by AFT President Sandra Feldman
December, 2001

Paying private companies
to run public schools
is not the answer.

A few months ago, I joined with others to accompany President Bush on a visit to Thomas S. Wootton High School in Rockville, Maryland, one of the nation’s best. It has well-prepared, certified teachers; a challenging curriculum; a safe disciplined environment; and a well-equipped library, complete with up-to-date technology. But visiting a school like Wootton—in an affluent community that has the means to invest in its schools—raises an important question: How can we replicate this kind of excellence in communities that don’t have the same resources?

Research has shown us what works: smaller class sizes, extended day programs, ongoing support for teachers, good leadership, parent and community involvement. These help make great schools and can turn around low-performing ones.

But some school officials and politicians have turned instead to unproven, quick-fix schemes, including privatization. As much as some may wish for an easy answer, simply turning over troubled public schools to private, for-profit companies is not a cure. Indeed, the best we can say for privatization is that its results have been mixed. A close look reveals that private takeovers can’t improve achievement unless they adopt proven public school reforms.

Overcoming Years of Neglect

Across the country, communities that have faced years of adversity and underfunding are turning their schools around without privatization. Consider Hartford, Connecticut, which experienced firsthand the downside of privatization and the upside of doing what works. For years, Hartford was the lowest performing school district in the state. In 1994, the state took control of the schools and awarded a five-year contract to a privately owned corporation to manage the entire district.

By early 1996, however, state officials pulled the plug on that company because of its questionable financial practices, poor management of the schools, and low morale among teachers. At least as problematic as those failings, the attempt to privatize created tremendous conflict among stakeholders in Hartford, and it took several years for the community to come together again in support of the schools.

A productive working partnership was forged between a new school superintendent and the leaders of the Hartford Federation of Teachers. Working together for the first time in years, this labor-management coalition created a districtwide focus on literacy and brought research-proven practices into the classroom. After just a year, student achievement scores rose more than they had in the previous four years.

Hartford is not the only city to give up on privatization and improve student achievement the old-fashioned way—through proven reforms. Baltimore also tried privatization in the 1990s and found no resulting improvement in student performance. The school district cut short the privatization contract, and brought a research-based reading program into all city schools. The city also provided for the professional development of staff and the remediation needs of students. The resulting gain in achievement was described by a Johns Hopkins University researcher as "the kind that professional educators hope to see once in a lifetime."

Unfortunately, the examples of Hartford, Baltimore, and other cities haven’t stopped privatization advocates from trying to sell their miracle tonic. In Philadelphia, a proposal by the state to privatize the administration of the public schools has been withdrawn by the Governor in the face of widespread community opposition. There are still the issues of a State takeover without giving the citizens of Philadelphia a voice or vote, and of turning over sixty or more low-performing schools to Edison and other for-profit companies. Pennsylvania should avoid the setbacks widespread privatization caused elsewhere and instead provide resources wisely targeted to proven reforms.

Uniting Communities Behind Schools

Privatization and takeovers without a local partnership and buy-in haven’t worked. Poor school districts starved for resources for years can’t be turned around without additional spending.

No one denies that Philadelphia schools need improvement. One significant factor is that the state has underfunded them for years. If it really wants to ensure that student achievement improves in Philadelphia, it should pay for what works.

Leadership is needed to bring the teacher’s union and management together, get parents and business leaders involved, bring in proven programs, reduce class sizes, raise academic standards, and provide help for students struggling to meet those standards.

That approach is neither as radical nor as risky as privatization, and it might not fit as well into some politician’s campaign literature, but real school reform, supported by adequate resources and proven programs, works. That’s what our children deserve—in Philadelphia and in every city in America.