Do Charter Schools have a product life cycle?

I was poking around on the web today looking for more information on Charter Schools and came across a podcast from School Improvement Industry Weekly. The article was an editorial of Charter Schools in Ohio and discussed the product life cycle of such schools. You can find it in the right hand navigation bar under pod-casts.

The individual argued that free standing charter schools are effectively obsolete. Education Management organizations (EMOs) or charter Management organizations (CMOs) will inevitably replace them. This reiterated what I wrote earlier about the concern of more and more charter schools closing. It makes me think of the risks of putting a child in a school that has a chance of closing. Switching schools constantly (and curricula) is not going to provide a healthy learning environment.

The pod-cast goes on to say that the rapid growth era of charter schools is coming to a close. The next 12-18 months in Ohio will see fewer schools open and more faltering schools close.

The authors views are based on the product life cycle theory. He argues that products and services go through a one-way process of development, growth, maturity and decline. Therefore EMO's, CMO's must eventually replace charter schools

Some argue, however, that Charter schools, EMOs and CMOs are not a product, but instead are organizations offering the same service. The new competative services out there pertaining to education are online courses.

Survival of Charter Schools is a struggle because of per pupil payments below allocations per district schools, limited access to school facilities and financing, political risks, regulations that burden small schools but don't add much to educational performance, and isolationist tendencies in management theories.

Without annual subsidies, substandard facilities and the burn out of staff many schools will close.

But Charters also have many competitive advantage: intense loyalty of families and staff and school leadership, adaptability of educational advances to local needs, investment in a cooperative infrastructure, and ownership by the school.

This gives me more to chew on for now. What do others think?