AISR logo


Building Smart Education Systems



Voices in Urban Education

Archives

Communities and Schools
VUE Number 23, Spring 2009

| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
illustration

EXCERPT:
Market-Oriented Education Reforms: The Cost to Civic Capacity in Philadelphia

By Eva Gold, Maia Cucchiara, and Elaine Simon
Eva Gold is co-founder and principal at Research for Action and research director of the Learning from Philadelphia’s School Reform project. Maia Cucchiara is an assistant professor in the Education and Policy Studies Program at Temple University and a research consultant at Research for Action. Elaine Simon is co-director of the Urban Studies Program at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior research consultant at Research for Action.
> Authors’ biography

NOTE: The authors wish to acknowledge Research for Action senior research assistants Cecily Mitchell and Morgan Riffer for their contributions to the research that is the basis for this article.

The market-based approach to education reform that was implemented in Philadelphia in 2002 thwarted the development of civic capacity.


In 2001, Philadelphia became the largest urban district ever to be taken over by a state, as well as the largest experiment in educational privatization. Initiated by a conservative governor and legislature, the new arrangement resulted in a complex privatization scheme that included district outsourcing of school management and other core educational functions, the expansion of school choice, and mechanisms for interaction with parents characterized by a focus on customer service. This market-oriented model for reform received a further boost with the 2002 implementation of the No Child Left Behind legislation, which embraced various forms of privatization as solutions for persistent school failure.

The district’s new orientation also reflected the larger turn, locally and nationally, toward market strategies to solve urban problems. As cities were being called upon to re-create themselves as “markets of choice” for an increasingly upscale professional class of knowledge workers, many urbanists saw education as the next step in a broader revitalization scheme. As Paul Grogan and Tony Proscio (2000), the authors of Comeback Cities, note:

In some ways, the new battle over schools is the final frontier of inner city revitalization. All the other incipient positive trends will fall short of their potential if city schools continue to push huge numbers of workingand middle-class families out of the city.... If that dreadful “push factor” can be neutralized in time by some combination of charter schools and privatization... the ultimate victory might be in the cities’ grasp. (p. 7)

The state takeover and the subsequent market-based reforms brought Philadelphia’s school system in line with this national trend. As the Philadelphia school district moved in the direction of market-oriented reform, a profound — but not always visible — institutional shift began to take place. This institutional shift reshaped the district’s relationships with its constituencies, creating a new landscape for civic and community involvement in education.

Although district leadership has changed since the initial push toward market-oriented reform in Philadelphia, market ideas have become “normalized,” with New York City, Chicago, and other urban centers following suit. Even as Philadelphia — and other urban areas — grapple anew with the question of the role of public participation, it is critical to understand the legacy of the first round of major market reforms. Indeed, the normalization of market ideas that has occurred makes it even more urgent that a discussion of their impact take place. And the effect of these reforms on public participation — particularly the impact on civic capacity — is too often left out of the discussion.

> Order print copy