Post on 02-Jun-2018
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
3/241
Copyright 2009 Catherine Comstock DiMartino
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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.
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
21/241
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
55/241
8/10/2019 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE SMALL SCHOOLS.pdf
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