With the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 andwidespread charter school legislation, there is increasing interest ineducational management organizations (EMOs) to provide innovative, alternativeforms of governance and management of public schools, both contract andcharter. The largest EMO is Edison Schools, Inc., which operates 103 schools in18 states and the District of Columbia. This report was commissioned by Edison Schools to evaluate the schools itmanages. The analysisexamines Edison's strategies for improving schools,implementation in a sample of its schools, and achievement trends attained byits students. Edison has a two-part strategy: (1) provide resources to supporta coherent and comprehensive school design, and (2) implement accountabilitysystems to ensure resources for the design are in place and used asintended. Evaluation was based on interviews, Edison-provided documents, visits to 23Edison schools, and school-level test scores in reading and mathematics. Thefirst set of achievement analyses sought to estimate the effect of Edisonmanagement on reading and mathematics by examining longitudinal trends inaverage student proficiency. The second set used achievement data and casestudy data to identify factors that could explain differences in achievementamong Edison schools. Found that in case study schools the best-functioning Edison schools (thosewith strong instructional leadership, motivated teachers, effective use ofdata, implementation of Edison curricula, and high levels of professionalcollaboration) demonstrate the promise of the Edison ideal. However, it wasalso found that there was considerable variation in the extent to which theideal was realized. This is likely due to length of operation, instructionalleadership, and local constraints. When considering whether schools were conversion or charter schools, andlength of operation, and considering the incompleteness of information, theevaluation found that, despite first-year achievement decline in conversionschools, on average Edison schools do not exceed the gains of matchedcomparison schools, but Edison results do improve in years four and five. It isuncertain, then, whether achievement over four to five years is comparable orsuperior to matched schools. The variation in individual Edison schools'achievement is extensive: some having strong performance, and others fallingbehind comparison schools.Some evidence suggests Edison schools operatingwith fewer local constraints may have better achievement trends. Severalexplanations are offered for the variations. In summary, the net long-termeffects of Edison schools is uncertain, and predictions cannot be made aboutthe long-term effects of Edison's program. In conclusion, the study offers sets of recommendations for Edison schooladministrators and for district staff and policymakers considering hiring theEdison educational management organization. (TNM)
