As your editor has  discussed throughout the history of SIIW • The Podcast, the effort by EMOs and CMOs to pursue quality "control" is a fool's errand. The costs of adequate control sytems and devoting staff to enforce compliance are incredibly high to headquarters, the impact on the outcomes of laggards is generally minimal, and the lost opportunities to boost the performance of the network's superior schools are rarely taken into account.

Whatever its reasons for parting company with seven schools last year, as reported by the Washington Post's Jay Mathews and pursued by Andrew Russo in This Week in Education, KIPP made the right decision. See KIPP's Annual Report.

Whole school improvement models are neither "silver bullets", nor "plug and play" audio components.  They are offers of partnership. Outcomes are the joint product of the provider and those managing the school. If the model is not implemented, the results it promises cannot be achieved. High-quality implementation cannot be "managed" or "directed" from a remote headquarters, or coerced from schools. Bribery hasn't proved to be a viable approach either - as many foundations can attest.  Schools and their staffs must be intellectually and emotionally committed to the model.

If a model is perceived to fail because too many inappropriate partnerships drag down the network's overall performance, schools that might otherwise profit from adoption will be discouraged from doing so. Kids who really need this kind of approach won't get it. When the relationship with a partner school is not working out after the provider has made reasonable efforts to get it on the right track, the only moral judgement for headquarters is to part ways with the school. 

Quality control is a fool's errand, but quality "assurance" is a necessity. It costs a great deal to "acquire" a customer - in outreach/marketing budgets, time spent negotiating relationships, leadership energy, etc., etc. In this regard, analysis done for your editor while he was New American Schools' COO on its eight whole school reform organizations, experience monitoring equity investments and loans the Education Entrepreneurs Fund, and his own more recent looks at EMOs and CMOs, are revealing. Most providers are surprised to learn that they do not begin to recoup the costs of finding and qualifying partners and initial model implementation until well into their second or even third year working with a school. (Indeed, most don't track or fully appreciate the amount of these costs - or their impact on the mission.) Even when required, separating from a parter before then is expensive, and again represents an opportunity cost - the right partner that was not selected because the wrong partner took its place.

Over time, diligent providers internalize the importance of client selection. They learn to identify the right kind of partners before they sign any agreements on program implementation. It is a sign of maturity when a provider is willing to "fire" some customers. It means the organization is not desperate for revenues to cover cash flow and so can literally "afford" to be selective, that management understands how long term success and sustainability depend on the organization's average school/student performance, and that the mission is only harmed when inappropriate partnership decisions are not revisited and reversed.

KIPP is showing signs of maturity. Bravo.