Learning to distinguish between motives of profit and the well being of children

November 13, 8:18 AMNY Education ExaminerLorri Giovinco-Harte

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the NY Education Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

I learned about the relationship between big business and education at the earlier part of my career.   New York State had changed the format of the English Language Arts Regents exam and my supervisor asked me to attend a training session. 

The session was created to introduce us to the new exam.  The workshop was facilitated by a group of people who explained that they had all served on the committee to create the new test.  One by one, they introduced themselves and explained their role in the educational system.  One presenter was an English teacher in New York City and I believe that one was a college professor. 

A gentleman walked to the front and introduced himself.  He explained that he worked for Kaplan and had been involved in the creation of the Regents exam.

I wish that I could tell you what happened next, but my brain became stuck on this piece of information.  Why was an employee from a test preparation company involved in the creation of the state exam?  Wasn't this a conflict of interest? I had a difficult time wrapping my mind around this and could see that others in the room did as well.  One thing was for sure - from that point on, I began to understand how closely intertwined big business is to education.

There is a great deal of money that is allocated for education in the U.S. and companies naturally clamor to get a piece of it.  Unfortunately, however, it can be difficult to know where the line is drawn between the well being of children and the profit making interests of educational companies.

Educators learn about the relationship through exposure, but how can non educators become aware of this?  I would like to say that news sources can be trusted, but there are intimate relationships between some media outlets and educational companies as well. 

I did not realize until fairly recently that The Washington Post owns Kaplan Education - one of the industry leaders in test preparation. It would be natural, therefore, for the paper to provide information and commentary which may favor standardized testing as well as schools which focus on them.  For example, Jay Mathews is an education reporter for The Post.  Mathews writes frequently about the benefits and 'successes' of KIPP Schools often citing - you guessed it - test scores.  Kipp Schools have a strong emphasis on standardized testing and some argue that Mathews is blatantly blurring the line between reporting information and plugging a school that many refer to as being a part of the 'testing agenda'.

Standardized testing has found a renewed interest since the adoption of No Child Left Behind.  The law, which was signed into effect by George W. Bush, calls for mandated testing of children in reading and math at various grade levels.  NCLB allows school districts to choose which exams they will use, which has allowed for a great deal of 'competitive' bidding among testing companies.  PBS reports that testing industries have seen an increase in profits of $7 million in 1955 to $263 million in 1997 to anywhere from $400 million to $700 million today.

I've written before about The McGraw Hill company, whose dominance in the testing industry has been attributed by some to be the result of multi-generational friendships between the Bush and McGraw family.  In New York City, McGraw Hill is very prominent, as they supply many of the testing and reporting systems for the city.

One might hope that the selection of the company has more to do with the quality of their products than with some form of nepotism, yet McGraw Hill has been criticized for reported deficiencies. Some schools have complained about  errors in the reporting of scores, while others report mistakes in the tests themselves.  One teacher writes about a McGraw Hill exam which teachers were forced to implement without warning.  The test was supposed to be used to measure how well children would do on the ELA Regents, yet it was implemented at the end of the year.  I would imagine that there was some kind of a budgetary deadline involved which caused the rush, but this certainly didn't help the children.

According to the teacher, the exam appeared to be unedited and rushed.  The teacher reported that it was filled with spelling and grammatical errors which made comprehension confusing.  This is particularly alarming when working with children who have deficiencies in literacy to begin with.

The intermingling between testing companies and schools requires us to use discernment when reading or hearing about an educational program, product or even research study - for we need to understand which interests these mediums are serving. 

McGraw Hill recently announced that they are assembling a 'panel of education experts to address the achievement gap In U.S. Public Schools' .  The company explains the purpose of the panel to be to address the following questions:

What disparities exist between the achievement of black students and other racial and ethnic groups in America's public schools, and what steps do you take to close that achievement gap?

Somehow, I have a feeling that these 'steps' may just involve more standardized testing.