@plainoldme,
From wiki:
For-profit schools are educational institutions that are run by private, profit-seeking companies or organizations.
There are two major types of for-profit schools. One type is known as an educational management organization, or EMO, and these are primary and secondary educational institutions. EMOs work with school districts or charter schools, using public funds to finance operations. The majority of for-profit schools in the K-12 sector in America function as EMOs, and have grown in number in recent years.[citation needed] The other category of for-profit schools are post-secondary institutions which operate as businesses, receiving fees from each student they enroll.
EMOs function differently from charter schools created in order to carry out a particular teaching pedagogy; most charter schools are mission-oriented, while EMOs and other for-profit institutions are market-oriented. While supporters argue that the profit motive encourages efficiency it has also drawn controversy and criticism.
In the 1990s, the for-profit college and university sector boomed, particularly in the United States.
Though for-profit schools still make up only a small percentage of America's educational institutions, in just a few years their numbers have grown dramatically. In February 2000, there were hundreds of thousands of students being taught at 200 for-profit postsecondary facilities, with approximately six percent of students nationally enrolled at a for-profit institution. Eduventures, a higher education research and consulting firm, states that nine percent of all U.S. college and graduate students attend for-profit institutions.
Between 1998 and 2000 a Boston-based company named Advantage Schools (since taken over by Mosaica Education) saw its revenue increase from $4 million to approximately $60 million. Between 1995 and 2000 the Edison Schools' yearly revenues grew from $12 million to $217 million. In 2000 Edison Schools projected that by 2006 it would manage about 423 schools with 260,000 students, giving it revenue of $1.8 billion.
Supporters claim that for-profit school operate more efficiently,[6][7] and that these increases in efficiency can lead to lower fees.[8] Moreover, they argue that financial competition encourages the schools to seek out better qualified teachers.[citation needed]
Supporters argue that for-profit schools rely on attracting students rather than compelling attendance and therefore tend to be more responsive to parents' wishes, and are especially flexible and responsive to the needs of adult learners,[9] and that they also encourage policies that address bottom-line academic performance allowing them to focus on what consumers (students) want—if parents or students do not like the service being offered, they are able to take their business elsewhere.
Supporters also argue that the schools' drive to attract new customers pushes them to innovate and improve at a faster rate than traditional public schools.[citation needed]
Proponents of for-profit schools claim that market operations governing the school promote effective decision- and policy-making.[citation needed] By their example, for-profit schools have the potential to encourage reform in public institutions. Thus, for-profit schools theoretically benefit children, parents, investors, and those who rely on public education.
One problem with for-profit schools is that, being quite new, there have been few systematic examinations of them.
The few existing reports show mixed results.
Opponents say that the fundamental purpose of an educational institution should be to educate, not to turn a profit.
In 2000, Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association, stated: "Educating children is very different from producing a product."
Others claim that because for-profit schools have never been a mainstream idea, no complete blueprint for running a for-profit institution really exists, which could lead school administration to make costly errors.
For example, in order to maximize profit, valuable services and activities are often eliminated. Extracurricular activities such as sports teams or volunteer clubs are left with little or no budgeting in order to keep costs low. This loss of non-academic activities might hurt a child's ability to enroll in some colleges or universities later on. The two largest EMOs in operation today, Edison* and Advantage, claimed to have high school juniors completing college-level coursework, but recent studies have shown that many of these students are performing at or below the 11th-grade level.
For-profit colleges usually draw-in a high percentage of under-educated African-Americans and Mexican-Americans into the classroom, especially those with a GED or low high school GPA.[citation needed] Their mission is to take the money of these type of students by allowing them to sign up for federal student aid, requiring their parents or legal guardian to co-sign the loan, despite the student being over 18, and leaving them with a crippling debt for what some would consider a worthless degree.[citation needed]
Some former students claim that for-profit colleges make them feel like they went to the flea market and bought themselves a degree.
According to James G. Andrews in a American Association of University Professors article corporate models of education harm the mission of education.
* POM's comment: I have heard negative things about Edison and that some communities ousted Edison after adopting its program.
