Turning Learning into a Business

Kohn, A. (2004). Turning learning into a business. In What does it mean to be well educated?: And more essays on standards, grading and other follies (pp. 11-27). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.


With the proliferation of standardized testing and the preparation that accompanies such assessments, it is difficult to argue that student learning isn't heavily influenced by business. The companies that create and sell the state assessments are also the companies that create and market the [canned] programs aimed at helping students obtain a score of proficient on those same assessments. 


According to Kohn (2004, p. 17) there are three ways companies profit from education:

• Through the selling of the tests that all students are required to take.
• Advertising--be it Channel One, billboards surrounding athletic fields, or contracts with schools to sell specific products
• By running entire schools

I agree that there should be accountability in schools for everyone involved--teachers, students, parents, administrators, etc. But the state of testing as it is is too much. In the school district where I teach not only do we have the six days of state mandated testing, but reading, language arts, math and science are tested through  NWEA three additional times throughout the school year. What are we saying to students, then, about their learning? Education and inadvertently learning, is quantifiable. It's only worth the number at the end of the test, which indicates whether or not one is fit to graduate from high school. 


I don't watch Channel One, and haven't for a few years. The criticism I've heard of Channel One suggests that the majority of the program is tied up in advertising. According to Kohn, students that view Channel One are "more likely to agree with statements such as 'money is everything,' 'a nice car is more important than school,' 'designer labels make a difference,' and 'I want what I see advertised'" (2004, p. 13).  The second of those--a nice care is more important than school--is an incredibly unfortunate statement. It means some students only attend school because it is mandated by law (which I'm sure is true of more students than just those who responded to the poll). 


An effect: schools may be taken over by corporations, or the private sector. The problem arises when there is no longer a public option. (Listen to me, it sounds like I'm talking about our nation's recent healthcare issues.) Then, 

Schools dependent on private clienteles--schools that can gt rid of unwanted kids or troublemaker families...toss aside the losers--not only can avoid the democratic arts of compromise and tolerance but also implicitly foster lessons about the power of money and prestige. (Kohn, 2004, p. 16-17)

In the event that the entire educational system is owned by business people, what happens to those students who cannot afford tuition? Or those who do not match the make and model of a school's expectations? I do not believe that it will come to this, rather, I hope it does not. But to me, it sounds like an effort to resegregate schools. That one worked so well the first time.


I like Kohn's criticism of big business's reaction to education. If modern corporations actually had similar goals to those of educators, they'd call us on our use of worksheets because they don't build problem-solving skills in students, they'd push problem or project-based learning in a cooperative setting. They would stop talking about school choice--that is, a student or parent's ability to choose what school a student attends--and rather talk about giving students choices about the way they approach their education (Kohn, 2004, p. 23). I've worked with two of the many programs created by big business to help students whose ability to read has not yet reached the appropriate quantitative measure. In those programs, I've seen worksheets, no projects, no push for cooperative learning or critical thinking on the part of both the students and the teacher. Counterintuitive?


The reality of businesses? They compete against each other for business. Within my own department, I've seen teachers use this rivalry to foster competition in the students--an effort to motivate students to perform better on the many tests we make them take. This is great for the business mindset. On a larger scale:

Other nations are likewise depicted as rivals, such that to make our schools "world class" means not that we should cooperate with other countries and learn, but that we should compete against them and win. (Kohn, 2004, p. 24)

I recently read a blog post about two teachers who worked together, studying a common event in history. These two teachers teach on different continents and used Skype to connect their classrooms. One of the language arts standards for New Mexico states that students need to experience multiple perspectives. We're not talking about winning a competition here. We're talking about 60 kids who got an opportunity to see how the other side viewed a common piece of history. 


My questions for education following the reading of this article are as follows:

• If we privatize education, we are doing most of our nation's children a disservice, widening the rift between those of means and those without. Does that mean that we continue with the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? 
• What does privatization mean for the government funding of public schools? 
• Are we moving toward segregating schools again? And what does this mean for the quality of education for all students?
• As educators, are we doing nothing more than creating another generation of consumers?

Related Reading: 

Molnar, A. (2005). School commercialism: from democratic ideal to market commodity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bradley S. Greenberg and Jeffrey E. Brand. "Channel One: But What About the Advertising?" Educational Leadership (December 1993/January 1994): 56-58.

What does it mean to be well educated?

Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated? In What does it mean to be well educated?: And more essays on standards, grading and other follies (pp. 1-10). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

In this article, Kohn suggests that a requirement of educators is to build a standard of education based not solely (or even at all) on what a high school student, when he has finished his tenure at his secondary institution, should be able to do. Kohn's idea of a k-12 institution that has the qualities necessary to offer a good education is built on questioning and problem solving rather than rote memorization of facts and the practicing of skills. The goal of education is to make sure that the learners never stop learning.

---

Anyone remotely involved in the education process--and I'm sure, anyone who has watched the news of late--is aware of NCLB and the copious number of standardized tests that are forced upon k-12 schools and students to ensure that the students (and really the teachers) are meeting the standards set by the state for education. But test scores, especially when the learning taking place in the classroom involves authentic assessment, isn't an entirely accurate snapshot of what lessons students have learned over the course of (almost) a year.

Kohn says, "perhaps the question, 'How do we know if education has been successful?' shouldn't be posed until we have asked what it's supposed to be successful at" (Kohn, 2004, p. 2). If education is supposed to be successful at producing a nation of test-takers who are proficient at filling in bubbles and writing formulaic paragraphs in response to short answer questions, then I think we're going in the right direction. However, if the goal of education, as Dewey suggests, is to create learners who keep on learning (Kohn, 2004, p. 10), then I have to say the system is doing a poor job.

What qualities does a well educated person have? Can poor educational institutions turn out well educated people? Is someone well educated if they know the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence? or if he can recite Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 (you know... "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..."). For that matter, who gets to decide whether or not someone is well educated? Kohn says that because educators cannot agree, it is imperative that the dialoge continue, with the understanding that there isn't a one-size-fits-all definition of what well educated is (Kohn, 2004, p. 6).

Instead, the educational policy makers are using standardized testing as a cop-out. It's like saying, "We can't decide what criterion we're going to use to decide if seniors have learned what we want them to learn by May of their last year of high school, so we're going to let the test decide for us." In doing this, the standard of education is lowered under the pressure to get students to pass a test (Kohn, 2004, p. 7).

Currently, Common Core Standards are an issue. So apparently it is possible to "agree on a single definition of what every high school student should know or be able to do in order to be considered well educated" (Kohn, 2004, p. 3). Valerie Strauss, from the Washington Post, suggests that a push for Common Core standards, standards that were drafted out of the public eye with little input from practicing classroom teachers, may lead for a push for national curriculum and a national assessment. And then what will happen to a teachers' autonomy? I think we need to take Kohn's route and keep talking.

Alfie Kohn on Goals

Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated?: And more essays on standards, grading and other follies. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

In the preface and introduction to What does it mean to be well educated?Alfie Kohn posits that one of the issues with education, the one this text is going to discuss, is "failing to talk meaningfully about goals and practices" (p. xii). In the essays in this collection, Kohn will address how to construct the classrooms we need to reach goals that don't include students becoming master test-takers, how that affects how teachers instruct in their classrooms, and how to respond to student success once we've broken them of the need to find validation in authority figures.

For readers whose point of departure is a worldview very different from my own, my objective, naturally, is to invite them to look at things a little differently by the end of an essay than they did at the beginning. But for everyone else, my hope is to provoke reconsideration of practices, and even of goals, by beginning with the basic values we share. That's what allows a logical progression of reappraisal: GIven that we're agreed on this broad (or long-term) principle, how much sense does it make to pursue these narrow (or short-term) goals, and the, in consequence, how wise are these policies and behaviors? (p. xv)

Kohn's last question is the lens through which I wish to look at these essays, while applying what I know about best practices in adolescent literacy and my own teaching experience.