Buyer beware: Using external providers to improve schools 

Whether they’re seeking to improve instruction, revamp their curricula, or provide more social-emotional support, schools with limited staff time and resources often turn to outside experts for help. As a result, billions of dollars have been pumped into what has become a robust school improvement industry made up of companies ranging from single-person consultancies and small evaluation firms to whole-school operators and large research and development agencies (Emma, 2015; Rowan, 2002). These companies — also known as external providers — differ considerably with respect to the services they provide, how they provide them, and the extent to which they have evidence that their services are effective. Yet they have become embedded in many states’ overarching approach for improving underperforming schools. 

As the number of external providers continues to climb, educational leaders at all levels can easily get lost in the complexities of figuring out where to spend Title I and other monies. Decisions about which external providers to hire or fire get muddier and muddier, and leaders often end up having little to show for all the money spent trying to improve underperforming schools (Murphy & Bleiburg, 2019). To help educational leaders make important decisions about how to work with external providers, we have conducted a series of studies that seek to map the landscape of how state education agencies (SEAs), districts, and schools engage with these companies. Based on our research, we offer some big-picture considerations for schools, districts, and SEAs, as well as some ideas for the future. 

In our initial analysis of how SEAs planned to use federal turnaround funds for low-performing schools, we sorted states into three categories: internal, hybrid, and external (VanGronigen & Meyers, 2019). Internal states administered school improvement efforts entirely within their SEA, without the help of external providers. Hybrid states used both their SEA and external providers to implement school improvement efforts. In external states, the SEA had no role in school improvement efforts; it was all outsourced to external providers. Only five states (Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Montana, and South Dakota) were classified as internal — the remaining states engaged to some degree with external providers, including eight (Alaska, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) that only used external providers to improve schools.