Who Is Working to Privatize Our Public Schools and Libraries?

Understanding the organizations, financial interests, and political networks reshaping America's public institutions

Public schools and libraries have something fundamental in common: They were created to serve everyone. A public school must provide an education to the children in its community. A public library makes books, information, technology, and other resources available regardless of a person's income or background. Both institutions are built on the idea that access to knowledge is a public good, not a privilege reserved for those who can afford it.

But across the United States, powerful organizations are working to change how these institutions are funded, governed, and operated. Some advocate transferring public education dollars to private schools. Others promote outsourcing public library management to for-profit companies. Still others seek to restrict what publicly funded institutions can teach, offer, or make available.

These efforts are not identical, and the organizations involved do not necessarily share every objective. However, their activities raise an important question: What happens when these large, well-funded organizations have more power and influence than the people they claim to represent?

The Organizations Promoting Private School Choice

The movement to redirect public education funding toward private alternatives has grown substantially in recent years. School vouchers, education savings accounts (ESAs), and tax-credit scholarship programs allow public resources or tax-supported funds to help families pay for education outside traditional public schools.

Supporters argue these programs empower parents, expand educational opportunities, and introduce competition that can improve schools. Critics question whether they divert resources from public education while subsidizing private institutions that may have different admissions requirements and accountability standards. 

Several national advocacy organizations, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Federation for Children, EdChoice, and Americans for Prosperity, support expanding school choice. Their policy priorities include universal vouchers, education savings accounts, and greater parental control over education spending. These organizations have participated in efforts to promote school choice through legislative actions at the state and national levels.

Heritage also coordinated Project 2025, a broad policy initiative proposing significant changes to federal education policy. Library advocates have raised concerns about the project's treatment of librarians, educational materials, and federal support for public institutions. EveryLibrary, a national political action organization supporting libraries, warned that Project 2025 could undermine intellectual freedom and weaken public institutions through funding and governance changes.

The Financial Interests Behind Privatization

The movement toward private education is not driven exclusively by nonprofit advocacy organizations. Private businesses also stand to benefit from administering publicly funded education programs.

As education savings accounts expand, states increasingly contract with technology companies to manage applications, distribute funds, approve purchases, and oversee transactions. Companies including ClassWallet, Odyssey, and Student First Technologies have competed for these contracts.

A 2025 ProPublica investigation documented how companies managing school choice programs pursued multimillion-dollar state contracts and, in some cases, used lobbying and other tactics to influence government decisions. The investigation also identified administrative problems and disputes involving contractors. (ProPublica)

This creates another layer of privatization: Even when public money ultimately supports a student's education, private companies may profit from administering the system. That does not automatically mean these companies are acting improperly. However, it raises questions about transparency, oversight, administrative costs, and accountability. When taxpayer dollars flow through private organizations, the public should be able to follow that money.

What About Public Libraries?

The privatization of public libraries operates differently from school voucher programs. Most public libraries remain publicly funded and operated. However, some municipalities contract with private companies to manage library services.

One prominent example is Library Systems & Services (LS&S), a company that manages library operations under contracts with local governments. LS&S promotes its services as a way for communities to reduce operating costs, improve efficiency, and access professional management resources. The company emphasizes that local governments retain oversight and strategic direction. Library privatization can therefore involve transferring day-to-day operations to a private company without transferring ownership of library buildings or collections.

Nevertheless, this arrangement raises important questions. Who makes decisions about staffing? How are collections managed? What happens when financial efficiency conflicts with community needs? How much information about operations remains publicly accessible?

The American Library Association has adopted a policy opposing the transfer of library policymaking and management oversight from the public to the private for-profit sector. Its position emphasizes that publicly funded libraries should remain directly accountable to the communities they serve. 

Importantly, outsourcing library management is not the same as censoring books. A private management contract does not, by itself, establish that a company supports book bans. The concern is whether privatization can weaken public accountability over institutions whose purpose is to provide equitable access to information.

Where Book Censorship Fits Into the Picture

Other organizations involved in the school choice debate present themselves as grassroots movements representing parents and local communities. One of the best-known examples is Moms for Liberty, a national organization founded in Florida that has since established local chapters across the country. However, the extent to which these chapter-based organizations represent the broader population of public school parents, educators, and other school stakeholders varies. Many of these organizations also maintain connections with national policy organizations, including the Heritage Foundation, raising questions about the relationship between local advocacy and broader policy agendas.

These organizations often frame their advocacy around “parental concerns” about school governance, curriculum, and educational materials. However, it is important to consider how widely these concerns are shared among families whose children currently attend public schools, particularly when school data may suggest a different picture. Additionally, some groups now boast about using AI tools to identify or flag school board agendas for scrutiny, raising questions about how advocacy priorities are established and whether campaigns presented as local concerns are shaped by broader, coordinated efforts. Organic grassroots advocacy reflects the real experiences and concerns of the people in our local public schools. To understand how well these organizations represent their communities, it is important to look at who is involved, where their concerns come from, and how their campaigns are organized.

Not all organizations involved in these debates have exactly the same goals or motivations. It is important to distinguish between groups that explicitly advocate for public funding of private education and those that also focus on curriculum, educational materials, and school governance. Moms for Liberty, for example, is not a private school voucher administrator or a private library management company. Its relevance to the broader debate over privatization lies instead in the potential overlap between ideologically driven campaigns over public school policies and larger movements seeking structural changes to the public education system.

EveryLibrary's 2025 report, The Censorship Acceleration, examined this relationship, arguing that political conflicts over school materials can contribute to declining confidence in public institutions and create opportunities for privatization advocates. (Bibliotheekblad)

That is an argument about political consequences, not proof that every individual challenging a book intends to privatize schools. Still, the relationship deserves scrutiny. When public schools and libraries are repeatedly portrayed as failing, dangerous, or untrustworthy, communities may become more receptive to proposals that transfer resources or authority elsewhere.

Who Benefits When Public Resources Become Private?

One of the most significant questions surrounding privatization is whether these policies improve access for everyone. A September 2025 analysis from the Brookings Institution examined universal or near-universal private school choice programs in six states. Researchers found that funding disproportionately benefited families in wealthier communities, particularly where programs lacked income restrictions. The analysis also identified potential barriers for lower-income families, including limited access to private schools and tuition costs exceeding voucher amounts. (Brookings)

These findings challenge the assumption that making private education subsidies universally available necessarily produces equitable outcomes. A voucher may help one family access a preferred school while doing little for another family whose community has no nearby private school. Private institutions may also have different requirements regarding admissions, disability accommodations, transportation, and student services.

Meanwhile, public schools remain responsible for educating the students in their communities. The Education Law Center has warned that universal voucher programs can impose substantial costs on state budgets, particularly when they subsidize students already attending private schools. (Education Law Center)

The same principle applies to libraries: A system cannot be considered truly accessible simply because services exist somewhere. Those services must be available to the people who need them.

What Communities Can Do

Protecting public institutions begins with understanding how decisions are made. Residents can examine proposed education funding changes, investigate organizations lobbying for legislation, and review contracts involving private management of public services. They can also attend school board, library board, and legislative meetings to ask questions about accountability and access.

When evaluating privatization proposals, communities should consider several essential questions:

• Will public funding continue supporting institutions that serve everyone?

• Who controls decisions about educational materials, collections, and services?

• Are private organizations subject to meaningful transparency and oversight?

• Will students with disabilities and families with limited resources have equitable access?

• Can the public challenge decisions and hold administrators accountable?

These questions matter regardless of political affiliation. 

Supporting public education does not require opposing every private school. Defending public libraries does not mean rejecting every private-sector partnership. It means recognizing that institutions funded to serve the public must remain accountable to the public.

The Freedom to Read Depends on Strong Public Institutions

At the Freedom to Read Project, we believe access to information should not depend on a family's wealth, political connections, or ability to navigate private systems. Public schools and libraries are among the few places where Americans can encounter ideas, develop knowledge, and explore perspectives without having to purchase admission. They are imperfect institutions, and they should be open to thoughtful criticism and improvement. But weakening them without ensuring equitable alternatives risks leaving entire communities with fewer opportunities.

The organizations promoting privatization are not hiding their ambitions. Many openly publish their legislative priorities, policy proposals, and advocacy successes. Communities should pay attention. Because the question is bigger than whether a particular book remains on a shelf or whether a particular family receives a school voucher. It is about whether access to education and information remains a shared public responsibility or increasingly becomes something individuals must secure through private systems.

The freedom to read depends on more than protecting individual titles. It depends on protecting the public institutions that make reading, learning, and intellectual exploration possible for everyone.