Edison Schools has run its “Something to Think About” series of ads on page 2 of Education Week for years. The style was pure Chris Whittle, who wanted to brighten the world by inventing a light bulb rather than coming up with a better candle. The ads challenged the reader to think and, while his goal was to spark reflection, it is not that hard to see how the campaign might be perceived to imply that Whittle and Edison thought they were better, smarter and more effective than their prospective clients. That's rarely the best sales pitch to professionals.

Your editor has corresponded with Whittle for years and believes he is a man of ideas fused into action. Unlike many with far fewer accomplishments, he is hardly one unprepared to engage in the rough and tumble of debate with anyone that has some ideas, whatever their rank or status. Moreover, whatever you might think of the guy, he did not come from some other business to education. Whittle spent his entire career as an education entrepreneur. He and Edison definitely suffered from first-mover set-backs more than they enjoyed the "new economy's" supposed competitive advantage. Whittle learned much along the way and was never afraid to admit, share or apply it.

That's the man. Unfortunately, it is still entirely possible that the Something to Think About ad campaign discouraged more fence-sitting superintendents from pursuing a school management contract with Edison than it won over. This became more likely after several RAND studies on Edison could be interpreted to say that a superintendent who chooses to contract out a troubled school’s operation to the firm (and why contract out any other kind of school?) faces roughly the same 50/50 chance of improvement as trying to do it in-house. Not exactly a light bulb; maybe not even a slightly better candle.

It's been fairly obvious that Whittle has been drifting out of the center of Edison’s management for some time. Whether he was nudged by investors or concluded he needed to move on isn’t all that relevant. What’s important is "whither Edison?"

Let's step back and assess where the firm stands. Truly breakthrough academic results have not been achieved – instead we have a war of studies on just how marginally positive or negative Edison's performance has been overall and in Philadelphia. It’s entirely likely that the firm will suffer at least a partial non-renewal and financial set-back in the latter. There’s some question whether Paul Vallas will ask the firm to join him in the Big Easy after their shared experience in the City of Brotherly Love. And not asking Edison into that devastated school district is a fairly damning vote of no confidence other superintendents can hardly ignore. The firm's image with educators as a school manager is problematic at best and its “whole school” EMO business is not likely to grow much.

Turn to the parts of the model that have been structured as separate school improvement offerings. Newton's SES and extra-school services have had their share of bad press, academic results aren’t stellar, it takes a pile of cash to grow a national business, and its potential buyer/competitors are having their own problems. Edison Alliance (a kind of neo-CSR model) and Tungsten Learing (Edison’s management systems) are not exactly household names, even in the small community of school improvement providers. Maybe Edison UK is doing well servicing its thirty-odd schools.

Given this, it's reasonable to look at the firm's new advertisement in the May 16 issue of Education Week for some clues about strategy. The ad takes the form of a letter to "Friends in Public Education" from Edison’s President and CEO Terry Stecz.  (Stecz joined the firm as COO in 2004 and became CEO in January of 2007. Before joining he was President, Consumer Healthcare, Americas, for Phamacia, distributor of Celebrex and Nicorette.)  The theme of the new ad is summed up at the start of Stecz's fourth paragraph: "I want to offer you (our) resources;" and his final sentance: “I think I’ll learn more from listening.”

Maybe it’s just PR – a deliberate effort to suggest a contrast between Whittle and Stecz. Maybe Stecz truly knows where he plans to take Edison and merely hopes to get input for fine-tuning. Your editor is more inclined to take the new CEO at face value - the firm doesn’t know where to go.  It has concluded that it might improve its image if it stopped telling superintendents what to think about and started to appear a bit more humble. Stecz has decided to turn the weakness of indecision into a perceptual strength by "reaching out" to educators for advice.

Fine, but as admirable as it is to admit your knowledge is not limitless, just how reassuring can it be to a working superintendent that Edison’s CEO feels a need to emphasize in the letter that he was selected for the Broad Foundation’s Superintendent Academy? It’s not like Edison’s upper reaches are without real and competent former superintendents. It's not like Broad wasn't going to select him, considering his symbolic value. It's not going to put him on par with anyone who actually has the job. Superintendents who value Broad are bound to ask themselves "what person who might actually have become a superintendent didn't get picked because of this guy?" 

O.K., so its "symbolic," but of what? A kinder, gentler CEO? Or every professional’s fear of a manager with just enough knowledge to be truly dangerous? It's also worth pointing out that if educators could provide Edison with the answer to its problems, they probably wouldn't need the firm to help them with their own. The whole thing suggests Stecz is either naive or cynical. Your editor chooses naive; many educators will pick cynical.

The institute Stecz needs to attend is the one he heads. For-profit and nonprofit providers have been at the business of school improvement since 1990, and Edison was there right from the start. Indeed no small part of the early intellectual capital behind the industry came from Edison's own CAO John Chubb (who published Politics, Markets and America's Schoolsin 1990 with co-author Terry Moe (now at Stanford)) as well as Whittle himself. If industry leaders have learned anything since, it is that their services are not magic pills. They only work if they are implemented with fidelity. Teachers must want to implement the program. Districts must want to provide the necessary support. Providers must be there when their clients need them.

This is not rocket science. National Heritage, White Hat and Opportunities for Learning have shown success is possible. The hard work lies in operationalizing these principles, and that's about the management of a business called Edison, not the administration of public school districts.

Had Stecz's message been something like: “We've learned that outcomes depend the joint efforts of Edison, its partner districts and its partner teachers. We’re looking for good partners and we promise to be a good partner,” your editor would believe Edison has a direction. Ditto if he had said the firm will focus on building a network of charter schools in states that support the concept. These are strategies. The new ad's theme sounds more like “we have a collection of competencies and we are not sure how to package them. Please tell us." This does not engender confidence.

One can only wish any new CEO the best, but it's hard to be optimistic here. There is really only one way to turn this company's situation around, and while listening to prospective clients can't hurt - up to a point, the only way Edison's prospects will change for the better is with breakthough results in student performance. Frankly, if "listening" is the strategy, Stecz doesn't have that kind of time, and your editor wonders whether Edison’s board shouldn't take a much closer look at selling the car for parts, while the parts still have some value.