Alan Singer writes here about the global ambitions and activities of Pearson, the giant British corporation that seeks to dominate education.
He writes:
“Powerful forces are at work shaping global education in both the North Atlantic core capitalist nations and regions historically referred to as the Third World. Neoliberal business philosophies and practices promoted by corporations and their partner foundations, supported by international organizations, financiers, and bankers, and welcomed, or at least tolerated by compliant governments, are trying to transform education from a government responsibility and social right into investment opportunities. They defend their actions as reforms designed to increase educational equity and achieve higher standards; where possible they seek out local community support. But the underlying motivation behind corporate educational reform is extending the reach of free market globalization and business profits.
“An early twentieth century political cartoon from Puck magazine portrayed the Standard Oil Company as a giant octopus with tentacles encircling and corrupting national and state governments. The image can easily be applied to the British-based publishing company Pearson Education, a leader in the neo-liberal privatization movement. Pearson has tentacles all over the world shaping and corrupting education in efforts, not always successful, to enhance its profitability. Its corporate slogan is “Pearson: Always Learning,” however critics rewrite it as “Pearson: Always Earning.”
“Pearson’s business strategy is to turn education from a social good and essential public service into a marketable for-profit commodity.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
In America we are facing a free market assault, not just from Pearson, but from many corporations in Silicon Valley and Wall St. They all operate under the assumption that the magic of the “free market” will solve all our problems. Complicit politicians believe they will reduce government spending through public private partnerships. However, a look a private prisons reveals the government does not save money. What generally happens under privatization is a redistribution of wealth with the top paid huge managerial salaries and the bottom paid less. In a country with huge income disparity it seems counterproductive to support policies that will result in greater income disparities. It is also assumed that privatization will increase efficiency, but that assertion has not be proven either. Privatization creates winners and losers, and I do not see its value in a democratic republic, which aspires to elevate all its citizens. Government should stop trying to abrogate its responsibility to serve the “common good” as it should be working to serve all members of society equitably.
LikeLike
Diane That’s pretty much what’s been happening, only Pearson is but one example. More comprehensively, it’s a disturbed thought process. Also, “public-private partnership” is code for “let the fox get in the chicken-house.” And the chicken-house is not only the institution of education but governments themselves, especially secular democracies where they have created a relatively peaceful environment so the foxes can operate relatively safely.
As a thought process, it sets up the conditions for a tension between two often-opposed identities with different and, again, potentially conflicting means and ends. The first is to serve and educate children well; the other is to generate profit. <not necessarily in that order.
LikeLike
On word choice, I would argue that a government which allows Pearson to use public education as a vehicle for profit, whether by lobbying or outright bribery, is not compliant, but corrupt. I would argue that Pearson is not “always learning” or always earning, but is always deceiving. I would argue that the term ‘neo-liberal’ is misleading, as there is nothing liberal whatsoever about monetizing children. I would call them something more appropriate, like conservative. Maybe corporate sales frauds or crypto-fascists.
LikeLike
Once again, I would like to know just who might own stock in Pearson. Anyone?
Mercedes? Jennifer?
LikeLike