I agree with some elements of the "business model": the institutions that support education need to run efficiently and provide the essentials to maintain the operational  necessities of development and management of resources. However, in the realms of "productivity" and "outcomes", the abstract nature of human behavior, human development, and the complexities of teaching and learning, will remain unresolvably problematic for achieving any standard of efficiency to be of any of application to a "profitable" business. Refer to the United States of America's Declaration of Independence, the word "happiness", for example. This was wisely qualified as "...the pursuit of..." It is important in USA society that the institution behind this pursuit is maintained relevant to human endeavor, whereas, the methods, the cost, the outcomes remain points of vigorous and lawfully-minded, civil debate by all the stakeholders. Education should be messy, and, uncomfortably unprofitable in the "foreseeable" future. Following debates about achieving ultimate artificial intelligence, one can argue that if we become gods to our machines, we can only achieve to extent of our human flaws. Nothing wrong about trying, but it is in the journey that we uncover more that we do not know. This is an uncomfortable business proposition.

I agree with some elements of the "business model": the institutions that support education need to run efficiently and provide the essentials to maintain the operational  necessities of development and management of resources. However, in the realms of "productivity" and "outcomes", the abstract nature of human behavior, human development, and the complexities of teaching and learning, will remain unresolvably problematic for achieving any standard of efficiency to be of any of application to a "profitable" business. Refer to the United States of America's Declaration of Independence, the word "happiness", for example. This was wisely qualified as "...the pursuit of..." It is important in USA society that the institution behind this pursuit is maintained relevant to human endeavor, whereas, the methods, the cost, the outcomes remain points of vigorous and lawfully-minded, civil debate by all the stakeholders. Education should be messy, and, uncomfortably unprofitable in the "foreseeable" future. Following debates about achieving ultimate artificial intelligence, one can argue that if we become gods to our machines, we can only achieve to extent of our human flaws. Nothing wrong about trying, but it is in the journey that we uncover more that we do not know. This is an uncomfortable business proposition.

More specifically, to your question, I believe ed. tech. has gotten us to the moon, so to speak, but now what do we do with the moon? I believe we haven't achieved an understandable relationship with the way the technology is redundant to human teaching and learning behavior, and my own question is: have we achieved all that can be achieved? I believe we can never improve or remove the interface between humans in the teaching learning process -- this may change in the way that telephones have evolved into personal communicators: is "more" "better"? But, I believe an answer to your question is: don't stop yet.

Jonathan, your first response is a gem.  Don't let it get lost here on RG; put it in a file of "to do later."  It is a good start on an essay on the topic.  You already have your first paragraph! 

I agree with your comments on "happiness" in the Declaration of Independence which the Founders, like the European scholars of the Enlightenment from whom they borrowed the concept, intended it to mean "well-being, comfort, creature comforts, the basic necessities of life."  And you're right, they wisely included "pursuit of."  Happiness can't be guaranteed, just the freedom to pursue it--or not.

Regarding your second response, again I agree.  If we ever remove humans from the teaching/learning process it will be a sad state of affairs for future generations.

Thanks.

We have a difficult problem leaving the tradition of  the "assembly line" model in education --  the article refers to "the data", and this is an area that we educators are just beginning to deal with. It worries me that we are only beginning with collecting data with new and better devises, but still seem to rely on business models to interpret it and react to it. Recognizing that the existing cadre of educators is entering the new era armed with outmoded mindsets, we need to recognize that "management" must relinquish exclusive authority over who owns the data.. Working this into a future educational model will be key. The models in the article seem include the piece of developing students' metacognitive awareness: so, how is this piece developed in all the other stakeholders who are still clinging to the "bottom line"?

First, sentence of this article assumes all reformers believe this. I do not!

Overall, we have been increasing significantly as a nation in math/reading (NAEP) both in elementary and middle schools.  This has been the case since the standards movement was launched by NCTM in 1989 and thus followed by other professional teaching organizations like NCTE, NCSS, etc.  While progress has been made in virtually every NAEP testing cycle, the rates of growth still place the U.S. as average/median level compared to other countries.  The biggest factor schools have had no control over (and still cannot) is that children in poverty is on the rise (quantity-wise), as well as English second-language learner increases in public schools.  Public schools have no control over how many kids in poverty or don't speak English well attend their schools.  Related to that is that "more educated parents" tend to have fewer children on average in the U.S. as compared to families at or below the median household income level.  Research has strongly revealed that parental education level and socioeconomic status are two major contributors to how well students do in public schools.  Public schools cannot and will not ever be able deal with the challenges of rising student populations that statistically are marked for lower achievement.  Most of these schools also lie in areas with little tax revenues to generate funding to keep class sizes down, provide extra time for students, attract strong teachers, etc.  With all this said, U.S. public schools (K-8) do extremely well at educating the top 60-70% of students.  We do a poor job at educating the bottom 30-40% which is where 90% of students living in poverty reside.  That is the broken part of U.S. education, not the majority.

At the High School level, we continue to be stagnate for basically 40 years as long as NAEP has been examining HS achievement.  By the time average and below average students get to high school, they are usually behind in all aspects of education and continue to fall behind.  Even average bound college students stagnate on achievement in high school and many are marked for remediation when they do get there.  We have so many IHEs in the U.S., every HS student learns early there is a college to attend and that the lack of any effort in HS will still result in finding a 2year or 4year school for them.  We have a lot to figure out at the HS level in the US and a long way to get there.

Lastly, the Ed Tech comments are true.  Many teachers use technology for the sake of using it, rather than using it as a career boosting and learning tool to foster student engagement.  Rather, it is about checking a box on a teacher evaluation form or something along those lines.  Ed Tech has the capability to supplement instruction to a point that lower achievers can catch up at times, while keeping high achievers busy with learning so teachers can help catch up those falling behind.  But, this vision is not something commonly implemented in many public US schools.  It is a double edged sword at times.

As a teacher of adolescents day to day, the model is critical. The model that students form in their minds being the important one. The model educators choose interacts with the students' and teachers' personal models so it is very important. I must agree that adopting a business model is dysfunctional. Those students who act as clients and treat me as a service providor, also seem to adopt less functional learning approaches ie achievement goal orientation and fixed mindset a la Dweck. The correlation may not be one to one and it may be reversed but the correlation is there just the same. They also do not value my expertise relying instead on their own evaluation of good and bad teaching and learning. Those students who have a learning goals approach and growth mindset treat me like a wise uncle who walks beside them on their learning journey. They value my expertise in lerning and my subject area and tend to do better. So I would recommend a personalisation model based on research into psychology and learning.

Jeremy, I think the writer of the article is not a professional in the field but rather a "pundit."  "I feel like writing about education today.  Tomorrow maybe I'll write my ideas for achieving world peace."

Your comments are so full of correct observations and truths I don't know where to begin in response except to say I agree with everything you wrote.  And I think you covered most of the salient issues.  My wife, a high school teacher of Spanish and ESL for several years, could tell you some wild stories to substantiate everything you said. 

How can the situation improve when the clientele bringing achievement down increases and the upper echelons decrease.  And it's difficult to properly tackle the issues and devise solutions when we (educators and the general public) aren't permitted to be specific in our conversations, much less in education reform deliberations, due to "political correctness." 

My wife was just telling me today about the shift in their ESL program which until this year consisted of a couple of levels of English for non-native speakers who could use some English but just needed a little work to get their level in English a little higher to handle the high school curriculum.  Now, thanks to Homeland Security and their Delta flights of hundreds of Guatemalans into Cincinnati, they have several classes of teenagers just learning their ABCs and my wife is teaching a first grade reader in one of her classes.  Can they go from zero English to "ready for college" in four years?  Then again, it may not be a problem because as you point out, the culture is "don't worry about it, you'll get into college no matter what you do here in high school."

I also agree with you about the ed tech.  If developed, deployed, and used properly it could go a long way to helping teachers deal with the disparities they must contend with regarding levels of ability, not to mention behavior. 

John, nice to hear. I was on a rant today.  The business community has always been looking for ways make money off the large budgets in education.  There is no model we know works for the bottom achievement schools so we keep researching and trying to figure out what works. 

public education has been quietly privatized by cisco systems who install wi ri routers. they are creating curriculum that requires their hardware.  no computers, no school.  it is satanic what is happening in our schools.  there are no fewer than a dozen studies that confirm sperm damage from wi fi laptops and study after study that also confirms cognitive decline and blood brain problems from the microwave radiation in schools.  so, we have cisco systems creating curriculum and agenda that sidelines the arts.  in essence the direction of education today is to train kids to work in the tech industries later.  so, we pay our taxes so that our schools train kids to work in these industries.  what a great plan.  cisco and other tech companies are not only making trillions but have an entire generation of employees trained to go to work for them.  the STEM programs were developed by the  military in 1989 and gave become a good recruiting tool for the military.  they are still involved.  they target "at risk youth" and form psychological bonds with them so that their positive feed back loops will lead them to the military later on.  the schools are seen as a market place and do little more than survive with kickbacks from government and industry.  they are poor and wind up installing cell towers on their grounds that are destroying the health of the kids and teachers.  for more information check my website:  www.wirelesswatchblog.org click on wi fi in schools and science.

David,

Interesting and scary info!  Ranks right up there with the RFID micro chips the Man wants to implant in our bodies.  Not in my family or me!

Regards,

John 

Wireless is everywhere. Not sure how anyone (let alone students) can stay away unless we go super-rural off the grid!

Jeremy,

There you go, another idea for a story I'll never get around to writing!!

Tech reaches a point where it's not just wireless device to device but device to brain.  The (evil) Controllers can then manipulate human "devices" any way they want.  As usual in these stories, a group of Resistors escapes to a super-rural area off the grid and plans how to --dah, dah, dah--save the world!

Back in 1917 Ellwood Cubberly Dean of Education at Stanford urged we view schools as factories in which the children were raw products to be shaped and fashioned to meet the demands of twentieth-century civilisation.  He stated, “The business of schools was to build its pupils according to specifications laid down” and this required, “Continuous measurement of production to see that it is according to specification, the elimination of waste…”  Alas the business community and the unproven philosophy they spout is very distressing.  It is all a very murky affair.

As a faculty member in teacher education and curriculum theory, I would say that education is not a business, but it is being run like a business.  This conflict of paradigms causes a lot of problems.  Education should be about becoming authentic critical thinkers.  However, it is now about measurement and efficiency.  Tons more to say if anyone is interested.

Just read the comment from David Morrison.  I remember listening to the awful statements made by the CEO of Cisco about their "wonderful education" system.   Clearly the man did not understand the difference between education and training.  This argument first started with Plato wanting people educated for their role in life and Aristotle wanting to educate people to achieve their best.  I vote for Aristotle.  Nobody knows what skills will be required in 30 years time.  What you can bet on is that those who perform at their peak will be better off.

Dave...that is a great point.  I have often argued (admittedly about public education) that teaching is becoming less and less a profession and more and more a vocation.  In reality, teachers cannot be trained like they would for the workforce.  Teachers need to be educated as professionals.

Andrew, good comments and, yes, I'm interested in your more to say.  Discussion of education could (does) fill volumes with words but no action taken but at least we should make the effort.  My wife teaches in an urban public high school and we spend hours a week talking about what goes on there--it is beyond comprehension!  You make a salient point with "teachers cannot be trained like they would for the workforce."

Dave and Andrew, so I think we've identified one problem as the error in treating education as a business.  When the Man appoints us the Grand Poobahs of Education we'll remove all instances of the assembly line process.  The second problem you both bring up is training vs. education, may I say skills vs. knowledge?  I read my Greek dudes but I don't remember--was Plato talking about training people in a skill for labor while Aristotle was referring to imparting knowledge to the ruling elite?  I suppose my high school (in the sixties) was a hold-over from all those centuries ago.  Some kids were in the shop building learning a trade while others were in the main building learning language, math, science, etc.  This distinction has all but disappeared and created Problem No. 2.  Somewhere the decision as to what students were best suited for was taken away from guidance counselors and teachers and granted to parents.  Naturally, all parents think their child is going to be a brain surgeon.  All parents think their child is college material and they should be placed in college prep courses.  Lumping all students regardless of aptitude, intelligence, interest, motivation created chaos in the classroom that few teachers know how to deal with.  What's our solution for Problem No. 2??      

I think the answer to that question is more basic than parents.  I think the country has lost focus on what the purpose of a public education is.  We are on a path that is limiting the potential of students.  Because of the demand accountability of all things and want things that are measurable, we are losing critical thinking, creative thinking, and problem solving.  When I was a high school teacher (AP Language and Composition) about a decade ago, I found that my last couple of years of students could read and write better than any I had ever had.  They just didn't have anything to read and write about.  They needed rubrics to help them define success.  Education was about giving correct answers, not about solving problems.

So, when you mention that decisions have been transported from schools to parents, I would agree.  But, I don't see that as a problem.  Parents have always thought their kids were great.  It is just that in today's educational climate, students are judged on the measurable aspects of education (AP classes, test scores, clubs, etc.) that parents have more control over through preparations, forcing their kids to do things for college prep, and they have evidence in their hands.  If education was more about the things I mentioned, critical/creative thinking and problem solving, we would be much better off.

However, education has become so corporate.  It is controlled by textbook conglomerates and politicians.  It is about money and not learning.  In Georgia, we are now outsourcing our teacher education certification to California through edTPA.  It is all just crazy.

John's points about skills has made me think a little more about some of the issues.  In the UK we used to have a thing called the Eleven Plus.  An examination sat by all 11 year old students to decide whether they went to Grammar School or Secondary School.  Grammar School students were destined for academia and Secondary School students were for blue collar work.  In middle class families the stigma of failing the exam was horrendous.  There were cases where children committed suicide because they failed by as little as 1%, 

I failed the exam.  But still managed to find a route to University ironically was through an old fashioned apprenticeship.  There company sent people to school for 1 day a week and we also had to attend one night a week.  The important thing here was that all of a sudden what we were learning was authentic and practical.  i always felt that the situation was genuinely about my advancement.

So John, I am not sure that the issue can be broken down into trade or academic.  It is all about the attitude the politicians, business and education institutions.  Is the experience designed to help the students live a fulfilling life or perpetuate the status quo.

Some years ago a right wing think tank issued a report on how poor mathematics was in the UK.  It included comments from business leaders who reported that they were having to go abroad to get people with the mathematical skills needed.  I wondered whether these business people could do the mathematics themselves.  They were of course bankers.  It made me think that they wanted a better class of servant and did not want to go through the process of training them.

Do not get me wrong.  I am in business and believe in business.  But the purpose of education is not about training someone to do a job.  Well educated people will always manage to get jobs and do them well. 

This is an interesting discussion, sorry to come to it late. Some really excellent points made already by Andrew Kemp and David Catlin among others.

As you can see from my profile, I am a teacher educator in Finland, although I have also worked for many years in the Middle East and I originally come from the UK.

There are two questions here - the first, is K12 education a business? My answer would be no it should not be but the adoption of the Neoliberal belief that the market is the most efficient way to organize society has driving its unbundling and commoditization. Thus we have businesses providing curriculum, content and assessment in the US, UK and as many other countries as the providers can access. I think Michael Sandel does a great analysis of this trend in his book The Moral Limits of Markets: What Money Can’t Buy. In short, it is the difference between a market economy and a market society, the first is fine the latter is not imho.

Of course, as with everything, there are exceptions. For example in the UAE there is free public education for Emirati students but only private (for fees) education for expatriates, however there is also zero taxation and no pretense of a democracy. The context is entirely different, expatriates are there temporality, they will leave and educating expatriate children has no benefit to Emirati society.

Here in Finland things could not be more different. There are no private schools, there are only public schools and the local school is pretty well as good as any other. If Dubai represents almost the ultimate in a consumer society, then Finland is again the opposite. It has one of the lowest levels of inequality in the world as measured by the GINI and all kids eat the same free hot meal at lunch no matter who your parents are. To touch on some pints mentioned by others, teaching is a profession here, an oversubscribed and extremely desirable profession that attracts the best people. That is not to say everything is perfect, it is not perfect anywhere, but the values of society are different and so education is seen as beneficial for society as a whole and not just the individual who is educated. Thus education is free all the way to doctoral level – and of course the taxes high to pay for this and free healthcare. But the consensus of most of society is that these are things worth paying for.

The second question I think is tougher because it all depends upon context. It is complex and involves politics, economics and the values of society as well as history. Thanks for this interesting question.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer, Mark. I am also a teacher educator - on the coast of Maine, a US state that has more than once been compared to Finland (probably for basic geographic and demographic reasons). I am wondering if you might have time to explain how "consensus of most of society is that these are things worth paying for" was reached?

Hi Linda Fuller

Wow - you know if I could really answer that question then I think there is a lucrative book and speaking career ahead of me as well as consultancy roles. It is so complex. My best shot, as an outsider - you have to look at the history of the country, the geographical position – (the Finns were fighting a civil war between the Reds and the Whites a little less than a hundred years ago, having just got independence from Russia) – the political climate would been seen by many Americans as socialist. Work / life balance is really important and as I mentioned already, this is not a consumer driven society at all. Finnish culture, their tough ‘Sisu’ character, all are factors I would say, perhaps even their dislike of small talk and self promotion is a factor as well.

Sadly I do not think there is a recipe for this. There is almost no hierarchy in this society, it is hard to get rich because of progressive taxation, but no real poor either. There is no 1% here for sure. I guess it just depends what you want from life and that comes down to political and philosophical views. I like it, I choose to live here.

Pasi Sahlberg, in his book Finnish Lessons, covers some of this. In terms of education I would say there may be some benefits in copying what we do, but the results will never be the same because the whole culture and society is different. Just as democracy cannot just be exported to the Middle East, so you cannot export an entire culture and belief system that underpins an education system.

Just like my opinion though!

Well I guess here is your answer - Venture Capitalists Are Poised to ‘Disrupt’ Everything About the Education Market 

http://www.thenation.com/article/181762/venture-capitalists-are-poised-disrupt-everything-about-education-market#

Mark, thanks for the link!  Wow!  What will the outcome be?  Time will tell but with business involved I fear it won't be the best for education, teachers, students, parents with the health care analogy mentioned in the article--sky-rocketing costs of education, profit for investors over quality of "service", etc.

Now...as far as I can tell, the strand about educational technology has drifted away.  However, I think it is important to consider it again.  With the conversion of everything (sorry for speaking in absolutes) to electronic, it is another avenue for corporations to control education.  Not only is there control of content, but there is also control of the medium.  Universities and public school systems pay millions for the electronic delivery of materials (ebooks, classroom management systems, etc.).  

However, this also causes greater inequities in education.  Rich school districts have the bells and whistles, poor ones don't.

I would argue that a viable model for education is one that is more local.  If the purpose of education is to create critical, creative thinkers, studying local issues would allow the students to have real world understandings for what they learn.  Would love to continue on this strand.

Andrew,

Yes, the topic shifts back and forth between business models of education and educational technology.  My fault for including both, but that was the focus of the article I posted.

The article that Mark posted gave me cause for concern and a lot to think about.  Private investment money infused into education sounds like a good thing on the surface but considering the downside described in the article--greed, corruption, incompetence, lack of accountability, etc.--investors buying and controlling schools, imposing their methodology, hiring teachers, profits going to investors instead of teachers and/or materials may not be such a good way to go.

In addition to the business community owning schools, you mentioned another aspect of this intrusion of business into education--the delivery of digital materials and their control of content.  Having published texts for high school and university in the days of print there was no control of content or imposition of content.  The publishers wanted to produce books that met the needs of teachers.  Mine went through a lot of teacher/reviewers.  With digital publishing they appear to continue to want to meet the content demands of the profession; most publishers are placing great emphasis on Common Core State Standards, for example. 

But where digital publishers are controlling is in the delivery of the content.  When a library or school bought a (physical) book they owned it.  They could check it out to as many patrons or students as they wanted.  Now the big 5 publishers and many of the medium publishers sell a license or subscription to digital content.  "You've used the ebook 15 times.  You have to pay us again to continue using it."  Personally, I find this outrageous. 

And in reference to the rich schools versus the poor schools.  That's definitely true to a great extent but it doesn't have to be as bad as it is now.  Amazon, Apple, Nook and others created the problem with their stupid and unnecessary "ereaders".  Any ebook can and should be created in HTML5 and readable on a computer or laptop.  A proprietary format (mobi, EPUB, etc.) and proprietary device are preventing the equitable delivery of educational material to all students, rich or poor (even poor schools have desktops or laptops; it's the new-fangled crap of the business world--Amazon, Apple, etc.--they can't afford). 

Finally, I agree with your suggestion for more local focus as a model.  A "national" focus or model doesn't seem to work since there are far too many differences among states and regions.  What works in one area doesn't mean it will work in another.    

The K-12 education system could be considered as a business in terms of its operations and management.  It has been proven under a market system that any endeavor could be sustainable if it imbibe a character of profitability.  If one has to survey the top universities in the world, including those schools in basic education, most of which are privately owned and run.  Quality of education can be manifested generally in "rich" schools.  However, in such situation, the ensuing issue is access and equity.  Poor families cannot send their children to school, which eventually become the cause for a widening gap between the rich and poor members of society.  Although it is best for the K-12 system to be operated by the private sector, it is also very necessary for the government to closely supervise the curriculum to conform with international standards as well as provide incentives and subsidy in a form of scholarship grants so that poor but deserving students could avail of and finish formal education that would lead to a better career and high-paying job.

Good points, Prof. Gerry!

I definitely feel that public education SHOULD NOT be considered an industry or a business.  However everything surrounding education tells me the contrary.  From the very word of the educational publisher Pearson among others, there is a bucket of money waiting to be stuffed into pockets from the very well educated parents to the naive parent whose only interest is to see their child progress in school.  When we consider school materials that are purchased every year to the clothes that are worn there is a constant reminder that there is a LOT of money in this non-profit program called k-12 education.  I have 5 children and am a candidate for my EdD at USC, believe me-EDUCATION IS A BUSINESS.  It is a business from the moment teachers are paid to the stickers and pencils bought at Wal-Mart.  Schools  pay exorbitant amounts of money for their academic materials for school from Pearson whether they are the best schools in the country or whether they are in last place...the ranking of schools is not the issue, the cost of an education per capita IS the issue and it is an expensive venture no matter how you look at it.  Districts across America have busses that take students to and from school and if you consider the costs of maintaining these vehicles, there is another cost.  It all comes out of our income taxes and property taxes so in what way is Education NOT a business?  Districts provide bonuses for Master's degrees and PhDs and EdDs in order to promote continual studying and progress of the teachers.  If Education was not a business, then why promote the spending of money in other educational institutions as well?  Why wouldn't a Bachelor's degree and teaching credential be enough?  Because again....it is an industry whether on the public sector or private, you are still involving a lot of companies in the education of your children and for teachers, for their professional development and resume filling.  I would LOVE to see the day where we could exempt ourselves from the costs of education, but to what end? If there is no incentive to teach, provide materials, or administrate (let's not forget the cut of money provided to the administration of every school) how can we expect the students to want to come to school to learn?  My son had 6 homeroom teachers in the same schoolyear...that was in a private school...they were reasonably paid and yet, did not finish the year for reasons only known to themselves....yes, sadly it is a business.