Hess, Frederick M. (2002). Revolution at the Margins: The Impact of Competition on Urban School Systems. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Pp. xiv + 268
$18.95 ISBN 0-8157-0209-4
Reviewed by Patrick McQuillan
Boston College
June 18, 2003
Let me begin this review by admitting that I am generally skeptical of school choice, the market approach to education, vouchers, and many charter school efforts. I question the typical assumptions choice advocates rely upon in their analyses, such as assuming self-interest as the primary motivator for educators or that creating a new school is a relatively straightforward process. I am skeptical of for-profit educational corporations because I don't see where there is enough fat in most school or district budgets to allow for corporate profits. I don't believe that competition inevitably leads to growth, progress, and positive outcomes. In some cases, I believe it encourages people to cheat and deceive. I am concerned that many foundations aggressively promoting choice and vouchers are committed to narrow, political ideals rather than a larger search for meaning, understanding, and social justice. I could go on, but you get a sense of where I stand.
That said, I found Frederick M. Hess's book, Revolution at the Margins: The Impact of Competition on Urban School Systems, to be a balanced, informed, and insightful examination of how choice has, and might in the future, shape urban schools and school systems. It is clear the author appreciates the complexity of the challenges facing urban schools and that he is willing to consider a wide range of explanations for understanding how urban school systems respond to various outside and internal forces.
Indeed, one could see how his background might incline him toward viewing school competition in a very positive light, and therefore to perhaps overlook some of the negative aspects of market-based reform strategies as well as the positive aspects of the status quo. Paul Peterson, for instance, a prominent voucher and choice advocate, is acknowledged as an honored mentor in the preface, is cited throughout this work, and provides a blurb for the jacket of the book. As a consequence, I am sure Hess has a rich understanding of the positive aspects of school competition. Moreover, in light of his glowing descriptions of how competition might transform urban schools in theory, it seems he believes that, given the proper conditions, the market could be a powerful and positive influence on U.S. schools. And even his presentation of choice, charter, and voucher proponents and their arguments—which is decidedly positive when juxtaposed with descriptions of union policies and practices, for instance—suggests that he is rooting for market forces to transform public schools. Even so, much to his credit, Hess presents what he found, not what he wishes he could have found. This is a generally balanced study from which both advocates and opponents of the market approach to educational change can learn. And from the outset, the author outlines how this study might differ from the more typical approach to school competition:
Researchers frequently ask whether school choice will improve student performance, better satisfy families, or produce pernicious side effects. They pay much less attention to how or why educational competition will actually operate or how it may be affected by the nature of schools and schooling. If choice-based reforms are to be promoted as a tool for widespread school improvement, a more sophisticated understanding of the education market is essential. The unqualified market claim that choice-based reforms, by unleashing competition, will radically improve urban school systems is inaccurate, given the context and structure of these systems. (pp. 4-5)
One clear strength of this work is how Hess blends theory and practice. In the “Introduction” and following two chapters, "The Market and the Urban Public School System" and "Urban Systems as Competitors," Hess explicates many factors involved with the market approach to educational reform. He explores the forces that motivate teachers to join the profession and how such beliefs shape their response to competition. He considers how principals are educated and offers insight into why a common response to market competition by administrators is no response at all. As he writes, “In the existing urban education marketplace there are few incentives for school system leaders to radically overhaul the systems they lead. When faced with a significant threat, they are likely to concentrate on mobilizing popular sentiment or on taking marginal actions that will allay the concerns of vocal constituencies” (p. 52).
Taking more of a macro point of view, he also outlines how school systems respond to outside influences, or don’t. For instance, when discussing “testing instruments” used to gauge school and district effectiveness, Hess observes that two factors, at least, complicate such endeavors for educational leaders. First, it is hard to assess precisely what changes will lead to academic improvements; and second, it is difficult to prove that any reform has been successful, especially since education is a long-term, developmental phenomenon and the goals of public schooling can differ so markedly from community-to-community. Throughout these theoretical discussions, Hess highlights the potential of market forces to engender positive change and delineates those forces that constrain the market from truly being "free."
In these introductory chapters Hess also presents two metaphors that run throughout this study to help the reader appreciate the potential market impact on urban schools, the bulldozer and the pickax. In brief, with the bulldozer analogy, the market is seen as an inevitable and irresistible force that will, by its overwhelming logic and consequent mass appeal, quickly sweep away the present ineffective system and replace it with new and improved practices that have survived the test of critical consumer choice. In contrast, the pickax approach to systemic reform involves slowly hacking away at specific niches in the school system that are susceptible to change. Ultimately, the pickax could lead to very specific systemic reforms, which could serve as the starting point for grander change, at least in theory. Although I see the relevance of the pickax metaphor, in that those promoting reform might benefit from thinking of their work as targeting specific areas of our school systems that could be induced to change, I didn't find the bulldozer analogy at all illuminating, primarily because there are no bulldozers in this work, though Hess offers a clear view of how they might work in theory.
After completing this theoretical overview, three case studies present the reader with examples of school competition and market forces in practice. Two chapters are devoted to efforts in the Milwaukee public schools to create charter schools, promote school choice, and initiate a voucher system. The first chapter runs from 1989 to 1995, the second from 1995 to 1999. Of the three case studies, Milwaukee represents the school system that by far experienced the most change and ferment, being what Hess characterizes as "the epicenter of the nation's school choice debate. . . [offering a] chance to see how the extended existence of school choice influenced the development of public school governance, educational politics, and school system management" (p. 72). This detailed study exposes deep-seated animosities and tensions that accompanied these efforts at change. It is a study of how myriad social and political forces clashed with one another, some seeking to initiate reform while others worked to preserve the status quo. It is not an especially pretty story. In the end, change is minimal, as efforts to promote greater competition did not "refocus teachers or principals or change the manner in which they approached their jobs. It [did] produce some new efforts to raise standards, increase choices, and open new schools, but [there is] little evidence that these moves affected classrooms" (p. 135), which I would argue should be the ultimate target of any reform. (Of course, many reform endeavors have failed to realize significant classroom-based change.)
The next case study, Cleveland public schools, chronologically aligns with the second chapter on Milwaukee, spanning from 1995 to 1999. Although considerable fanfare preceded the implementation of the voucher program in this city, the effort overall "met with lukewarm union opposition, gave rise to tepid political conflict, and sparked little if any visible response by the Cleveland Public Schools leadership" (p. 137). In summary, Hess writes that "Cleveland private schools that accepted voucher students operated under a number of constraints that limited their effectiveness as competitors. . . . Participating parochial schools generally accepted only a few voucher students and made little effort to expand. [And that] the number of participating schools remained nearly flat over the program's three years" (p. 165). For advocates of the market, this too was something of a disappointment. One noteworthy development that did arise was an ongoing statistical battle between university scholars as to whether school vouchers truly benefit low-income students of color, as different academics analyzed the same data but arrived at conflicting findings.
In contrast to Milwaukee and Cleveland public schools—both of which serve largely low-income, African American populations and were driven by public funding—the third case study school district, Edgewood, Texas, served almost all Latinos and was funded by a private donor. In this district an outside foundation initiated a voucher program because the foundation believed this was a site in which their program "could clearly illuminate the promise of school vouchers and demonstrate how the competitive effects of vouchers could compel a troubled school system to improve" (pp. 175-176). But again the impact was limited and the initial goal never fully realized. Local private schools never expanded their capacity to serve more students so competition was stifled. School board members were protected in their positions by layers of bureaucracy. And the district did not respond to competition in classic free market ways; instead, when faced with hard decisions, the district found it could postpone the “day of reckoning” and merely draw on reserve funds to meet immediate shortfalls.
Together, these case studies offer a sense for how competition played out in three contexts, two rather similar settings and one quite distinct from those. The studies also provide an extended view of how school competition evolved and was transformed over an eleven-year period, as the Milwaukee study began in 1989 and the Edgewood case study concluded in 2000.
Although as previously mentioned, Hess seems to endorse market strategies as a potentially powerful force for transforming urban schools, the final two chapters present a summative analysis that is quite balanced. For instance, commenting on the work of John Chubb and Terry Moe, two staunch proponents of the market, the author suggests that their market-based logic may be a bit naive:
[Chubb and Moe] suggest that, within the private sector, markets produce the ancillary changes required to make competition effective. . . . [and] the complementary changes required to make competition work are presumed to follow automatically. On the other hand, when school choice is introduced as a public policy intended to subject public schools to competition, the continued presence of state-imposed, political, and legal constraints ensures that such changes are anything but automatic. (p. 221)
In my reading, Hess here implies that Chubb and Moe have taken a bit too rosy a view of school choice. In turn, he tempers their naivete with empirical data. Further, in his summary points the author offers an appraisal of school competition that I find accurate and insightful (although it does shortchange good classroom teachers):
Betting on markets is a decision to trade an uneven system marked by the selfless and extraordinary performance of the few for the more predictable production of an incentive-sensitive work force managed by performance-conscious executives. The selfless zeal that characterizes the best classrooms, and the rudderless autonomy that characterizes many others, would be slowly displaced by a steadier, less whimsical motivation. This is not simply a matter of "improving" schools; it is a decision to alter the nature and culture of K-12 education. While perhaps desirable, such a change is not a casual one. (p. 240)
In many regards, Hess's description offers an honest assessment of the benefits and trade-offs associated with school competition, compared with the present system. As these remarks suggests, Hess realizes there is no panacea, although his writing suggests that one approach is a better compromise than the other.
Although I consider this a fine piece of research, I have concerns with aspects of the study. My first involves the title. Characterizing what occurred in these three cities as a "revolution on the margins" seems overstated, and perhaps inherently illogical. If social change remains on the margins of society, how does this constitute a revolution? Only in Milwaukee did competition and vouchers have much impact. While the seeds of a future revolt may have been sown in these cities, I saw no revolution. The author may be hoping for too much in this title and attempting to create a reality that doesn't exist.
My second concern is that Hess, as well as many others, doesn't seriously question whether all schools truly have the capacity, funds, and/or facilities to effectively educate all of their students. Academic outcomes in most urban schools— defined as performance on high-stakes tests, dropout rates, or scores on standardized exams—correlate powerfully with the percentage of low-income students the school serves, suggesting that more may be at play here than student or educator motivation (Orfield, et al., 1996). How will competition change that? Might directing effort and energy specifically toward this concern engender greater educational equity more quickly than waiting for it to emerge through market mechanisms? In Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Edgewood, the market certainly took time and had limited long-range effects.
My final point is really not a criticism. I would have liked to have read more as to how unions protect teachers who are grossly unethical and what the effect of such unprofessional behavior by unions might be, especially in our current competitive context. In one footnote, which should be in the body of the text, the reader learns that the Milwaukee teachers union protected one teacher who stuck a student's head in a toilet and another who regularly read the newspaper while students played craps in the back of class. Such developments seriously strain teachers' professional credibility at a time when the profession can least afford it. Given the author's rich understanding of urban schools and their communities, I would have appreciated further examination of the implications of such policies by teacher unions. They need to hear this.
In his preface, Fred wrote that his goal in writing this book was "to encourage scholars and policymakers to reevaluate some of the facile presumptions regarding market-based reform" (p. ix). In my reading, he has certainly accomplished this goal. This is a comprehensive examination of market-based competition in urban schools, a study that can inform the work of market opponents as well as advocates.
Reference
Orfield, G., Eaton, S.E., & the Harvard Project on School Desegregation. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown vs. Board of Education. New York: New Press.
About the Reviewer
Patrick McQuillan is an Associate Professor in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. His research focuses on educational reform and urban schooling. Of late, he has worked primarily with small schools and small school conversions from larger comprehensive high schools.
[ home | overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements ]