Profiles of For-Profit Education Management Organizations 2004-2005 - Seventh-Annual Report

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Jake

Seventh-annual reporting profiles for-profit Education Management Organizations (EMOs) during 2004-2005, tracking continued industry expansion and higher enrollment in EMO-managed schools across multiple states and the District of Columbia. It defines EMOs as for-profit firms managing publicly funded schools under public-school admissions rules, and highlights that charter schools dominate EMO contracts. The report presents year-by-year growth in profiled companies, managed schools, and student enrollment, and discusses drivers such as charter legislation and federal policy incentives, including tutoring opportunities.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages185

Reading Time7 h 46 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Factors Shaping the Industry

Charter Schools and EMO Contracts

Industry Consolidation

Profiles of For-Profit Education Management Organizations 2004-2005 Seventh-Annual Report by Alex Molnar, David Garcia, Carolyn Sullivan, Brendan McEvoy and Jamie Joanou Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU) Education Policy Studies Laboratory College of Education Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Box 872411 Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-2411 EPSL April 2005 EDUCATION POLICY STUDIES LABORATORY Commercialism in Education Research Unit EPSL-0504-101-CERU [http://edpolicylab.org](http://edpolicylab.org) Education Policy Studies Laboratory Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies College of Education, Arizona State University P.O. Box 872411, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411 Telephone: (480) 965-1886 Fax: (480) 965-0303 E-mail: [epsl@asu.edu](epsl@asu.edu) [http://edpolicylab.org](http://edpolicylab.org) Profiles of For-Profit Education Management Organizations 2004-2005 Introduction In 2004-2005 the education management industry continued its decade-long expansion. More students were enrolled in schools managed by Education Management Organizations (EMOs) in 2004-2005 than at any time since the Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU) and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) began tracking the industry in 1998-1999.1 The term EMO, originally coined by Wall Street analysts to describe the for-profit companies involved in the management and administration of public schools, is intended to reflect similarities between such companies and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) .2 For the purposes of this report, a company is considered an EMO ifit is for-profit, manages a school that receives public funds, and operates under the same admissions rules as regular public schools. This year’s Profiles of For-Profit Education Management Organizations is the largest to date, listing 59 companies that manage 535 schools, enrolling approximately 239,766 students in 24 states and the District of Columbia. In the past year, eight firms have been added to the Profiles, raising the total from 51 in 2003-2004 to 59 in 2004-2005. The 2004-2005 Profiles report is the seventh-annual report on for-profit education management companies. Table 1 indicates the growth in the number of such companies profiled from 1998-1999 through 2004-2005. Table 1: Number of Companies, Schools, and States Profiled by Year |
School Year
1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

2004-05 | Number of Companies Profiled |
Number of Schools Managed by Profiled Companies
| Number of Students Enrolled by Profiled Companies | Number of States in Which Profiled Companies Operate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | 13 | | N/A | 15 | | | 20 | | N/A | 21 | | | 21 | | N/A | 22 | | | 36 | | 142,709 | 25* | | | 54 | | 189,199 | 26* | | | 51 | | 200,403 | 29* | | | 59 | | 239,766 | 25* | *This number includes the District of Columbia. EMOs manage district schools under a contract with local school districts and charter schools. It is charter school legislation, however, more than any other factor, that is fueling the growth of the for-profit education industry. Although charter schools are public schools operated with public funds, they are generally established by organizations independent of a school district and are given greater freedom in their day-to-day operations in return for achieving certain specified outcomes. Charter holders may include groups of parents, teachers, or both; academic institutions; and non-profit or other organizations. It is common for charter holders to hire EMOs to manage charter schools on their behalf. Less often, EMOs may hold charters directly.3 Charter schools account for a large and growing majority of EMO contracts. Of the EMO-managed schools covered in the Profiles of For-Profit Education Management Companies 2004-2005, 86 percent are charter schools, up from 81 percent in 2003-2004 an

FAQs

How does the report define an Education Management Organization (EMO)?

A company is considered an EMO if it is for-profit, manages a school receiving public funds, and operates under the same admissions rules as regular public schools.

What types of schools dominate EMO-managed contracts in 2004-2005?

Charter schools dominate, accounting for 86% of EMO-managed schools covered in the profiles for 2004-2005.

What policy-related factor is described as fueling growth in the for-profit education industry?

The report points to charter school legislation as a major factor, and it also describes provisions in the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“No Child Left Behind”) that encourage for-profit education enterprises.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Jake