It seems one of my more recent posts – The Rule of Two – has “upset” a few folks at Pearson…and not only in London or “across the pond” – but in our beloved Turkey, too.

On the upside – their interest in my little ol’ blog has really bumped up my “hits” and readership figures. So, to all you guys out there in “PearsonLand”:

OK – I guessed there might be a few ruffled feathers in London or New Jersey (and, to tell you the truth, the latter is the one I am most worried about – the Sopranos was one of my favourite shows but I know how the “other Tony” does business)!

But, I just didn’t “get” why those lovely boys and girls at Pearson Türkiye might “come after” me. I am a gentleman (of sorts) so I won’t say much – let’s just say questioning the “reported activities” of a corporation is not the same as falsely attacking an individual’s character (and to do so in a cowardly and two-faced manner)!

Corporations are not people…but need to recognise that “with great power comes great responsibility” (and a “hit” or two from the “little guys”)!

Besides, my new logo was “funny”…I thought that the Pearson Code of Ethics “requires” all staff to have a sense of humour…and use it!

Surely, Pearson staff do not just “ignore” company policy?

Maybe, they just don’t like ewoks, R2D2 or the Jedi!

Ne se, the “geeks” at Apple do – and I know my old pals there laughed their asses off at the idea of “Darth Jobs“…

But, I take my blogging very seriously…so, I went back to the post to check…maybe, I got some of my facts wrong:

• Bit of history about how Pearson has basically taken over the world of publishing …CORRECT (take a look at the full list of what Pearson actually “owns” – they are, seriously, richer than God)!

• Bit of news on their interest in iBooks and iBooks Author… CORRECT (they did not get get “richer than God” by not jumping all over anything that smelled of “cash”)!

• Bit of an outline of some of the “hot water” PEARSON have got themselves into over the years…CORRECT (well, if you “trust” the New York Times, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, the Telegraph – but, then again, maybe its just a case of “media penis envy” with all these journo guys)!

• Bit of an update on the more recent “Pearson-Gate Scandal” – you know, the investigation into how the (non-profit, tax-exempt) Pearson Foundation has been throwing plane tickets, hotel rooms, boozy parties and tours at its “junketeers” in the hope of “helping” (the commercial and very-for-profit) Pearson Education get even more (very) profitable standardised testing, curriculum development and textbook “deals” (allegedly) …CORRECT (hey, it was the New York  State Attorney General and those pesky journos at the New York Times again that started that little rumour – takeover bid, that’ll LEARN them to mess with Pearson)!

So, all my “facts” were on the ball…Pearson really does (allegedly) seem to resemble a “fetid corporate cesspool”!

The funny thing was…all these reports (taken from the “public record”, BTW) were about how Pearson does business in the UK or on the Soprano’s doorstep!

Not a single word did I mention about  the best adopted home any ”milli enişte” or “sevimli gavuur” could ask for!

Maybe, that was it…they were upset that I did not mention them by name. Perhaps, I really should have revealed more details about allthingspearsontürkiye.

As in many other countries, educational publishing in Turkey (especially the way the game is played by those in the Media Giant “league”) involves huge amounts of money – and, sadly, resorting to corruption, bribery and unethical business practices is very tempting.

He isn’t, is he?

Normally, we talk about “using education” to help us “tackle corruption” – but what do we do when we “discover” that corruption is already alive and kicking ”in” education itself, when corrupt and unethical practices have become a very part of the way we run the “business” of education?

What do we do, when we realise it is institutionalised, expected and used – a lot!

He is, you know!

Surely, education is the ONE social arena – in which we should have a zero-tolerance policy for allthingsunethical.

Education is about role-modelling – and making sure that every single educational environment is 100% free of graft, shady dealings and jobbery.

We owe that much to our kids, teenagers, young adults – and teachers!

OK! Let’s see what he’s got!

The good news is that Pearson has an anti-bribery and corruption policy. They even give this little policy a really “cute” name – the ABC Policy!

How sweet is that? What darlings they are!

Hey, that’s not even the best bit – on their website, they actually give you the e-mail addresses of all the “top dogs” at Pearson so you can do a bit of “whistleblowing” of your own.

You can even mail Marjorie Scardino her very self – and she replies!

Wow, with systems like this in place – it is hardly surprising that we never hear of any cases of bribery, corruption and unethical business practices at Pearson Türkiye (even when the “sales teams” are working so hard to “corner” just about everything that begins with those three little letters we all love – EDU…whatever)!

So, to make up for not writing about my dear friends at Pearson Türkiye…I am offerring to open up my little ol’ blog to them and inviting them to:

1. Refute any of the claims that may have “hurt their feelings” (without any editing)!
2. Promote any (and all) professional development activities for less advantaged schools/teachers  – schools and teachers who cannot afford to use Pearson products!
3. Take a real leadership role and initiate a new and exciting anti-corruption campaign across Turkey!

I’ll give them as much space as they need (free of charge, of course – no strings attached) to launch any initiatives they see fit in the “fight on corruption and bribery in educational publishing”!

Hell, I’ll even volunteer some of my own time to help with the second of my suggestions – just as long as I am promoted as “Honest Tones”!

Hey, they could even lead the charge by posting a range of their own “records” and “accounts” – that would really “show” all those other devilish buggars that don’t play as “clean a game” as Pearson! You know, “expense records” that show once and for all that “junketerring” and “graft” does, in fact, only happen in the US!

Easy as ABC – let me know, guys!

]]> http://allthingslearning.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/on-bloggers-educational-publishers-and-media-giants/feed/ 0 tonygurr David and Goliath (Pearson) Thank you (glass image) Tony (Pearson) PEARSON (always earning) Sith Jobs Irony (Pearson) Canım Türkiyem Bribery 01 Anti-Corruption 01 Anti-corruption 02 expletive bubble back_to_basics ABCs http://allthingslearning.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/not-all-learning-is-created-equal/ http://allthingslearning.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/not-all-learning-is-created-equal/#comments Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:27:08 +0000 Tony Gurr http://allthingslearning.wordpress.com/?p=3174 ]]>

Maybe it’s because I’m a “Brit” – but I never really got the “Immortal Declaration” and it’s not just because we were not allowed to finish our Earl Grey and cucumber sandwiches at a certain “tea party” way back in 1773.

It’s also not about the fact that some of the Founding Fathers wanted to “hang onto” their slaves while penning the phrase “all men are created equal” – and took almost another 75 years to realise that perhaps the declaration should cover women, too…

OK, OK – we Brits didn’t do a great job on the issue of women’s suffrage either and our women had to burn down the Prime Minister’s house and get themselves trampled by the King’s horse before they were allowed to vote on the same terms as men!

Tony…get back to LEARNing! …NOW!

It’s just that the Immortal Declaration ain’t true – we are not created equally. Just as LEARNing is not created equally in our schools, colleges and universities…

OK…he’s back on track!

For many years (and far too many words) I have been asking why it is that our educational institutions cannot evidence the LEARNing they “create” – and why most do not even try!

I’m not talking about “standardised test scores” – these frequently do little more than evidence the lack of real LEARNing in our schools. And, I’m certainly not talking about the way “top universities” cream off the best high school students and then take credit for “results” they had little to do with.

I’m talking about the real “added LEARNing value” that schools produce. Very few…and I mean VERY few educational institutions can do this.

For me, institutions and teachers can usually produce one of four types of LEARNing:

We know this – we all know teachers who manage (consistently) to get that little extra from the students and groups they LEARN with, teachers who change lives…and we also know teachers who do not!

Now, some of you may look at these and say “Tony, aren’t all these more associated with the learning styles and preferences of students themselves”?

True – but the purpose of an educational institution is to “produce” (or “co-create”) LEARNing. So, I’m guessing it’s pretty fair to ask these institutions to tell us what type of LEARNing they “really” produce. Besides, we all know that “what we DO says more about us than what we SAY we DO” – and evidencing what we DO is a basic prerequisite of quality assurance, isn’t it?

Most of you will have got your heads around the DEEP and SURFACE varieties by taking a look at (for starters) at the work of Marton and Säljö (1976) and a whole pile of related research papers that you can’t even remember (says a lot, yes?). And, while we all might know that there is no “right” or “wrong” way to LEARN – we recognise that the former is all about “real understanding” and “LEARNing for the future”, while the latter focusses on “acceptance” of established information and facts (and perhaps, shock-horror, “memorisation”).

Research into DEEP LEARNing, for example, tells us that many of its characteristics are:

• Looking for meaning
• Focusing on central ideas and arguments
• Active interaction
• The ability to distinguish between evidence and argument
• Making numerous connections
• Relating new knowledge and ideas to previous knowledge
• Linking classroom learning to real-life

However, if we only look at DEEP and SURFACE LEARNing as “approaches to study” by students themselves – we actually come up with a neat little “get-out-of-jail-free card” and can abdicate all responsibility for LEARNing by simply “blaming” students for any form of “failure” that crops up. Basically, we can turn around and say all these characteristics are the things that students have to / should “do” themselves (in order to be successful) – and if not…hey, we did our “best” with “bad” tools!

Most other business organisations and companies would give their right arms for a “trick” like this!

The question remains:

How do most students LEARN these approaches to LEARNing?

Students are not “born” with the ability to relate new knowledge to old. There is no “gene” that fires up and allows students to relate classroom LEARNing to the “real world” – they LEARN this stuff from their LEARNing experiences, they LEARN this from “schools”!

They also LEARN this from how we TEACH them (over years and years), the LEARNing experiences we design for them and they way we reward them – as teachers.

The potential of education to make a real, meaningful difference to the lives of students is well-known to teachers familiar with the work of Dewey (even more so if you know a bit about Aristotle, Plato, and Confucius). But, it was Jack Mezirow that really flagged the need for institutions and educators to focus more on  TRANSFORMATIONAL LEARNing – DEEP LEARNing on steroids!

Yes, a lot of his work was directed at “adult” LEARNing – I’ll give you that. But, what school teacher worth her salt does not think about the need for critical reflection, self-knowledge, autonomy, participation, and communication (not to mention “humanism”, “emancipation” and “equity”) in the classroom?

What school principal would stand up and say (publically) that she is not interested in creating “educational experiences” that develop critical and autonomous thinking in all students and allow them continuously evolve their “meaning schemes” (specific beliefs, attitudes, and emotional reactions) and engage in on-going “perspective transformation” that makes them better learners, better people (mummies and daddies, especially) and better citizens?

OK – they might not use those actual words but you get the idea.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEARNing is what we know (in our heart of hearts) education should be about. I mean isn’t the point of all education supposed to be about making REAL differences to the lives (and futures) of REAL people (even “little” people)…

The sad truth is that many schools, colleges and universities say this is the “business” they are in – few can prove it.

The forth type of LEARNing is an interesting one – interesting because it is not discussed a great deal. A second cousin of SURFACE LEARNing it is also another “extreme“– but an extreme that is more common that we would imagine.

SUPERFICIAL LEARNing was coined (and “trademarked” – WTH) by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2004) and, as you may imagine, it also has a number of characteristics:

• Reliance on rote learning or memorisation
• Passive reception of information
• Few, or no, connections made to previous knowledge
• Focus on formulae needed to solve problems
• Course content viewed simply as material to be learnt for examinations

However, it is not the characteristics per se that expose SUPERFICIAL LEARNing for what it is – but rather, according to Cohen et al., what this variety of LEARNing tends to be encouraged by;

• Excessive amounts of material and inert, discrete knowledge as facts
• An excessive amount of material in the curriculum
• Relatively high class-contact hours
• Lack of opportunity to pursue subjects in depth
• Lack of choice of subjects and methods of study
• Cynical or conflicting messages about rewards
• Poor or absent feedback on progress
• Fear of failure, and, therefore, attempts to avoid failure
• Lack of independence in studying
• Lack of interest in, and background knowledge of, the subject matter
• Assessment methods that create anxiety and that emphasise recall or application of trivial knowledge – rather than asking students to apply understanding
• Lack of reflective analysis of learning and assessments

Now, I’m not sure if you would agree with me – but as I look at this list, I see many of the things that schools systems, institutions and teachers “do to students” and far fewer “approaches to study” (on the part of students).

I get that many institutions cannot “prove” the LEARNing they produce in students (but more should try). It’s tough to break habits we have had since the 7th Century!

However, every single school (and system), college and university could look at how it “does business” – to gain a better idea of what type of LEARNing it is really all about – and perhaps start thinking about what it needs to UNlearn and RElearn before playing the “get-out-of-jail-free card”.

Teachers, too…we are, after all, the most powerful determinant of the type of LEARNing produced by our institutions!

While “cruising blogland” this week (not sure if that little phrase is as suitable as it could be but my daughter is still telling me I have to stop saying “surfing the web” – as it “shows my age”), I saw that a number of bloggers had “discovered” the work of those really sensible folks at ICG (Independent Curriculum Group).

I’ve been following the schools that make up ICG for some time – impressed by the fact that all of them are really walking-their-talk with regards “teacher-generated curriculum”.

Come on…who is not going to be impressed by a bunch of schools that know their stuff with regards student LEARNing and who put that stuff at the heart of their decision-making?

Apparently, quite a few of us!

What got the blogosphere buzzing this week was that the ICG schools had boiled their thinking down to a series of neat “sound bites” (sadly, sound bites still seem to get more attention than the serious thinking that underpins them these days) – and created a set of “myths”:

• Basic Facts Come Before Deep Learning – This one translates roughly as, “Students must do the boring stuff before they can do the interesting stuff.” Or, “Students must memorize before they can be allowed to think.” In truth, students are most likely to achieve long-term mastery of basic facts in the context of engaging, student-directed learning. 

• Rigorous Education Means a Teacher Talking – Teachers have knowledge to impart, but durable learning is more likely when students talk, create, and integrate knowledge into meaningful projects. The art of a teacher is to construct ways for students to discover. 

• Covering It Means Teaching It – Teachers are often seduced by the idea that if they talk about a concept in class, they have taught it. At best, students get tentative ideas that will be quickly forgotten if not reinforced by a student-centred activity. 

• Teaching to Student Interests Means Dumbing It Down – If we could somehow see inside a student’s brain, its circuitry would correspond to its knowledge. Since new learning always builds on what is already in the brain, teachers must relate classroom teaching to what students already know. Teachers who fail to do so, whether due to ignorance or in pursuit of a false idea of rigor, are running afoul of a biological reality. 

• Acceleration Means Rigor – Some schools accelerate strong students so that they can cover more material. ICG schools are more likely to ask such students to delve deeper into important topics. Deep knowledge lays a stronger foundation for later learning. 

• A Quiet Classroom Means Good Learning – Students sitting quietly may simply be zoned out, if not immediately, then within 15 minutes. A loud classroom, if properly controlled, included the voices of many students who are actively engaged. 

• Traditional Schooling Prepares Students for Life – Listening to teachers and studying for tests has little to do with life in the world of work. People in the work world create, manage, evaluate, communicate, and collaborate, like students in ICG schools.

Now, lots of you might think that these myths are “pretty obvious” – but the fact that we still have so many “soft spots” in our schools and education systems (around the globe) tells me that these “myths” are, in fact, based on the “underlying assumptions” that guide the decision-making of many teachers, their administrators and schools and the ministries that (all too sadly) hold the reins of our educational systems – and that these assumptions remain “invisible” to many.

What was interesting for me was that the ICG myths were not, in the traditional sense, directly linked to the what we believe “curriculum” is all about – despite the very name of the group that produced them. However, the fact that so few of the myths might be viewed as “curriculum issues” shows the quality of thinking that these schools are engaged in…IMHO!

I have to say, however, that I felt the list was missing “something”…not just a few other myths that we could all probably add to the list…something “bigger”!

For me, there is a more sizeable myth that underpins the set suggested by ICG. This “mother” of all myths lies at the work of veteran educators like Harry and Rosemary Wong and has been most effectively hinted at (or “sound bitten”) by people like Ann Parker:

The myth is essentially this:

Curriculum is best conceptualised as “content” – arranged as “a teaching plan”

Now, I’m not sure where this “mother of all myths” came from – but we can feel its omnipresence in almost every corner of education. We find it in universities and the way (far too many) lecturers see their own curricular as being the “topics” they will “cover” and the “order” in which these topics are to be “delivered” to learners.

Wikipedia has also helped to promote this “understanding” through its “definition” of what curriculum is all about:

There are still many teachers in our primary and secondary schools that begin their lessons with utterances like “What page were we on last time”? – and then instruct students to turn to the next one for today’s lesson… It is this type of approach to LEARNing and TEACHing that has led many a teacher to believe that they could not possibly survive without the “textbook” – and has created the even more cynical and insipid version of this myth: 

Curriculum is best conceptualised as the content pages of our “textbooks”!

Wouldn’t publishers and their textbook writers just love this understanding of curriculum to win out?

The thing is that it wasn’t always like this – and the solutions to this “challenge” do not seem to be available on our present or future “list” of how to “fix” things in education. As we look at commentary on the “future of education” in today’s blogosphere and the solutions to many of the challenges we currently face in education, we keep coming back to one word – technology!

Sorry, that is just “dumb”…

Technology is not going to “save” education – the quality of thinking from those involved in educational decision-making is going to do that. And, the starting point is challenging the underlying assumptions and myths that all too often dominate our decision-making.

The Greeks and Romans had nowhere near the technology that the average family home or teachers’ room has access to today – but they had a far superior conceptualisation of what curriculum is mean to be all about:

Far from being about “delivering the content on the course outline“ or “covering the textbook”, this understanding of curriculum got it “right” with its emphasis on purposeful progression and a predetermined goal. Yes, the Ancient Greeks and Romans knew that curriculum needs to begin where it ends – with the LEARNing of individual students and with the thinking of teachers and educators about how this can best be realised.

If we look closer at what the great teachers of the time “did” with what they “knew” about curriculum, we also see many things that are missing in more modern conceptualisations of what curriculum is all about:

• A curriculum should answer the question “what are we here to do for our students” – it is the fundamental expression of our purposes, aims and convictions (as educators and institutions).

• Curriculum thinking cannot be “divorced” from the values and beliefs of those involved in creating it. A great curriculum uncovers the underlying assumptions and aspirations that educators have for their learners and themselves – it is more than “content”, it is a “conscious educational philosophy” given “form” and “substance”.

• Just as a curriculum needs to be seen as an expression of an educational philosophy, it also needs to be viewed as a framework of educational values that informs problem-solving on a day-to-day basis. A curriculum needs to “scream” this is who we are and this is how we do business – not simply list a series of dry topics to be presented by an equally dry teacher.

• A curriculum has to be centred on LEARNers, their LEARNing and what they can do with that LEARNing…!

• Effective curricular need to be more than about what we are TEACHing today (or Monday morning). Curriculum needs to move beyond “now” into the “future LEARNing” of students and graduates – and is only as good as the way it prepares learners to keep on learning after the experience of “formal education” is over and done with.

• When teachers and learners only conceive of curriculum as a “document”, we might as well pack up and go home (these words are a “rough translation” of what Aristotle said). A real, breathing curriculum is one that teachers and learners see as an “on-going process of questioning” of what ought to happen and an “on-going process of problem-solving” with regards how to make that happen “in practice”.

• Curriculum is a process, a process that gives us a way to imagine, explore, and critique ways of thinking about the purposes and practices of a curriculum. This very process helps teachers and educators “grow” as much as their learners – it allows them to revitalise their subjects and disciplines and look for more ways to cross traditional boundaries so as prioritise making a real difference to the real lives of their very real learners.

• Assessment and curriculum are the “currency” used by teachers and students and they should embody the very nature of the relationships we hope to build in and out of the classroom. As such, teachers and educators need to have a central role in designing not only the learning opportunities and assessment activities – but also the curriculum itself. Before students can “own” a curriculum, teachers have to be invested in and believe in it.

• Curriculum also needs to be viewed as interactive process of designing, experiencing, evaluating and improving what learners can do with what they know – this cannot be done by teachers alone, it is (or should be) a true process of “co-creation”.

• If a “poor” curriculum is one that looks more like a “tick-box checklist” of things to be poured into the heads of students, a “great” curriculum is one that has at its heart a meaningful sequence and structure that involves iterative revisiting and expansion over time – and one that makes room for co-creation by students. Concepts, themes and topic areas need to be revisited with greater sophistication, learners need to be given opportunities to demonstrate earlier understandings and also be presented with newer challenges and projects imagineered to lead them to higher ability levels – challenges and projects that also explore their evolving view of both learning and the world they are building through that learning.

Perhaps, it is no coincidence that these ancient teachers did not have “textbooks” (or iPads) – neither did they have publishers, textbook writers and software developers constantly hawking their wares back then!

In a nutshell, we need to start viewing:

Yes, it is true that in today’s world content, textbooks and course outlines need to be factored in - but if we limit ourselves to these “components”, we are actually preparing the ground work for all of the myths that ICG have outlined for us.

If we do not include a vision of the type of “graduate” we are working to create (and not just a version for “wall decoration”), “teacher talk” will remain at the heart of the teaching process – and covering “it” will still be equated with teaching “it”.

We need to see curriculum for what it really is – not a document (or table of contents from a textbook) but what we “do” with what we “believe” it is all about:

Curriculum needs to be about choice and principles (I “stole” that from Covey) – and those principles need to be:

Now, tell me if that ain’t better than the “myths” and their “mother”!

For years – me and many other Star Wars geeks (especially those in their 40s) looked upon the “battle” between Apple and Microsoft as being one of “good and evil”.

We grew up in the times of the original trilogy and never missed an opportunity to draw parallels between these tech firms and the idea of Luke Skywalker taking on Darth Vader (Bill Gates, not David Prowse or Bob Anderson, was in the “suit” in our version of the movies).

So “obsessed” were we with developments in “tech” (we did not really have “edtech” in those days) that we did not pay much attention to another rapidly growing Empire in a galaxy far, far away – in the distant “Publicatus System”.

Back in our own system, we screamed in anger and writhed in pain as the “evil Apple clones” turned on Jedi Master Jobs – forcing his abdication and self-imposed exile on the desert worlds of the “NeXT System”.

We waited patiently for the Return of our Jedi Master (“return”, not Revenge, mind) – able to do nothing as Microsoft lay waste to the galaxy with its Death Star – the policy of “embrace, extend and exterminate”.

They truly were the Empire of “evil”! The end was almost “nigh”! 

Jedi Master Jobs returned from “exile” in 1997 and quickly turned around the last remaining forces of the resistance – removing the clone infiltrators and creating a new range of Jedi “iWeapons” – weapons so small that Microsoft’s Death Star would not even see them coming.

Then, in 2010, it all changed.

Apple finally took down the evil Empire (OK, so it actually became the world’s largest, in terms of market capitalisation, technology company – but that does not “fit” with my sci-fi theme right now)!

This time more than just a few cheeky Ewoks cheered the demise of the “evil Empire”!

Our joy and happiness was short-lived and, sadly, we “lost” Jedi Master Jobs last year – but we know he is looking down on us and protecting us all from Jedi Heaven.

Or, so we thought!

Hang on, Tony – what about that “other” bloody Empire you mentioned?

Ahhh, the Borg-like creatures from the Publicatus System – they go by many names but the word “Pearson” usually turns up on the letterhead somewhere.

Tony, think we should drop the Star Wars / Star Trek bit now – we’re probably pissing off people far less geeky than your fair self.

Pearson were not always the “masters of the publication universe” (or should I say the “sprawling media conglomerate”) they are today. They started as a construction company in the mid-1800s in the UK – and we all know (allegedly) what a squeaky-clean and ethical business “construction” is (almost as “pure” as Financial Services or “Waste Management” in New Jersey)!

We educators, however, did not really start to hear about “them” until the late 1960’s (after they had “picked up” and “assimilated” the Financial Times in 1957 – a step up for our “brickies”) – when they started their serious “shopping spree”; First, Westminster Press. Then, Longman. After that – Penguin, the US-based Viking Press, Addison-Wesley, the Putnam Berkley Group, HarperCollins, …the list goes on and on and on!

In a nutshell, by 1998 (when Pearson Education was created in the US) Pearson had placed over 100 of the world’s top educational brands in its trophy cabinet – they had, so to speak, essentially “bought” the world’s biggest educational business (allegedly).

“Resistance” was, indeed, “futile” – as Dorling Kindersley discovered in 2000 and Harcourt Educational / Heinemann found out in 2007.

Pearson, like Microsoft, has never really managed to fully steer clear of murkier waters – but they have always managed to use “teflon-coated strategies” to keep them out of serious hot water (or maybe they just retain William Shatner or Kathy Bates as lawyers) . For example, the (alleged) Penguin accounting and discounting scandal of 1997 was quickly brushed under the carpet (allegedly) – and the GBP 100m “loss” blamed on a “lone book-keeping clerk”.

The same happened a while back when Pearson (allegedly) claimed it did not know that a certain Middle-Eastern despot had become their 5th biggest investor – and had to (allegedly) take legal advice to decide whether the GBP 250m investment was “covered” by the UN’s Security Council Resolution against Gaddafi and his family.

Just don’t get me started on the (alleged)  issues of “undisclosed lobbying” and the (alleged) “armies of junketeers” Pearson has (allegedly) cultivated over the years – we all know the (alleged) stories of “backhanders” and (alleged) “professional development support sweeteners” in our schools, colleges and universities that have led Pearson to be described as a “fetid corporate cesspool” (allegedly)!

As someone said (allegedly):

What really bakes Pearson’s noodle or gives them most of their real PR woes, however, are their interests in examination bodies and publishing houses involved in the development of tests (big business) and test preparation materials (even bigger, seriously bigger, business).

For example, Pearson picked up a controlling stake in Edexcel in 2003 and then bought out this “useful little charity” fully in 2005. Edexcel has since (allegedly) become a major seat of Borg-like operations in the UK’s educational system. Pearson has consistently denied any (alleged) “conflicts of interest” in the way Edexcel and Pearson have co-created the conditions for the commercialisation of the exam system ın the UK.

Pearson and/or Edexcel, it would seem, sees nothing inherently wrong in designing “tests” for Pearson and/or Edexcel “texts” or even “requiring” schools and students to purchase the very textbooks Edexcel (also) produces in-house – or, shock-horror, having chief examiners who (allegedly) ”boast” about the lack of teaching content in their A-Level English coursework and the relative ease of the qualification compared to its rivals (until caught on “tape”).

This situation is also mirrored in the US – on steroids. Recently, Micheal Moore (no, the other one) has claimed that Pearson has taken the “standardised test/preparation material scam” into the “curricular writing/common core assessments arena” – and cites projects being developed with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (a surname you might recognise) – but no worries these corporate entities are “harmless foundations” and do business in a totally “different way”!

Hang on, Tony – what does all this have to do with the price of fish (and Apple)!

Well, it would appear that me and all my fellow Star Wars fans from the 70s and 80s have been duped – bit like Anakin was conned by Palpatine!

Jedi Master Jobs was, and this breaks my heart to say, a “Sith double-agent”…worse, it seems, as Emperor Palpatine before him, he personally put in motion the latest plan for Sith domination:

You must begin by gaining power over yourself; then another; then a group, an order, a world, a species, a group of species. . . finally, the Galaxy itself (Darth Plagueis)

At the heart of this wicked, evil plan was the late-Darth Jobs’ recognition that the $8-billion-a-year textbook business was “ripe for digital destruction” (Walter Isaacson). However, Jobs also seems to have had a “plan-within-a plan” and perhaps a range of “mini-plans-within-mini-plans” all designed to prepare the way for Sith domination.

I am, of course, talking about the recent upgrade of iBooks and the iBookstore and introduction of iBook textbooks for iPad – not to mention iBooks Author. 

I don’t think there is much more I can add to the gazillions and gazillions of pixels that have been given over to Apple’s “fireworks display” at Manhattan’s Guggenheim Museum on January 19th – suffice to say this “little project” signals that Apple is now in the publishing business with the stated aim of “revolutionising the education industry” and “transforming learning and teaching” by making textbooks a truly interactive experience on the iPad and providing Mac users with a garageband-like DIY app (that, wait for it, is “free” and so-easy that even a Pearson CEO can use it)!

Isaacson did not fully reveal how much Steve Jobs was personally involved in the project (for years, some say) – others have dubbed it “the beginning of the Steve Jobs education legacy”.

To be sure the iBook textbooks showcased this month are definitely “very sexy” – the “holy grail” of textbooks to date. To be even surer, the whole textbook project and focus on iBooks Author  is a typical play from the “Think Different Playbook” (we could say even “a textbook move” – but I won’t)!

However, remember I told you (allegedly) that the project is also a plan to ensure Sith domination!

In December, word started to leak that Apple (at the “behest” of Darth Jobs - claimed the Wall Street Journal - allegedly, just to be on the safe side) had been conspiring with (allegedly) “greedy publishers” to “fix” the cost of e-books – surprise, surprise which publisher was on the list (top of the list even, allegedly)?

Darth Jobs may have signalled his intention to fire his digito-destructive iLaser at the “old boys club” in the world of publishing – but he was no “lightweight” in the old grey matter department. He knew that he would “need” the publishers – and his experience with iTunes had helped him hone his Sith negotiating and mind control skills.

Pearson is a key player in the US textbook business – along with Houghton and McGraw-Hill, this (alleged) unholy trinity commands 85% of the K-12 market. Seeing the potential of the “iPad toys” (Pearson is also not short of a brain cell or several, allegedly), they jumped on the bandwagon – and set up a secret (and elite) “digital editing cell” in Boston.

Surprise, surprise – Pearson had its own press release ready for January 19th and its investors! “Always LEARNing…Always EARNing”!

To make matters worse (for the Sith duo), as the fireworks of January 19th died down – a new “resistance movement” began to take form. They were spurred on by deeper analysis of the iBook Author EULA (end user licence agreement).

These “new rebels” quickly dismissed the licence agreement as “mind-bogglingly greedy and evil” and debated the “unprecedented audacity” of Apple claiming “ownership” of the “work” produced by users of iBook Author – not even Microsoft had been so bold as to suggest this.

Seriously, seriously?

And, there’s more – if we want to sell our “stuff” (in iBook Author format), we can only do it through Apple (if, and this will make you giggle, and only if Apple’s iStormtroopers decide it is “worthy” of being placed on an iBookshelf)! OK – I guess it’s fair that Apple should get its pound of flesh. I mean, iBooks Author is “free”, after all…! BTW…Apple also let’s you know (in ant-size font) that they will not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, losses (including without limitation lost business opportunities or lost profits) you may incur as a result of your use of their software.

Just so you know!

OK – tempers have calmed down a bit since then – but there remain many Jedi padawans out there that still consider this to be the same kind of “trick” drug-pushers (allegedly) use in “school-yards” (get ‘em hooked on the “free” stuff…allegedly…you have ‘em till they “drop”)!

The “resistance” is not through just yet. Word has it we have other “rebels” who are now telling us we don’t really need textbooks anyways! Let’s see how these “new age” educational “mystics” fair over time.

Pearson’s (alleged) track record in allthingsbusiness would appear to make them ideally suited for such a plot and even though the relationship between Apple and Pearson has not always been as smooth as our starred-crossed Sith lovers would have perhaps wanted, the lovers’ tiffs that may have occurred in the past did not stop Apple for being oh-so-very keen to secure Pearson’s involvement in its “Big Apple launch”.

So, the Rule of Two has once again been firmly re-established within the Sith order.

The question, of course, is:

Just who is the “Master” and who is the “Apprentice”? 

Oh, yes…and another teeny-weeny question: 

How will the iBook textbook project improve and extend student LEARNing – and how do Apple and Pearson really know this? 

May the FORCE be with all of us – we’re gonna need it!

DISCLAIMER: This post was “created” using iBooks Author and so “technically” was “written” (and is “owned”) by Apple Inc. Furthermore, your bank accounts will automatically send Apple 99 cents as soon as you have finished reading this) – they do, afterall “Think Different”!

Reblogged from allthingslearning:

Word has it that my last post on “Questioning Cultures” upset a couple of folks! It would appear that even the act of “questioning” why we do not have more “questioning cultures” in education is enough to get on the nerves of those that recognise that they may, in fact, be “dinosaurs” themselves… I’m really struggling (seriously) not to mention “peas” and “brains”…must fight the urge! It just seems, to me – at least, if more people stepped out their comfort zones (as quickly as they seek to …

This was the follow-up (because the first one got me in so much trouble – with people who respect their “chairs” more than their staff – and students) ENJOY…

Reblogged from allthingslearning:

Ask yourself a question – what is at the heart of almost everything we think, feel and do as a species? QUESTIONS!  Be they closed- or open-ended, questions drive how human beings listen, think and behave…And, I’m not just talking about matters of life, the universe and everything – you know, the questions our kids ask us (*): Why do baked beans give us gas? Why do people shrink when they get really old? Why do men have nipples (if they can’t have babies)? We know (don’t we?) that questions …

This one, too – if only to show that Einstein was (a lot) more than just a “pretty face” Seriously, it is our ability to question “everything” that is the the one thing that will move us forward ENJOY…

Reblogged from allthingslearning:

Did you know that: 65% of conference attendees believe they learn nothing from plenary sessions… 55% of conference attendees prefer the coffee breaks to the break-out sessions they attend… 45% of conference attendees “sneak” off to do a bit of sight-seeing…or shopping…(!) Did you also know that 33% of statistics are made up on the spot! OK, OK – my conference stats may lack a bit of reliability…but it’s true - we educators do not do our best LEARNing at conferences! I have done a great deal …

I’m re-posting this one for all my lovely, lovely “trainers-in-training” in Karabük and Safranbolu – what a hard-working bunch of “professional LEARNers” (and anyone else who might have missed it) ENJOY!

Reblogged from allthingslearning:

In my 25 years in the world of TEACHing and LEARNing, I have come across many managers / supervisors that have graduated from the “my-way-or-the-highway” school of thought. Many of you will also know I frequently discuss ideas from the “walk-your-talk” school of leadership. Now, I know we are warned (by Obi-Wan) that “Only the Sith deal in absolutes” – but I thought it might be useful to compare these two perspectives and look at which form of “educational leadership” might be best …

And, the final re-blog of the night – this one was very popular (esp. with people who, shall we say, have less than the “caring, sharing and effective bosses” we all need Enjoy…

Reblogged from allthingslearning:

Surfing the web a few days ago (my big, little girl tells me it’s not “cool” to use this collocation any more – what to do – I’m a “digital immigrant”…) – I came across this amazing TED video from artist and innovative designer Jae Rhim Lee. In the video (which has to be one of the most “out there” on the TED site) Jae Rhim Lee introduced her “mushroom death suit” (or, as she jokes, her “ninja PJs”) and the Infinity Burial Project – both imagineered to decompose a human body once we learn, …

Re-blogging this one, too (mostly to “hide” the 100K competition we ran this week). “Wearing-your-talk” is so much better than just “walking” it Enjoy…

Reblogged from allthingslearning:

An old friend of mine caught up with me on Facebook the other day. He was a great “natural” when we worked together in Dubai a few years back – he was a bit of a “maverick”, an architect who taught maths and computing, and enjoyed taking risks. My kinda teacher… In his Facebook message he made a “confession” – in all the time we worked together – he had never prepared a “lesson plan”. He explained that it was “against his religion” and noted: I always hated the idea of lesson …

Did this a while back – but it has proven to be very popular so I’m re-blogging it for folks newer to allthingslearning. Enjoy!