Phaseout of EMOs accelerates
By Paul Socolar on May 12, 2010 08:36 PM
Shortly after the School Reform Commission approved the turnover of seven low-performing schools to charter operators, District officials told reporters without fanfare that 16 Philadelphia schools operated by outside education management organizations (EMOs) would revert to District management in the fall.
The change will leave just 12 District schools under EMO management. They are operated by five providers - EdisonLearning, Victory Schools, Universal Companies, Foundations Inc., and the University of Pennsylvania - that were among those hired to lead the massive effort to turn around District schools in 2002. At that time, shortly after the "friendly" state takeover of Philadelphia schools, 45 low-performing schools were put under outside management.
The District's budget for education management organizations, which has declined steadily, is slated to be cut sharply in 2010-11, by $3.3 million or 44 percent, to $4.1 million. This covers Philadelphia's 12 remaining EMO schools, which are under multiyear contracts through June 2011.
"The EMO model was flawed from the beginning, which is why we're phasing it out," said Superintendent Arlene Ackerman.
Philadelphia drew national attention for its experiment with privatized and mostly for-profit school managers. However, several research studies showed that the academic gains at EMO schools did not exceed those at comparable District-managed schools, though EMOs received hundred of dollars per student in extra funding.
Universal, which Wednesday learned it will be adding Bluford and Daroff to its portfolio of schools for the fall, will be losing its contract to run Vare Middle School, which it has managed since 2002. Universal will continue to operate E.M Stanton as its only remaining EMO school; Universal once had three. At EMO schools, staff members remain District employees and the teachers are part of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers bargaining unit, but the outside manager hires the principal, sets the curriculum, and receives extra per pupil funding.
The big loser in the continuing phaseout of the EMO model is EdisonLearning, formerly known as Edison Schools Inc. The controversial for-profit school management company was first awarded contracts for 20 schools in 2002 and this year is operating 15. Edison is losing 11 schools -- Alcorn, Barratt, Hartranft, W.D. Kelley, Kenderton, Locke, Ludlow, McMichael, Penn Treaty, Tilden, and Waring.
Foundations will be losing two schools (Kinsey and Pastorius), as will Victory (Pepper and Wright).
Besides E.M. Stanton, the schools still operating under EMO contracts through June 2011 are Anderson, Comegys, Huey, and Shaw (Edison); Fulton and King (Foundations); Bethune, Pratt, and E.W. Rhodes (Victory); and Lea and Alexander Wilson (University of Pennsylvania).
.png "Click Here")
WOW! Wasn't expecting this one. Let the trading begin.
If Universal didn't run Vare Middle School well, why are they getting two new schools?
A reasonable question. The District's answer to that is that Universal runs a good charter school but that the whole EMO model was flawed and did not have the appropriate balance of autonomy and accountability, so that Universal should not be judged harshly for the problems at Vare.
I'd like to know what role SRC Chair Archie played. He was on the Board of Universal until 2009 when he resigned for the SRC position. His law firm still does business for Universal. He abstained from voting I assume he played a role in even having Universal considered since the organization supposedly is focused on South Philadelphia and has a mixed track record. When was the last time Universal was audited to ensure they were complying with all components of their charter?
Speaking of autonomy and accountability, I have a few questions/ concerns about the schools that are now being taken over as charters. To be fair, there are some really successful charters, but I always thought that a huge part of that was the fact that they are filled with students whose parents care enough to choose to send them there or that they (the students) are chosen by the school. Will these neighborhood schools to become charters have the same rights of choosing students or rejecting them and kicking them out if they don't meet a certain criteria? For students who have chronic behavior issues, will they be able to just give them the boot or will they have to go through the same process as a district school to make a disciplinary transfer? Will students with IEPS still fall under the jurisdiction of the district's Office of Specialized Services?
I was also wondering if these charter schools could be organized by the PFT in the future. If anyone could address these questions for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
We'll be doing more reporting on this shortly.
What we can say right now is that the District has been explicit again and again about their policy that these charters will be expected to serve same the student populations currently served by those schools. The District will have an opportunity in developing their contracts/charters for these schools to lay out what they will require of the operators.
The other question we can answer is that as with other charter schools, the charter operator will be fully responsible for addressing the needs of students with IEPs.
I am glad that the Notebook will be reporting on all these questions and issues. I know it will be important to the school communities that the new providers serve the neighborhood and not just certain aspects of it.
How is Johns Hopkins' bid to run an Innovation school under the Renaissance Initiative any different than the old EMO model?
There are some significant differences. 1) the option of longer school day and year 2) the whole staff will be force transferred with the option to rehire up to 50%.
The similarity is that Hopkins will operate the school with SD employees, union teachers and the union contract.
From the perspective of many who have been involved in the struggle over the future of West the compelling case for Hopkins has been their willingness to retain the existing leadership team which has enjoyed substantial staff and community support. The best option would have been to allow West to continue without being subjected to the Renaissance process, but this was rejected by the SD as was the option of allowing the present leadership to operate the school under the Innovation model. So Hopkins is the only option left that would meet this concern.
And as the site selection process winds down and West's future remains a question mark the chance of retaining the best of the current teaching staff becomes more problematic.
Post new comment