Introduction

Although the participation of private companies in education is expansive, this Wiki site has been designed to focus specifically on the presence of Education Management Organizations (EMOs) in American K-12 education. EMOs are for-profit management companies that manage schools receiving public funds (Molnar, Miron, & Urschel, 2009). For-profit EMOs differ from non-profit management organizations in that they operate in an effort to return a profit to their company and investors through providing services. 

Table of Contents.

| History | Policy Research | Contemporary Politics | Policy Analysis |

| Private Companies in Action: A Glimpse into Philadelphia |

History 

EMOs began to form during the early 1990's as wide spread interest in market-based reform proposals gained popularity. The basic premise is to bring an entrepreneurial and innovative spirit and competitive edge to education by forcing public schools to compete with privately managed schools to either improve student achievement or cease operating (Molnar, et. al., 2009). The emergence of EMOs was primarily in response to efforts to repair academically troubled schools in districts and occurred as the charter movement began. 

Continue reading...

Policy Research

Although Education Management Organizations have been operating since the early 1990s, we know relatively little about them.  Since EMOs are privately run companies, their proprietary status limits what they must disclose to the public (Miron, 2008). EMO’s have two goals, one is to make a profit, and the other is to increase competition and in turn increase student performance (Levin, 2001).  It is on these two goals that EMOs success should be measured.  We must also remember that EMOs are operating within the current public school system and must navigate the politics and pressures that involves (Levin, 2002). Continue reading... 

Contemporary Politics

Education Management Organizations (EMOs) have been seen as controversial throughout their history by many players in the education world; there exists support and opposition around the notion of privatization in education. As EMOs continue to grow in different contexts, whether it be making profits through online programs, or managing schools it is important to look at the political context of these issues. Continue reading...

Policy Analysis

As the landscape of education reform changed to include EMOs, state oversight has lagged behind in providing frameworks within which EMOs operate.  Our policy recommendations include updates to charter laws, establishing a regulatory board, contract guidelines adapted from Miron (2008), and increased financial transparency.  These policy recommendations are intended to create a climate where EMOs are a source of innovation and competition within the school reform movement. Continue reading... 

Private Companies in Action: A Glimpse into Philadelphia

After years of political turmoil and disastrous student achievement in the Philadelphia Public School System, in an unprecedented move, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued a state takeover. Amidst high public resistance, in December of 2001, the Pennsylvania Education Secretary Charles Zogby signed a Declaration of Distress, signaling for the first time that Philadelphia no longer had control over the ways in which their schools were run. However, as the story played out, this was not necessarily the case. The relationship between the public and private sector proved to be more “blurry” than was first anticipated. Former US Secretary of Education Rod Paige stated in 2004 (as cited through Gold, Christman and Herold. 2007) that the Philadelphia experiment had “blurred the line between public and private. . . . Everyone in the nation should take notice of these [public-private] partnerships.” (p. 182). Continue reading... 

Looking for more information?

References | Appendix | Additional Resources    

Thanks for being vistor # :).