Connecting the Pieces: Open Source, Big Data, and the Origins of the Common [sic] Core [sic]

800px-Japanese_camera_for_surveillance_2How educational publishers PLAYED and PWNED a nation’s educrats and politicians

(A term from the gaming world, pwned, a blend of pawn and owned, is a neologism meaning “achieved total control and/or domination over.” If an opponent uses you, against your better interests, to achieve his or her own objectives, or if you are obliterated within seconds of the beginning of game play, then you have been pwned.)

The last state has now pulled out of the proposed national database of student responses and scores. Those who were horrified at the prospect of such a privately held, Orwellian Total Information Awareness system for K-12 public school education, one that would have served as a de facto checkpoint and censor librorum for curricula, are cheering.

But don’t think for a moment that Big Data has been beaten. I am going to explain why. I hope that you will take the effort to follow the connections in the story below. The story is a bit complicated, and some of it hinges on matters of business and economics that make for dull reading. I think, however, that you’ll find the story as a whole both shocking and extraordinarily consequential and so worth the effort. The tale I am going to tell is a birth narrative. It’s the story of a monstrous birth, like that of the monsters that sprang from the primordial ocean in ancient Mesopotamian mythology. But this is a true story, and the monstrous birth was engineered. This is the story, as I understand it, of the birth of the Common [sic] Core [sic].

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The emergence of the Internet presented a challenge to the business model of the big educational publishers. It presented the very real possibility that they might go the way of the Dodo, the Passenger Pigeon, Kingman’s Prickly-Pear (date of extinction: 1978), and the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit (date of extinction: 2007). Why? With a bit of effort, you will be able to find, right now, if you choose to look, some 80 or so complete, high-quality, absolutely FREE open-source textbooks on the Internet–textbooks written by various professors–textbooks in geology, biology, astronomy, physics, law, grammar, foreign languages, every conceivable topic in mathematics, and other subjects.

The development of the possibility of publishing via the Internet, combined with the wiring of all public schools for broadband access, removed an important barrier to entry to the educational publishing business–paper, printing, binding, sampling, warehousing, and shipping costs. Pixels are cheap. Objects made of dead trees aren’t. In the Internet Age, small publishers with alternative texts could easily flourish. Some of those—academic self publishers interested not in making money but in spreading knowledge of their subjects—would even do substantive work for free. Many have, already. There are a dozen great intro statistics texts , some with complete answer keys and practice books and teachers’ guides, available for FREE on the Web today.

Think of what Wikipedia did to the Encyclopedia Britannica. That’s what open-source textbooks were poised to do to the K-12 educational materials monopolists. The process had already begun in college textbook publishing. The big publishers were starting to lose sales to free, open-source competitors. The number of open-source alternatives would grow exponentially, and the phenomenon would spread down through the grade levels. Soon. . . .

How were the purveyors of textbooks going to compete with FREE?

What’s a monopolist to do in such a situation?

Answer: Create a computer-adaptive ed tech revolution. The monopolists figured out that they could create computer-adaptive software keyed to student responses in databases that they, and they alone, could get access to. No open-source providers admitted. They could also team up with tablet providers and sell districts tablets with their curricula preloaded, tablets locked to prevent access to other publishers’ materials.

Added benefit: By switching to computerized delivery of their materials, the educational publishing monopolists would dramatically reduce their costs and increase their profits, for the biggest items on the textbook P&L, after the profits, are costs related to the physical nature of their products–costs for paper, printing, binding, sampling, warehousing, and shipping.

By engineering the computer-adaptive ed tech revolution and having that ed tech keyed to responses in proprietary databases that only they had access to, the ed book publishers could kill open source in its cradle and keep themselves from going the way of typewriter and telephone booth manufacturers.

The Big Data model for educational publishing would prevent the REAL DISRUPTIVE REVOLUTION in education that the educational publishers saw looming–the disruption of THEIR BUSINESS MODEL posed by OPEN-SOURCE TEXTBOOKS.

A little history:

2007 was the fiftieth anniversary of the Standard and Poors Index. On the day the S&P turned fifty, 70 percent of the companies that were originally on the Index no longer existed. They had been killed by disruptions that they didn’t see coming.
The educational materials monopolists were smarter. They saw coming at them the threat to their business model that open-source textbooks presented. And so they cooked up computer-adaptive ed tech (including online state tests) keyed to standards, with responses in proprietary databases that they would control, to prevent that. The adaptive ed tech/big data/big database transition would maintain and even strengthen their monopoly position.

But to make that computer-adaptive ed tech revolution happen and so prevent open-source textbooks from killing their business model, the publishers would first need ONE SET OF NATIONAL STANDARDS. And that’s why they, and their new tech partners, paid to have the Common [sic] Core [sic] created. That one set of national standards would provide the tags for their computer-adaptive software. That set of standards would be the list of skills that the software would keep track of in the databases that open-source providers could not get access to. Only they would have access to the BIG DATA.

In other words, the Common [sic] Core [sic] was the first step in A BUSINESS PLAN.

A certain extraordinarily wealthy computer mogul described that business plan DECADES ago–the coming disruptive programmed learning model in education, the model now commonly referred to as computer-adaptive learning based on Big Data.

So, that’s the story, in a nutshell. And it’s not an education story. It’s a business story.

And a WHOLE LOTTA EDUCRATS haven’t figured that out and have been totally PLAYED. They are dutifully working for PARCC or SBAC and dutifully attending conferences on implementing the “new, higher standards” and are basically unaware that they have been USED to implement a business plan. They don’t understand that the national standards were simply a necessary part of that plan.

And here’s the kicker: The folks behind this plan also see it is a way to reduce, dramatically, the cost of U.S. education. How? Well, the biggest cost, by far, in education is teachers’ salaries and benefits. But, imagine 300 students in a room, all using software, with a single “teacher” walking around to make sure that the tablets are working and to assist when necessary. Good-enough training for the children of the proles. Fewer teacher salaries. More money for data systems and software. Ironically, the publishers and their high-tech Plutocratic partners were able to enlist both major teachers’ unions to serve as propaganda ministries for their new national bullet list of standards, even though the game plan for those standards is to reduce the number of teachers’ salaries that have to be paid. Thus the education deform mantra: “Class size doesn’t matter.”

Think of the money to be saved.

And the money to be made.

The wrinkle in the publishers’ plan, of course, is that people don’t like the idea of a single, Orwellian national database. From the point of view of the monopolists, that’s a BIG problem. The database is, after all, the part of the plan that keeps the real disruption, open-source textbooks, from happening–the disruption that would end the traditional textbook business as surely as MP3 downloads ended the music CD business and video killed the radio star.

So, with the national database dead, for now, the education deformers have to go to plan B.

What will they do? Here’s something that’s VERY likely: They will sell database systems state by state, to state education departments, or district by district. Those database systems will simply be each state’s or district’s system (who could object to that?), and only approved vendors (guess who?) will flow through each. Which vendors? Well, the ones with the lobbying bucks and with the money to navigate whatever arcane procedures are created by the states and districts implementing them, with the monopolists’ help, of course. So, the new state and district database systems will work basically as the old textbook adoption system did, as an educational materials monopoly protection plan.

So, to recap: to hold onto their monopolies in the age of the Internet, the publishers would use the Big Data ed tech model, which would shut out competitors, and for that, they would need a single set of national standards.

In business, such thinking as I have outlined above is called Strategic Planning.

The plan that a certain computer mogul had long had for ed tech proved to be just what the monopolist educational publishers needed. That plan and the publishers’ need to disrupt the open-source disruption before it happened proved to be a perfect confluence of interest–a confluence that would become a great river of green.

The educational publishing monopolists would not only survive but thrive. There would be billions to be made in the switch from textbooks to Big Data and computer-adaptive ed tech. Billions and billions and billions.

And that’s why you have the Common [sic] Core [sic].

 

Copyright 2014. Robert D. Shepherd. All rights reserved. This piece may be freely distributed if this copyright notice is retained on all copies.

For more pieces by Bob Shepherd on the topic of Education “Reform,” go here: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/category/ed-reform/

For more pieces on the teaching of literature and writing, go here: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/category/teaching-literature-and-writing/

Advertisements

About Bob Shepherd

interests: curriculum design, educational technology, learning, linguistics, hermeneutics, rhetoric, philosophy (Continental philosophy, Existentialism, metaphysics, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, epistemology, ethics), classical and jazz guitar, poetry, the short story, archaeology and cultural anthropology, history of religion, prehistory, veganism, sustainability, Anglo-Saxon literature and language, systems for emergent quality control, heuristics for innovation
This entry was posted in Ed Reform, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Connecting the Pieces: Open Source, Big Data, and the Origins of the Common [sic] Core [sic]

  1. Bob Shepherd says:

    That there were noneducational reasons for the creation of the Common [sic] Core [sic] explains why these “standards” were so heedlessly prepared–why they were hacked together quickly and without learned review and critique based on a review by amateurs of the lowest-common-denominator groupthink of the previously existing state “standards.”

    I admit to feeling embarrassment for the rare English teacher I encounter who supports the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] for English Language Arts. I feel, in the presence of such a person, the same way I feel when I’m listening to a speech and the speaker is mispronouncing one of his or her key terms over and over again.

    Many years ago, there was a teachers’ strike in Chicago, and the Chicago Public Schools administrators were conducting classes for students over the radio. One day, I was listening to one of these programs, and some administrator was going on and on about “Jenn-ruhs” of literature. Hey, it happens. People mispronounce things.

    But still, I listen to someone defending the breathtakingly uninformed, puerile, backward, hackneyed, confused, pedestrian, unimaginative, prescientific Common Core in ELA with the same sort of embarrassment for the other person that I felt for that administrator. I want to pass the person a note: Psst, your fly is open. Psst: there’s a piece of lettuce stuck in your teeth. Psst, you’re making a fool of yourself. Here: read this. And this. And this.

    Most English teachers, of course, know how lame, how amateurish the CC$$ in ELA are. Many, unfortunately, are afraid to say what they know, for Ed Deform has created a climate of fear of the kind that one finds in an occupied state. Think Vichy France.

    I admit to having a heuristic for determining if someone knows the first thing about teaching English: I simply find out whether he or she is on the Common [sic] Core [sic] in ELA pom pon squad. Then I know with whom I am dealing, and I know to speak slowly and to use very simple words and concepts. Lexile level 4 or 5 at most.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Bob Shepherd says:

    Let me be clear about this: I WANT educational publishers to make money. I want them to be healthy. But I want them to have to compete fairly, on a level playing field, based on product quality, not based on what fixes they can put in place by restricting market access.

    I would even like to see the testing divisions of these houses make money, but not creating the extraordinarily damaging summative standardized tests they are now creating but, rather, high-quality diagnostics and subject-specific formatives that disappear into instruction. News educators can use.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: Connecting the Pieces: Open Source, Big Data, and the Origins of the Common [sic] Core [sic] | Educational Policy Information

  4. Mary Dooms says:

    I must admit as a middle school math teacher I drank the kool aid. With the passage of time I’ve now come to view the Common Core as Obama’s answer to stimulating the economy ( i.e. edtech start ups peddling their wares). Thank you for providing such a thoughtful prologue. I am reblogging your post.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Mary Dooms says:

    Reblogged this on Curiouser and Curiouser and commented:
    I must admit as a middle school math teacher I drank the kool aid. With the passage of time I’ve now come to view the Common Core as Obama’s answer to stimulating the economy ( i.e. edtech start ups peddling their wares). This thoughtful prologue needs to be shared. It may be long but not one word is wasted.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Bob Shepherd says:

    So, what’s the alternative? (Ed Deformers always ask this, expecting stunned silence in reply. Well, here’s the alternative.)

    An open-source wiki to which are published, for every domain, in every subject, for varied learners, at every grade level, VOLUNTARY, COMPETING, ALTERNATIVE

    standards
    frameworks
    sample lesson plans
    model curricula
    learning progressions (aka curriculum maps)
    pedagogical techniques, strategies, and rationales
    model assessments (diagnostic, formative, and performance)
    texts

    in a variety of formats (including video)

    prepared by independent scholars, researchers, curriculum developers, practitioners (teachers, curriculum coordinators, other administrators), and professionals in various fields

    That’s how you get innovation.

    You don’t get it via regimentation, standardization, and top-down mandates from a national Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth, from a national curriculum and pedagogy Thought Police.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Rebecca says:

    Wow! Thank you for this article. As a parent I’ve been unhappy with the education (or lack of) my children are receiving through our local public school. Trying to navigate through the pros & cons of what’s causing the decline in education is overwhelming. This article explained what is truly the “driving force” behind what our children are taught. I did not have any idea it was the textbook publishers who wanted & got the standards set. Isn’t this just wrong morally? Why are so many willing to accept education as a for profit entity? Just like hospitals should not be allowed to be for profit. Wanting the best for our children should be about providing an environment with tools, skills, knowledge etc. grow up and accomplish their dreams/goals, not about profits for corporations. Corporate greed, with the help of the Supreme Court giving corporations rights under the constitution, may turn out to be that single factor that destroys humanity. Thank you again for your insight.

    Like

  8. Have you considered launching your own YouTuge channel and producing at least one video a week (three minutes or less) where you could focus on one topic ans summarize with visuals?

    Like

    • Bob Shepherd says:

      I have. I even have the fancy video editing software. But I have to earn a living and can’t save the world full time! 🙂

      Still reading your novel. Got sidetracked by work. But it’s GREAT!!! Very much interested in reading your other stuff.

      Like

      • Thank you. I understand what it’s like to have too much on your plate and not enough time to deal with it. It’s far too easy to want to want to do more than there are hours in a day to accomplish and we do have to sleep and have real-life in the flesh relationships we must feed to keep healthy.

        Once you learn how to use the software, it doesn’t take long to produce a three minute video. Maybe a half hour to an hour or so. I produced a few book trailers back in 2008 so I know it isn’t that much of a challenge. You don’t have to produce a Hollywood extravaganza

        My wife, who earned an MFA in film from the Chicago Art institute is more into film and she’s involved in her own projects. She also has her own You Tube channel.Right now, her passion is focused on doing a full length documentary and she’s working hard to pull all the strings together. What she’s working on has nothing to do with what she has already produced and posted on YouTube. I’m not going to mention her topic and the theme of the topic because she wouldn’t approve. But I can say this much: if she pulls it off, it may have an national and international impact that reaches all the way to the White House and beyond.

        If interested, you may want to check our the promotion videos she created for her last book, The Cooked Seed. It’s been awhile since I watched one but I think I might have a brief appearance in at least one of them.

        I posted her videos all on one page of my Website/Blog:

        http://lloydlofthouse.org/anchee-min-the-cooked-seed-the-sequel-to-red-azalea/

        Liked by 1 person

    • Bob Shepherd says:

      I will definitely check it out. I’m actually already pretty skilled at that editing software. Just very busy these days. Great to hear from you, always, Lloyd!

      Like

      • It’s good to hear you are skilled at using the editing software. I’m still a beginner and probably forgot everything I learned back in 2008 when I was using the film editing software.

        Like

  9. Pingback: One Explanation of the Monopolistic Logic Behind the “Common”(sic) “Core”(sic) “Curriculum” (sic) | GFBrandenburg's Blog

  10. wgersen says:

    Reblogged this on Network Schools – Wayne Gersen and commented:
    You’re on the money with this overview… but there are some unintended consequences that might result. Here’s one dystopian scenario: It’s not inconceivable that parents will not only opt out of tests, they will opt out of school altogether. States have weak and virtually unenforceable home school requirements… and the real money to be made is not in curriculum development but in TESTING. So Pearson, for example, might approach a state where parents are opting out of SCHOOL in greater numbers and pitch the idea that their tests should be used in lieu of a submission of a “plan of studies” or whatever lame requirement is in place at the State level. The states, starved of resources by the lack of government funding, will welcome this and pass the costs of the tests along to the homeschooling parents. Eventually public education will devolve into a DIY fee-for-service enterprise for, say, 20% of the population… another 40% will use some form of vouchers to enroll in private, sectarian, or for-profit charter schools… and the last 40% will remain in what we currently think of as public schools. This will achieve a lot of the ends desired by the business community: there will be money made in testing, in the for-profit charter sector, and in avoided taxes as voters reject school spending on the grounds that only a few kids attend school— and since the kids left in school are the children of voiceless and disenfranchised no one will care. The likelihood of this trajectory increases as long as we define “good schooling” as “high test scores” based on age-based grade-level groupings… and for that reason we need to de-couple “schooling” from “testing”.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. wgersen says:

    You’re on the money with this overview… but there are some unintended consequences that might result. Here’s one dystopian scenario: It’s not inconceivable that parents will not only opt out of tests, they will opt out of school altogether. States have weak and virtually unenforceable home school requirements… and the real money to be made is not in curriculum development but in TESTING. So Pearson, for example, might approach a state where parents are opting out of SCHOOL in greater numbers and pitch the idea that their tests should be used in lieu of a submission of a “plan of studies” or whatever lame requirement is in place at the State level. The states, starved of resources by the lack of government funding, will welcome this and pass the costs of the tests along to the homeschooling parents. Eventually public education will devolve into a DIY fee-for-service enterprise for, say, 20% of the population… another 40% will use some form of vouchers to enroll in private, sectarian, or for-profit charter schools… and the last 40% will remain in what we currently think of as public schools. This will achieve a lot of the ends desired by the business community: there will be money made in testing, in the for-profit charter sector, and in avoided taxes as voters reject school spending on the grounds that only a few kids attend school— and since the kids left in school are the children of voiceless and disenfranchised no one will care. The likelihood of this trajectory increases as long as we define “good schooling” as “high test scores” based on age-based grade-level groupings… and for that reason we need to de-couple “schooling” from “testing”.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s