| The instances of school district leaders introducing private sector players as agents of reform in public education have increased dramatically over the last several years. Educational and charter school management organizations now run public schools in large cities such as New Orleans and Philadelphia, while in New York City, new small schools are being co-founded in partnership with private sector organizations called intermediaries. While advocates and critics debate the effectiveness of privatization, there is little empirical evidence that considers how power is distributed amongst private partners, managers, or, in the latest iteration, intermediaries, and local school communities---principals, teachers and parents.;This case study of two recently founded small schools in New York City, created in collaboration with intermediaries, examines decision making---a key area around which actors negotiate power. In particular, this study explores how public and private partners, as defined by the reform, make decisions over personnel, budgets, teaching and learning, professional development and admissions processes. Findings from this study reveal that the term "partnership" is misleading. Rather than being equal actors in a relationship, intermediary organizations strive to assume managerial roles within the schools. These power plays create tension at the school level as principals, teachers and parents struggle to understand the parameters of the school-intermediary relationship, and to retain control over the school environment.;This study finds that that there are positive aspects to the relationships; schools are afforded greater financial resources and access to high-status political capital. Yet from the perspective of reforming public education, these "public-private partnerships" are falling short. This study suggests that democratic and equity-minded policymakers, educational researchers and practitioners must consider three central recommendations in order to improve the current reform: (1) increasing regulation, (2) improving transparency, and (3) slowing the pace of rollout. Even more urgent, findings suggest that the reform itself needs to be revisited, as for every posited benefit of reform a countervailing result arose from the case studies. Attention to these recommendations will help to ensure that new schools are being created that not only provide innovative and rigorous educational experiences, but also promote democratic decision-making and equity. |
