Menu
Paid Advertisement
view counter

October 2012 Vol. 20. No. 2 Focus on A Portfolio of Schools

Theme articles

A new blend of public and private

Districts are looking to an array of providers to create high-performing schools. The approach has raised concerns about the future of public education.

By by Connie Langland
Photo: Courtesy of Mother Bethel AME (left), Courtesy of Montclair State University (right)

The Rev. Mark Kelly Tyler (left), Katrina Bulkley (right)

School closings. Private providers running public schools. Downsizing the central office while giving principals the reins to hire, budget, and set curriculum. Rapid expansion of charters.

Not too many years ago these might have been radical ideas. Now, they are commonplace, with two dozen urban districts – including New York City, Washington, New Orleans, and Los Angeles – embracing what is called the portfolio model.

The School District of Philadelphia now touts its expanding mix of traditional and charter schools as well as its Renaissance Schools – neighborhood schools run by charter management companies.

The idea is to create a portfolio of school choices for parents. That array of options will grow even bigger as envisioned by the Philadelphia Great Schools Compact, which is promoting collaboration to improve all the public, charter, private, and Catholic schools in the city. Toward that end, the Philadelphia School Partnership has raised $50 million – half its goal – to fund promising programs.

It was just 10 years ago when the District’s efforts to salvage low-performing schools included a portfolio approach of sorts. Then, it turned over 45 schools to outside education management organizations, or EMOs, and restructured 21 other schools. But after research showed that District-run restructured schools showed better reading and math results, the School Reform Commission re-assumed control over most of the EMO schools.

Still, the District supports using a similar approach today, with the SRC presenting a transformation plan that proposes extensive job cuts – thousands of which have already taken place – closing dozens of schools, expanding charter options, and creating “achievement networks,” many of them run
by private entities, to support clusters of 20-30 schools. The plan is drastic, but necessary, school leaders say.

“What we do know through lots of history and evidence and practice is that the current structure doesn’t work,” said SRC Chair Pedro Ramos.

“It’s not fiscally sustainable and it doesn’t produce high-quality schools for all kids.”

Betheny Gross, a researcher at the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington, Seattle, says using the portfolio model approach is “a big shift” for school systems and especially for those working in central offices. “[We] characterize it as a continu-ous improvement process,” said Gross.

“You will be reworking and remapping, and things will unfold differently in different districts.”

The birth of a model

The term “portfolio management” is borrowed from Wall Street, where the idea is to buy winning stocks and sell losers. The notion of continuous quality improvement is terminology made famous in the manufacturing sector.

Central to the approach is a district’s willingness to close failing schools and then help families find good alternatives.

Katrina Bulkley, professor of education at Montclair State University, said one concern is ensuring that those alternatives are actually accessible to all students. In some cities, charter management groups have been perceived as reluctant to locate in very poor or unstable neighborhoods, she said.

“The issue around equity is an important piece to track,” Bulkley said.

In Philadelphia, most of the two dozen charter schools that came up for renewal in 2012 were found by the District to have created “significant barriers to entry,” despite a state law that bans discrimination in student selection.

Even as it loosens control, district administration still “plays a critical role” in identifying providers, articulating and measuring clear goals, and intervening when schools are not performing, said Jeffrey Henig, a professor at Teachers College, Columbia University in New York.

“The portfolio approach clearly puts the government in the position of being the prime general contractor, and if the prime general contractor doesn’t know what it’s doing, then you have a problem,” Henig said.

A view from both sides

Proponents of the portfolio approach say it puts more focus on increasing “high-performing seats” across a district and less on saving a particular neighborhood school or defending against private-sector intrusions. They cite academic gains in Denver and improved graduation rates in New York City, among other positive indicators so far.

Skeptics say the trend so far has proved costly and unwieldy while stripping community input from the school closings process. They also contend that evidence of success is thin.

Diane Ravitch, a researcher and charter school advocate turned critic, commented on Philadelphia’s portfolio-based plan in her blog: “Nothing in the [Blueprint] plan says what they will do to improve teaching and learning. There is nothing about class size, nothing about support for hard-pressed educators. Just trust these guys who know how to make money in the private sector.”

For the Rev. Mark Kelly Tyler, senior pastor of Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Center City, “the issue is about the process. ... At the end of the day we may all agree we need to close these schools and make these changes. But we won’t know that until we have a community-centered process, and right now … citizens’ voices aren’t being heard.”

Arguably one of the District’s more successful turnaround efforts – and one that allowed for community input – is its Renaissance initiative.

About the Author

Freelancer Connie Langland writes about education issues in Philadelphia.

Comments (6)

Submitted by Marc brasof (not verified) on October 7, 2012 10:41 am

The decentralized approach is questionable due to the lack of actually decentralizing. That is, when Chicago did something similar to this (giving schools more autonomy), it was followed with two other major changes:1) school councils were formed that were in charge of overseeing the principal and leveraging community resources, 2) principals had much more flexibility over staff and resources, and 3) the decentralization transfereed resources to the school, namely, $500,000 additional dollars for the purpose of whatever the school saw fit. Extra teachers and better professional development was utilized with this money for example. However studies confirmed that the most impoverished, mobile populated schools with poor leadership did worse under this model whereas better trained principals that could leverage community resources under a focused mission (narrow test measurements was not a sole aim). Applying this lesson to Philadelphia, we should be very worried about decentralization efforts as a cost-saving rather than capacity building enterprise. Although, smaller and more responsive school districts could be a definite plus. But like the Teachers College professor warned towards the end of the article, trying to quickly scale up successful schooling models is dangerously ambitious. Research over and over again has shown that aggressive scaling up usually struggles because people run institutions and intensive training and scalable structures need to be cultivated.

Submitted by Wendy Harris on November 7, 2012 3:49 pm

Hi Marc:

The Notebook is putting together its December edition and we'd like to reprint your comment to this blog post in a section of the paper called "From our readers". This section is like a letters to the editor page, only it includes letters and comments to blog posts that appear on our site. Could you please let me know if we have permission to reprint the above comment? We would edit the comment for grammar, style, etc. We are in our production crunch to get the edition out so if you could respond to my email at wendyh@thenotebook.org that would be great. Thanks very much. I hope to hear from you soon.

 

Wendy Harris

Managing Editor

Submitted by Wendy Harris on November 9, 2012 10:44 am

Hi Marc:

 

Just wanted to follow up about the Notebook's request to reprint this comment to this article. We'd like to reprint it in the section of our paper called "From our readers" . We are  hoping to send this part of the paper to layout this weekend as we are in our production crunch so if  you could respond as soon as possible that would be great. Also, if you are to give us permission could you please let me know how you would like to be identified in the tagline? Thanks very much. You can email me at wendyh@thenotebook.org

Wendy Harris

Managing Editor

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 9, 2012 11:08 am
Sent you an email with permission and tag line. Thanks Wendy.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 9, 2012 11:48 am
I sent you an email with permission and tag line. Thanks Wendy.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on October 7, 2012 3:40 pm

Why isn't Rev Kelly smiling?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. We reserve the right to delete or remove any material deemed to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Please see our "Terms of Usage" for more detail concerning your obligations as a user of this service. Reader comments are limited to 500 words. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Table of Contents

Read the latest print issue

 

Philly Ed Feed

Become a Notebook member

 

Top

Public School Notebook

699 Ranstead St.
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 839-0082
Fax: (215) 238-2300
notebook@thenotebook.org

© Copyright 2013 The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Usage and Privacy Policy