WE THE PEOPLE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER INTERNET ACCESS----INTERNET BANNING---INTERNET CENSORING.
We are already seeing in the US our search engines selecting more and more out----placing global Wall Street articles in top search positions----we cannot access most articles and research done BEFORE 1980s----
We didn't have proper texts in K-12 schools because ----global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA did not want them in schools--not because they were too expensive. Our college texts were sky high because profiteering was allowed----LET'S CHANGE THAT.
'The Core Knowledge Foundation promotes a “coherent, cumulative and content-specific core curriculum,” and Robert Pondiscio, a spokesman from the nonprofit organization, says that he’s dubious that just shifting material platforms would improve schools significantly'.
If media and information has totally eliminated all left social democratic discussion and ideas ----distorted every American and European political philosophy discussion to create widespread dis-information------what would ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE COMMONER CORE do to global information?
Obama to Push Schools on Digital Textbooks
While President Obama has called for greater technological literacy among young people in the country, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and Education Secretary Arne Duncan recommended to industry and education officials that state legislation must change to allow K-12 schools to use taxpayer funding once reserved for printed books on iPads, Kindles and software.
It is thought that Obama’s goal is have an e-textbook in the hand of every student by 2017, writes Greg Toppo at USA Today.
Online resources are being promoted by the Administration as a way to help students learn more efficiently and give teachers real-time information on how well kids understand material.
“We spend $7 billion a year on textbooks, and for many students around the country, they’re out of date.”
In five years, he predicts, “we could be spending less as a society on textbooks and getting more for it.”
While tablet computers may be expensive, moving from paper to digital “saves a ton of money” in the long run.
“We absolutely want to push the process.”
The transition is essential, says Matt MacInnis, founder and CEO of the e-textbook company Inkling.
“There is no future for American education unless we figure this out. There’s no segment of any industry anywhere in the world anymore that doesn’t rely on technology to get its job done.”
The Core Knowledge Foundation promotes a “coherent, cumulative and content-specific core curriculum,” and Robert Pondiscio, a spokesman from the nonprofit organization, says that he’s dubious that just shifting material platforms would improve schools significantly.
“I wish there was even 10% as much thought as to what is going to come through these devices as in getting them into kids’ hands,” he says.
“It’s not a magic bullet. We need to worry about what is on these tablets while they’re sitting in kids’ laps.”
Karen Cator, the U.S. Department of Education’s technology director, believes that the move from paper to devices like tablets gives students the ability to do research, check their work and get feedback from teachers.
“One of the opportunities to extend the school day is by providing students with interactive and engaging environments outside of school,” she says.
Obama basically ended all Federal higher education funding-----much K-12 funding for classrooms and sent all that funding to building these education technology structures for ONE WORLD ONE COMMONER CORE.....the poor of course were promised laptop computers to allow them to feel they were included----it was sold as DEMOCRATIZATION OF EDUCATION GLOBALLY!
The poor in US never saw any of this----it was impossible to think every citizen is going to have access when they need or want it to these online education functions. This is why K-12 is now becoming an all day event with after school programs that will extend later into the night as parents and students are pressured to stay on those computers paying for all those after-school programs----this creates the same societal structure as in Asia where citizens have no personal time as children becoming adults working 15-18 hours a day----
ALL OF THESE FEDERAL FUNDS ARE PAYING TO BUILD AN ONLINE EDUCATION STRUCTURE THAT GLOBAL CITIZENS WILL THEN BE FORCED TO PAY MORE AND MORE AND MORE TO ACCESS....IT IS ALL ABOUT CREATING PRODUCTS AND PROFITEERING.
“One of the opportunities to extend the school day is by providing students with interactive and engaging environments outside of school,” she says'.
Obama Announces $400 Million in Education Technology Commitments
The commitments bring the total amount raised toward achieving Obama's ConnectED goal to more than $1 billion.
By Allie Bidwell, Staff Writer | Feb. 28, 2014, at 5:22 p.m.
Building on previous commitments to connect more American schools to educational technology, President Barack Obama on Friday announced $400 million in new educational technology commitments from Adobe and Prezi during the White House's first Student Film Festival.
Creative software company Adobe made a $300 million commitment to donate five products to 15,000 schools, while Prezi will provide $100 million in its Edu Pro licenses to "hundreds of thousands of high schools" throughout the country, according to a statement from the company.
[READ: Obama Announces Nearly $3 Billion in Education Technology Commitments]
"I've said before I believe … that every child in America deserves a world class education – especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics – because it's skills like these that made [the United States] an economic superpower and built our middle class," Obama said during the film festival.
But students also need to study the arts, he said, because the film industry is "a huge generator of jobs and economic power in the United States, and tells us our story and helps us to find what's our common humanity."
The White House recently announced $750 million in commitments from companies such as Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon to advance his ConnectED goal to transform the country's education system by making broadband access and wireless technologies available to 99 percent of American schools within five years.
The two new donations also come as part of Obama's ConnectED goal and bring the total amount pledged toward Obama's goal to more than $1 billion. Obama first unveiled the goal last June, and made a greater push to advance the initiative after promising in January to use executive authority and the power of his pen and phone to bring about change.
"That isn't too shabby for one month," Obama said during the film festival.
"Better education is our best chance to create sustainable improvements in the world," said Peter Arvai, co-founder and chief executive officer of Prezi, in a statement. "Prezi, in particular, will help teachers convey ideas and enable students to understand and retain concepts."
Jon Perera, vice president of Adobe EchoSign, says in addition to the software donations, Adobe also plans to provide ongoing support and resources for teachers.
"We think we can really make a big dent in helping launch schools in a new direction," Perera says.
The five products (Premiere Elements, Photoshop Elements, Captivate, Presenter and EchoSign) will give students ways to create "next-generation digital stories," he says. Two initiatives already underway – Adobe Youth Voices and Adobe Education Exchange – connect thousands of students and teachers to share ideas for how to more effectively use the Adobe software.
"For us it’s not about just providing access to the software. This is the beginning of a new partnership that Adobe wants to have with our K-12 public school systems and Department of Education to do some pretty exciting things," Perera says. "This isn’t about launch and leave. This is about launch and have impact."
The need to emphasize and foster creativity and the arts in American schools, Perera says, is evident in the White House's student film festival.
"We need to marry the best of science, technology, engineering and math with some of the creative approaches to teaching and the creative tools for students to express themselves that the arts bring to mind," Perera says.
All of the 2,000 students who submitted videos of how technology was being used in the classroom demonstrated that marriage of creativity and STEM subjects, he says.
"To me it’s a great example of how this is an imperative and not an elective," Perera says.
Here comes the profiteering-----we already have citizens in Baltimore made so poor they cannot buy school materials all of which were given to me as a student in K-12----our classrooms were filled with colored pencils, pens, rulers, scissors---everything we needed as resources were available and paid for by Federal taxpayer funding which came to HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. We do need book bags donated----they can be standard resources handed out at the beginning of each school year IF FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING WOULD JUST MAKE IT TO CLASSROOMS AND NOT BE STOLEN IN FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.
So here comes all kinds of corporations we all know will profiteer from our schools in what are called PARTNERSHIPS. Of course they will come to Baltimore----where so many people are unemployed---underemployed----made free labor we cannot even support BARS AND RESTAURANTS with people buying a sandwich.
WHERE DID ALL THAT FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING GO? WELL, EDUCATION SUPPLY NETWORK INC MADE 1,000 PERCENT PROFITS!
Fast-growing education technology company eyes move to Baltimore
Dec 1, 2015, 7:06am EST
Sarah Gantz Reporter Baltimore Business Journal Mike Dietrich’s education technology company is growing so fast he can hardly keep up with it.
Education Supply Network Inc., a platform to respond to school districts’ request for proposals for everything from colored pencils to computer parts, has partnerships with more than 700 schools and 7,000 supply vendors. The company blew through its first-year sales goal of $534,000 — ESN topped $830,000 in first-year sales in 2014 and has current sales of $985,000. To meet this overwhelming demand, ESN needs more space, wants to raise at least $2 million and anticipates hiring up to 300 workers over the next six years.
And Dietrich wants to move the whole operation to Baltimore.
“We’re at a stage where we have to find a home,” said Dietrich, who is CEO of DTRX Systems Inc., the parent company of ESN.
The company has temporary headquarters in Alexandria, Va., and hopes to finalize a deal to relocate to Baltimore by the end of the year. ESN has been looking at spaces near Camden Yards, at McHenry Row and in Brewers Hill.
The city appealed to Dietrich for its affordable rents, concentration of skilled tech workers, availability of venture capital and the sense of community among startups and technology companies.
Dietrich, a former Office Depot executive, founded ESN as a way to disrupt the school supplies market.
When a school or school district need something — printers, textbooks, notebooks — it puts out an RFP and buys the supplies from the lowest bidder. Schools end up with dozens of contracts with different vendors.
ESN aims to streamline that process. Through ESN, schools can order just about anything they need. By centralizing the RFP process, ESN cuts costs that allow it to come in with the lowest bid. For schools, this one-stop-shop approach lessens the administrative burden of juggling multiple contracts, can help schools better track their expenses and could ultimately save money.
ESN falls under the parent company DTRX Systems because Dietrich plans to someday apply the technology behind ESN to other industries that rely on RFP contracting, such as defense.
But for now, he's focused on bringing ESN out of startup mode and thinks a move to Baltimore is a step in the right direction.
To move to Baltimore, Dietrich will need to find a large enough space to accommodate a growing staff and some temporary warehouse storage.
The company has an incredibly small staff of just a few full-time and part-time workers. Dietrich expects that to grow to at least 300 over the next five or six years.
As parents shouted these few decades to FUND OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS wanting simply to return to what were #1 ranked public schools well funded and resourced----we see below global Wall Street players installed into our education systems whose job it is to demand what will create more and more products that will cost more and more because they are said to be PERSONALIZED-----Baltimore has lost almost all of its original public school staffing replaced by corporate education staff----from private teachers groups----from corporate schools are businesses administrators -----to corporate non-profits tied to global Wall Street Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins all paid to SHOUT WE NEED MORE CORPORATE EDUCATION PRODUCTS while parents and students are fighting just to keep a public school in their communities ----and staff in their schools.
"We want every piece of their content to be individual learning objects," said Jeanne K. Imbriale, the director of enterprise applications for the 110,000-student Baltimore County, Md., district. That approach is essential to provide personalized learning, she said, but "a lot of companies don't want to parse out the materials in that way."
I talk with administrators and teachers graduating from Johns Hopkins and Towson University Education programs geared only to MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE COMMONER CORE CORPORATE EDUCATION structures-----AND THEY DON'T LIKE IT-----people are being forced to adopt these education policies because there is no open discussion on EDUCATION POLICY or any way for citizens in Maryland or Baltimore to stop MOVING FORWARD as our elections are rigged to assure only global Wall Street candidates are installed.
Here is Bill Gates global education corporation journal EDWEEK telling us there is high demand for more and more corporate education products with global Wall Street players being the ones pretending there is any need at all. We have to get our EDUCATION DEGREE training away from global Wall Street corporations...
There is no institution having the most disdain for public education than GLOBAL JOHNS HOPKINS----and it is the very institution with an EDUCATION DEPARTMENT training grads to instill all these policies NO ONE WANTS.
Companies Face Rising Demand for Bite-Size Chunks of Curricula
A district using modular digital content could search for a lesson on amphibians, and find an array of options—from a Magic School Bus video in the media player, to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt content on the panels under Lesson Snapshot.
—Courtesy of Safari Montage
By Michele Molnar
June 10, 2015
Educators want more choices in the digital curricula they use in their classrooms, and they want that content accessible in bite-sized chunks more than ever before.
That leaves digital-content providers with a dilemma. Often, they've invested in creating an all-inclusive product with a scope and sequence specifically designed for a certain subject and grade level. But now districts are asking to access only parts of those all-inclusive online packages so they can mix and match with selections from other content providers, material that teachers and students have created, and open educational resources.
The emerging trend is often compared with the music industry, "where you used to have to buy an album to get a song, but don't anymore. Or the cable industry, where certain channels are being 'unbundled' and can be bought as a package," said David A. Irwin, the managing partner of the K-12 education practice at Gartner Inc., a Stamford, Conn.-based information-technology research and advisory company.
The advent of "modular" delivery options for educational content has major implications for the digital-publishing industry and for school districts themselves.
"We want every piece of their content to be individual learning objects," said Jeanne K. Imbriale, the director of enterprise applications for the 110,000-student Baltimore County, Md., district. That approach is essential to provide personalized learning, she said, but "a lot of companies don't want to parse out the materials in that way."
Ultimately, any resistance to this demand will be a "deal-breaker," Ms. Imbriale said, because "we're moving toward writing this into our contract language."
Breaking Apart Content
Baltimore County is hardly the only district with the expectation that it will be able to pull "objects" like a lesson, video, interactive, or 3D image from any vendor whenever they want, rather than having to log in to a company's platform and accessing it only within that company's online "universe." School systems in Houston and Orange County, Fla., have been moving in that direction over the past two years.
Some publishers, however, are reluctant to break apart their content, said George O. Perreault, who recently retired as the director of instructional technology for the Orange County district. "They've put a lot of money into the scope and sequence," he said.
Still, Mr. Perreault knew he had leverage because the Orlando-based system is the 10th largest in the country with 194,000 students. "We represent more than a couple of dollars in terms of buying curriculum," he said.
The growing adoption of interoperability standards—essentially, technical specifications for developing, sharing, and opening digital content in a consistent format—allows districts to request modular content delivery.
Companies can give access to their purchased digital content via these standards developed by IMS Global Learning Consortium, a Lake Mary, Fla., membership nonprofit. A learning-object repository acts as the intermediary, uploading and managing the files from digital-content providers and making them available to districts that have bought the products.
Providers tag each learning object with metadata and search criteria, so it can be identified for what type of resource it is, the grade level it serves, and the academic standard associated with it.
In practice, the system streamlines access to relevant resources. To teach a lesson on an isosceles triangle, for instance, a teacher can simply search for that term, and receive multiple responses in one online ecosystem, rather than having to search 10 different digital-content providers' platforms, keeping the tabs open for them, then switching among them to compare.
Accommodating the change to modular content "is a big investment for vendors," said Timothy R. Beekman, the president and co-founder of SAFARI Montage, a West Conshohocken, Pa.-based digital-learning platform and learning-object repository. But he said many companies are recognizing that schools want more flexibility.
For instance, Pearson, the global education company based in London and New York City, has made some of the content in its MathXL platform and MyMathLab available through an interoperable standard that allows Orange County to access it outside of Pearson's universe, said Mr. Perreault.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt made a strategic decision two years ago to move in this direction. "We want to be sure our content can be consumed on multiple platforms and in multiple ways," said Mary J. Cullinane, chief content officer of the Boston-based company.
Establishing a consistent schema of tagging each learning object is a prerequisite for modular delivery. "The last HMH cartridge took eight hours to download and had 145,000 different objects in it," said Mr. Beekman of SAFARI Montage. Now, districts that have contracts with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt for that content can find and access just one of those objects at a time.
For publishers, this new avenue of making content available is not without its issues—among them, what happens to intellectual property when a teacher starts using licensed content out of context in a digital environment? New York City-based Scholastic is monitoring the licensing and legal requirements around the instructional materials it tags for modular delivery. Scholastic maintains that its materials are "best utilized when curated with knowledgeable precision," said Janelle E. Cherrington, a vice president and the publisher of Scholastic Classroom & Community Group, in a statement.
Companies often want to protect the way educators can access the educational resources they've developed. But "it's a losing war to think that way," said Mr. Beekman. "If they don't go this way, I think they're going to lose sales."
For digital-content providers being asked to prove the efficacy of the products they sell to districts, disaggregation of digital content from the sequence in which a publisher tested it represents a new twist.
Implementation and the fidelity of that process are among the "hardest challenges" in the industry, Ms. Cullinane said. Evidence of effectiveness is very difficult to provide when pieces of digital content are taken out of the context in which they were evaluated. Companies can tell educators how the evaluation was done, but in the end, educators make the ultimate decision about what products to use and how to use them. "We want to honor that," she said.
In Baltimore County, the emphasis is on personalization, Ms. Imbriale said.
That push using digital resources is just beginning, said Mr. Irwin of Gartner. "There's no way that can be delivered through a single content provider."
ALL KINDS OF CORPORATE STARTUPS AROUND GLOBAL CORPORATE K-12-----LOOKS JUST LIKE NEO-LIBERAL CORPORATE EDUCATION STRUCTURES IN ASIA----THINK THESE ARE STARTUPS OUR SIMPLY GLOBAL EDUCATION CORPORATIONS COMING TO US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES TO TAKE OUR HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING? You will find these corporate groups in Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore----all MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION controlled.
Why were we able to educate our citizens without all this for centuries?
Betamore is a coworking, accelerator and creative education space in Federal Hill, Baltimore. It was founded by Greg Cangialosi, Sean Lane and Mike Brenner.
Betamore aims to stimulate the establishment and growth of technology-based startup companies through business collaboration and incubation as well as offer a career-focused education led by current industry experts to a growing public community of learners. Its education aims to fill the gap between a traditional liberal arts education and the demand of 21st century jobs.
Technical.ly Baltimore is a member of Betamore, which means our team works from the space and hosts events there'.
Keep in mind, Baltimore and Maryland was ground zero for much of the trillion dollars in for-profit education corporation fraud these few decades and we know the last thing we need in accountability and effective distribution of our Federal education funding are CORPORATE PARTNERSHIPS -----
How one idea led to five companies
The success of Education Supply Network has allowed founder Mike Dietrich to spin off several other companies. The key? Meeting the purchasing demands of regulated sectors.
How one idea led to five companies
ESN's Mike Dietrich (right) expects his company to grow from five to 25 employees by the end of 2016.
(Photo by LeAnne Matlach)
Speed is key to Mike Dietrich’s success.
It took him 90 days to meet his first-year goal of $500,000 in revenue for his company, Education Supply Network. Then it took only a few months to decide to move his company from Alexandria, Va., to Baltimore and to stop scouting other cities as his home base.
That fast growth has come out of a practice that usually takes a lot of time: the RFP process in school districts.
"What we designed is a model that takes advantage of how schools purchase."
Mike Dietrich, Education Supply Network
“In schools they put most of the supplies and purchases out to bid and that is the ultimate price transparency. They select it based on criteria and rules, but the guy who is one penny lower than the next guy is going to win,” Dietrich said. “So this is the perfect place to prove that in a market where the customer owns price and you own cost the winner will always be the person who has the lowest price.”
It sounds simple: Always have the lowest price and then you win. Dietrich said no one had ever tried to consolidate all of the purchases a school district makes. He did and now works with 700 school districts. The Education Supply Net platform contains nearly a million items.
“We are the company of record when a purchase is made. A school district doesn’t have to deal with thousands of providers, they only deal with us,” he said. “What we designed is a model that takes advantage of how schools purchase. We didn’t go in and say, ‘Go to this website and use it for good prices.’ Schools don’t do that.”
Now he’s taking that idea — personalization by industry — and spinning out several companies that run on the same model but focus on different sectors.
“We didn’t try to homogenize everybody. Federal [government] buys differently than schools, and when we move into healthcare they will have a separate entity,” Dietrich said. “Even what an industry calls things is different. A school may call a post-it note an art supply but the commercial sector might call it a desktop supply so we had to build the accommodations for that in the platforms.”
That idea of personalization is part of what drew Education Supply Network and its sibling companies to Baltimore. Maryland Secretary of Commerce Mike Gill invited Dietrich to check out Baltimore and he was quickly wowed by the city and the people.
“We immediately said we needed a place to work and they put us in touch with Betamore,” he said. “We were here three days later and we started meeting everyone we could in the city.”
Once his roots were planted at Betamore Dietrich decided to stop flying to Detroit, Atlanta and the other cities he was considering for the company.
But Dietrich may need to start his search again. He doesn’t see himself leaving Baltimore but expects to outgrow Betamore’s Federal Hill space by the end of the year.
“We’re gonna go from four or five people full-time to 20 or 30 by the end of the year,” Dietrich said. “We’ll probably have to leap space and get into a bigger space but we don’t ever want to officially leave Betamore.”
One might ask in the glow of DEMOCRATIZATION OF GLOBAL EDUCATION with online technology why all we see is expansion of already existing corporate for-profit education structures? Citizens in China, South Korea, Singapore, et al have protested by the millions to end CORPORATE NEO-LIBERAL K-UNIVERSITY policies. All these kinds of education products-----education formats-----after-school programs have been operating for decades overseas taking all of global citizens' disposable income fighting for hyper-competitive spaces for employment. That is for what ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES has as a goal in the US----only a few percentage of people able to find employment while 99% of citizens spend their lives fighting to be in that group.....
IT IS CRAZY STUFF AND NONE OF THIS IS NECESSARY---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP ----GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND THEIR 5% TO THE 1% PLAYERS.
' I define an Education TNC as a private firm that operates for-profit schools in more than one country. Education TNCs are concentrated in the least-regulated sectors of the education economy, in particular in international schools, early childhood education, testing and test preparation, and other supplementary schooling services'.
The American people do not want our children tied to these bankrupt profiteering policies in education-----
Universities around the world are now corporate R and D-----enfolded into global hedge fund corporations-----having nothing to do with freedom and choice in building futures for citizens---
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
April 2016, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 279–286
The Rise of Transnational Education Corporations in the Asia Pacific
The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a new type of player in primary and secondary education in the Asia Pacific. This type is the transnational corporation (TNC) specializing in schools. I refer to these organizations as Education TNCs, which I define as private firms that operate for-profit schools in multiple countries. This paper examines the rise of Education TNCs that run international schools in Asian countries. While a great deal has been written about for-profit education in Western countries, edu-business in the Asia Pacific has received less attention. This paper works to fill that gap. I trace the rise of the region’s major Education TNCs and analyze their efforts to expand. Against the expectation of “school choice” advocates that for-profit schooling should bring diversity through competition, I find that the growth of Education TNCs in the Asia Pacific has been a story of a few large, marketing-oriented players offering similar packages. Educationists in the Asia Pacific should pay attention to Education TNCs for two reasons. First, the activities of Education TNCs in the international school sector can shed light on what for-profit schools would look like if governments in the region were to allow school choice reforms. Second, since these firms are large, influential, and motivated to succeed in the lucrative Asia Pacific market, they may have a greater and greater impact on the education landscape in the region.
In the last 10 years, transnational corporations (TNCs) have arrived on the education scene in the Asia Pacific. Since these organizations specialize in education, they can be called Education TNCs. I define an Education TNC as a private firm that operates for-profit schools in more than one country. Education TNCs are concentrated in the least-regulated sectors of the education economy, in particular in international schools, early childhood education, testing and test preparation, and other supplementary schooling services.
This paper focuses on Education TNCs that operate in the international school sector in Asian countries. The expansion of Education TNCs in this region is unfolding rapidly. The top three firms run 20 schools in East and Southeast Asia with another six in India. Ten years ago they had none. In 2014 alone, two major Education TNCs opened three schools in Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. These Education TNCs are massive, global organizations. Each educates tens of thousands of students around the world and earns annual revenues over USD 300 million1 The Asia–Pacific region is currently the primary growth area for these firms, as economies elsewhere have stagnated and well-off parents in this region demand ever-better schooling for their children. Education TNCs are bursting onto the scene in Asia.
The subject of for-profit education in the Asia Pacific is in need of further study. In the United Kingdom and United States, where “school choice” reforms have been tried in public school systems for a number of years, scholars have examined the education management organizations (EMOs) that have emerged (Ball 2012). Saltman (2005), for example, provides an in-depth account of one large education management firm in the United States. Far less has been written on privatizing reforms and education corporations in the Asia Pacific (an exception is Mok 2006), even though many governments have been experimenting with neoliberal reforms of public education. Education TNCs, some of which began as EMOs in the UK, have entered the Asia Pacific. It is important to understand how these firms operate. This subject also has a place in wider conversations about globalization and corporatization of education more broadly. Much has been written about the transformation of universities into corporations, especially in North America (Fisher and Chan 2008; Schrecker 2010; Mills 2012) but also in Asia (James and Mok 2005; Nakamura and Ozawa 2009; Marginson et al. 2011). The entry of for-profit entities into tertiary education has prompted concern over the cost of education and academic freedom (O’Malley 2012). This study of Education TNCs in the international school sector can contribute to these discussions.
Understanding international schools is important in its own right. The size of the international school sector is estimated at USD 34.4 billion, and that figure includes only English medium schools (Glass 2014). More significantly, though, an examination of Education TNCs in this segment of the education landscape can shed light on crucial issues that affect whole systems of primary and secondary education. In particular, a study of Education TNCs that run international schools can speak to debates over privatization of public education. Advocates of “school choice” wish to bring markets into education, so that government schools would have to compete with private ones. Analyzing a segment of the education system where schools are permitted to turn a profit might be instructive when thinking about the consequences of such reforms more broadly. Another reason to study Education TNCs is that they are among the most powerful private actors in education. Privatizing reforms in the public sector could create opportunities for Education TNCs to step in—and, as shall be seen, there is precedent for that development outside the region. While most discussions of for-profit education organizations have focused on examples in Europe and North America, less is known about how they operate in Asia. If their recent growth is an indication, these organizations could have deep impacts in the future.
This examination builds on my interviews in Singapore, China, and South Korea with representatives of international schools.2 I also draw on promotional material from Education TNCs and from their own reports. Here, I focus on the variety of school experiences that these firms offer. Education TNCs sell education as a product. The consequences of selling education as a product to a global market are not so different from selling any other consumer goods. Firms devote resources not just to developing the product but also to developing a status and brand, and to marketing. This dynamic can be seen in a range of areas, including facilities, admissions efforts, teacher recruitment, and curriculum design. The themes highlighted here suggest that the introduction of for-profit schooling can lead not so much to competition that provides choice to parents but to a few large players that can offer very similar packages.
The Origins and Operations of Education TNCs
In Asia, Education TNCs have found a market in cities with large expatriate populations. Traditionally, international schools in these areas were affiliated with the particular communities they served. That is, a French school served the needs of French students, an Australian school served Australian students, and so on. Operated by members of the community, many of these schools were nonprofit organizations. They have charged high school fees, often paid by a parent’s employer. As elite education has become unhinged from projects of building national identity and oriented more toward creating a footloose future workforce aiming to enter top global universities, private firms have stepped into the lucrative international school sector. It is here that Education TNCs have found a foothold in major Asian cities.
GEMS claims to be the world’s largest chain of schools. Its schools have 142,000 students worldwide. The company is based in Dubai and has international schools and academies throughout the Gulf, as well as in the UK and the US. It has six schools in India and is just beginning its expansion into the Asia Pacific. GEMS also advises governments in the region such as the Philippine government. Another firm is UK-based Cognita. The firm owns many schools that continue to be named after a community or after the founding organization. With eight schools in Southeast Asia, Cognita holds Singapore’s Australian International School as well as its Stamford American International School. It has a presence in Vietnam’s two largest cities and operates schools in Thailand as well. Some 30,000 students around the globe attend international schools owned by Cognita. Nord Anglia Education, which started in the UK but is now based in Hong Kong, runs ten schools in the Asia Pacific, including five in China under the “British School” and “British International School” labels. Nord Anglia’s homepage announces it has 20,000 students worldwide. Together, these three firms hold 20 schools in East and Southeast Asia.
Local education politics in places far from East or Southeast Asia molded these Education TNCs. GEMS was initially set up in Dubai by a pair of Indian teachers who sought to serve the quickly growing community of Indians in the emirate. One school turned into many. When the couple’s son, Sunny Varkey, took the reins of the school group, he expanded the firm rapidly. Since the UAE’s population was mostly foreign, the demand for schools with an international curriculum was great. After becoming the major education provider in Dubai, GEMS shifted to establishing schools overseas. In 2014, Varkey joined the Forbes billionaire list, with an estimated worth of USD 1.8 billion (Rai 2014).
Cognita and Nord Anglia both expanded with the neoliberal turn in education policy in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s. Cognita got its start in 2004 when it was founded by Chris Woodhead and a private equity firm. Woodhead, a former teacher and education lecturer, had served as chief inspector at the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) from 1994 to 2000. Experience in that role surely helped Woodhead make decisions about which schools Cognita should purchase. The firm’s foundation was laid through acquisition of UK schools; only later did it start buying schools abroad. Nord Anglia was founded in 1972 by Kevin McNeany, another former teacher. The firm took off in the 1990s with the UK government’s move to take education out of the hands of local authorities. McNeany, who is a vocal advocate of privatizing education, built Nord Anglia through purchasing schools that the UK government forced to privatize for underperformance. Like Cognita, Nord Anglia expanded overseas after having consolidated the core of its business in the UK.
The privatization of schools in the UK also created a class of “professionals” who have circulated between government and private sector education positions, including in Education TNCs that operate in the Asia Pacific. Woodhead’s successor at OFSTED, Mike Tomlinson, went on to work for GEMS (Wallace 2005). Head of school improvement at OFSTED, Elizabeth Passmore, also moved to GEMS before returning to government to serve as Chief Schools Adjudicator. Proximity to the instruments of UK school regulation is an asset for those operating global education firms.
Variety can be seen in the business models of these firms. Some firms specialize in acquiring existing schools, while other build new ones. Cognita, for example, mostly acquires. Cognita started with the acquisition of a set of nineteen independent schools in the UK. In 2007, it moved overseas, buying the Australian International School in Singapore, which had been founded in 1993 for a small group of students. The only school Cognita has opened on its own is the Stamford American International School in Singapore. Nord Anglia has built multiple schools, such as the newly opened Nord Anglia International School in Hong Kong, but it also mostly acquires. In fact, Cognita and Nord Anglia have split portions of the Saint Andrews group of international schools in Thailand. GEMS, by contrast, engages more in building new schools.
Establishing schools takes a distinct set of resources from running existing schools. The former requires a larger budget and often a longer time horizon. Dependence on private investors for capital accumulation means pressure to generate quick returns. Private equity firms appreciate the stability of the education sector but they prefer fast returns on investment. Because Cognita was established with a private equity firm it has always been subject to that pressure. Nord Anglia, too, turned to external funding. A private equity firm purchased Nord Anglia, and then in 2014, the business was listed on the New York Stock Exchange (with an Initial Public Offering of USD 300 million). GEMS has remained least reliant on outside capital. After selling a portion of the ownership to an investor in 2008, Varkey shifted strategy to sell off his non-education interests in order to generate capital for the firm. As Dino Varkey, executive director at GEMS and Sunny Varkey’s son, says, private equity “capital and infrastructure funds have a three- to five-year investment horizon. They don’t understand that education has a seven-year gestation, and the first dollar of profit could only come in year eight” (quoted in Rai 2014). With more autonomy, it is easier for GEMS to mobilize a few hundred million dollars in capital on a single, long-term project than it would be for a private equity firm.
School Facilities and Marketing: Selling Exclusivity
Schools operated by Education TNCs are businesses. Any business needs to sell to consumers. There are many components to marketing schools. Tools include websites, printed promotional material, and the physical appearance of the school itself. In this section, I examine how schools promote themselves to customers.
The facilities of schools run by Education TNCs are important for generating a feeling of value. Consider my visit to the new Stamford American International School (SAIS) in Singapore. As I attempted to enter the heavy gate, a guard stopped me and informed me that I should enter through the gate for visitors. I approached that gate and a second guard stepped in my path, inquiring if I had an appointment. I showed my identification card, and after a quick computer check I was cleared. Wearing a “VISITOR” sticker, I followed a third guard on to the campus. All of this seemed overblown in safe Singapore, but the heightened security has an effect: it creates a feeling of exclusivity for students and parents.
Education TNCs spend huge budgets on their facilities, and they make sure that visitors can see that. The SAIS campus cost USD 200 million to build; GEMS World Academy (GWA) in Singapore had a price tag of USD 300 million. A significant portion of these budgets goes to secure large pieces of land in a dense city. The buildings are state of the art, and promotional brochures feature large glossy photographs of the physical buildings. International schools run by Education TNCs frequently have Olympic-size swimming pools. GWA Singapore is building a planetarium. Schools under GEMS, Cognita, and Nord Anglia are big on technology. GWA schools have a Samsung smart board in every classroom; every student has an iPad.
Another sign of exclusivity that the firms ensure is visible relates to the profile of affiliated staff. GWA Singapore has a former Olympic national coach as the swimming instructor. The in-house chef at SAIS, whose name adorns the cafeteria, has his own restaurant and hosts a cooking program on television. His counterpart at GWA Singapore previously was head chef at the Shangri La Hotel. Hiring these high-profile individuals not only contributes (presumably) to quality, but just as importantly it sends an easy-to-understand message to parents: we work with only the best. When the chef or the sports coach has received status before coming to the school, then parents can infer that he or she is excellent. Relying on these other affiliations is a faster and more controlled way to convey a message about quality than is waiting for the food or the swimming instruction to gain a reputation.
At the schools and in promotional material there is also a conscious effort to build an identifiable brand. I observed this branding when I visited the GEMS admissions office in Singapore, located off-site since the school had not yet opened. The “GWA Singapore Information and Enrolment Centre” was located at Forum Mall on Orchard Road, one of the most expensive locations to rent space. The office on the second floor was dedicated to displaying brochures from GEMS and from GEMS schools. The office was unmistakable because of the GEMS colors, logo, and design styles. This approach to branding is not so different from other major TNCs like Apple.
Scale and Connections
In the promotional materials of Education TNCs, two themes stand out. The first is the global presence of the brand. Representatives of Education TNCs are keen to note that joining a school that belongs to a global network has great advantages. Large brands bring reliability, they seem to claim. The sheer financial scale of these firms is also presented as a source of stability. Another point is that a global network of schools can benefit students and parents. Since many students are expatriates, they have a parent who may move from one city to another every few years. At a recent public lecture in Singapore, GEMS’ Dino Varkey explained that their global network sets their schools apart.3 Other Education TNCs make similar claims. Nord Anglia runs a “Global Classroom” that uses the Internet to connect students from its various schools. As the website for one Nord Anglia school states, “Our Global Classroom turns learning into an international experience, connecting 20,000 students from Nord Anglia Education’s schools around the world” (http://www.nordangliaeducation.com/ our-schools/hong-kong/learning/global-classroom).
Cognita and GEMS stress that students can shift to another school run by the firm. A representative of Cognita noted that the firm, not each school, sets the guiding statement for all the schools. The primary years program coordinator for a GEMS school stated that children could attend summer programs at branches in other locations. The possibility of moving to another school under the same brand eases concerns about discontinuities in curricula and disruptions due to joining waiting lists after moving. An innovation of these firms is to market a single school network so that the spatial mobility of a family across national boundaries does not undermine the coherence of an education program.
A second theme is the firm’s connections to powerful individuals and organizations. GEMS, for example, provides a set of brochures for prospective customers. The thickest brochure is to introduce many public figures who are connected with GEMS. A photo of Bill Clinton and CEO Sunny Varkey shaking hands covers the first two pages. The first sentence of the brochure states that “GEMS Education is the first kindergarten to grade 12 education operator in the world to become a partner of the Clinton Global Initiative.” The pamphlet contains photographs of several other famous individuals, alongside with quotations in which they mention GEMS. The individuals range from politicians, such as Tony Blair and former Australian deputy prime minister Mark Vaile, to representatives of major corporations, such as Microsoft and LG Electronics, to educators like George Walker, former director general of the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), and to astronaut Captain Barry E. “Butch” Wilmore. The website of the foundation run by GEMS features a video of Bill Clinton stating his pride in being involved with the Varkey Foundation. The Singapore Australian International School’s invited speakers include Nobel Laureates.
These points echo concerns raised in studies of marketization in other contexts. In an examination of school choice reforms in the United States, Lubienski (2005, p. 465) concludes that such reforms encouraged firms to focus on marketing rather than seeking to differentiate themselves and offer distinct alternatives to parents: “Schools are not always responding to competitive incentives in the ways that the theory predicts.” Research on universities has noted pressures to re-organize to be geared toward PR rather than teaching or research (Baltodano 2012, pp. 500–501). The new Education TNCs operating in the Asia Pacific seem to be following a similar pattern.
Given the similarities across schools, an important question is whether the differences that do exist are sufficient to convince parents to select one school over another. A full answer to this question requires a survey of parents in a given context in order to gain insight into their decisions. In my discussions with admissions staff at several schools, I have found that information about what drives parents to select one school over another is lacking. It may be that specific programs attract parents. Or perhaps aggressive marketing campaigns are key. Other factors, such as location and social networks, may play crucial roles in driving parents to choose a school. Further research on this question is required. Nonetheless, we can observe some striking similarities in the ways firms invest heavily in marketing their schools as exclusive.
Another selling point stressed by international schools run by Education TNCs is that they have the top teachers. Management techniques comprise a set of tools for ensuring quality teaching. Free from the restrictions on staff at government-run schools, the firms can fire staff and use bonuses and salary increments to reward performance. There are other inducements as well. Nord Anglia, for example, provides professional development opportunities for staff. These opportunities are organized around an online portal, called “Nord Anglia University,” through which teachers can find courses, study teaching models, and interact with Nord Anglia teachers elsewhere in the world.
Finding top educators is a starting point in developing a strong teaching team. One place to recruit teachers is at job fairs for international schools. Placement of teachers in international schools has itself become a global industry. Two large search firms, International School Services and Search Associates, operate job fairs to link teachers with schools. In Asia, Bangkok and Singapore are the most common fair sites, with events occurring several times a year.
Recruitment fairs comprise only one source for international schools. Another common approach is to hire teachers away from other international schools in the area. At GWA Singapore, officers proudly stated that many of their teachers had taught at other leading schools in town. Of the 180 teachers at SAIS, 51 had previously worked at another school in Singapore. Often, the schools do not even need to search for these teachers. In cities with many international schools, educators are keen to find the next good opportunity. Teachers without experience teaching the International Baccalaureate (IB) program are regularly hired by firms to teach in that program; some express disappointment when they learn they will not receive any special training. It is not only teachers who move from school to school. In interviews, school officials do not hesitate to note that their instructors and management come from competing schools. In fact, having successfully recruited such persons away from competitors is a point of pride. It indicates that these individuals have experience and qualifications. The professionalization of education management seems to bring with it a field of rotating educators from which Education TNCs draw.
In meetings with parents, admission officers emphasize that their teachers are well rewarded for their work. One admissions officer, for example, explained that the school’s teaching assistants receive the highest pay in town. The emphasis on high pay appears to have the purpose of convincing parents that the teachers must be good—otherwise they would not earn so much. The philosophy behind this approach is similar to the frequently cited idea that “merit pay,” or higher salaries for performance, can induce better teaching, which can in turn lead to more satisfactory education outcomes. This claim lies near the core of debates over reform of public education systems in the United States and increasingly in East Asia. The Gates Foundation is one of the nonprofit organizations that has donated money to advocate for and to directly fund merit pay reforms (see, e.g., Barkan 2011; Kovacs 2011). Of course, higher pay works to pry teachers away from other schools, making the task of recruitment much easier for Education TNCs. Just because teachers receive higher pay does not mean they are better.
I do not dispute claims that teachers at these schools may be first-rate. However, the only way to know about the quality of the teachers is through systematic study of performance, not through incentives that theoretically produce quality. It is important to be aware that schools have a variety of ways to demonstrate claims about the quality of teachers. Not all of these ways are directly related to teacher performance. Higher pay might come with higher performance expectations, but this pay is also a marketing strategy. By poaching teachers from other schools with better pay, firms can meet their recruitment needs with relative ease and signal to parents that they have strong instructors. The value of this marketing signal in attracting parents may be worth the additional cost.
IF YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO REWARD TEACHERS WITH HIGHER WAGES I HAVE SWAMPLAND IN FLORIDA TO SELL!
Curriculum Design: Programs and the Commodification of Education
An area where schools would seem to have the greatest flexibility is in curriculum design. One might expect that a consequence of that freedom would be the emergence of a vibrant marketplace with a diverse range of education programs. Liberated of the constraints of national curricula, for-profit firms could compete to offer different types of education. This vision seems to be what advocates of school choice have in mind when promoting for-profit schools. Nord Anglia founder McNeany maintains that it is “not our policy to privatise everything. What we want is diversity” (quoted in Beckett 2002).
An examination of education programs at these schools reveals an overwhelming focus on accreditation with internationally recognized programs. Foremost among these is IB, followed by Cambridge IGCSE (International General Certificate of Secondary Education) and the British national curriculum. Nord Anglia schools in the Asia Pacific use either the British national curriculum or IB, or both. Cognita’s schools mostly use IB, while the Saint Andrews chain it acquired in Thailand also offers the British curriculum.
Since education for these TNCs is a business, using terminology from the business world is appropriate for thinking about curricula. What do consumers (parents) want from education? One priority is the best chance for their children to enter a leading university. In this model, the curriculum is a product. Its value is linked in some way to the goal of entering a top university. A large number of people around the world need to see that a given curriculum is high quality. The value of turning to IB for the curriculum lies in signifying the status of the education to multiple parties. The IB program is widely considered exclusive. As a US-based teacher at an IB school noted, “We say we don’t want to be an elitist program but I’m not sure that is true. There are parents and students and teachers who like that IB is considered to be for ‘the chosen few’” (quoted in Gerry and Corcoran 2011, 31). IB is a brand. Like major firms in any consumer-oriented sector, Education TNCs associate their products with a global brand. These schools want to show that they are the best. To be the best requires a global standard. This is where international curricula agencies like IB and IGCSE come in. Programs like IB are excellent tools for the commodification of education. Education TNCs thus aim not to create schools that are distinct from each other but to demonstrate that they have a high-value brand.
The IBO, based in Switzerland, is officially a nonprofit organization. It is also a major global organization with substantial annual revenue. Thousands of schools worldwide include 314 in East and Southeast Asia, use the IB curriculum (calculated from www.ibo.org). A main source of revenue is the charging of fees to schools that adopt the IB program. In 2013 it earned USD 162 million in revenue from school fees (International Baccalaureate Organization [IBO] 2014, p. 2). Schools that wish to gain IB accreditation must pay a fee to IBO, which then conducts a series of inspections of the school before giving it the right to offer an official IB diploma. Schools using the IB curriculum continue to pay fees to IBO. Since revenue is generated from registering schools, IBO has a stake in expanding its curriculum to more and more schools. It is therefore understandable that marketing and expansion are priorities for IBO.
Expansion in Asia is especially important to IBO. Between 2012 and 2013 revenue from the region grew by 20 % For each other region, revenue declined (IBO 2014, p. 6). Overall, the organization’s revenue expanded by more than 10 %—due to strong growth in the Asian region. IBO and Education TNCs are good partners in expanding in the region.
What is useful about the IB curriculum is not its uniqueness or even its quality but its global stature. People—including admissions officers at leading universities—know what it means. It acquires a status. This point is not to belittle IB education but to observe that to Education TNCs its most valuable feature is not its content but the ability it has to make a school career on one side of the world intelligible on the other. Education TNCs are enthusiastic about IB for the way it makes their product legible. An effect of multiple large education firms choosing IB or one of a few other curricula is a lack of diversity. Instead of actually developing educational programs that are distinct, Education TNCs focus on advertising that their education is linked to one of a few well-known brands.
Economies of Scale
The experiences of the Education TNCs in Asia suggest that large, global firms can have an advantage in delivering education. As noted above, being big and having multiple locations can be a selling point. There are other reasons. Several governments in the region have regulations and administrative practices that make entry of foreign school groups difficult. It is notable, for example, that only Nord Anglia has successfully broken into the Chinese market. Even in places where business regulations are unproblematic, being a large and known firm can be helpful for dealing with government. Representatives of GWA Singapore noted that governments invite GEMS to establish schools rather than GEMS approaching governments. Since international schools tend to be set up in big, crowded cities, having government assistance in gaining access to land can be helpful.
Another advantage to scale is the lower marginal cost of setting up a new branch. For Education TNCs, establishing a new school (or re-organizing an existing one) is not so different from a hamburger chain or coffee franchise setting up a new outlet. The product already exists. The promotional material does as well. The value of the brand is already known to some potential consumers. The organization has systems in place for hiring staff. Software systems for grading and for online engagement have been designed and require no work to extend. Any localization that occurs, such as language courses, can be added with minimal difficulty. When a school belongs to a “global network” it really means that it offers the same product as a school somewhere else. This is globalization not as an increase in diversity but as a homogenization of experience. Education TNCs are following the models of successful consumer-oriented global corporations in other sectors.
Even in public education, large firms have gained when privatization has occurred. The Swedish example is instructive. In 1992, Sweden introduced a school voucher program that let individuals set up for-profit schools funded by the state. The policy was intended to encourage small groups of parents to set up schools in their communities. The for-profit sector grew quickly. Now, more than 10 % of compulsory education students are in independent schools (Sahlgren 2010, p. 6). An unintended consequence was the rise of education firms that grew into chains. As chains they could out-compete independent schools. As they grew, they sought partners as sources of finance. Internationella Engelska Skolan, for example, partnered with an American firm in order to fund expansion. In some instances, the ordering has been reversed. Private equity firms jumped into the business of launching schools. With guaranteed government money, running schools was a safe and potentially lucrative place for savings. Faced with a small set of large firms running schools, the Swedish government has acknowledged mistakes in the policy and is undertaking reforms.
Perhaps large firms are better able to provide quality education than smaller firms and to do so at a lower cost. However, we should note the trade-offs that accompany such a market structure. If a principal reason to allow for-profit education is to create a competitive, diverse market, then that goal might not be realized through privatization alone. Allowing for-profit schools can encourage the rise of a smaller number of large firms. This result is different from the claims of school choice advocates.
Conclusion: Markets and Choice in Education
The large potential school market in the Asia Pacific is driving Education TNCs into the region. These firms have a particular approach to offering education. There is a tendency to respond to market pressures not by developing distinct programs but by devoting energy to marketing. The message of Education TNCs is that their schools provide the best education instead of some particular kind of education. This message resonates with the notion of a global hierarchy of educational achievement, defined partly in terms of university reputations. Internationally known curricula like IB and Cambridge IGCSE also help make it possible to package education as product with a particular status. A result is that the entry of Education TNCs, regardless of any judgment of the quality of their programs, seems to fall short of the promise that for-profit education creates greater choice for parents.
Educationists in the Asia Pacific should pay attention to Education TNCs for two reasons. First, their growth suggests they could have an impact on multiple aspects of schooling in the region. These firms have an interest in the privatization of public education, and where they develop positive reputations citizens may become sympathetic to that call. Education TNCs have already gained experience negotiating with governments in the region. Reflecting on other contexts, Ball (2012) notes that private education corporations now make public policies—their actions have impacts that are as significant as government action. In the Asia Pacific, we should be aware of what these global firms are doing.
Second, there is a lesson for thinking about school choice reforms. Most governments in Asia have not introduced such reforms, but there is interest. The behavior of Education TNCs in international schooling can shed light on what such reforms might bring to public education. None of this is to say that the promise of competition in education is in itself a problematic aspiration. Markets can induce healthy competition, perhaps even in education. However, we should be careful to distinguish between privatizing reforms that create competitive education markets and privatizing reforms that allow large firms to establish uncompetitive practices. One set of policies is market friendly, the other is simply business friendly. Debates in the region over privatization of education should keep in mind the lessons of Education TNCs.
Future research might give attention to the impacts of Education TNCs on the school landscape. In the international school sector, we may be witnessing the decline of community-operated schools. Systematic analysis of the international school scene in particular location could help determine whether this is indeed the case. Another set of impacts would be on styles of administration in international schools. The management techniques of Education TNCs may be spilling over into other international schools. Finally, an assessment of quality of education in the international school sector as a whole would be useful for understanding whether the entrance of Education TNCs has improved educational outcomes of students throughout the sector.
And here is what is coming to the US with Obama and Clinton neo-liberal education reforms-----remember, they are going to send children as 'apprenticeships' to global factories after grade 6-----they they will send children into 'apprenticeships' after grade 8-----and they will call FULL TUITION COLLEGE ------WHAT USED TO BE HIGH SCHOOL starting at grade 9---freshmen.
The pressure is asserted by corporate DONATIONS FOR SCHOLARSHIPS----if you want to go to college you will need a scholarship as Federal Student Loan process has been dismantled these several years-----if scholarships require you finish K-12 by K-8----you will. This is what created the hyper-competitiveness and extreme studying in Asia....global neo-liberal corporate education.
'One part of the problem is that the pressure to go to college is so intense that more than 80 percent of high school graduates matriculate as freshmen':
Use All 4 Years of High School to Prep for College
Planning for college early can help ensure students are ready come graduation day.
By Kelsey Sheehy, Contributor | Sept. 9, 2013, at 8:00 a.m.
Test scores suggest a high percentage of high school students are not ready for college.
Only a quarter of the 1.8 million graduates who took the ACT college entrance exam in 2013 met readiness benchmarks in all four core subjects – English, math, science and reading. That figure dropped from 31 percent in 2012, according to annual reports by ACT Inc.
Students who hit the mark on the test have a 75 percent chance of passing a first-year college course in that subject. Those who fall short are more likely to struggle in college and many will waste time and tuition dollars on remedial courses.
To put teens on a trajectory for success, college prep needs to start early, says Ruth Lohmeyer, a counselor at Lincoln Northeast High School in Nebraska.
"We start already in eighth grade," she says, noting that students start building their college plan when they select classes for ninth grade.
Lohmeyer runs down how students should use each year of high school to prepare for college.
Freshmen: Starting high school means mapping out a plan to get from freshman to senior year and eventually to a two- or four-year college.
Students should push themselves to take hard classes early on, instead of waiting until their junior or senior years, Lohmeyer says.
"It will be too late by that time," she says.
It may seem early in the game, but now is also the time to really think about scholarships.
"You want to have that scholarship resume look the way you want it to, and you want to start right now, your ninth-grade year," Lohmeyer says.
Sophomores: With the first year of high school behind them, students should start thinking about colleges and careers that might be a good fit and start exploring those areas.
Career and college fairs are good places to start, but it's never too soon to set foot on a college campus.
"All of a sudden they can picture themselves there," she says. "It helps them want to make sure the transcript looks the way they want it to look when they graduate."
Teens also want to continue building up a scholarship resume. The more extracurricular, leadership and volunteer opportunities, the better, she notes.
Juniors: Old enough to legally both drive and work in most states, high school juniors should seek out internships, job shadows and summer jobs that align with the careers they're interested in, Lohmeyer says.
"Maybe someone's interested, for example, in the legal field – well, just apply to be a janitor at a law office," she says. "The more people you talk to who are doing what you think you want to do, the more confident you're going to be."
College entrance exams such as the ACT and SAT should also be on the agenda for junior year, Lohmeyer says.
Seniors: Most students spend the start of senior year visiting campuses, narrowing their list and then applying to college.
When that is out of the way, teens are tempted to take the foot off the gas and coast through their final semester. They should resist the urge, Lohmeyer says.
Instead of filling their schedules with physical education courses, teens should use ACT and SAT scores from the previous year to identify areas to work on, she advises.
"When a student comes in and they say, 'Oh, I want to take two PE classes and I don't need math anymore,' I can look at their college readiness scores and say, 'You know what, according to this, you'll be taking some remedial classes,'" she says.
Lohmeyer says focusing on those subjects before graduation will set students up to succeed after.
Here is Scotland's prestigious Art School -----
“It is expanding year on year and increasing student tuition fees, yet the services, studio space and student/teacher ratio is not reflecting this expansion. We are fed up. What are we paying for?”
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF----the global far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, dictatorship coming to Europe and US DOES NOT DO ART FOR ART'S SAKE---it does artisan products for products sake only. The 99% of WE THE PEOPLE no longer need arts and humanities that are not about learning a trade. Art schools in US as in Baltimore are being made into artisan product schools complete with workshop formats---we are MOVING FORWARD quickly with global Johns Hopkins in control of what were once private MICA/PEABODY.
The talented artists tracked into workshops operated by a global 1% or their 2% toiling away for no pay----don't need to learn ART HISTORY-----it is critical folks not to lose broad curricula-----THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT AND AGE OF REASON brought education to all 99% of people away from DARK AGES of only that global 1% and their 2% receiving education for CITIZENS AND LEADERS.
AND none of this has to do with TRUMP----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---YES.
UK Drops Art History From High School Curriculum in Controversial Move
One teacher calls the decision "completely crazy.”
Henri Neuendorf, October 13, 2016
Art history will no longer be taught in UK high school classrooms. Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images.
Art historians have reacted with shock, dismay, and anger after news emerged that art history will be taken off the educational curriculum of UK high school students in 2018.
In the UK, high school students take the General Certificate of Education Advanced Level (or A-level). Art History is the latest “soft” A-level subject to be axed under education reform started by former UK education secretary Michael Gove.
Only 839 students across the UK took the A-level art history exam this summer, and interest is dwindling, according to AQA, the last exam board to administer the subject.
Education reform was started by former UK education secretary Michael Gove. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The Association of Art Historians criticized the decision for denying cultural education to young people. In a statement to the Guardian the AAH said, “The loss of that A-level means that for many prospective students of the subject that door will close and future opportunities [will be] lost.”
Caroline Osborne, an art history teacher in London and founder of Art History In Schools, derided the decision as “Crazy, completely crazy.” She explained, “the timing is insane. AQA is saying that there aren’t enough teachers to teach the subject—that is one of the very subjects that we have founded this organization to address.”
“Our decision has nothing to do with the importance of the history of art,” an AQA spokeswoman told the BBC, “it won’t stop students going on to do a degree in it as we’re not aware of any universities that require an A-level in the subject.”