I'm a regular reader of the Education Gadfly and Checker's columns and would like to clarify a statement made three weeks ago concerning Edison Schools. In your editorial announcing Dick Carpenter's typology of charter schools, you wrote: "There are lots more Edison schools today, for instance, than three years ago." In fact, the number of Edison managed schools has been in decline and the company has not recruited a new school district since 2002.
This past year, Edison experienced record losses of 20+ schools including: Chester Upland, its second largest contract, long time clients Miami and Flint, and charter revocations in DC and New York. A list of most cancelled/nonrenewed contracts is available here.
The company's high-water mark was 2002-2003, when it held contracts to manage 116 schools according to Arizona State University's annual profile of for-profit EMOs. The ASU profile cites the tally has dropped each year since, and today stands at 82 managed schools. The Edison website currently claims 101 schools, but this number includes 19 schools in Hawaii and South Carolina known as "Alliance Schools," a partnership program in which Edison's role is that of an advisor trying to elevate student achievement.
Edison has gained additional schools as it has diversified its educational services beyond school management to include consulting, computerized testing, student assessment, and after school programs. However, the company is best known for its school management services. Its role as a vendor of supplemental services/programs should be counted separately.
The accounting is confusing and the Edison website doesn't help to clarify the picture. Perhaps Gadfly can encourage Chris Whittle to clear the air.
Karen Miller
Houston, Texas