearly outline the identities, roles

and responsibility of each actor in the relationship; 2) increase regulations to

ensure that schools do not use admissions processes to discriminate against

students and that schools accurately portray themselves in marketing materials to

be shared with students and parents; and 3) slow the pace of the reform to avoid

scaling up so quickly that a critical mass of experienced teachers, leaders and

intermed iaries cannot keep pace. Add itionally, policymak ers and practitioners

must be mindful of students and families attending these hybrid schools and

appreciate that they are participants in this educational exp eriment. Wh ile some

degree of upheaval is to be expected when implementing a new reform, the three

or four years it takes for som e schools to become fully functioning represents

most students' entire high school experience.

23


36/241

CHAPTER II

FRAMING HYBRID SCHOOLS: CONCEPTUALIZING THE

INTERSECTIONOF EDUCATIONAL VALUES AND POWER

Introduction

The emergence of intermediary organizations as a driving force in

reforming secondary school education requires a very specific climate; truly, the

stars must align. In New Y ork City, the "stars" include the mayor, business

leaders, parents, teachers, school administrators, community groups, social-

agency staff and foundation officers, all of whom must be motivated to align

around a specific policy issue. Stone, Henig, Jones and Pierannunzi (2001 ) refer

to this phen om enon as "civic cap acity" (p. 4). For this study, the specific polic y

issue is the use of public-private partnerships to reform public education.

According to Stone et al, the activation of

civic

capacity calls for reforms that

change existing relationships to ensure the institutionalization of new reforms.

This means that the new institutional relationship created by public-private

partnersh ips mu st not only look, but act, differently, as a newly constructed type

of governing relationship between the stakeholders (p. 8). Building new

r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e q u i r e s s e c t o r b o u n d a r i e s t o b e c r o s s e d , v a l u e s to b e e x c h a n g e d ,

and, ultimately, pow er to be negotiated among partners.

24


37/241

To examine the politics of public-private partnerships, the conceptual

framework for this dissertation weaves together theories and research on public-

private partnerships from political scientists, legal scholars, and educational

historian s. Th ese scholars highlight the pivotal role that educational values and

goals for schooling play in individual org anizations. Further, they discuss how

the act of partnering necessitates the negotiation of these values and goals;

ultimately, it is the more powerful actor whose agenda of educational values and

goals is most likely to get implemented. Thus, understanding the parameters of

power becom es essential for com prehending decision-making within private-

public partnersh ips. To illuminate levels of control within inter-sector

partnerships, this chapter presents a spectrum, which posits three distinct types of

private-public relationships along a continuum.

The Politics of Hybrid S chools: Crossing Sector Boundaries,

Exchanging Values and Negotiating P ower

Paying close attention to an organization's values and goals for schooling

can reveal organizational missions that are not necessarily explicitly articulated.

Frederick W irt and Michael K irst's (2001) analysis of the complex set of values

involved in educational policymaking highlights the intricacies of public-private

partnerships. Investigating these intricacies, Martha Minow (2002) raises

important questions about the value differences inherent in organizations hailing

from the public and private sectors. David L abaree (1997) pushes the idea of

values even further by suggesting three distinct goals of schooling: democratic

25


38/241

equality, social efficiency, and social mobility; goals which affirm Minow's

discussion of democratic values, but also highlight the role of consumer choice.

Joel H andler (1996) both acknowledges the com plexities surrounding the politics

of schooling and raises questions about who is empowered by these new

governance structures. Specifically, Handler encourages studying decision

making processes at the school level to see which stakeholders' values for

schooling dominate within these cross-sectoral partnerships.

Wirt and Kirst (2001) highlight the critical role that individual and group

values play in the politics of public educ ation. They argu e that it is these values,

particularly the values of quality, efficiency, equity and choice, (p . 66) that drive

individual and group decisions about education. Stakehold ers, including pare nts,

school administrators, teachers, intermediary organization staff, foundation

officers, public office holders, community groups and business leaders, have

formed their own sets of values regarding education based on the cultural and

historical context in which they operate. W irt and Kirst explain: "educ ation

policy touches on a mosaic of American values -religious, ethnic, professional,

social, economic- that often clash in politics" (p. 75). Conflicts often emerge

among these various constituencies over two fundamental questions: "What

should be taught in school? Who should do it?" (p. 12).

As W i r t and Ki r s t fu r t he r a s s e r t , " t ens i on a r i s es am ong t hem becaus e

different policy actors back different values" (p. 67). These stresses become

highlighted because educational resources are limited, allowing for the

26


39/241

advancement of only certain group s' policies and underlying values. The

championing of certain policies reveals w ho holds the policy-making power in the

United S tates; "wh ose values currently dominate the political system " (p. 58). In

terms of this study, examining who cham pions which values and,

correspondingly, whose values are implemented at the school level, will reveal

how power is negotiated within public-private partnerships.

When school governance involves multiple stakeholders, value conflicts

tend to emerge and negotiations must occur in order for these hybrid schools to

function. Stone et al (2001) highlight the importance of value alignment am ong

multiple stakeholders:

School reform, in important respects, can be seen as a window into

a larger and enduring set of questions relating to collective

problem so lving. In particular, this case sheds some light on the

special dynamics that characterize what we have labeled "high

reverberation" subsystems: policy subsystems characterized by

frequent reshuffling of mobilized stakeholders, multiple and deeply

held competing value and belief systems, and ambiguous

boundaries, making the prospects for establishing a new

equilibrium more problematic than is usually the case (p. 152).

The concept of "deeply held competing value and belief systems and am biguous

boundaries" resonates with this study, as the focus lies on the institutional

relationships that emerge as a result of public and private entities negotiating the

creation of new pub lic schools. At the macro level, education policy is

com pl i ca t ed , ye t t he i n t roduc t i on o f t he p r i va t e s ec t o r , whos e va l ues and m i s s i ons

sometimes clash with those of the public sector, adds an additional layer of

mission-setting complexity at the micro and macro levels of school reform.

27


40/241

Minow (2002) deconstructs why conflict emerges when public and private

entities collaborate. Referencing the Con stitution and a series of other legal

precedents, Minow (2002) explains that public sector entities have:

commitments to equality, freedom, fairness, and democracy.

Translated in our legal system as antidiscrimination, freedoms of

association and religious exercise, due process, and voting, these

public comm itments traditionally helped to undergird the public-

private distinctions

itself,

ensuring private freedoms by restricting

public incursions (p. 31).

Minow posits that while private sector organizations may support similar

values, they are not held accountable for them to the extent that pub lic sector

organizations a re. By choosing to merg e with a public sector organization,

therefore, the mission of the private sector organization is at risk of being

comp romised. Minow sug gests "conflicting mission and loss of accountability

surface immediately as central problems when public and private, profit and non

profit, and secular and religious sectors conve rge" (p. 28). This vision of the

differences in public and private sectors implies that when sector bounda ries blur,

stakeholders must examine how and when their values and missions do or do n ot

align, and work to negotiate a new vision for partnership.

Expanding on this discussion of organizational values and missions,

Labaree (1997) argues that throughout history the goals of schooling have been

debated and contested. Are students being prepared to be citizens, (democratic

equality), contributors to the larger economic marketplace (social efficiency), or

to gain the best jobs (social m obility) (Labaree, 1997, pp. 43-46)? Labaree

elaborates on these terms when he explains, "from the perspective of democratic

28


41/241

equality, schools should make republicans; from the perspective of social

efficiency, they should make workers; but from the perspective of social mobility,

they should make w inners" (p. 66).

W hile these goals often overlap for peo ple, one may trump the rest. For

example, some scholars, progressive educators and citizens view public schools as

a me ans of reprodu cing demo cratic society. In contrast, other stakehold ers, such

as members of the Business Roundtable and Bill Gates, often emphasize goals of

social efficiency when they express concern that high schools do not prepare

workers for the knowledge-based economy. Finally, there are people who,

adhering to the Horatio Alger myth of individualism and hard work, prize the

personal prestige, status and financial attainment associated with credentials from

an elite education; social mobility trumps all else.

This discussion of values and goals prov ide a useful lens through w hich to

explore the relationships that evolve when public and private organizations

partner to co-found a new sm all school. How ever, knowledge of diverse and

sometimes conflicting values is not, by

itself,

a sufficient framework for studying

these complicated partnerships. Thus, integrating Handler's work, as this study

will do in the next section, pushes the study above and beyond values, to unravel

the com plexities of empowerment embedded within the lived experiences o f

p e o p l e w o r k i n g i n a n d a t t e n d i n g t h e s e p a r t n e r s h i p - l e d s c h o o l s .

29


42/241

The Po litics of Power and C ontrol

Many current policymakers argue that privatization shifts authority away

from the centralized governm ent to an array of stakeholders. This raises

questions about the distribution of power among stakeholders, especially the

question of who is gaining or losing influence in these new institutional

relationsh ips. For example, new small schools partner with intermediary

organizations to "break the 'governm ent m onopoly' over public education and

instead infuse public schools with market forces of choice and competition"

(Scott, 200 2b) . Th e hybrid gov ernance structures created by partnerships,

proponents argue, empower site level personnel and comm unity mem bers, while

also creating more acco untable, effective and equitable schools. Reco gnizing that

privatization involves "reallocation of power and resources between various

interest groups and stakeholders," (p. 5) Handler (1996) raises questions about

who is actually empowered by these new governance structures. Handler asks:

"What are the consequences of these moves for citizen empowerment? Will

ordinary citizens -c lien ts, patients, teachers, students, parents, tenants, and

neig hb ors- have m ore or fewer opportunities to exercise control over decisions

that affect their live s?" (p. 5). Em powerm ent, "the ability to control one's

environment" (p. 115), is meant to give school level stakeholders greater

decis ion-m aking p ow er over issues that d irect ly impact their dai ly l ived

experiences in schools.

30


43/241

The introduction of the private sector brings new players into the p olitics

of deci sion- m akin g at the school level, players with significant clout. Given the

potential for an imbalance in power, Handler (1996) expresses concern about who

governs these private sector organizations and their relationships with the

comm unities that the hybrid schools serve. Located in low-income com munities

of color, these new hybrid schoo ls serve diverse students bodies . In contrast, non

profit and for-profit organization bo ards of directors tend to be dominated b y

"predo min ately wh ite, male, Protestants, in their fifties and sixties, wealthy , in

business or law " (p. 100), who ha ve been selected precisely because this

constituency tends to bring political and economic capital to an organization.

Noting the lack of w omen and minorities on boards leads Handler to question the

"democratic ch aracter" of the organizations (p .

100).

As powerful outsiders enter school reform, Handler (1996) stresses the

importance of all stakeholders having a voice in school decision making, but

expresses con cern that those with a ccess to greater financial and political

resources m ay be mo re empowered than the people living in the commun ities

served by or wo rking in the school. In this situation, rather than empow ering all

stakeholders, Handler argues that reforms that focus on privatization simply

replace "one hierarchical regime for ano ther" (p. 220). To this end, studying

these hybrid partnerships requires not only looking c losely a t who p art ic ipates in

decision-making processes, but also at wh o sets the agenda and has the greatest

access to financial and political resources.

31


44/241

To understand who h olds power over decision-making it is essential to

capture how po wer-manifested through co ntrol-is shared among different types

of partnerships, and to question whether the organizational relationships formed

between intermediaries and small schools are, in fact, partnerships, or instead

another mo re complex form of managem ent and associations. The following

section operationalizes power b y placing various types of private sector partners

on a spectrum of control.

The Spectrum of Control

By taking organizational goals and local context into consideration, this

spectrum captures three types of private sector relationships and places them on a

spectrum of control - from affiliation, which represen ts the least control, to

comprehensive management, which represents the most. This spectrum is

important; where a private sector partner lands on the continuum reflects the

amount of control that it will be able to leverage within a school, and in turn, how

likely its educational values and goals for schooling are to take precedence, even

if they clash with those of school level stakeholders.

The spectrum contains three categories that private sector organizations

working with public schools can fall into and between : affiliation, thin

man agem ent and comprehen sive man agem ent. By com bining organizational

characteristics (such as whether or not an organization has a set design model)

with contextual characteristics (such as whether or not teachers are unionized)

32


45/241

these categories represent varying levels of influence that an organization might

be expected to hold over a school.

Affiliation organizations hold the least amount of control, and often are

not actively seeking greater power; they are partners in the basic sense of the

word. Affiliations manifest their partnersh ips in ongoing ways such as school

mentoring, or in specific functions such as fundraising, but seldom bring a strong

philosophical edu cational agenda to the relationship. In contrast, thin manag ers

possess a greater degree o f control, and often carry a clear design model that they

would like to see implemented by the partner school. However, thin managers

face the challeng e of having to use soft "influenc ing" skills as best they can to

advocate for their ideas to be adopted, given that they do not hold ultimate

authority over key questions such as personn el and budget. Exam ples of thin

managers include m any intermediary organizations as well as the design teams of

New A merican Schools. Finally, comprehensive managers directly and

effectively manage the schools they are partnered with, and therefore have the

most influence over all aspects of decision-making. Of the three levels of control,

organizations that fall along the comprehensive management part of the spectrum

have the greatest latitude in imp lementing their vision for school reform. Of

course, depending on organizational goals and local context, a given private

s ec t o r o rgan i za t i on can a l s o m ove up and down t he s pec t rum , f a l l i ng i n t o and i n

between the variou s categories. Refer to figure 2 to see the full spectrum of

control.

33


46/241

Manager

T

R

O

Partner

Af f i l i a t ion

" Ai i f . t s ' '

' j .,'1' ' iiw,n m ode l

D i s t r i c t c o n t r o l s b u d g e t i n g

n personnel decisions

No contracts

Teachersare unionized

Partnerswith local networks

of schools

May be for or non-fo r-profit

E*:

Partners, Intermediaries

T l ' in tf i r a g m c nt .

^ "Inft i icpces'

1

tf

i* J i *

and perso nne l dec is ions

f o r m a t o r i n f o r m a l c o n t r a c t

>.vith

schoo l o r d is t r i c t

TeacnersusuaOy unionized

Affiliates with national and

local networks of schools

May be for or non-for-profit

Ex: New Am ericanSchools

DesignTeams. EMOs. CMOs.

Intermediaries

Compre he nsiv e

_ ^ . M a n i g v m c n t .

m

- C o n t r o l ^

-* i .*

k

i i i ' *

. . . - i * . i i . .

' . - ' n ; * : , * n f l ^ i

-1 l | V I I

1

1 1

i

u n i o n i z e d

Manages na t iona l ne tw orks

schoo ls

May be fo r o r n on- fo r -p ro f i t

Ex : EMOs. CMOs

Figure 2. Spectrum of Control

10

To construct the spectrum of control, findings from this study were

integrated with theoretical and research based articles produced by educational

researchers (Gold, Chris tman & Herold , 2007; Scott and DiMart ino, 2008b) and

think tanks (Colby, Smith and Shelton, 2005). Findings from this study revealed

that the work of intermediaries varies over time and circumstance, a situation

wh ich is exacerbated by their f ini te funding s tream s. This means an in term ediary

m ay start out as an affiliate of a school, but over tim e transfer into the role of thin

management as poli t ica l or economic c ircumstances change. Thus, the f lu id

natu re of interm ediaries le nds itself to the use of a spectrum . In fact, the findings

Ideas from Colby, Smith and Shelton's (2005) spectrum of loose to tight management

responsibility, support and control influenced the creation of this spectrum of control.

34


47/241

from this cases analyzed in this document showed intermediary organizations,

over tim e, acting less and less like affiliates and mo re and more like

comprehensive m anagers, putting into question the "partnership" aspect of this

approach to school reform.

The works of Scott and DiMartino (2009b) and Colby, Smith and Shelton

(2005) map out the institutional landscape of private sector management in public

education . Scott and DiM artino 's (2009b) research focuses on capturing the

breadth of private sector managers and on defining new players in the field of

education management, such as CMOs and intermediary organizations. Colby,

Sm ith and Sh elton (2005), for their part, focus on differentiating man agerial

responsibility, support and control among private sector organizations working

with pub lic schools. By creating their own spectrum of loose to tight

management responsibility, support and control, Colby, Smith and Shelton show

how "organizational capabilities and culture, and the scale and complexity of their

operations" impact whether school-organizational relationships look like

"voluntary associations" or "true ownership" (p. 5). The autho rs' use of

a

loose to

tight spectrum offers a helpful means to concep tualize the school-partner

relationship, but suffers from not being rooted in local political and economic

contexts; absent from their work, for example, is a conversation about the role of

d i s tr i c t c o n t r a c t s o r m e m o r a n d u m o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g s ( M O U s ) , a n d t h e i m p a c t o f

teachers' u nions. To this end, Gold, Christman and Hero ld's (2007) research in

35


48/241

Philadelphia on the implementation of a diverse provider model becomes

particularly useful.

Gold, Christman and Herold (2007) introduce the term "thin m anagem ent"

to describe the implem entation of the diverse provider model

11

in Philadelphia.

Under "thin m anagem ent," private sector providers, such as Edison Schools and

Tem ple University, were given limited authority over the schools that they

managed and were working to improve. Gold, Christman and Herold explain:

"under thin managem ent, schools were not turned over lock, stock and barrel to

prov iders. Instead, the district retained responsibility over such key areas as

staffing, school grade configurations, facilities management, school safety, food

services, the overall school calendar, and the code of conduct for teachers and

students" (p. 198). In Philadelphia, thin management resulted in providers having

limited control over their schools, which challenged their ability to implement

their educational goals for schooling.

The spectrum of control is crucial to this study; where an intermediary

organization falls along the spectrum indicates how m uch power they possess,

and, in turn, how much their educational values and goals for schooling will

dom inate school decision-m aking processes. It also reveals that intermediary

organizations with definite views on improving public education have an

i n c e n t i v e t o m o v e f r om b e i n g p a r t n e r s t o m a n a g e r s o n th e s p e c t r u m . R e c a l l t h a t

A diverse provider model of school governance refers to the outsourcing of school management

to private sector groups, including for-profit companies, non-for-profit organizations and

universities to improve historically low-performing public schools (Gold, Christman & Herold,

2007;Hill, Pierce & Guthrie, 1997).

36


49/241

the theory behind using intermediary organizations as change agents calls for

them to be able to scale up and replicate their work, following a specific model or

core principles; the intermediary needs willing school partners to act as its

laboratory for testing and validating these reform s. Lack of control can stym ie

those reforms. Further, the spectrum reveals that even if an organ ization 's

characteristics remain static, local factors, such as whether or not schools are

unionized, have the potential to expand or limit its power, thus making large-scale

implementation ofaset school design mo re challenging. This scalability question

is another central challenge in a public-private partnership, which will be further

explored later in the study.

Conclusion

The role of personal and group values in the politics of education, the

challenges implicit in cross-sectoral collaboration, the multiple goals of

schooling, and the importance of studying school-decision making processes all

help to uncover the distribution of power among stakeholders within public-

private partnerships. The integration of these diverse yet overlapping

perspectives provides a lens through w hich to exam ine the educational values and

goals for schooling that motivate stakeholders to enter partnerships, the

organizational and local characteristics that foster varying degrees of control, and,

ultimately, the negotiation of power among key stakeholders in the partnership.

37


50/241

CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

Multiple strands of literature were surveyed to find out what is known and

what remains to be explored about the relationship between public schools and

private sector actors, since no comprehensive literature exists that delineates the

intermediary- school association. Rather than examining organizations that migh t

provide one or two services to schools, this review focuses on those entities that

provide a comprehensive array of services, for example a school design model

that includes both curriculum and teacher professional developm ent. This review

of literature relies on findings from studies on New American Schools, the

Com prehensive School Reform Demonstration program (CSRD), charters

schools, EM Os, CMO s and reform support organizations. Findings from the

literature are organized around three broad themes: 1) the motivations and

contextual factors that affect cross-sectoral collabora tion; 2) the distribution of

power and its impact on governance within joint ventures; and 3) the ways in

w h i c h s u c c e s s i s m e a s u r e d , s u s t a i n e d a n d r e p l i c a t e d w i t h i n i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

38


51/241

relationsh ips. Find ings from this review of literature clarify some aspects of the

intermediary-school community relationship, but also highlight gaps in the

research that this and future studies w ill address.

Motivations and Contextual Factors that Impact Cross-Sectoral Partnerships

This section examines the diverse motivations for cross-organizational

collaboration, from clearly designed state and local policies to more nuanced

financial, political and organizational incentives. It continues with a review of

different contextual factors that potentially impact the partner-school relatio nship,

such as the non-profit o r for-profit status of the partner and the geographic

proximity of the partner to its schools. Finding s from the literature on these

topics illustrate the important role that motivation and context play in building

effective and successful collaborations. Findings also raise important questions

about inequitable access to financial resources and po litical networks, lack of

transparency, and the potential for organizational isomorphism as foundational

funding ends.

Legal, Financial, Political and Organizational Incentives

In the political context of the privatization-led reform movement described

i n C h ap t e r 1 , gov ern m e n t l eg i s l a t ion and founda t i ona l r equ i r em en t s o f t en

explicitly require private sector collaboration. For exam ple, within charter school

reform, som e state charter school laws require the inclusion of some type of

39


52/241

private sector partn ership or alliance in ord er for a charter to be granted

(Wohlstetter, Malloy, Smith & Hentschke, 2004, p. 336; Miron & Nelson, 2002).

Specific to the curren t iteration of the small schools mov emen t, a few cities, such

as New York City, strongly suggest that individuals who want to start a new

school form a partnership with a private sector organization, whether an

intermediary, EM O or CM O. In fact, not choosing a partner could put a founder-

princ ipal's school d esign in peril of not being accepted by the City. It is not

surprising, then, that the majority of New York City's new small schools that

opened in 2008 were founded in collaboration with a partner organization (NYC

DOE School Choice, 2008). Foundations, for their part, have often made funding

contingent on having private sector partne rs. For examp le, cities that want to be

recipients of small school start-up grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates'

Foundation's National School District and Network Grants must incorporate

intermediary or partner organizations into their small schools initiative, as this

program gives funds to intermediary organizations rather than directly to public

school districts (Huebner, 2 005; AIR , 2003). As such, there are clearly strong

incentives from both public and private sources that encourage collaboration

between public schools and private partners. Having reviewed these legal and

structural incentives, the study will now examine financial, political and

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e s t h a t e x e r t a s i m i l a r p u s h t o w a r d s p a r t n e r s h i p .

40


53/241

Financial Incentives

Financial incentives for partnership stem from the need for seed money to

support school growth and development, a problem particularly acute in newly

formed schoo ls. The literature on charter schools reveals that they tend to start

with too few students, among other constraints, to cover operating costs (Scott &

Hom e, 2002; Smith & Wohlstetter, 2006, Slayton, 2002, Miron & Nelson, 2002).

Scott and Holme (2002) address these funding complexities when they describe

charter school reform as "unique in that it leaves partially 'public funded' schools

starved for resources to pay for fundamental things, such as facilities and school

equip me nt" (p. 126). Specifically, "charter schools exist within a framework that

leaves them no choice but to struggle for private resources" (p. 126). Similar to

charter schools, a recent WestED evaluation of Gates' funded new small schools

found that in addition to district support, new schools rely, "heavily on private

money to advance this effort, particularly for planning, professional development,

and any special program-related costs at an individual school, such as extra lab

equipment at a science-themed school" (Huebner, 2005 , p. 4).

Just as relationships w ith the private sector benefit new schools, they also

reward the partnering organizations. For organizations that support a specific

type of curriculum or whole school design, such as Expeditionary Learning-

Outward B ound or the College Board, these partnerships provide a venue to

showcase, experiment with and implement their ideas, as well as an opportunity to

41


54/241

collect revenue from districts or foundations for their products (Smith and

Wo hlstetter, 2006, p. 257 ; Molnar, 2002).

Political Incentives

As new entities functioning within a larger system of more traditional

schoo ls, small scho ols, similar to charter schools, often n eed allies to advocate on

theirbehalf. W ohlstetter et al (2004) explain: "to enhance their legitimacy and

boost political clout, some charter schools were motivated to partner with well-

established and respected non-profits such as the Boys and Girls Club of America

or the Urban Leag ue" (pp. 348-9). Aligning with these organizations lends new

schools credib ility, which in turn can help them to garner greater financial support

from funders and political support from community members. Whether aligning

with respected non-profits, EMOs, businesses, law firms or influential

individuals, these partnerships with powerful and influential individuals or

organizations link schools with networks beyond themselves and their districts.

Scott and Holme (2002) explain, "high-status networks-personal and professional

connections to people with m oney and political pow er-are even more critical to

private-resource accumulation than the particular strategies used to acquire

resources" (p. 103).

J us t a s pa r t ne r s h i p s he l p s choo l s po l i t i ca l l y , t hey a l s o benef i t t he

partnering org anization. Involvem ent in starting a charter or small school enables

non-profits, especially Comm unity-Based Organizations [CBOs], to have a

42


55/241


56/241

with which it partners. For exam ple, in the case of small school creation, schools

started in partne rship with the Coalition of Essential Schoo ls are given a set of

principles to use as guidelines (Raywid & Schmerler, 2003). These relationships

provide a venue for new research and design ideas to be tested in terms of

management and curriculum, and, provide a way for services, especially in the

case of CBOs, to reach a large number of students (Wohlstetter et al, 2004).

Implications for New Small Schools

Increased funding, political clout, and access to curricular and

programmatic resources highlight a few of the positive outcomes of forming

partnersh ips. How ever, the value-added of these inputs may not be universally

distributed. Scott and Ho m e's (2002 ) research has found that there are "vast

disturbing inequities emerging within and across charter school reform-inequities

that mirror the wealth and poverty of the communities that house these schools"

(p .103). The se findings em phasize the role of context, in this case, com mu nities,

in creating equitable school development. W hile their research focuses on

elementary schools, which tend to be more community specific in their school

enrollm ent, their findings remain relevant. Even if intermed iaries receive the

same baseline funding from foundations, the amount of total resources from

wh i ch a s choo l w i l l bene f i t dep end s upo n i t s pa r t ne r . An i n t e r m e d i a ry ' s acc es s t o

financial and in kind resources, as well as political n etwo rks, rests on its

reputation and the influence of its leaders

public-private partnerships and the small schools.pdf

Documents