Includes updates and/or revisions.
Of the most popular organizations and companies that are hired to run troubled public schools, only one has accumulated a solid body of evidence to show that it does improve student achievement, concludes a consumer-style guide released this week by a Washington-based research group.
Researchers at the American Institutes for Research screened 940 studies on seven different educational management organizations to look for proof of whether the programs produce gains in student achievement. Only nine studies met the group鈥檚 strict definition for scientific quality and all of them focused on Edison 69传媒, a New York City-based for-profit company that operates 157 schools around the country.
But even that evidence was not enough to warrant Edison an effectiveness rating any stronger than 鈥渕oderate鈥� by the research group鈥檚 standards. No providers earned AIR鈥檚 top two ratings: 鈥渕oderately strong鈥� and 鈥渧ery strong.鈥�
Read the available from the American Institutes for Research鈥檚 .
John E. Chubb, the chief education officer for Edison, praised the report but called for caution in interpreting its findings. 鈥淭his is still very much an activity that is in its infancy,鈥� he said, referring to the use of outside groups to manage schools. 鈥淭his [report] will be very useful in the hands of informed policymakers but another reaction to this is that policymakers could say, 鈥楾here鈥檚 no evidence this works so let鈥檚 move on.鈥欌��
The researchers gave a 鈥渮ero鈥� effectiveness rating to four other for-profit groups: The Leona Group, L.L.C., based in Phoenix, Ariz., and East Lansing, Mich.; Mosaica Education of Atlanta, Ga.; National Heritage Academies of Grand Rapids, Mich.; and White Hat Management of Akron, Ohio. A 鈥渮ero鈥� rating meant that the studies they found weren鈥檛 rigorous enough to meet the researchers鈥� standards.
Two other groups-Imagine 69传媒, a nonprofit school management provider based in Arlington, Va., and SABIS Educational Systems, an Eden Prairie, Minn.-based for-profit company-got no rating because the researchers could not find any studies to show whether their models improved student achievement.
A rating of 鈥渓imited鈥� was not given to any of the organizations or companies, and none of them were found to have a negative impact on schools, according to the study, 鈥淐SRQ Center Report on Education Service Providers (ESPs).鈥�
鈥楯ury Still Out鈥�
Steve Fleischman, the AIR vice president who oversaw the federally funded project, cautioned against using the ratings to conclude that the models don鈥檛 or won鈥檛 work. He said the 鈥渏ury was still out鈥� on the programs because evidence was still emerging on their effectiveness.
Also known as EMOs, educational management organizations are contracted to operate, start up, or provide comprehensive instructional and management services to schools. The seven models examined by the AIR researchers operate in 350 schools, which represent 60 to 65 percent of all the schools across the country that use such outside groups.
The study, produced by AIR鈥檚 Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, is the second consumer guide that the research group has produced to help educators and policymakers weigh research and other evidence on programs aimed at improving student achievement. In 2005, the group produced similar ratings on 22 different comprehensive school reform models. For both reports, the group judged programs by standards that mirror the federal government鈥檚 definition of what constitutes 鈥渟cientifically based research鈥� in education. The set of criteria favors studies in which schools or students are randomly assigned to either experimental or control groups over other kinds of designs.
Besides vetting research on the programs鈥� impact on student achievement, the researchers examined findings to determine whether they foster family or community involvement in schools, the degree to which they provide the support and professional development that schools need to implement their approaches, whether their instructional designs are linked to research, and other characteristics and effects. The report also has extensive descriptions of the educational programs that each EMO offers.
Still, some experts who track EMOs felt the report lacked useful information.
Nancy Van Meter, a specialist on privatization at the Washington-based American Federation of Teachers, noted that the new consumer guide contained less information than the research group鈥檚 earlier report on schoolwide improvement programs, partly because four of the organizations declined to provide information.
鈥淚鈥檓 very troubled by the unwillingness of the majority of the providers to come clean and provide basic consumer information,鈥� she said.
