
For Pearson, Common Core Is Private Profit - alexcasalboni
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/for-pearson-common-core-is-private-profit.html
======
bdavisx
High-quality open-source text books covering the Common Core Material would be
an incredible "force for good"...

~~~
nissimk
I agree, but not just textbooks, also lesson plans and workbooks.

The problem is that if Pearson makes the test and the test results are the
most important metric for teachers and administrations, then they are
compelled to use the materials from Pearson because they will be more
effective at teaching to the test.

I'm opposed to extensive standardized testing, but if it is mandated, then it
should be written and administered by a government agency, not a private
company.

------
rayiner
Newsflash: every time the government buys a roll of toilet paper, a private
company profits. That is not, by itself, a valid criticism. If there was
evidence that the private companies are charging more than what it would cost
states to do things themselves, that might be a criticism, but that's not what
is being alleged here.

And frankly, I'd rather have, e.g., Pearson certifying teachers in New York
than have a government agency, which would inevitably fall into the pocket of
teachers' unions, doing that.

~~~
briholt
Who do they think sold all of the pre-Common-Core textbooks and assessments?
Pearson, obviously.

------
jarin
The headline should be rewritten: "Dominant Education Publishing Company
Continues To Publish Education Materials"

~~~
Retric
"Dominant Education Publishing Company" benefits from continuously changing
standards. A history book might be good for ~5-10 years unless standards
change. Then suddenly they get to print new books for every student.

~~~
jarin
They already do this every couple of years, if I recall correctly. It has
nothing to do with Common Core. It's just plain old greed.

~~~
jes
How does Pearson induce their customers to buy their revised textbooks?

If the newer books do not bring value, why do the customers purchase them?

~~~
jarin
I think this story by Richard Feynman might help illustrate it:

[http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm](http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm)

------
jseliger
This is not unique to Pearson. I do grant writing for nonprofit and public
agencies, and I've worked on all sorts of education projects, including
numerous projects for school districts, Head Start, Early Head Start, and
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK—it's an NYC program). For most of these
projects, funders require applicants to identify the curriculum(s) that'll be
used. The curriculums themselves are hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pages
of stuff like this:

 _3\. The Buildings Study; (a) Investigating the Topic; Day 5; Investigation
3: What are buildings made of? What makes them strong? Vocabulary: English:
Characteristics. Spanish: Caracteristicas. Large Group: Opening Routine: "Sing
a song and talk about who's here." Poem: "A Building My Size." Use Might
Minutes 49, "A Tree My Size."_

(From _The Creative Curriculum: For Preschool: Featuring the Buildings
Study_.)

I'll stop now. These things are always faintly ridiculous, but they're
mandated, so people produce them, and others use them. I have a shelf sitting
next to me.

A lot of funders will list validated curriuclums, so you have to chose from
this, and only a relatively small number of companies are in the game. Those
that are, from what I've heard on the grapevine, also spend a lot of money and
time and energy taking people out to dinner and doing the sort of stuff you
might've seen on _Mad Men_. It's a hard business but can also be a very
profitable one.

The teachers on the front lines know all this stuff is bogus. The basics of
reading, writing, and math haven't changed substantially in decades. Everyone
knows that great teachers aren't great teachers because they've mastered
"Common Core" or "The Buildings Society."

But most of these decisions get made deeply underground, and no one sees them.
Common Core has for whatever reason become a politically popular thing to
hate, but if you drill down to find each state's standards, they won't be any
better.

In some ways not much has changed since Richard Feynman wrote "Judging Books
by Their Covers"
([http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm](http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm))
decades ago. The big publishers all know this stuff. Even the Al Jazeera
article is only seeing a shadow from the main event.

EDIT: For more on UPK in particular see
[http://blog.seliger.com/2015/01/11/trying-to-give-away-
unive...](http://blog.seliger.com/2015/01/11/trying-to-give-away-universal-
pre-kindergarten-upk-or-early-head-start-ehs). Some outsiders are aware of how
this stuff works, but it's not overtly corrupt and it's not sexy enough to be
newsworthy most of the time.

~~~
snowwrestler
Each state's standards _are_ the Common Core. They are literally the same
thing; the name "common core" simply refers to the effort to align the
standards from state to state. Why? Because the basics of reading, writing,
and math are the same in every state.

State alignment of standards is common. You may have heard of the Uniform
Commerical Code or the Uniform Building Code, which are other examples.

Even the states whose governors are rejecting Common Core for political
reasons are putting in place new state standards that are not substantially
different from Common Core. But since national conservative organizations have
latched onto the name Common Core for their fundraising, the name has become
messy for conservative governors. But the concept of standards in education is
still very popular.

And standards are not the same thing as curricula. The standards define what
students should learn; curricula define how students will learn that. The two
are constantly conflated, which is not helpful to either.

~~~
kedean
Unfortunately if you have too stringent of standards, the curriculum to teach
it becomes implicitly standardized as well. If you mandate too many things,
then there is no room for the teachers to make any decisions based on their
knowledge of the class itself, and you may as well use a robot instead. This
problem is looming right now as common core has been mandating more and more
things from teachers.

