Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Magnatizer who wrote (3316)	1/25/2001 1:10:09 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Magnatizer: I did a little searching on the Web tonight regarding your link to private education in Baltimore and Hartford. You say that the concept of contracting education to private firms "is being pursued and quite successfully." However, the stuff I pulled off the Web tonight would indicate otherwise. Again, I'm not really up to speed on this topic, and if you have additional information about success stories, please send my way. In the meantime, the following has little good to say about the job Education Alternatives Inc. did in Baltimore. The source for the following assessment is: ofcn.org Headline: A CAUTIONARY TALE: EAI AND BALTIMORE SCHOOLS The failure of the Minnesota-based Education Alternatives Inc., to turn around Baltimore city schools should serve as a warning for other districts contemplating a public-private partnership for reform (Silverman, THE NEW REPUBLIC, 1/29). Silverman remarks that EAI performed "cosmetic surgery -- at best -- on a school system badly in need of a major transplant." According to Silverman, while school voucher systems promise choice to parents, privatization guarantees choice to school boards. Many school boards already contract out administrative services to private firms. "Yet teaching math, grammar or even laissez-faire economics is a far cry from trash pickup or mail delivery, and some consumers question whether its value comes with a hidden price tag," writes Silverman. Baltimore's woes with EAI should bolster concern, she concludes. Silverman points to an independent evaluation of EAI in Baltimore conducted by the Center for Educational Research at the U of Maryland Baltimore County. The report found that despite the enormous amount of attention paid to physical plant upgrading and staff development "EAI schools were generally on a par with Baltimore public schools in similar neighborhoods," writes Silverman. Standardized test scores in EAI schools actually dropped during the first two years the firm took over. Last year, the third year of EAI rule, scores climbed back to the city average. However, EAI initially claimed test scores had soared in their schools, notes Silverman. Finally, it was revealed that the EAI numbers were based on a "small and unrepresentative group of students," and EAI "backpedaled" on its claim of rising scores, writes the author. The firm also is faulted for "errors" on student attendance. EAI touted a 22.2% increase in attendance at one school; but soon after "sheepishly admitted" that the increase was actually 2.2%, pens Silverman. EAI's inability to deliver on thrift is even more startling than the firm's failure to raise quality, according to Silverman. EAI initially promised to improve student learning without spending more than what the city was spending on schools. The reality: EAI received almost $18M more over the past three years than comparable city schools, asserts Silverman. Audits by the accounting firm Arthur Andersen revealed that "EAI did make good on one of its promises: it racked up at least $2.6M in gross profits in 1992-93 and $4.3M in 1993-94," reports Silverman. The local teachers' union chastises EAI for making a profit by cutting curricula including art, music and special education and "by pocketing Chapter I money," writes Silverman. Silverman points out that while EAI maintained the curriculum already in place in Baltimore, the successful Calvert school curriculum was available as a model for curriculum reform. One inner-city elementary school, Barclay, five years ago adopted the private Calvert school curriculum, with highly touted results. Calvert's emphasis is on the basics: phonics, spelling, grammar, reading, writing and math "rather than on test preparation, experimental teaching methods or even computers," writes Silverman. Barclay's Principal Gertrude Williams: "We don't need self-esteem exercises; the students build it organically through the curriculum." Test scores of Barclay students consistently exceed the city average, notes Silverman. Silverman makes note of EAI's second setback: the Hartford Board of Education recently reversed its original decision to hire EAI to manage 32 of its schools. Instead, EAI only will operate six schools. And the November FORBES Magazine rated EAI one of its worst-performing stocks, reports Silverman. Yet, these dismal results have not dampened the spirits of other districts intent on privatizing public schools, concludes Silverman.