Return to Homepage | Full Text (PDF) 

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.

Major Actors/ Big Coalitions

• EMOs have been viewed as a political contest between professional reformers, who are mostly educationists, and radical reformers who include business leaders and community activists. 
• “Supporters of market-based reforms also argue that the reforms will help to promote innovation and eliminate inefficiencies caused by bureaucratic red tape.  Giving schools more flexibility is a goal of the site-based management programs in many public school systems…” (Ladd, 2002).
• EMOs have held support in the past from Republican politicians, radicalized education activists, African American and Latino Community leaders, all who are dissatisfied with the current public education system, (Wilson, 2006)
• Teachers unions including the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are all examples of the opposition to EMOs.
• The voices of teachers and parents and public constituents of districts have had the power in the past to sway the political district leanings on this topic.
• A parent voice for Philadelphia public schools known as Parents United, vehemently opposes EMOs in the Philadelphia school district.  They write, “We are appalled at the crass and blatant intrusion of politicians, Wall Street, and EMO executives to influence what should be an academic decision.”
• Community members in Philadelphia are not happy with the influx of EMOs in their schools. 

Political Barriers

Local politics play a huge part in the possible success of EMOs.  An investor remarks, (investor asked to remain anonymous) people do not like the idea of “making a buck on a kid.”  Knowing that these organizations are for-profit raises concerns for many who think this may be more valued than the actual education and school.

Hentschke et. al second the argument that is associated with “assumptions about inherent motivation and suspected behavior of profit-seeking businesses”.  People assume that for-profit companies take money away from kids and put it into their pockets.

Another large barrier to EMO groups is the removal of the control of financial resources, along with staffing authority from local education officials, (Hentschke et.al, 2002).

Opportunities For Change

The concern of the public that companies and Wall Street are making money off of children and possibly limiting resources at these schools in order to make a profit brings to light a valid anxiety.  If schools were more upfront with constituents, parents and policy makers maybe these fears would lessen.  

Click here to read a former Edison teacher interview.