The Best Technology Tool Ever- BubbleSheet

I found this gem today in the iTunes App store. Who says technology doesn't revolutionize education?

Here's the description from the App store site:

MasteryConnect is a web-based system that allows teachers to assess and monitor student performance of the Common Core and state standards, share common assessments, and connect in an online professional learning community.  With the BubbleSheet app, teachers save time in grading student assignments and assessments as scores are automatically populated in the MasteryConnect’s scoring system.  

I came up with this:
From the makers of DigiRoll the computerized Wheel comes BubbleSheet.  Paper and Pencil is so old fashioned, why not add some critical thinking and analysis to your assessment by enhancing it with technology. Twenty-first century learning just got easier.
 

Think you can create a snarkier description than that?

 (Here's a link to the site if the screenshot quality is poor)

Cal and Texas Not the Only Schools in 2011 Holiday Bowl

As the football teams from Texas and Cal(both non-profit schools) square off on the field tonight they are part of perhaps the most visible contradiction within public education in this country, college athletics.   There is a lot of money made.  That much is clear.  But the title sponsor of the Holiday Bowl, Bridgepoint Education(BPI) is part of a much less clear segment of education, much farther from the public awareness. BPI has proven to be one of the most successful for-profit higher education companies and as a result has become the focus of greater government scrutiny.  Unlike schools involved in NCAA athletics, some of this attention is unwelcome.

Tom Harkin

Andrew Clark

In March of 2011 the United States Senate held a series of hearings on for for-profit higher education.  Senator Tom Harkin(D-Iowa) took the gloves off a bit and used Bridgepoint Education as the poster child for all that is wrong with the industry.  His lengthy opening statement in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions(HELP) Committee pretty much said it all and called into the question the ability of these institutions to balance profit with the purpose of education.   Many claim that for-profit colleges abuse the system at the expense of the student and public taxpayer.

The CEO of Bridgepoint, Andrew Clark, chose not appear at the hearings as did all other company officials who declined the commission's requests to appear, citing an ongoing audit by the Office of Federal Student Aid.  Clark, who earned $20.5 million(salary + stock options) has remade what was a small school in Iowa into a major player in the industry, one that has maximized its return.  Much of that success has come with efforts in recruitment and marketing.  As a business, BPI's Ashford University is an unquestionable success story.  As a school, the outcomes are less apparent.  So all this profit, where has it come from and at what cost?  Furthermore, who pays it?  Not everyone on the committee shares Harkin's views. 

Link to Senate Charts

Senator Michael Enzi(R-Wyoming) spoke out against the hearings indicating that they singled out career colleges despite similar issues existing elsewhere in education.  He commented “Unfortunately, by only focusing these hearings on individual examples of a problem in one sector of higher education, we have no understanding of the true extent of the problem, nor have we heard any constructive solutions for solving that problem.”  he then walked out of the hearings. 

On the full Senate floor Harkin said the following in advance of the hearings:   “In the first year, 84.4% of students from Bridgepoint who signed up dropped out, what do you think happened to their [federal] loans? What do you think happened to their Pell grants? Students get those back? Not on your life. Bridgepoint kept them, the money went to their shareholders.”

Link to Senate Charts

Harkin added that 63% of those seeking a bachelor’s degree at Ashford drop out within a year.  The basic criticism is that such schools work hard to bring in students and help them secure funding and loans knowing full well that they will not remain enrolled.  Then once the funding is secured they have shown little concern if the student is successful or if they are saddled with enormous amounts of debt after enrolling since they have made their profit.  True margin lies with enrolling more new students. 

About a year ago on a whim I filled out an online questionnaire for information about an online degree program at such a university.  By the time I got home I had sixteen messages, that's right sixteen, on my cell phone.   They continue to arrive on occasion to this day more than a year later.  The recruiters are persistent to say the least.  The good news is I do not actually use my cell phone much and to date haven't spoken to any real people on the matter.  If you ever want to get back at someone...fill out one of these forms with their info...on second thought, don't.

Harkin summed the business model up as follows: “While Bridgepoint employs 1,703 recruiters, they employ just one person to handle career planning…for the entire student body of 67,000 students.”
He wants to reform how these institutions are monitored.  For certain, the Department of Education is having a hard time keeping up.  But many Republican Senators(Enzi, McCain, Burr) have spoken out claiming the hearings were politically motivated and singled out for profit colleges unfairly. 

Whatever the case, the money trail is big and lengthy.  To date no one really seems to have a handle on who these students are, how they are affected and what all this is really costing.  With higher education costs skyrocketing and the demand for a better educated workforce this issue has a greater significance than even a few years ago.  The TU doesn't usually delve into higher education as it is beyond our normal daily experience in public schools, but the parallels present surrounding the for-profit education industry at both levels is clear. 

As to what all this means in the world of education, I think the TU has been pretty consistent expressing concern about what motivates these for-profit companies involved in education.  As they continue to play an increasing role in our public schools we might look to this debate about for-profit colleges as a cautionary tale.  Just something to think about as we move into the new year.  As we do we hope you enjoy the college football bowl season.  Usually these broadcasts are full of graphics.  So I'll throw a few in from the Senate Hearings to wrap things up.

Link to Senate Charts

Link to Senate Charts

Link to Senate Charts

Link to Senate Charts

Not from Senate Hearing

I just figured if you read this far you should be rewarded with a smile.

Reform: For Our Kids...right?

Can anyone oppose what's "good for kids?"

While perusing the Interweb the other day, wading past the funny cat videos, I stumbled onto an interesting article dealing with the word "reform".


 Reform Is Not a Dirty Word:  The real meaning of school reform by Kayla McGannon.  This commentary posted by the Interim Executive Director of Stand for Children Colorado, dealt with the the recent election of the Denver school board and its larger implications.  A year ago I'd have commended this organization for their efforts to make things better but now I am more reserved about whether what they are advocating actually makes things better.  I am also more than a little confused about the title of the article and what this organization really does or who they are. 


As a product of the pre-reform failing public schools, I dug deeper.  Constantly frustrated by special interest veils and networks of vagueness it can be tough to tell what people or groups support.   A brief peek at their Board of Directors and I started to get a more complete picture.   I digress as this post is not about that group, corporate involvement in education or seemingly anything at this point. Back to the article. 


The title seems to lead one to conclude that there are only 2 groups of people out there. "Those who support positive change or "reform" in our schools, and those who oppose such measures in favor of the status quo.  The staus quo is unacceptable by the way.  This group endorsed 3 candidates and I question what that term reformer actually means. 


Later we are introduced to the idea that there is a third group emerging.  The "posers" who claim to be reformers and use phrases like "real reform".  Huh?  In the end 2 of the 3 candidates the group supported won election.  The campaign message seemed to be "for our kids"  or "what's best for kids."   Lacking an enumerated list of what reforms this might involve it is hard to disagree.  Any effort proposed to "fix" the problems linked to the idea of what's best for kids gains traction quickly.  Maybe too quickly.  


The article later sought to bring us all together "After all, if we are all reformers, we are all accountable for the quality of our public schools." A laudable goal but one that is rarely achieved in the divisive environment of reform.  I was more than a bit disappointed in that I only found common buzz words in the campaign messages.  Likely the outgrowth of a focus group meeting to identify phrases that garner support.   I am coming to feel this approach is reshaping our educational landscape in a way that is not beneficial.   That is not rhetoric without forethought.  You can read the article for yourself but I am increasingly wary of who and what is really driving change. 

So where is momentum driving reform originating?  From the people close to the schools affected by them every day who don't use these buzz words.  It would be tough to support the idea these people in schools are not for kids.  Or is the push from someone else working for foundations that have an agenda?   Normally it is the diversity of opinion on these complex issues that eventually bear real fruit.  It is difficult to hear much diverse opinion from many powerful reformers. In fact it is alarmingly uniform.  Any concern expressed about change overshadowed by well crafted "for the kids" language.

Before you bite an Apple, know where it comes from

After searching for more information on the Stand group I came across their publications page.  Even a cursory review led me to some conclusions that seem common when finding things about education online.   There is an agenda out there and a great deal of effort to bring more and more people on board with that agenda.  Nothing wrong with that I suppose.  But there is if you disagree with that agenda and don't feel it is actually best for all kids, schools, parents, teachers, our economy, education or America as a whole.  Further if that agenda includes an effort to suppress dissent.  The online comments following the article were polemical but also very also interesting.  Here are a few samples: 


Isn't Stand for Children a front for corporate "education reform" which is in the process of destroying America's public education system?........ Colorado "reform" is a great example of the damage Eli Broad and Bill Gates are doing and Stand for Children is an example of how their billions are being employed to take away local control.
 --------------
You're article reads like an extended propaganda piece with a transparent agenda that in no way actually benefits children. In fact, after reading your blog, I was amazed and appalled at how blithely you could recount as reforms the measures that are clearly contra most of the research. I pity the children and their teachers who work in your state.
 ------------
I agree that the word "reform" has been tainted. A word which once meant bettering education for children has now been warped into attacking teachers through faulty evaluations and then punishing and firing them in a blatant attempt to weaken their unions. It has become the worship of meaningless test scores. It is now the cold pursuit of failure in order to close neighborhood schools thus privatizing education and allowing the takeover of public institutions by corporate interests.REAL reform has to do with equity in funding and services, a well-trained and experienced teaching force, the autonomy and freedom for teachers to use progressive non test-prep practices, and the desire to address the gross inequalities and devastating effects of poverty we allow children to grow up in. Real reform addresses children and the people who work with them in humane, supportive ways.
I am sick of having to write the word "reform" in quotes. I want my language back.
Your organization stands for greed, not children. So please sit down.
-------------
As a parent with a child in a public school, and a former member and local leader of a Stand for Children chapter, I never imagined that "ed reform" would be a dirty word.
Later, when Stand for Children had begun receiving huge donations from corporate funders and foundations, and had turned away from grass roots work, reform had less and less to do with the problems I wanted to see addressed in my daughter's school (primarily lack of resources).
Now, when I hear groups like Stand for Children speak of "reform", I hear an ideologically coded message promoting privitization of public education. Here reform has little to do with evidence or feasibility, and nothing to do with my own schools' needs--Stand's reform exploits and cultivates the prevailing loss of confidence in and cynicism towards public institutions, and self-governance.
Stand's "reform" is a dirty word indeed. 
------------ 


So is all this what's best for kids?  It would be nice to be included in that conversation.  I'll close with is quote from the article:"Long into the future, no one will remember who supported which policy. What they will remember is whether those policies actually made a difference. "   I would simply point out that there are a frighteningly small number of actual educators who support these reforms.  That ought to mean something and maybe provide some insight into what is best for kids.


 Sometimes it takes someone more articulate than yourself to make a point. 
In the current national discussion about education reform, the loudest voices are not necessarily those of the people who are directly affected by what happens in our schools – the students, parents, teachers and school communities themselves.

Who to Trust? Teachers or Rupert Murdoch

In reading a recent TU post one might presume that we support or encourage protests and similar anti-authoritarian behaviors. While free thinkers, the TU is rather conformist most of the time and color in between the lines more often than not, especially professionally. We do enjoy a good Youtube riot video as much as anyone and there's plenty of videos of the protest in NYC and elsewhere.   But that's about as close as we like to get. It took a while to arrive at my point but I am heading towards proving that the TU in some ways sees things from ground level(below ground actually) and perhaps more accurately.  We are closer to education than most folks who talk about it.  That is simply something you cannot dismiss in the conversation about education and its future.  We are deeply concerned for the future of our schools.  We are not alone.

Rupert Murdoch has had a lot to say recently on this subject of education and seems to want to move his company closer to it.    He is a smart fella but I think on the subject of education...I might be smarter(I'll pause while you soak in that statement).  His view is blurred by his business mindset and motives and the highlight reel experience he no doubt receives when he visits a school.  Think for a second about why he is starting to talk a lot about education all of a sudden.    My view is blurred by where I work.  You know, in a school with kids.  Its a pretty good school and despite its shortfalls it ends up turning out some pretty amazing young people.  So who has a better feel for what's going on?   One of the most powerful men in the world, or me?  He got shouted down at a recent speech by some folks perhaps as frustrated as we are with the current direction of many reforms.  I can only speculate on their motives.   I think because they resent a lot of current change and he makes a convenient target.  I've been shouted down too(most often by an irate teenager).  I guess that's where the comparisons end.

Did he deserve it?  Well I think he shouldn't expect people to ignore who he is.   Based on his record,  we should be at least suspicious of his motives.  Those people(if they were teachers) probably got all "protesty" because we in teaching are now hypersensitive to people telling us how it should be.  Especially people from the business or political world.   I like to think if Murdoch spent a day with the average American teacher he'd realize a few things.  Not the least among them is that teachers know how it really is better than anyone else.  This that idea classrooms and the teaching in them have not changed 50 years is more than a slight misrepresentation of fact.   Of course someone must guide kids through their education...they are kids after all.  The classroom dynamic has not been as fluid as in other sectors of society like our economy and that is not all bad.  I know TU''s resident thesis man(Steve) could more successfully counter his points but I will attempt to do so none the less. This is not because we feel threatened and want to attack or justify our point of view over others(though deep down that may be why).  It is in the hope that it will foster a greater understanding of what we see as part of the problem. 

To begin, WTF?  My favorite acronym as an expression of disbelief.  (To maintain our PG rating I'll explain it as What's That For?)  Hey Rupert Murdock...WTF?  Are you living in a bubble?  How dare you try to simplify everything and reduce the mission of our schools solely to an academic pipeline of global employees.  Schools aren't companies.  The goal is not profit.  The goal is people.  That alone pokes some big hole in Murdoch's bucket.  Harlem Success is great.  Many charter schools are great.  No doubt so are the schools you mention in your speeches.  But before we go dismantling one of the most significant social and cultural institutions anywhere in the world let's give some forethought to the potential consequences.   Let's also not do so because people like Murdoch have convinced us they are all "failing." Instead consider how current top down changes are hampering efforts to do quality work in our schools. Many reform attempts have led to regulation  and "improvements" that have buckled some pretty great things schools did. Many of my colleagues will admit we do not feel the quality education we are providing today is not exactly what it was even 5 years ago. 

I will admit some of my objections to his and similarly framed ideas were originally based on their potential impact on my profession.  But with careful consideration I object on a far deeper level.  The idea that learning can be so easily manipulated and controlled is a dangerous one.  If I learned anything as a teacher its that things are usually more complex than they appear.    Demanding more from everyone does not equal an increase in quality output.   Programs and results may at first appear valuable and look good on paper, only to yield under closer examination or when implemented.   I have seen this firsthand with numerous online learning programs. 

The intent to profit should never be a consideration in our decisions on education.  But it has crept in slowly and as such we should place more scrutiny on reform ideas that involve public funds to private enterprise.  One approach being pushed from the Murdoch camp is to use technology to remedy our ills and make things better.   Education is far too complex a process to digitize and then plug a child in to some software.  That is information, not education.  Standardized test may show acquisition of knowledge but what has been lost?  Hard to tell as most modern measures of learning are subjective.  What's being measured?  How? Under what conditions?  Using a test?  Are the measures fair and equitable?  What's the wisdom in that?   Bottom line is this:  What motivates Murdoch and Newscorp is clearly making money.  What motivates teachers is what is good for kids. 

At 6:20 he starts to lay out main ideas.


Specifically Murdoch contentions are that "The Key is Software" and we can do better by creating a "More Personalized Education."     I wasn't as sure about his 3rd point since he is boring but it seemed to be simply using analytics to give kids access to limitless resources catered to best suit them. Thus they wouldn't be stuck learning at the same pace. I suspect it was something about how asynchronous education is the key.   Sounds great.  Who could argue with those ideas?  Me.

Distance Learning, Virtual Classrooms or whatever they go by have obvious advantages.  I sat so far back in one survey class in college it could have been considered distance learning.  I've also taken a few real ones and they served their purpose.  Can't say I learned a great deal that stuck with me though.  Their growth in recent years has been exponential.  Driven in part by the spiraling costs of higher education. While quite different in business approach and market, for profit higher education like the University of Phoenix illustrates how such an concept has supporters and detractors.  I remember a piece PBS did on Michael Clifford a while back that I found very informative.

But do not mistake access to information for a learning community.  There are problems with the any technology. On the front end there are always going to be kinks and bugs or issues with the transition.  Is the infrastructure in place in many of these locations to support the volume of traffic?   There are issues with the access, maintenance and reliability.  These will be less significant as schools integrate more and more digital resources over time.  The trend is for high ranking administrators and those at the top to view technology as the perfect solution.  It becomes a symbol for a "quality" education.  Teachers and learners more often think that while useful, these experiences are no substitute for face to face interaction.    In business terms a shift in this direction would be akin to expecting online shopping to replace brick and mortar schools.    Over reliance of technology can be problematic.  Forgive me for not trusting a billionaire but is it truly cost effective in the long term for our society?  This Education Marketplace mentioned by my colleague what's being sold here?  I fear it is our future. 

Once we are reliant on these technologies and systems, who controls the curriculum and any needed shift?  Who is held accountable for the quality?  A test might tell you whether a kid "learned" but what if they didn't?   Experience tells me that the under-performing kid in a traditional classroom might encounter even more issues in a virtual one.  Not all kids are motivated or mature enough to go this route.  One of the biggest hang-ups with our neighboring district's BLAST initiative has been parental approval and sign-off.   These issues were unforeseen by planners.  Not so for those with daily interactions with the learners and their parents.  We see things.  One advantage to synchronous learning is that it allows students to collaborate and support each other. This builds a sense of community with their peers, teachers and school.  Skilled individuals can yoke this and use these communities as a source of motivation and pride(just read the last post if you don't understand).  One can create online communities.  Its just that they not the same.  Part of the equation maybe but not the answer.  They should not be elevated to anything more than just a tool to help improve education.
 

Should computers replace people in learning?  In a normal environment computers are usually powerful tools.  The one thing schools are not is normal.  In this landscape teachers and people are more reliable than technology.  When problems occur I trust people.  When kids act up you need people.  When a kid needs encouragement and support you need people.  Murdoch is wrong to think that companies or software can do better with all of our children.  Most young people are significantly more dependent on adults than what those who don't deal with them everyday think.  They need people they know to help guide them.  Children need adults to learn from and they need relationships with these people to apprehend their world.  I don't really want to send my kids to an Apple store for their education and that seems to be the promise being extended here. We should approach with caution the Walmart of Education mentality as the cost vs quality balance should be important but shouldn't tip too far towards reducing costs.   A "one stop select what you want digital world of learning" isn't that far off.  But it would be a sad shell of what we could do. 

Is our nation doing as well as it can?  Certainly not.  But I don't so much worry about that.  Parents don't worry about that.  We worry about our own kids in our own communities.  I worry about how ideas hatched by those who don't teach real people could affect what we are all trying to accomplish.  Comparisons to Asia or elsewhere are thus less relevant to most of us normal folks with our feet on the ground.  Murdoch and others explain away the difference in achievement as simply a product of the school and education.  All responsibility lies with the schools.  Well when no one else takes on the responsibility for kids schools I guess should.  But be careful about how then you judge the result.  

Murdoch's Motives
I am more than a bit curious about why Mr. Murdoch has turned his attention to the plight of poor schoolkids.  We are after all talking about the same guy, head of Newscorp responsible for the British phone hacking scandal. A ruthless corporate pirate with billions to show for his efforts.  But also a charismatic convincing guy and if I wasn't a teacher I think I'd listen to what he had to say.  That thought frightens me.    He lists examples of innovation and suggests and path to the future.      Enter "his company" as a medium to access this.  See the problem? 

I think Murdoch thinks of education as a cash cow.  I just have an ideological problem with the idea that knowledge is proprietary.  And make no mistake that is the backbone of this idea Murdoch is talking about.  Competition instead of collaboration.  For profit and education...those two concepts are irreconcilable.  When push comes to shove Return on Investment will be factored in above learning when decisions are made by businessmen and not educators. 

Even more disturbing is how people can misrepresent what is taking place.  It has become a cyclical blame game where the most influential carries the least blame for under-performance. I suspect no one is entirely correct in what they think is happening since most views are either too global or too local to know the reality.  I know that some kids just aren't learning.  I'd argue about why.   Here's more reasons to be wary of Murdoch.  What works in some places won't work or even be able to be replicated everywhere.  Education is only as important as any individual thinks it is. 

Where do we agree?
Schools have to adapt, change and improve.  Technology will and should be part of this.  Too many kids aren't getting what they need.  So we can and must do better.  But it doesn't start at 5 years old or end when they graduate or even end when the bell rings to dismiss for the day.  It doesn't simply entail giving them access to knowledge.  Technology will never replace a teacher.  It is a tool and in the right hands empowers individuals to do and become more.  Both student and teacher.  It can also alter things in unforeseen ways.  At my 4 year old's soccer game this weekend I watched at least 3 parents engage with their I-phones  more than their kids.  Sad.  Does Murdoch throw this little tidbit in his speech about "human capital" and teachers to disarm us or does he really mean it?   Who knows.  All I know is that if the choice is that every kid is indeed a valuable and unique individual.  To truly educate a kid you have to get to to know that kid.   All I can do is try to remember that on a daily basis and whenever and wherever I can try to inject some sanity into the conversation about how we ought to be teaching our kids.

In a future post maybe I'll attempt to knock Bill Gates off his educational pulpit.  Whatever the subject the one thing I think the TU prides itself on is the ability to conduct civil discourse.  Disagreements today seem so polemical that the ability to talk freely with someone who disagrees seems a lost art.  Especially when they stand to realize we are right.  :)

#OccupyWallStreetEducation

Nearly six months ago I wrote a post titled “The Education Market.” Since then, things have only gotten worse.  The American public is divided on the Occupy Wall Street movement and it’s decentralized nature makes it difficult to figure out exactly what they’re asking for, but it’s origin is certain. Increasingly, Americans are losing trust in their Government to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

While the 99% Occupy Wall Street, I would issue a challenge to the 99% of our education world. While 99% of us either occupy a classroom as teachers or students or occupy an office as administrator, the 1% who control the wealth and spending in education are making poorly informed decisions that will cost us all in the long term.

“Reformers” and politicians try to cast the teacher’s unions as the bad guys, looking to protect the self-interest of educators. While corporations pushing an education agenda leading to higher profits escape the criticism of being self-serving. While the NEA reports revenue approaching $377 million, the Pearson corporation generates over $300 million in revenue from just three states with whom they provide services. (Illinois- $138, Virginia- $110, and Kentucky-$57. Compare that to state education association revenues in those states at $48, $15, and $11 million respectively.) source

If money is power, even the teachers’ unions can’t compete with “Wall Street.” Pearson is not the only corporation earning money from education, it just happens to be the biggest.

A few weeks ago, the big news in educational marketing came from the National Summit on Education Reform. In addition to founder, Jeb Bush, the Chiefs for Change, Joel Klein, and the Gates, media mogul Rupert Murdoch was invited to give a keynote address.  Not long ago, Rupert Murdoch extended the reach of his media empire into education through the acquisition of Wireless Generation, a data management/ instructional technology company similar to Pearson’s SchoolNet.

This deal transpired shortly after former New York City public schools chancellor, Joel Klein, resigned his post to take a position as executive vice president with Murdoch’s News Corp organization. Under Klein, the NYC school system had already established a relationship with Wireless Generation.

Recent articles in EdWeek (Report: Pearson Foundation Finances Trips Abroad for State Ed. Officials) and The New York Times (When Free Trips Overlap With Commercial Purposes) show that questionable relationships between private business and educational leaders and institutions are not isolated local matters. Current federal and state legislation places such large demands on states and local districts for testing, data-collecting, and reporting that school systems (local and state) have little choice but to determine what companies will receive a lion’s share of their resources to comply.

And the lions lay in wait to claim their share. Last year, Albemarle County decided to abandon the GradeSpeed student information system owned by SchoolNet after consistent trouble with the platform.  In it's place, the county contracted with PowerSchool, a Pearson company while continuing to use the SchoolNet data system.  A short time after this decision, the education lion, Pearson, bought the parent company SchoolNet, increasing its reach into the education market even further.

We must have common standards, the standards must be tested, the tests must be graded, the grades must be sorted into data, the data must be reported, and the reports must show that we’ve reached the standards. Companies like Pearson find their way into every element of this circular equation, standing to profit at every arc.

The two articles referenced compare what is happening in education to the way pharmaceutical companies court doctors in order to promote their products. Pearson has been financing trips for top state education officials to Finland, Brazil, and Singapore to meet with education leaders in other countries and Pearson representatives. In a follow-up article in the New York Times, top state officials from Virginia, Iowa, and Kentucky declare that they see nothing wrong with accepting these trips and providing marketing statements to Pearson despite the multi-million dollar contracts the states have signed with Pearson.

Indeed, in a cash-strapped economy, who could blame state and local decision-makers for taking the incentives offered by companies to provide a service that is de facto demanded by state and federal law. If you must choose a product, choose the one with the most attractive package.

Reports from earlier in the year indicate how Pearson hopes to benefit from our current direction in education:

“Pearson, which has spent around $1.4bn on education companies since selling its stake in Interactive Data Corporation for $2bn last year, said the acquisition would be earnings neutral in 2011. It believes Schoolnet will benefit from the Obama administration's $17bn drive to support school improvement through measures such as comprehensive data systems.” (Pearson among FTSE gainers as it buys US group Schoolnet)

As the American economy dries up and traditional markets lose profitability, corporations such as Pearson have moved into the untapped revenue source of local taxpayers through public school spending:

“The greatest risk of having such a significant slice of the revenue pie coming from US education is the dependence on state budgets. However, Barack Obama's government has highlighted education as an area of the US that requires reform.”(Pearson bets on growth in US education: Pearson has spent years building its US education business and clearly sees more room for growth.)

Having spent billions of dollars in building an educational corporation, certainly companies in this market have a voice in our government. As much as teachers’ unions are criticized for holding up education reform, can they possibly command as much influence. I’m not sure that the NEA has ever funded a trip to Singapore for government education officials. Yet, the multi-national profit machines have managed to convince an American public that teachers and especially teacher unions are the problem.

On several Lobbying Reports filed on behalf of Pearson in 2011, the following statement summarizes their lobbying efforts:

“Pearson, the foreign entity identified on the LD-1, supports reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act that includes quality assessments, technology, student data systems and records, literacy programs and opposes government funding of open education resources development.”

We more commonly refer to the current manifestation of the ESEA as No Child Left Behind. As of today, 37 of 50 states have indicated their intent to apply for a waiver from this law. Republicans and Democrats alike criticize the act. Across the nation, students, teachers, and parents have raised their voices in concern over the emphasis it places on standardized testing. In a season of declining budgets, prevalence of “assessment, technology, and data” has led to diminished respect and support of the role of teachers in education.  And, private interests push for ownership rather than collaboration through opposition to open resource development.

The corporate educators of America continue to influence and direct public education policy in a way that allows the corporate sector to earn significant revenue at the taxpayer’s expense.

For argument’s sake, let’s say that I am doing the same thing. My paycheck comes out of your pocket. If you don’t like what I’m doing as a teacher, come on down to Albemarle High School and have a talk with me. If that doesn’t work, try my principal. Not happy with the outcome yet? We’ve got a Superintendent and an assistant or two who would be glad to discuss your problem with me. It’s happened before and it is a good thing. That’s accountability.

On the other hand, let’s say you believe a question on your child’s last standardized test was biased, or perhaps you have reason to believe the test score is inaccurate. Maybe you have a problem with single shot multiple choice assessment in general. Who do you go to about that? I doubt the office doors at Pearson are open to the public. You my taxpayer, parent, concerned citizen friend are out of luck.

All of this discussion leaves me feeling quite quixotic. What can we do? The policy makers at state and local levels use test data to justify their decisions this year and then explain them away the next when the latest round of data show they didn’t make AYP. Our educational and political leaders engage in rhetoric that promotes deeper thinking and learning, praising teachers for their efforts. When you follow the money, the direction of their words make little sense. They continue to support reforms driven by corporate interest by contracting with the very companies who stand to profit the most from test-driven, data-generating, technology based reforms.

In the world of education, we are the 99%; parents, students, teachers.  It's time for our voice to make a difference.