Erin Osborne warns in this powerful article at Salon.com that the profiteers are invading the classroom. They aren’t just selling pencils and textbooks. They are creating business ventures to make millions from controlling and directing the curriculum and testing, supplying the software and hardware that the new curriculum and testing requires.
Tellingly, she titles her article: “Keep Fox News Out of the Classroom! Rupert Murdoch, Common Core, and the Dangerous Rise of For-Profit Public Education.”
Arne Duncan spins a narrative that the Common Core standards mark a brilliant new direction for American education, in which achievement gaps will disappear as every child learns the exact same lessons in the same sequence in every state and school district.
But Osborne sees something else:
America’s most recent education reform, the Common Core State Standards, has divided teachers and parents across the United States. Whether or not the standards mark a step in the right direction for the education system, one thing is for sure. For the first time in American history, businesses are able to freely tap into the K-12 market on a large scale, and they aren’t waiting.
Make no mistake, she writes, the Common Core standards were designed to create a national market for goods and services (Joanne Weiss, tapped by Secretary Duncan to run Race to the Top, said that this was the purpose of national standards). Now, entrepreneurs are devising plans to get rich from taxpayer dollars:
How have the authors proposed we track the success of this reform? Testing, and lots of it. Along with the Common Core come two new major testing consortiums called SmarterBalanced and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. Forget your No. 2 pencil; these aren’t the bubble tests you remember from school but adaptive computer testing that is required two to three times a year for every student in every grade. From the SmarterBalanced website, “The full suite of summative, interim, and formative assessments is estimated to cost $27.30 per student … These costs are estimates because a sizable portion of the cost is for test administration and scoring services that will not be provided by Smarter Balanced; states will either provide these services directly or procure them from vendors in the private sector.”
Big business in education isn’t new. Pearson and McGraw-Hill have dominated the textbook market while the College Board, makers of the SAT and Advanced Placement courses, are the veritable gatekeepers to higher education. The entire U.S. education system has been valued at nearly $1.5 trillion, second only to the healthcare industry. As media mogul Rupert Murdoch said after acquiring education company Amplify (previously known as Wireless Generations), “When it comes to K-12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching.”
Until the creation of Common Core, businesses have found breaking into the K-12 market very difficult. States have historically written their own curriculums and standards, buying suitable materials and textbooks as they saw fit. Creating content that was accessible to multiple states was difficult and being able to approach the districts within their tiny budget window was nearly impossible. The nuanced field of state, local and federal funding and regulations that companies are forced to navigate takes years to master and states were the ones controlling the checkbook.
From a business point of view, why go to them when you can make them come to you? Many of the people who financially aided the creation of Common Core have investments in place in companies that would do quite well with the standards implementation. By using financial clout and political connections, billionaires, not teachers, were able to influence the landscape of our education system. If states wanted a chunk of the RttT money, they had to adopt Common Core. If they adopt Common Core, they have to pay for the assessments and proprietary materials that come with it. Products that are “Common Core Aligned” have flung the door to K-12 wide open. Still not convinced Common Core is more about money than education? Check out the American Girl back-to-school accessory set children can buy, complete with a mini Common Core-aligned Pearson textbook.
Osborne notes the number of start-ups that have jumped into the education business, seeing this lucrative market, and she also notes that most start-ups don’t survive:
Given the growing emphasis on technology in the classroom plus Silicon Valley’s affinity for gadgets, there are dozens of start-ups trying to cash in on the new market. Rupert Murdoch’s company Amplify has created its own tablet and Common Core-aligned games. According to CNBC, the amount of venture capital invested in education start-ups quadrupled, from $154 million in 2003 to $630 million in 2012.
Mick Hewitt, co-founder and CEO of education start-up MasteryConnect, said earlier this year, “I would be wrong if I said the Common Core and the dollars around it haven’t driven a lot of the activity for us.” MasteryConnect raised more than $5.2 million in investments, $1.1 million of which came from the NewSchools Venture Fund, which in turn has received more than $16 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2010. Hewitt does not have an education background.
Note the investment in this particular start-up by the NewSchools Venture Fund. NSVF is the epicenter of the for-profit approach to education. Its CEO Ted Mitchell was nominated by the Obama administration to become Undersecretary of Education, the second most powerful job in the Department. NSVF is not known as a friend of public education, but as a source of funding and strategy for charter chains, charter schools, and for-profit ventures.
It should not be surprising, really, that Secretary Duncan picked the head of NSVF to become #2 at the Department of Education. In 2009, he asked Joanne Weiss, who was then the CEO of NSVF to run Race to the Top. Once the Race to the Top competition was completed, Weiss then became Duncan’s chief of staff. Weiss memorably described the rationale for the Common Core this way in a blog for the Harvard Business Review:
The development of common standards and shared assessments radically alters the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments. Previously, these markets operated on a state-by-state basis, and often on a district-by-district basis. But the adoption of common standards and shared assessments means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets where the best products can be taken to scale.
This was certainly the first time in history that the U.S. Department of Education created a program whose purpose was to stimulate new markets for entrepreneurs and investment.
Erin Osborne is an active member of the Education Bloggers Network, a group of bloggers who support public education. These were her first reflections on the recent conference of the Network for Public Education.

The Common Core State Standards were part of a business plan. Some powerful interests wanted one top-down, national bullet list to which to correlate their ed tech products as we move from print to online delivery of educational materials. These standards [sic] are amateurish and will kill innovation in curricula and pedagogy. But they will make a lot of money for a few monopolists.
LikeLike
The CC$$ were all about creating scale in the educational materials and services markets at which only a few monopolist vendors could compete. A lot of politicians and educrats have been PLAYED.
LikeLike
I think the politicians knew exactly what was going on and were filled in at the Koch retreats.
LikeLike
Sheperd: “These standards [sic] are amateurish and will kill innovation in curricula and pedagogy.”
This was the first thing that came to mind when thinking about how teachers are buying into this. They like the direct instruction of engageNY for example, because “it is all laid out for me.” I hear this all the time. Teachers need to realize that they need to think first about their students’ needs before their own.
LikeLike
I am currently teaching in a large suburban school district and have the opportunity to talk to many teachers about the engageNY modules. Not one teacher has said that they like engageNY because “it is all laid out for me”. The conversation about CC$$ is much richer and more specific to pedagogy then you give teachers credit for. And… where do you get off proclaiming that teachers, in general, are thinking about themselves instead of their student’s needs? You comment is dismissive and insulting to teachers.
LikeLike
You need to do a close reading of my response before you get defensive, Ms. Marshall. I will rephrase for you and perhaps you will agree to disagree. When teacher think curriculum is all laid out for them, this will “kill innovation in curricula and pedagogy” as quoted by Sheperd. Just because you haven’t heard the same response from teachers is not reason to dismiss the comments I have heard.
LikeLike
So now I need to go back and do some “close reading” because I somehow didn’t understand your comment? Are you currently teaching in an elementary or middle school classroom? Do you have weekly meetings with colleagues who are using the engageNY modules? Obviously a teacher, or even a few teachers might have said what you claim you hear “all the time”. But, your statement doesn’t ring true because I am in the trenches with these standards every day and I am talking to teachers everyday. Maybe the teachers where I teach are smarter and less selfish than the teachers where you teach. Or do you teach?
LikeLike
Yes, yes. I am a very small minority who refuses to believe that a direct instruction such as engageNY is “all laid out” for teachers. I also believe that DI programs are developed for a certain population of students whose learning styles fits that program. When teachers accept a direct instruction program into their classroom especially one that spirals, they need to be cautious. For one thing, direct instruction programs are used only for a certain extent of time and as I mentioned to only a certain pop. of kids. engageNY expects kids to learn a certain way which goes against mathematicians who agree there are different ways to solve and many different places that kids are on the “landscape,” a term that Fosnot uses. (I had heard she some of her ideals about math are built into engageNY which has to do a lot with “mental” math, but that is beside the point.) Many of our teachers say that “kids are engaged more than they have ever been,” but I’m sure that the engagement will wane once the students/teachers realize that the application problems are ridiculous and the program itself will become very boring to teach after a while. Another problems is that teachers will be blaming each other among grade levels if one teacher fails to teach a concept that depended upon that spiral effect. This program can go haywire in a short period of time. So, yes, I consider myself as you put it “the smarter, less selfish” and I’d like to add cautious ones in the bunch. So when something is “laid out for you,” it is too good to be true is my warning.
LikeLike
Spelling out that students need to be able to give reasons and explanations is nothing new and was implied by the state standards. Since it became obvious that the depth of student knowledge did not go to reasons and explanations, Standards were formed to address that deficiency.
LikeLike
OMG. This is so incredibly insulting. I really, really tire of people claiming that they have suddenly invented looking at texts closely or doing deep thinking about them. WHAT PRESUMPTUOUS NONSENSE!
LikeLike
Obviously, you are so tired that you failed to give any reasons or explanation about why you believe that the CCLS are reinventions and not clearly stated standards. Is giving reasons really the same as deep or close reading?
LikeLike
Hey Fred, make some popcorn and read all of Bob’s comments over the past six months. This is a flipped blog…do your homework first. You have lots to learn. Catch up!
LikeLike
Hey Linda, I have the freedom of expression and the freedom not to be disrespected by anyone, including Bob. So if you can’t respond respectfully, then you have no right to expect it in return. And you will not get any otherwise.
When you disagree with someone, you should say something like, “I disagree because…” and state your reasoning. Where do you get off putting anyone down? eh?
Furthermore, try responding to the content of one’s message and not merely expressing your emotional state of confusion, nobody cares to hear your flames.
LikeLike
Okay, so now catch up and close read Bob’s many attempts to educate readers. Just google his name and Ravitch.
LikeLike
Frederick, start here:
LikeLike
There are several problems with your approach. Can’t you understand that open-minded persons who read your typing of the subject, CCSS, as CC$$, is a slant? Repeatedly, throughout your description you insert terms like amateurish, or veiled objections to your feelings of servility as when you called Coleman “Lord” which is a put down. So, you are sarcastic and therefore not serious!
There is a lack of understanding the main issue of the Common Core Learning Standards, CCLS: students should learn to argue by presenting a claim and providing a reason that supports including your own rebuttal to possible diverse and alternative viewpoints that contradict your claim and providing reasons for objecting to those alternatives. But, as you wrote your objections to the 2 standards on syntax and authorial choice, you did not state why the objectives are irrelevant or nonsensical. You did not state why they might be important. You never used the term ‘meaning!’ Everyone recognizes that authorial intent and authorial effects or alternative interpretations of an author’s written text are distinct, but the point is to get students to understand that difference and to be able to address it in their own written work.
You did point out one important and debatable issue and that is the difference between the CCLS and curricula. I would like to hear more about that because it seems to me that most persons are somewhat confused about it.
I happen to believe in succinctness, so a brief and relevant epigram, aphorism, or epistle is more preferable than a long diatribe in which what is obvious is that you found something that you are unwilling to adapt.
LikeLike
Oh my! The irony of succinct and then three synonyms for one word. Oy vey!
LikeLike
Frederick, it’s astonishing to me that those promulgating the amateurish CC$$ actually think that they have invented students using evidence to respond to texts. Really, that’s just ridiculous.
Do you really think that English teachers were not having students read serious texts closely and based their responses to those texts on evidence before the CC$$? What, then, was explication de texte? What was the New Criticism? I was writing books for high-school kids about doing this in research papers 30 YEARS AGO. What were kids doing in all those millions of papers that they wrote about literature from the freaking dawn of time? What do you think the critical lens paper required for the New York Regents was, for example? Hand me any K-12 lit anthology from the past forty years that was widely used in schools and I can show you in that text HUNDREDS of examples of activities requiring students to do precisely that.
It would be amusing that anyone would think that this was anything new if it weren’t for the fact that people so ignorant of ELA as to think that these are new ideas have been put in charge of ELA instruction in the U.S. The very fact that those promulgating the CC$$ think that these ideas are new or revolutionary is evidence of their almost complete ignorance of actual practice by English teachers.
Gee. Gosh. Back in the dark days before Lord Coleman, our teaching was so pathetic. We read only really insignificant texts. And we didn’t read them closely. We only sort of skimmed them over. Sometimes we just glanced at the covers. And we didn’t respond with evidence. Whenever we wrote or talked about literature, we didn’t have any idea what to do. We just talked about anything that popped into our heads. But now, thank goodness, we have the CC$$ to tell us what to think and how to think. Boy, this thinking is so HARD. Fortunately, we have David to show us THE WAY now. Whew. What a relief!
LikeLike
As I stated and restated in several of my recent posts to this and other threads, the NYS Standards were implemented before NCLB. The NYS Regents system is second only to very few other states, like MA. The CCLS is merely making explicit those features of the NYS Standards that were tacit, unclear, or in need of reinforcement.
What is unusual is the degree of affective reaction the CCLS has received when its cognitive potential is clearly in line with all previous reforms. I would also disagree with a heavy percentage of teacher evaluation based on student test scores, and this may be adding fuel to the fire. But, the CCLS should not be receiving the dismissal it has been getting. The CCLS was really intended to get most other states up to East Coast speed.
The issues should be clearly differentiated: CCLS, teacher evaluations, student test scores, charter schools, and closing schools. Nothing is perfect – implementation is the process of solving problems.
What I would like to know is where the affective resistance is coming from?
LikeLike
Coleman. n. (Weights and measures). A measure of the coincidence of arrogance and ignorance.
LikeLike
What makes all this so annoying is that the CC$$ in ELA are incredibly backward, but they are being marketed based upon a few blithering generalities that are completely obvious and always have been. Gee, we should read texts that matter. Gee, we should look at them closely. Gee, when we respond to them, we should do so with evidence from the text.
What insight! What revelation!!!
Who would have known without Lord Coleman to explain all this to us? Gee, before him, when we confronted these texts, we had no notion what to do with them. We tried holding them up to the light. We tried cutting them into pieces and eating them. Who would have thought that you had to read them and pay attention to what they said?
Wow! Thanks, David.
LikeLike
One explanation for failing test scores, failed classes, and failure to graduate is that the close reading does not ever happen. Close reading means comprehension, of course. There are other explanations for fail rates, however!
LikeLike
Frederick, comprehension is not the definition of close reading.
Close reading means reading without context. Reading the Gettysburg Address, for example, while knowing nothing about the Civil War, Lincoln, slavery, or the battle itself.
LikeLike
“Close reading describes the careful, sustained interpretation of a brief passage of text. Such a reading places great emphasis on the single particular over the general, paying close attention to individual words, syntax, and the order in which sentences and ideas unfold as they are read.”
I know what you mean! But surely you recognize that ‘without context’ is meaningless. However, during close reading you may consider decontextualizing to comprehend other possibilities of meaning of a text or part of a text. For example, consider what might a phrase might mean outside of this context.
Comprehension or understanding is what we do when we try to learn either by reading or listening or otherwise sensing, and including all of those mental processes like analysis and synthesis. If you are complaining about the notion of comprehension, that there are times when it is not relevant, I would have to think you were incomprehensible.
LikeLike
Please be more concise.
LikeLike
The resistance is coming from the undeniable fact that these standards are backward and amateurish. Achieve chose a couple of complete amateurs to correlate the lowest-common-denominator thinking about ELA instantiated in existing state standards and then foisted their work on the entire country, effectively overruling every teacher, curriculum designer, curriculum coordinator, scholar, and researcher with regard to issues like how standards in various domains should be formulated, what outcomes we should measure and how, and what learning progressions we should follow. There are a lot of us who don’t appreciate having our profession taken over by amateurs, who don’t appreciate having Achieve appoint a couple of amateurs (by divine right?) absolute monarchs of English language arts instruction in the United States.
LikeLike
You claim that the researchers who developed the standards are amateurs. I researched those professors who developed the standards in science: Katherine McNeill and Lauren Resnick and Deanna Kuhn. These three overlap but worked independently. What I noticed over many years of teaching is that students either did not know the causes or failed to state the causes or reasons for how they knew something. Blaring examples of this among adults is the evolution and global warming debates where denial and non-scientific beliefs are stand-ins for evidence, facts, causes, and reasons. This is a ubiquitous problem. The use of the term ‘amateur’ is merely pejorative, one could have used the term ‘professional’ in a pejorative way also. So, it is unclear what you really mean by the term amateur because the claim of being amateur would have to be supported by evidence and reasons if your argument is expected to be valid. Not that name calling is not an effective way to operate as a character assassin, but everyone knows that it is invalid as factual evidence.
LikeLike
There are some of us, for example, who think that if you are going to presume to write standards for language acquisition that you might first want to learn a little something about language acquisition.
LikeLike
The last book I read on Language Acquisition was by Lois Bloom and as I recall, the use of the word ‘why’ developed around 4 years old. So, students at age 6-7 should be able to answer why questions, that is, give reasons. It may be that the teacher might have to scaffold the activity to help the students to learn given the variation in rates of development!
LikeLike
Fred
For someone who espouses succinctness in the writing of blog posts as a virtue, it is remarkable how after reading your endless diatribes that I still don’t even know what your major points regarding CCSS are. Sorry if this was a bit of a run-on and not as concise as you would like. Could you summarize you ideas in one or two short sentences. Coming from the master of succinctness, that should be easy.
LikeLike
Your snippet was PERFECT. You have the main idea. I am impressed. BTW, it was not a diatribe, it was simply an observation.
So, you are beginning to like the word, succinct?
LikeLike
I have not heard one teacher praise engageny. Why do you judge ALL teachers?
LikeLike
Hey Linda,
Thought you might think this is funny:
12 things you should never say to a teacher
http://goo.gl/pSuoGa
LikeLike
Love all of them. We should write a teacher version of the vagina monologues….hmmm? What could we call it?
LikeLike
love it!
How do we start a wiki?
LikeLike
Fredrick, I call it as I see it. I have worked with these purported “standards” for a couple years now. They are embarrassingly badly formulated. As someone said on this blog, if one started enumerating their deficiencies, we would all be here from dawn until doomsday. Yes, amateurish is a pejorative. The term captures precisely my overall evaluation of these “standards.”
LikeLike
There are a lot of university professors/departments who are complicit in all this. I was sickened by some of the greed I saw with professors and graduate students trying to invent that next best app/program/curriculum/charter school. Not because they wanted to help kids, but because they wanted their piece of the public education $$ pie too. One of the reasons I quit my doctoral program mid-dissertation.
My district has been saddled with a hideous assessment program because our assessment person is a grad of a certain PNW institution, where an unscrupulous professor is known for product placement and having/using friends in higher places like the Dept of Ed. He’s made a lot of money off his products. There are these insidious little tendrils from the corporate world all over the DOE and many of the universities, and they are strangling and poisoning public schools.
LikeLike
Agree. If they want kids to go to college, they need to streamline all those hoop jumping classes in the first two years and focus more on application vs. theoretical/conception of programs they offer. They also attract people through sports which takes away the purpose for going to college and the focus is more on profits.
LikeLike
Remember Mitt Romney said something to the effect that you should get the education you can afford. The shysters are lining up and have been planning for some time.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on onewomansjournal.
LikeLike
I recall attending STANYS (Science Teachers Association of New York State) Conferences since the early 90’s. In the late 90’s, I started attending NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) Conferences. The goals I wanted to reach when I attended these conferences was to find immediately and easily adaptable lesson ideas, for example, how to teach the hard concepts like respiration, photosynthesis, meiosis, mitosis, protein synthesis. What I at first encountered and then looked forward to was the display of new texts and software (actually, back in the 90’s before the Internet and Data Projectors or Smartboards, overheads and transparencies were important). There was an unbelievable number of vendors; it was easy to educate yourself and find many new ideas and advanced teaching equipment. There were also many different publications in which you could find new ideas for teaching. At issue was access to the equipment and the publications. If you don’t even know that something exists, or you can’t afford it, it is of no use to you.
The economic idea behind all of the vendors is that those vendors with the best products will win out over the others and everyone will eventually use what works best. Software ideas that don’t work well or are too expensive or require to much assistance, will fall away.
So, the proliferation of vendors and consultants is a part of the capitalist notion that demand will determine production and until the demand has settled, competitive capitalism will rule. We are currently in this stage of competition where curriculum materials and test-prep equipment and software are being determined by market forces.
One of the inhibiting factors in this process is the process of acquisition. It is more complicated than forming a wish-list and sending it on when the word comes through that funding is available. Often, equipment and materials are determined from above without teacher input, where there is teacher input the consensus gathering process can be affected by teacher who do not buy in with other teachers. This splintering causes competition within the faculty. So, vendors are often approaching either individual teachers, administrators, or district personnel who make command decisions and then attempt to get the teachers and students to use it.
What works is more complicated and even more expensive. Entire faculties or even entire districts of teachers need to attend mini-conferences and experiment with the equipment and materials. Buy-in has to be established so that each student understands a consistency in teaching methods and materials from teacher to teacher and year to year. If a student is receiving instruction from teachers, each of whom are indiosyncratic, not only is it confusing, but teacher differences become problems for the students.
There should be similar expectations from course to course, teacher to teacher. Test preparation should not be determined by the family income. Faculties and students should be complementary and fit together, not symmetrically competitive where everyone is seen to have equal veto power over each other.
Those vendors that offer useful materials will continue to do so and school districts will benefit from the process of determining the best software, equipment, and curricular materials. The costs however are high, but they are much higher if consensus cannot be established and the new products are not used.
LikeLike
One ring to rule them all! LOL.
LikeLike
The Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] are a monopoly preservation program introduced
1. to ensure economies of scale, and
2. to provide a single bullet list for digital educational materials to correlate to at scale
There is a reason why the monopolists paid to have these developed. Their development had nothing whatsoever to do with improving educational outcomes.
They are part of a business plan.
LikeLike
Setting the record straight on CC, part I. You can easily find part II on youtube:
LikeLike
great video! thanks for sharing this, Linda.
LikeLike
Agree Bob, “They are part of a business plan.” Just look at the increase reading for informational text-50% elementary, 55% middle school, and 70% high school. This isn’t about creating readers and fostering the love of reading, it’s about the money to be made with the increase requirements for informational text in the classroom.
LikeLike
I guess when a story leads with “Fox News” and “Ruppert Murdoch”, it provides the red meat for liberal to be interested in whatever topic is being discussed.
To correct the record, it was not Murdoch or Fox which ‘seeded’ the ground which gave birth to Common Core.
It was Bill Gates who played rain maker and HIS cronies,
which can easily be found listed as sponsors, all which
will benefit quite handsomely.
On important issues liberals AND conservatives can find common ground, putting politics aside, as the battle against
Common Core bares out.
Gates is wrong, Murdoch is wrong, Jeb Bush is wrong, Arnie Duncan in wrong, Huckabee is wrong, President Obama is
wrong.
But, the tens of millions of parents,teachers and other citizens which see Common Core for what it are right.
Public education problems can and WILL be resolved by the people who have address problems for decades, those within each state…NOT Washington or Wall St. which wants control and profits at any cost, including public education.
LikeLike
One observation and a question:
1) For those who argue that market competition generates the best products, I offer three simple counter-examples: VHS, MS-DOS, IBM PC. Nearly every observer of these markets agrees that other alternatives were technically superior or at least equal (BetaMax, other computer operating systems like Unix, CP/M, and so on, and hardware made by other computer firms). What made these things become the “standards” was their maker’s ability to achieve market dominance. Perhaps the best example was IBM, which put a PC in nearly every office by using their existing sales force that had been supplying most offices with Selectric typewriters. IBM chose the obscure firm Microsoft to provide the original OS because it lowered their development costs. (Competitors AT&T and Digital controlled Unix and CP/M, respectively.)
In short, markets are about a lot more than product quality, and consumers in reality don’t “maximize,” they “satisfice” (settle for things that are “good enough” even if not the absolute best value for money, because finding the “best” is itself costly).
2) Question for Dr. Ravitch and all: Is there ANY independent or unbiased research which has evaluated the benefits of CCSS when compared to existing state standards or other alternatives? Has anyone evaluated the cost of transition to CCSS when compared to other changes which might also improve state standards? My point is that, while the fact that some companies will make money off this is not by itself sufficient reason to oppose it, if creating a national market for the convenience of vendors is the PRIMARY reason for the CCSS then this whole effort must stop. In all things, our primary objective must be to help students learn and grow. Everything else comes in a very distant second or third.
LikeLike
It is difficult to understand whether you object to market processes or to economics generally because consumers did choose the products that gained the greatest market share. Curricular materials and technological equipment will be necessary whatever the standards are, so the objection to vendors and their pecuniary interests would hold universally. The issue is always the integration of economic sensibility during decision-making, as you say, consumers satisfice or optimize, they don’t always maximize. We need social processes of cost-benefit analysis where products are intentionally experimented upon and then selected on the basis of results. This is a part of the process of policy implementation, that is, policy evaluation.
LikeLike
What I’m trying to say is that the underlying argument mentioned in the article and expressed by those who favor competition (in the market for curricular materials, or among schools) is that competition generates the highest quality outcomes for consumers. That is demonstrably not the case. Markets generate outcomes that are a balance between consumer desires and producer costs and revenue needs. Economic theory also makes strong assumptions about how much consumers know about their needs and the long-term ability of different products to meet their needs.
The critical thing about all this is that the ultimate “value” of standards or curricular materials is not truly known for years. We’re making decisions with very limited information. This means that it is hard for us (the public governing public schools) to figure out precisely what is “good enough” when we don’t know what the life effects will be. Producers are also quite aware that the long-run value of what they sell won’t be known until long after they have made the sale. This is an area where market competition breaks down and more deliberative processes are required. In other words, freeing the market will not make everything better.
LikeLike
The long-term contingency is whether the vendor can resell their service or contract in the future. Short-run prospects are vulnerable to the problem of value, or whether the product actually works as advertised. Firms that do not offer strong customer support, accent on support, should be avoided. So, firms whose products are effective in the short-run and in the long run will gain resale values which is very important to the firm.
The problem as I experience it is that decisions to buy a product or service are not explored through trial periods or through deliberations with all stakeholders involved. The decisions are determined by funding limitations and by those with the greatest authority. Firms do not operate this way: if the product they are interested in costs more, they get a larger loan. But, public agencies are given a set budget and they have to fit their purchases to it. So, the result is that only a part of each faculty gets the access to the product or gets the training, and without the training or access, the expectations cannot be made to stick, there is no sense of obligation to use the product on the part of the faculty. Also, customer service is typically weak and is not able to adjust to user end competency variations. This has been the case with technology in the classroom, where even today, many teachers still do not use technology in the classroom because they do not know how.
Long term results will gain a resale for the firm and firms desire this – it is how they grow. So, markets will eliminate firms which cannot make a resale. The cost is a few years of ineffective attempts to implement a particular product. Therefore, point of sale must have all stakeholders on board, all stakeholders must have their feet held to the fire of training so that everyone can use the equipment/product or call for customer service and experience success.
LikeLike
Fredrick, the CC$$ were promulgated by monopolists in order to force on the K-12 market in the US a scale at which only the monopolists could compete. Econ 101, Fredrick, first class.
LikeLike
The problem with Common Core is the tight control and lack of transparency. There are no benchmarks that are being offered for review, despite the public being told there are.
Common Core was sold by a slick “brochure” and the public did not get the opportunity to test drive it first. And critics were muzzled.
Its not companies making money, its about how best to educate our children.
LikeLike
Your posts, Frederick, are almost as tiresome to read and understand as the SBAC test.
LikeLike