I. Education Organization vs. School

Throughout this practicum I use the term 'education organization' or 'company' as opposed to 'school' because I am not dealing with a single facility, but a network of schools sharing one name and central management ("cookie-cutter schools" if you will). Furthermore, the organization is for-profit meaning financial prosperity is an important motivating factor.

Now I am well aware of the political and academic climate in regards to "cookie-cutter schools" – particularly ones that are for-profit. In my three years studying at OISE, I have seen little support among noted education theorists towards standardized schooling let alone profiting from them. The overall attitude can be adequately summarized by John Covaleskie's expression that schools seeking the fastest way to cut costs end up providing "educational junk food to a mass market, trading quality against cost containment." Such criticisms are hardly surprising when overenthusiastic companies such as Edison Schools have left so many debacles behind for us to study.

Although the focus of this practicum is not the morality behind these companies, I do find fault with the claim that financial efficiency and profit motives will inevitably lead to "educational junk food". Part of this criticism stems from the belief that schools should be "business-free zones" insulated from profit motives and crass commercialism, and yet public schools have long purchased goods and services from private companies – building contractors, architects, food service providers, custodial companies, textbook publishers, special education providers, and professional development consultants – that make a profit from schools (Wilson 266). And while critics like John Covaleskie invoke images of low quality "McSchools" producing junk education for a mass market, these same theorists almost never acknowledge the high quality products and services at low cost that other companies motivated by profit produce in almost every other walk of life.

The second criticism, that schools are unique and complex environments that should not be scaled and replicated like a retail chain is often misrepresented as something more ominous than it really is. Bringing things to scale, whether they be small tasks or larger procedures, is nothing new in the world of schooling as public school districts practice scaling each time they initiate a new reform (McLaughlin and Mitra 314). Attempting to replicate the success of one school onto others is a natural and regularly practiced process. The major difference between public schools and education institutes is that the latter spend significant resources trying to systematize the process, which to critics sounds mechanical and apathetic.

However, apathy and profit-motives can rarely coexist and I believe this is where the criticisms against these organizations fall apart. Several successful for-profit education institutes have flourished and continue to grow all around the world, in particular Kunskapsskolan in Sweden, SABIS in the Middle East, and National Heritage Academies in the U.S. These companies are highly regarded for their practices in raising educational quality and standards and I have no doubt that other institutes will develop and gain popularity as proven models are copied and mistakes learned from failed predecessors. I address these issues not because I feel the need to defend for-profit organizations from criticism (some of it is certainly warranted and they definitely do not need my help), but because I acknowledge their influence in schooling and find many of their practices worth our attention, even respect.