Profiles Of For-Profit EducationManagement
Last updated 21 February 2001
INTRODUCTION
The
1990s were a period of rapidexpansion for what is now called the
“education industry.” One of the fastest growingsections of that
industry is that of companies managing public schools,particularly
charter schools, for profit. Companies have always profited fromselling
necessary supplies to schools, but the concept of making a profit
fromthe administration and practice of K-12 public education itself is
new.Industry watchers have coined the term “education management
organization,” orEMO, to describe these companies, and the comparison
to HMOs seems accurate toboth proponents and critics of the phenomenon.
The
charter school movement hasbeen a boon to EMOs. The first charter
school law was passed in Minnesota in1991. Currently, most of the 37
states with charter school laws permit thecharter holder to be a
for-profit firm or allow the charter holder tosubcontract with
for-profit firms for management assistance or total schoolmanagement.
States having what are considered the strongest charter school
laws(i.e., the most flexible), such as Arizona and Michigan, also have
the mostschools managed by for-profit companies.
The
2000-01 Profiles report isCERAI’s third in an annual series, and the
numbers of companies and schoolsprofiled in each consecutive report
have grown:
| SCHOOL YEAR | Number of Companies Profiled | Number of Schools Managed by Profiled Companies | Number of States in which Profiled Companies Operate |
| 1998-1999 | 13 | 135 | 15 |
| 1999-2000 | 20 | 230 | 21 |
| 2000-2001 | 21 | 285 | 22 |
The
companies profiled represent onlythose that CERAI researchers could
positively identify as for-profit managementcompanies, and are likely
to represent only the largest or most high-profile ofthe many firms
that exist. A table that lists other companies for which
limitedinformation is available can be found at the end of the
document.
Most
of the EMOs described in thisreport have readily shared information
about their companies and the publicschools they run. However, a
handful of companies failed to respond to repeatedrequests for
information or for confirmation of information otherwise obtained.EMOs
which have not provided information for at least two years of this
studyare Charter School Administrative Services and White Hat
Management. Thefailure of these companies to respond to information
requests raises animportant policy question: Do private companies have
to disclosed the sametypes of information that government entities do
when they manage a publicinstitution?
Some states are finding thatquestion difficult to answer. For example:
In
Michigan, a Booth Newspaperssurvey conducted in the spring of 2000
found that a majority of charters in thestate failed to comply with
information requests filed under the state Freedomof Information Act.
After making requests for basic data such as teachers’names and
salaries, the newspaper group received partial or no responses from94
of 176 charter schools (53%, compared with 5% noncompliance rate for
asample of 87 traditional public schools). According to the Associated
Press,most of the refusals to respond were based on the argument that
as a privateemployer, an EMO does not have to disclose information
about their employees tothe public.
In
Ohio, an audit released inMarch 2000 by the state’s Legislative Office
of Education Oversight reportedthat most of the state’s first 15
charter schools failed to demonstrate thatthey met their educational
goals for their first year, didn’t explain how theyevaluate student
achievement, and didn’t provide parents with the type ofin-depth annual
progress report required by law.
The
questions that CERAIresearchers asked company representatives for this
report were different fromthose posed in the Michigan and Ohio studies.
However, the results of all ofthe studies suggest that the question of
how much information a for-profiteducation management company must
provide to the public will remain a point ofcontention for the
foreseeable future.
CERAI
has attempted to provideinformation that is accurate and complete.
Company representatives areencouraged to send corrections and additions
to the CERAI office for inclusionin the next edition of the Profiles
414-229-5423 fax
Summary of For-profit Education Management Companies
This chart is a summary ofthe more detailed individual company profiles which follow.
| Company Name and Location | Total Number of Schools Operating | Number of Schools That Are Charter Schools | States in Which Company Is Operating |
| Advantage Schools, Boston, MA | 15 | 15 | AZ, DC, GA, IL, MA, MI, NC, NJ, NY, PA, TX |
| Beacon Education Management, Westborough, MA | 25 | 25 | IL, MA, MI, MO, NC, NY |
| Charter School Administrative Services, Southfield, MI | 15 | 15 | FL, MI, MO, TX |
| Charter Schools USA, Fort Lauderdale, FL | 4 | 4 | FL, TX |
| Crawford First Education Portsmouth, VA | 5 | 1 | IL, MN, VA |
| Designs for Learning St. Paul, MN | 6 | 6 | MN |
Edison Schools, New York, NY | 84* | 26 | CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IA, KS, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX, WI |
| Excel Education Centers, Prescott, AZ | 6 | 6 | AZ |
| Helicon Associates, Flat Rock, MI | 8 | 8 | MI |
| LearnNow, Inc., New York, NY. | 5 | 5 | DC, MN, PA |
| Leona Group, East Lansing, MI | 34 | 28 | AZ, MI |
| Malone Management, Grand Rapids, MI | 0 | 0 | MI |
| Montessori Charter School of Flagstaff, Flagstaff, AZ | 1 | 1 | AZ |
| Mosaica Education San Rafael, CA | 12 | 12 | CO, DE, MI, NJ, PA |
| National Heritage Academies, Grand Rapids, MI | 27 | 26 | MI, NC, NY |
| Nobel Learning Communities, Media, PA | 5 | 5 | AZ, PA |
SABIS Educational Systems, Eden Prairie, MN | 6 | 5 | MA, MI, MN, OH |
| Smart Schools, Inc., Howell, MI | 4 | 4 | MI |
| TesseracT Group, Scottsdale, AZ | 11* | 9 | AZ, MN |
| Victory Schools, Inc., New York, NY | 3 | 3 | NY |
| White Hat Management, Akron, OH | 9* | 9 | OH |
| TOTALS in this report | 285 | 213 | AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX, VA, WI |
For-profit Education Management Company Profile
| Address | Telephone | WWW Address | Year Founded | Privately Held or Publicly Traded | Profitable or Not Profitable |
| 60 Canal St. Boston, MA 02114 | (617) 523-2220 or (888) 292-2344 FAX: (617) 523-2221 | www.advantage-schools.com | 1996 | Privately held | Not Profitable[1] |
Schools
| School Name | Location | Year Founded | Grade Levels Served | Charter School? |
| Phoenix Advantage School | Phoenix, AZ | 1997 | K-8 | Yes |
| Arts and Technology Academy | Washington, DC | 1999 | K-6 |