Should You Get Into the School Improvement Business?
Submitted By: Scott Drossos
So you want to get into the school improvement business?
As those old U.S. Army commercials used to say, “There’s no life like it.” A lot of folks these days on the “partner” side of the fence are facing increasing pressures in the K12 market. Whether it’s a desire to make a more substantial commitment to improve U.S. education, an erosion of the tax base that’s making education dollars scarce, or simply an increased focus on struggling schools, school improvement certainly has its attractions.
Look before you leap, though, lest you lose both your shirt and your reputation in one fell swoop. School improvement work brings with it a level of accountability, politics and pressures more akin to what charter school EMO’s have faced than that with which most education businesses have been accustomed. A recent New York Times article foreshadowed the challenges awaiting the more inexperienced entrants to this market: “With the Obama Administration pouring billions into its nationwide campaign to improve failing schools, dozens of companies with little or no experience are portraying themselves as school-turnaround experts as they compete for the money.”
For school improvement specialists new or experienced, the terminology and correct interpretation of the rhetoric of education leaders can be difficult and often confusing. Who wouldn’t say that their businesses “are all about improving schools” – excluding of course the business-to-consumer folks looking for a direct relationship with families or students outside of the school? Indeed, most of us who have been in the business of working in K12 have marketed our capabilities to help schools and school systems improve.
School improvement grants have been around for years, so what, you ask, has caused the amplification of this work? Understanding a few of the factors that have brought school improvement into the spotlight is important, as education companies decide what their role might be in this exciting but rapidly changing new segment.
The most obvious catalyst for change occurred with the new Administration’s election in November 2008. A new Secretary of Education, with direct experience in tackling his most persistently under-performing schools as Chicago’s schools superintendent, took his new office with a deep understanding of the topic. In Chicago, all sorts of approaches and strategies had been implemented, and while there was no single remedy, Arnie Duncan learned at least one thing: taking a serious and comprehensive approach was essential to success.
The most notable researchers, who have studied the successes and failures of efforts to improve failing schools, consistently cite the comprehensiveness of the effort – or the lack thereof -- as one of the keys. Further, there is a history of LEAs using School Improvement Grants to support piecemeal, incremental improvement strategies by the same people who were failing in the first place. That said, there are plenty of examples of school district leaders who bucked that trend -- in places like Hawaii, Prince Georges County MD and Duval County FL. In those districts, even before the current Administration, an important key to success was working with external providers, and affording them the support to ensure their improvement designs were implemented with fidelity.
In 2007, the Mass Insight research was hailed by the then-U.S. Secretary of Education as “the School Turnaround Bible.” Within its research, Mass Insight made a case for all site- based funding and related governance to be put on the table, so that “Lead Partners” would be granted the latitude to do whatever is necessary to ensure the success of reforms, whether or not they were implemented under the guise of Restart, Turnaround or Transformation. For states that have elected to go this route, it is no simple task to be selected as an approved lead partner. So, if you aspire to do business in those states and haven’t established yourself as a proven lead partner, you’re probably best off trying to find a lead partner who might covet what you have to offer.
In states that are less aggressive about their school improvement strategies, the path to doing business as a school improvement partner is wider and less uncertain, especially under the Transformation options. As more states implement the Mass Insight type of approach, however, the more difficult it will be to participate in the School Improvement segment at large.
While conditions in K12 are constantly changing, it seems almost certain that the multi-billion dollar school improvement segment is not going away. At the same time, it’s difficult to decide how one enters this space given the chicken and egg paradox that requires partners to have successful track records in order to play. Before getting too discouraged, though, remind yourself that the field is wide open and the research is still nascent.
At the end of the day, if you’re “Army Strong,” school improvement might just be your calling.
As those old U.S. Army commercials used to say, “There’s no life like it.” A lot of folks these days on the “partner” side of the fence are facing increasing pressures in the K12 market. Whether it’s a desire to make a more substantial commitment to improve U.S. education, an erosion of the tax base that’s making education dollars scarce, or simply an increased focus on struggling schools, school improvement certainly has its attractions.
Look before you leap, though, lest you lose both your shirt and your reputation in one fell swoop. School improvement work brings with it a level of accountability, politics and pressures more akin to what charter school EMO’s have faced than that with which most education businesses have been accustomed. A recent New York Times article foreshadowed the challenges awaiting the more inexperienced entrants to this market: “With the Obama Administration pouring billions into its nationwide campaign to improve failing schools, dozens of companies with little or no experience are portraying themselves as school-turnaround experts as they compete for the money.”
For school improvement specialists new or experienced, the terminology and correct interpretation of the rhetoric of education leaders can be difficult and often confusing. Who wouldn’t say that their businesses “are all about improving schools” – excluding of course the business-to-consumer folks looking for a direct relationship with families or students outside of the school? Indeed, most of us who have been in the business of working in K12 have marketed our capabilities to help schools and school systems improve.
School improvement grants have been around for years, so what, you ask, has caused the amplification of this work? Understanding a few of the factors that have brought school improvement into the spotlight is important, as education companies decide what their role might be in this exciting but rapidly changing new segment.
The most obvious catalyst for change occurred with the new Administration’s election in November 2008. A new Secretary of Education, with direct experience in tackling his most persistently under-performing schools as Chicago’s schools superintendent, took his new office with a deep understanding of the topic. In Chicago, all sorts of approaches and strategies had been implemented, and while there was no single remedy, Arnie Duncan learned at least one thing: taking a serious and comprehensive approach was essential to success.
The most notable researchers, who have studied the successes and failures of efforts to improve failing schools, consistently cite the comprehensiveness of the effort – or the lack thereof -- as one of the keys. Further, there is a history of LEAs using School Improvement Grants to support piecemeal, incremental improvement strategies by the same people who were failing in the first place. That said, there are plenty of examples of school district leaders who bucked that trend -- in places like Hawaii, Prince Georges County MD and Duval County FL. In those districts, even before the current Administration, an important key to success was working with external providers, and affording them the support to ensure their improvement designs were implemented with fidelity.
In 2007, the Mass Insight research was hailed by the then-U.S. Secretary of Education as “the School Turnaround Bible.” Within its research, Mass Insight made a case for all site- based funding and related governance to be put on the table, so that “Lead Partners” would be granted the latitude to do whatever is necessary to ensure the success of reforms, whether or not they were implemented under the guise of Restart, Turnaround or Transformation. For states that have elected to go this route, it is no simple task to be selected as an approved lead partner. So, if you aspire to do business in those states and haven’t established yourself as a proven lead partner, you’re probably best off trying to find a lead partner who might covet what you have to offer.
In states that are less aggressive about their school improvement strategies, the path to doing business as a school improvement partner is wider and less uncertain, especially under the Transformation options. As more states implement the Mass Insight type of approach, however, the more difficult it will be to participate in the School Improvement segment at large.
While conditions in K12 are constantly changing, it seems almost certain that the multi-billion dollar school improvement segment is not going away. At the same time, it’s difficult to decide how one enters this space given the chicken and egg paradox that requires partners to have successful track records in order to play. Before getting too discouraged, though, remind yourself that the field is wide open and the research is still nascent.
At the end of the day, if you’re “Army Strong,” school improvement might just be your calling.
About the Contributor
Scott Drossos
Scott joined Pearson at the beginning of 2009 as the President of K-12 Solutions. Scott’s extensive experience in a variety of Education businesses will allow the K-12 Solutions to help transition Pearson from a product business to a Solutions business, with a focus on Innovation and helping schools improve. Scott has also been leading Pearson’s national effort to optimize Pearson’s role in the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grant Funding processes. Prior to joining Pearson, Scott was with EdisonLearning (previously known as Edison Schools) for 5 years where he was the Chief Development Officer and Executive Vice President of Strategic Planning, Marketing and Business Development for all lines of business. Scott joined Edison in early 2004 as President of Tungsten Learning. Under Scott’s leadership, Tungsten made significant financial and academic improvements while enjoying unprecedented growth of its customer and enrolled student base. Scott led the rebranding of Edison Schools to EdisonLearning, as well as the strategic acquisition of Provost Systems, a leading Online Learning System provider. Under Scott’s leadership, EdisonLearning experienced unprecedented growth in sales and product development.