The dynamic processes associated with educational reform has drawn scholars’ attention to whether, and how, value is shared between ventures, and their beneficiaries and stake- holders. Perhaps one of the best examples of this kind of study, and maybe the only system- atic evaluation of an educational intervention framed with respect to social entrepreneur- ship, was published by Andersson and Ford (2015). Using existing administrative datasets, Andersson and Ford evaluated, as introduced in chapter 3, the productive, unproduc- tive and destructive effects of the ‘Milwaukee Parental Choice Program’ (MPCP) school voucher programme. The productive effects of the MPCP show how the intervention benefited the Milwaukee community, even if not in the ways intended. The MPCP’s un- productive, and potentially destructive, effects show where potential value failed to be ex- changed or created.
The MPCP’s purpose was to address low levels of academic achievement, by reform- ing the public education system through the use of innovative alternatives to regular state schooling. Under the scheme, the state pays for low-income pupils to attend independent schools in Milwaukee. Like charter schools, non-profit independent schools which en- rol voucher-pupils are subject to fewer regulations, in exchange for the public release of school test scores. The freedoms independent schools enjoy is meant to enable them to be more innovative than Milwaukee Public Schools. As 240 schools, 127 of which were opened by new proprietors, participated in the MPCP between 1990 and 2013, and the scheme enrolled about a quarter of the number of Milwaukee’s regular state school pupils, Andersson and Ford believed the MPCP was a well-developed attempt at wide-scale social
entrepreneurship and thus social and educational innovation.
Andersson and Ford collected information about the enrolment, affiliation, and lifes- pan of every school that participated in the MPCP in any year between 1990 and 2013. They believed the MPCP produced a number of productive effects on Milwaukee’s under- performing public education system. While the results were only cross-sectional, and taken at the school level, in the 2012–2013 school year, 24% of MPCP schools achieved mathe- matics proficiency levels higher than the average for Milwaukee regular state schools, and a small number had mathematics proficiency levels higher than the state average. The scheme also expanded the number of schools which were available to low-income families that were different to regular state schools. As 82% of Milwaukee state school pupils were eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch (a measure of poverty), the vast majority of fami- lies at whom the MPCP was targeted had the chance to apply. What is more, the presence of alternatives encouraged regular schools to respond to families’ concerns. Parental sur- veys found that Milwaukee parents, on average, were more satisfied with their schools than parents in other cities, indicating that, overall, families were satisfied with schools. Lastly, the scheme has attracted outside investment, in the form of ‘Teach for America’ placing participants in independent Milwaukee voucher schools, and, in 2010, US$5.6 million in donations, from the Walton Foundation.
While these activities and outcomes helped the MPCP to achieve legitimacy, and cre- ated value in the education system, Andersson and Ford noted several unproductive ef- fects. While pupils’ educational achievement at some schools improved, the MPCP itself had no statistically significant effect on academic achievement across the state education system (Witte, Carlson, Cowen, Fleming, & Wolf,2012). The positive effects which were found were driven by changes to the school accountability policy, rather than the pressure of parental choice (Carlson, Cowen, & Fleming,2014). Further, it is possible 75% or more of MPCP recipients were already enrolled in independent schools, which means the in- tervention had a limited impact on the target group. These outcomes suggest the MPCP failed to share value in the ways promised to beneficiaries and supporters because the pro- gramme did not change the status quo.
The potentially destructive effect of failed voucher schools should also be considered. About 38% of participating schools voluntarily closed, or were made to close, because of poor quality. The vast majority of these schools were start-ups. The closures represented an inflation-adjusted US$200 million loss, or 24% of voucher funding. The perverse effects
of school competition also appear to have occurred, with the release of test score data en- couraging schools to market themselves on their academic achievement, and regular state schools enrolling double the proportion of special needs pupils than attended voucher schools. The segregation of some pupils by their backgrounds was an unintended con- sequence, which could have detrimental effects on the performance and character of the Milwaukee school system.
Because of the complexities of school choice programmes, including the institutional constraints on how schools can respond to competition, and which families take the op- portunity to use interventions, like vouchers or charter schools, Andersson and Ford be- lieved the MPCP, as an example of social entrepreneurship, has had some positive micro- effects, but many negative or neutral effects on the education system, over time. The MPCP is a case where the intended goals of the intervention were not achieved, and the intervention produced several positive and negative unintended consequences for partic- ipants, potential participants and the school system. Although the MPCP succeeded at creating a parallel system of publicly-funded independent schools, it did not achieve its intended goal of improving overall academic achievement, and may not have reached the most needy families.
From a value sharing perspective, these outcomes represent, at best, mixed results. At worst, they represent failures to exchange value among some beneficiaries and other stake- holders, to improve the achievement of Milwaukee public school pupils, and the quality of the education system. Families who should have benefited missed out on the oppor- tunity for their children to attend an independent school. By implication, resources were mis-allocated as the financial value from the voucher programme appeared to accrue to the independent schools which served the more advantaged families who applied for vouch- ers. This outcome did occur not because of poor investment, by government or finan- cial donors, but because of a failure to help families in need to access vouchers, or the ex- clusion, for whatever reason, of more difficult to teach pupils from independent schools. These design issues, as well as the effects of school competition, reduced the possibilities for collaboration, or to share effective practices among schools to tackle system-wide prob- lems. Together, these issues served to reduce the extent that value could be shared among stakeholders, and thereby reduced the potential benefits for society from reforming the education system.
tributions which have explored value sharing by educational social entrepreneurs, and
how that has contributed to value creation (Chand & Amin-Choudhury,2006; Chand
& Misra,2009). In these studies, Chand and others examined how Indian teachers work- ing in rural areas that experience socio-economic and educational disadvantage redefined their roles by developing innovative practices to improve educational outcomes. There are more opportunities for teachers to respond in this way in India, compared to New Zealand and other developed countries, because of the variable quality of the education system (see sub-section 4.3.3) and how society works there.
Chand and others argued that socially entrepreneurial teachers took on ‘extra-school roles’. They developed value networks in local communities to address problems facing the pupils whom they taught, including a lack of motivation to attend school, taking down social barriers to families enrolling their children at school, and obtaining resources for poor schools. These teachers saw themselves as competent educational and social leaders. For their efforts, they received the appreciation, respect and moral authority to lead from the communities in which they taught. Chand and others argued that these teachers were social entrepreneurs because they did not confine their concerns to the classroom and ad- ministrative functions of teaching. Instead, they expanded their horizons by creating a social mission for themselves.
The two contributions of Chand and his co-authors nonetheless highlight some key themes that the broader social entrepreneurship literature suggests are important for social entrepreneurs to have an impact. The teachers which Chand and his co-authors studied were able to capitalise on their local value networks and knowledge of families’ circum- stances to motivate families to enrol their children at school, and improve access to edu- cation for more children. They also worked hard to transform their available resources in new and different ways, to improve upon what would have been provided if they had
maintained the status quo (cf. Di Domenico et al.,2010). Moreover, these teachers did
not simply see their roles as educators, but as people with a responsibility to the wider community. Their efforts to improve education were not limited to what happened in schools, they also included involvement in non-educational activities, such as helping to run cooperatives or running local social services, to improve the welfare of their commu- nities. Their efforts took a community entrepreneurship approach, which helped to build trust for what they wanted to do at school.
provides insights which are helpful for studying schooling ventures. Their studies have highlighted what educational social entrepreneurs do, why they do it and how they do it is important for making a difference to the community around them. Like Eyal’s study, the studies by Chand and his co-authors suggest that attention should be paid to the rela- tionships which educational social entrepreneurs have with those whom they serve and the influence of the operating environment on the sorts of opportunities that might present themselves.
Further, these studies illustrate that educational social entrepreneurship can be dis- tinguished from other kinds of education or schooling, by how educational social en- trepreneurs recognise opportunities in solving educational problems, and respond by using different kinds of innovations. Importantly, their research confirms that educa- tional social entrepreneurship should include activities which go beyond instruction, but nonetheless contribute to providing better educational environments and better outcomes for pupils. Here, educational entrepreneurs’ willingness to work with communities, in ca- pacities beyond their roles as educators, appear to be vital for encouraging families to par- ticipate in their children’s schooling and building the legitimacy of their ventures. These sorts of observations indicate educational SEVs should be evaluated with a broader set of indicators which might show whether, and how, these ventures may contribute to human development.