Congratulations on your appointment to the School Reform Commission (SRC).  I want to acknowledge you and your colleagues as the high caliber team that you are, and to express my confidence that you will work diligently to ensure quality education for all the children served by Philadelphia's public schools.

Edison Schools, Inc. has publicly stated that it is bidding to be both the central consultant to the SRC, and lead manager for a large fraction of Philadelphia's lowest performing schools.   Edison's record creates ample reason to be concerned about  their ability to perform in each of these areas.  Further, assuming that the SRC will examine a variety of approaches to school reform under both public and private management, the ability of the SRC to evaluate the performance of the various reform models that it might employ will be seriously compromised under such a broad Edison consultancy as is proposed.  

The general agreement between Governor Schweiker and Mayor Street was that Edison would not be in a position to supervise itself.  To preclude Edison from direct management of the school district, while nonetheless managing it under their contractual strategic and operational guidance   is to make a distinction without a difference.  Any Edison perspectives or advice regarding competing service providers under this arrangement would be, at best, suspect.  

Beyond these contextual concerns regarding conflict of interest, as evidenced by Edison's less than comprehensive $2.7 million report on Philadelphia's public schools, serious questions should be raised concerning the corporation's competence to serve as primary consultant to the School Reform Commission.  As I am sure you already know, most education advocates who have a stake in the education of our children have expressed their vehement and growing concerns about Edison. 

The Council of Great City Schools concluded that the report prepared by Edison is generally poor in quality.   The quality of the analysis is rudimentary and substandard, providing little evidence that a comprehensive analysis of Philadelphia school organizational or operational procedures was actually conducted.   Its proposals lack the specificity needed to determine feasibility or to engender public confidence.   Many of the  proposals have no direct tie to identified problems. No new organizational structure is presented.  Proposals lack  sufficient detail to engender confidence that the firm is capable of this level of management.  Little is presented showing how accountability for performance would be ensured.  A list of performance indicators is presented but no proposal is made for appropriate checks and balances in the accountability system.  In general, the report itself is fatally flawed, and it utterly fails to demonstrate that Edison has the capacity to improve a system of Philadelphia's size and complexity.

Ed Schwartz, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of Civic Values, reported that Edison’s diagnosis on the City's schools "shows little understanding of the City of Philadelphia and what it will take to build a strong school system here.... Given its lack of understanding of the City, its recommendations fall far short of what we need."

Dr. Deidre R. Farmbry, Chief Academic Officer in Philadelphia, said that "...Edison has chosen to use one set of standards and methodologies in measuring its own schools, and a very different set in making its judgments about Philadelphia.  It is not possible to do real 'apples to apples' comparison because Edison Schools, Inc. 1) makes very little information on student progress public, 2) changes its reporting methods from year to year, 3) provides no information on number of students tested or participation rates, and 4) omits some of its schools in its reporting of achievement data."

This is consistent with the findings in Massachusetts, where an Independent State Audit found irregularities in the performance standards ratings of the Edison?run Boston Renaissance Charter School (BRCS).  "Upon reviewing the same data published in annual reports from previous years, we found that all 12-performance ratings were changed from one year to the next without explanation in subsequent reports...  Of particular concern is that during our site visit at BRCS, school officials could not provide us any documentation to substantiate how it measured and documented the performance of its students..."

The Texas Comptroller found that Edison's contract with the Dallas Independent School District contains "very few specific performance criteria which are not linked to compensation."  The Comptroller concluded that the contract should be renegotiated to "ensure the district's vendors deliver high-quality services at a fair and reasonable price."

A closer look at Edison's struggles nationwide shows low student achievement, high teacher turnover, and unethical behavior among administrators.   Last year, a Western Michigan University Study proved that Edison has been no more successful at boosting student achievement than the districts that hired it.  "State and local assessment data show mediocre results for student achievement in Edison schools.  Students in Edison schools mostly perform as well as or worse than students in comparable schools; occasionally, they perform better.  Some Edison schools have shown improvement but still lag behind comparable public schools."  

*       In Baltimore, Maryland, the majority of schools run by Edison bucked a citywide trend of rising state test scores.  Two of the three low-performing elementary schools run by Edison produced lower test scores on statewide tests than they did before Edison arrived.  In fact, at one school, Furman L. Templeton, no third-grader scored satisfactory in reading, math, social studies or science for the second consecutive year, and fifth graders declined in every subject.  This is startling information considering the percentage of Baltimore students meeting the standard on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program actually rose two percentage points.

*       In Wichita, Kansas, School Board officials voted for two Edison-run schools to be taken over because of the schools' low test scores, declining enrollment, and high teacher turnover.  This announcement comes on the heels of a cheating scandal in one of the Edison schools in which top school officials encouraged teachers to ignore testing rules on the state's standardized tests. Although Edison said the officials would be removed from the school immediately, one official found employment in another Edison-run school.   Edison's spokesman said last fall that the company did not know of any earlier testing problems. Last week, Edison spokesman Adam Tucker repeated that position.  However, The Wichita Eagle reports recent interviews in which at   least three former Ingalls-Edison teachers say they told Edison executives about testing irregularities last spring, months before the Wichita school district learned of problems on a test taken last fall.

*       As recently as last week, students in five of the eight Edison run?schools in California performed worse than they did in the previous school year, according to the California Department of Education.  

*       In York, Pennsylvania, the City Board of Education is demanding that Edison release its financial records and other student?related information for the Lincoln-Edison Charter School.  State law provides the Board with the power to oversee and review charter schools, but school officials refused to provide such information.  This issue is currently in court.  The Board is discussing whether to revoke Edison's charter.  The 2001 PSSA shows the Edison?run Lincoln-Edison Charter Academy had 60% of students below basic level in math and 70% below basic in reading.  This is the worst performing school in York County.

*       In Macon, Georgia, students enrolled in its two Edison schools failed the state curriculum exams in such high numbers that the state labeled the schools as "failing." Nearly one?quarter of the Edison students transferred out, and school board members are calling for the contract to be terminated.

*       In Trenton, New Jersey, Edison's contract will not be renewed for the Granville Charter School after four years of dismal academic performance and poor management.

*       In Pontiac, Michigan, Edison promised that students at the Edison?Purdue school would outperform other students district?wide.  In fact, Edison?Perdue students have performed at or near the bottom on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test. Edison has hired teachers without completing background checks, which are required by Michigan law.   Edison also improperly filled out paperwork for Title I funds -- federal money available for programs for low-income students. The district says the mistake could cost it $400,000.  

*       In Goldsboro, North Carolina, the school board voted unanimously to cancel its contract with Edison, two years before the contract was set to expire.  School officials in Goldsboro said the Edison schools cost the district as much as $300,000 a year more than expected. 

*       In Sherman, Texas, the school board decided not to renew Edison's contract, citing poor student performance and hidden costs. School district documents indicate that during Edison's three years in Sherman, the district spent $2.6 million more than it would have without the company.   According to school district officials,  "The history of the Edison Project in Sherman is one of promises broken, poor performance, and agreements violated."  

*       In Dallas, the school district agreed to pay $35 million to Edison Schools for the 2000-01 school year, but the actual costs to the district could be an additional $5 million to $20 million more.   Dallas has to leave Edison in place for at least two years, after which it can cancel the contract upon providing 90 days notice.  

*       In San Antonio, Texas, school district officials severed their contract with Edison after four years of broken promises.   

*       In San Francisco, California, students around the city outperformed Edison students in all of the eight reported categories ? reading and math for second, third, fourth and fifth grades. In fact, San Francisco students performed better than Edison's by 20 percentage points in two categories.

*       In Minneapolis, Minnesota, Edison's contract for one school is being severed because of low student achievement and other problems.  

*       In Peoria, Illinois, School Board Members are becoming increasingly concerned with Edison-run schools' lack of student achievement, inadequate supplies, and unexpected costs to the District.

*     In Tempe, Arizona, a new report, "The Market in Theory Meets the Market in Practice: The Case of Edison Schools," by an educational psychologist Gerald Bracey scrutinizes the record of Edison Schools, Inc.  Bracey finds that the company repeatedly misled the public about the academic performance of its schools. Drawing on a series of studies conducted by independent outside researchers using widely accepted methods, Bracey found that the performance of Edison schools is sharply at odds with the company's claims in its promotional materials. For instance, Edison's own reports gave Washington Elementary School in Sherman, Texas, its highest rating for "strongly positive" achievement gains. Yet close examination of the company's own data reveals that test scores fell over a three?year period – a fact obscured by the way the company presented its information.  

There are many more examples of Edison failures throughout the country.  Even many of the schools Edison claims are successes, like the one in Miami, FL, two in Massachusetts, a couple in California, and some in Illinois, have failed to show improvement and are at the bottom of their state's assessment test.  In December, my office completed a study showing that the overwhelming majority of Edison schools perform poorly, and in many cases are fairing worse than some Philadelphia schools.  I have included that report for your review.   In response to what may be misrepresentation of student achievement, I have asked the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, to investigate Edison and other for?profit education companies' claims of success.  

Real reform of Philadelphia's schools would be to provide Philadelphia's children with these seven keys to learning:

1.) Access to instruction in core courses from a fully qualified teacher; 

2.) Access to rigorous academic curricula, both basic and advanced; 

3.) Access to the textbooks and instructional supplies at least as current as the prevailing suburban standard; 

4.) Classroom sizes substantially equal to the prevailing suburban standard; 

5.) Access to a school with an up?to?date library staffed by a certified librarian; 

6.) A student?to?computer ratio at least equal to the prevailing suburban standard;

7.) Access to guidance counselors in a ratio comparable to the prevailing suburban standard. 

This is what I see as the minimum investment in Philadelphia students necessary to support their academic success.  These are the performance criteria which should be built into any contract with the SRC.  These are the criteria against which any contractor’s performance and capacity to deliver should be measured.

I know you will be working to address these issues and others affecting the quality of education provided in the Philadelphia Public Schools.   On behalf of the students of Philadelphia, I thank you for your continued commitment to our public schools and I look forward to working with you in the future.