NY Times Questions Holliday "Junkets"

No Child Left Behind once included a promising reading program called Reading First - that is - it was promising until corporate greed and backroom deals ruined it by locking school districts into programs favored by federal administrators. In the Reading First case, federal officials violated prohibitions in the law against endorsing, specific curricula and overlooked conflicts of interest among contractors, that in some instances, even wrote reading programs competing for the money, and stood to collect royalties if their programs were chosen. Since that time more federal funds have come to states in the form of block grants.  So when Pearson began cozying up to the Council of Chief State School Officers and offering what have been termed "junkets" to state commissioners, it raised concerns.

According to the Texas Observer, Pearson is a London-based mega-corporation that owns everything from the Financial Times to Penguin Books, and also dominates the business of educating American children.

Pearson, one of the giants of the for-profit industry that looms over public education, produces just about every product a student, teacher or school administrator in Texas might need. From textbooks to data management, professional development programs to testing systems, Pearson has it all—and all of it has a price. For statewide testing in Texas alone, the company holds a five-year contract worth nearly $500 million to create and administer exams. If students should fail those tests, Pearson offers a series of remedial-learning products to help them pass.

Meanwhile, kids are likely to use textbooks from Pearson-owned publishing houses like Prentice Hall and Pearson Longman. Students who want to take virtual classes may well find themselves in a course subcontracted to Pearson. And if the student drops out, Pearson partners with the American Council on Education to offer the GED exam for a profit. “Pearson basically becomes a complete service provider to the education system,” says David Anderson, an Austin education lobbyist whose clients include some of Pearson’s competitors.

With the prevalence of companies like Pearson operating in Texas and many other states, the U.S. education system has become increasingly privatized. In some cases, the only part of education that remains public is the school itself. Nearly every other aspect of educating children—exams, textbooks, online classes, even teacher certification—is now provided by for-profit companies. Public education has always offered big contracts to for-profit companies in areas like construction and textbooks. But in the past two decades, an education-reform movement has swept the country, pushing for more standardized testing and accountability and for more alternatives to the traditional classroom—most of it supplied by private companies. The movement has been supported by business communities and non-profits like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and often takes a free market approach to public education. Reformers litter their arguments about education policy with corporate rhetoric and business-school buzzwords. They talk of the need for “efficiency,” “innovation” and “assessment” in the classroom.

Last week the New York Times reported on the close relationship forming between Pearson and the CCSSO headed by former Kentucky Education Commissioner Gene Wilhoit. Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday serves on the CCSSO board.

Since 2008, the Pearson Foundation, the nonprofit arm of one of the nation’s largest educational publishers, has financed free international trips — some have called them junkets — for education commissioners whose states do business with the company. When the state commissioners are asked about these trips — to Rio de Janeiro; London; Singapore; and Helsinki, Finland — they emphasize the time they spend with educators from around the world to get ideas for improving American public schools.

Rarely do they mention that they also meet with top executives of the Pearson company.

The foundation’s officials say the free trips are solely educational and have no business purpose. On the foundation’s tax forms for the last two years, the line for listing “payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state or local public officials” has been left blank. That may be a problem. Experts in tax law say that Pearson appears to be using its foundation to push its business interests, which would be a violation of the federal tax code.

“The Pearson conferences fit the same fact pattern as the influence-buying junkets that the convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff arranged for members of Congress,” said Marcus S. Owens, a lawyer who was director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the Internal Revenue Service for 10 years and is a former board member of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance. “Those junkets were paid for by private charities.”

Both Pearson and the CCSSO deny that any funny business is going on - or indeed, any business at all. Which begs the question, If Pearson's motives are not profit-minded, why didn't they invite a bunch of teachers from Pikeville or some other travelers who don't have state contract dollars at their disposal? Why did Pearson contribute $100,000 to the CCSSO according to their last tax statement?

In an e-mail, Mark Nieker, president of the Pearson Foundation, wrote, “We once again categorically refute any suggestion that the events are in any way unethical or designed to enable Pearson to win contracts.” Kate Dando, a spokeswoman for the Council of Chief State School Officers, the nonprofit group that represents education commissioners, said by e-mail, “We do believe that understanding the range of successful education work around the world can make our members more thoughtful and effective.” She did not respond to questions about the ethics of accepting gifts from Pearson... “Any attempt to draw a connection between states that attend and customers of Pearson is based on a false premise,” Mr. Nieker said, because the company’s business operations and its foundation are separate.

Raise your hand if you believe that one.

Neiker has busied himself responding to blog posts about the Times story on the web with comments like this:

This is so disappointing. As the Foundation has said over and over, we categorically refute any suggestion that our relationship with CCSSO is improper, or intended to promote sales for Pearson, the commercial company. Have you seen the positive results of the Summits? See here and here. Check out CCSSO’s reports, review the critical lessons learned during the meetings, and judge for yourself.

It doesn't help that Michigan Education Commissioner, Michael P. Flanagan stopped attending Pearson's "conferences" because of his own ethics concerns.

The Times article specifically cited the awarding of contracts to Pearson in Kentucky to illustrate the problem.

In April, CTB/McGraw Hill submitted the lowest bid to run Kentucky’s testing program, but Pearson, whose bid was $2 million higher, was selected. In May, the state’s commissioner, Terry Holliday, wrote on his blog that he recently “had the honor” of taking a trip to China sponsored by the council, the Asia Society and the Pearson Foundation, and in September he went to Brazil, too. [Lisa Gross, a] spokeswoman for Dr. Holliday said the state’s decision “was based on best value and not simply a low bid.” She said a committee of local and state officials ran the selection process, and Dr. Holliday had no role in it.

The problem is that Holliday's influence inside KDE is undisputed and the Pearson company controls the Pearson Foundation’s board of directors. The appearance is bad and replication of the Abramoff M.O. doesn't help.

The Herald-Leader concluded that Holliday's travel should have been paid for by the state.

It is probably true that Holliday broke no laws nor violated any state ethics regulations by taking trips to China and Brazil paid for by the Pearson Foundation.

Still, this just doesn't pass the smell test. As even the youngest students of economics learn, there is no free lunch and certainly it follows that there's no free trip...

The bottom line is that if Holiday, or another public-education executive, can justify attending a conference based on the value it will bring to Kentucky's education system, then the taxpayers should foot the bill.

If it can't be justified at taxpayer expense, then it can't be justified.

They are correct of course.  But given KDE's decimated budget, I doubt, if it relied on state funds, that any Kentucky official would ever travel anywhere - least of all, not out of the country.