San Francisco Examiner, February 26, 2001

A school that boosts student achievement should be a candidate for reward and emulation, but in San Francisco, the board of education tries to shut it down.

In 1998, Edison Elementary in Noe Valley was the city’s only elementary school where student performance was not improving. Teacher turnover was nearly 70 percent and student suspensions ran five times the district average. The school’s staff had been entirely changed in 1995, but to no avail. Because of these persistent problems, the board of education contracted with the nation’s largest private manager of public schools, ironically named Edison Schools, Inc., of New York.

Edison manages 113 public schools across the country, enrolling 57,000 students in 21 states and the District of Columbia. Most of these schools are in urban areas, so when San Francisco needed help with one of its worst schools, it turned to Edison, awarding a charter in 1998. But from the beginning, the board was divided over whether to grant the charter.

Critics decried that Edison was out to make money, not to educate children. Of course, these dissenters failed to mention the district’s own failure in improving performance at the local school, and Edison’s positive track record in other cities. Nor did they mention that public education is already a multi-billion dollar industry, with textbook publishers, equipment suppliers, teacher unions, administrators, and many others cashing in on the system.

Despite the rancor, Edison Charter Academy made remarkable progress in boosting student test scores. By last fall, 49 percent of Edison fifth-graders scored at or above the national average in math, versus 28 percent the previous year. And while only two percent scored at or above national reading averages while under district control, 35 percent scored at those levels just three years after the company’s contract began.

Overall, Edison had the third highest improvement of 71 San Francisco elementary schools on the state’s Academic Performance Index (API) between 1999 and 2000. As well, parents are happier, the facility cleaner, and the uniformed children better behaved. Despite these successes, Edison’s enemies on the school board and in the community refused to concede defeat, ironically citing rampant teacher turnover at the school.

Edison requires all of its teachers to work 205 days per year for eight hours a day, while California law only stipulates a 181-day year and seven hours a day. As a result, salaries were above what comparable district teachers earned. Still, many teachers complained.

Parents were able to call teachers at home and ask about their children’s progress, while some teachers had to work 12 hours a day (and sometimes on weekends) grading assignments. In order to avert a teacher strike and a possible revocation of its charter, the company agreed last June to pay teachers at 10 percent above district salaries. Critics remained undeterred.

Following the November 2000 elections, in which teacher unions funded a slate of anti-Edison candidates, a narrow majority on the school board is now poised to revoke the company’s charter, continuing to claim that for-profit firms should not manage public schools. Public discussion on the San Francisco Board of Education’s resolution to terminate the company will take place on February 27th and the final vote will probably take place on March 6th.

What Edison has actually done wrong remains unclear. The company has taken a school from the academic cellar, implemented a challenging curriculum, and improved test scores, all the while paying its teachers more than other district schools. As Chris Whittle, Founder and CEO of Edison Schools said, “If you don’t run good schools, you get fired. In San Francisco, we may get fired for running a good school.”

This record of success represents a challenge to the status quo. While the district has poured millions into schools across San Francisco, it has been unable to achieve what Edison has done in just three years: academic success and accountability.

Charter schools such as Edison force the district establishment to do exactly what they don’t want: to compete and innovate. Instead of learning the lesson, a reactionary establishment tries to quash the innovators, sacrificing the welfare of children to politics and vested interests.

This excessive power will only be curbed when all parents are granted the freedom to select the schools they believe are best for their children.

Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.