About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Concerned Citizen Kane: Murdoch Delves Into For-Profit Education

October 19, 2011 3:45 pm ET by Alexander Zaitchik

Last week, nearly one thousand representatives from business groups, education departments, state legislatures, and free-market think tanks descended on San Francisco's Palace Hotel to strategize a revolution in American education. Focused on state-level politics and driven by marketing buzzwords like "blended learning" and "customized online instruction," it was not the kind of policy powwow that typically draws national media attention.

But education reform is a hot topic these days, and interest in the two-day "Excellence in Action" summit was further heightened by the controversial presence of the summit's keynote speaker: News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, whose recent foray into for-profit education has focused a spotlight on an increasingly confident and ambitious movement to privatize and digitize American K-through-12.

The debate over the reforms endorsed at "Excellence in Action" has been steadily intensifying. Reform boosters -- a mix of (mostly) Republican state lawmakers, for-profit education companies and their lobbyists, and libertarian ideologues -- maintain that creating a competitive hi-tech education marketplace will make U.S. students more competitive internationally and close the much-lamented achievement gap. Critics suspect an agenda that has more to do with smashing teachers unions and turning tax dollars into profits. Since entering the education reform fray, Murdoch has become a vocal reform booster and unlikely spokesperson for "our children." As he has several times before, he used his time in San Francisco to argue forcefully that what public education needs is a good dose of free-market innovation. "Put simply we must approach education the way Steve Jobs approached every industry he touched. To be willing to blow up what doesn't work or gets in the way."

Among those Murdoch and his fellow reformers seem to view as "getting in the way" are the majority of associations comprised of actual educators. More than one hundred of these teachers and their allies protested Murdoch's presence with placards declaring, "Our Schools Are Not for Profit." Among the marchers was Matthew Hardy of the United Educators of San Francisco. "I think we should be very concerned that the folks inside this hotel are looking at our schools as untapped profit centers," he said. "Schools are there to educate kids, not make money for corporations. Murdoch and the rest of them aren't just going after teachers unions, but the idea of public schools in general."

Inside the conference hall, hecklers interrupted Murdoch's address as he took the podium. "Equality in education, not privatization!" one yelled. "Corporations own the media, why not education?" asked another before security escorted him out. 

This question -- "Why not education?" -- is one Murdoch takes seriously. His answer, it seems: Why not indeed? The mogul bluntly explained his late interest in education while announcing News Corp.'s acquisition of the Brooklyn-based school-performance tracking firm Wireless Generation in November of 2010. "When it comes to K-through-12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed." Murdoch was only slightly more discreet the previous month during a speech in Washington D.C., when he couched his concern for Why Johnny Can't Read by waxing nostalgic about the American Dream as understood by the non-rich -- those Americans, including those protesting outside the Palace Hotel, who have begun to refer to themselves the "99 percent."

"Upward mobility in America is in jeopardy unless we fix our public schools," the billionaire told the Washington D.C. audience shortly before the launch of News Corp.'s Education Division. The situation was so critical, Murdoch warned, "Our middle-class way of life may disappear."

Murdoch crafted his keynote message last week in similar terms of supremely enlightened self-interest, as if a spike in his own bottom line was just a happy byproduct of his crusade to save the middle-class. Even in his new incarnation as Concerned Citizen Kane, Murdoch had precious little use for sentimentality in San Francisco, and held no fear of sounding overly brash in discussing a field he knows almost nothing about.

"I'm speaking today as a businessman. So let me come right to the point," Murdoch said after the hecklers had been removed. "We need to tear down an education system designed for the 19th century -- and replace it with one suited for the 21st."

Murdoch argued that digitizing America's classrooms and viewing K-through-12 as a business marketplace will better serve underperforming students -- "the human toll of our complacency." It was left to others to spell out the other potential beneficiaries. According to summit participant and ex-D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat, following the "Roadmap for Reform" unveiled in San Francisco would result in "a huge flow of business to the private sector." But getting there, Fenty stressed, was a bipartisan effort, requiring Democrats to "get past the teachers unions."

For Murdoch, the prize sitting beyond the teachers unions resembles a glowing Apple display window more than a brick and mortar public school. In one of several references to Apple Inc. products in his keynote, Murdoch imagined American schools one day resembling Apple stores (which are publically traded and non-unionized) and compared contemporary public education to the Big Brother of George Orwell's 1984, as represented in Apple's iconic commercial that ran during the 1984 Superbowl.

"Let's be clear: Technology is never going to replace teachers," Murdoch stated in response to a recent New York Times article that threw some cold water on the promises of digital education. But Murdoch's reassurance didn't jibe with the views of other influential speakers at the conference. "We're too labor intensive, we have more teachers than agriculture workers," huffed James Guthrie of the George W. Bush Institute. Guthrie argued that sweeping education reform would add "trillions to the economy" and future federal budgets, which would ultimately translate into money for "the people." But a return to fiscal health won't mean hiring more teachers. "We need to inject technology forcefully into the equation," he stressed.

It is revealing that the financial crisis that has hit the middle class so hard was heartily welcomed in San Francisco, Murdoch's newfound concern for the institutions of middle-class upward mobility notwithstanding. A major theme of the conference was summed up in a strategy session entitled "Don't Let a Financial Crisis Go To Waste." Speakers urged lawmakers to seize the moment to push through reforms and defenestrate their best-organized critics -- the teachers unions. "The budget cuts are the best thing that ever happened to us and are [allowing us to] structurally change public education," said a Republican policymaker from Indiana. "We've limited collective bargaining rights of teachers to wages and cut out the garbage."

Hanna Skandera, New Mexico Secretary-Designate for Public Education and former CEO of Laying the Foundation, said that a 25 percent cut to education budgets was an opportunity to for districts to get a better "return on investment" with their education dollars. Florida State Senator Don Gaetz argued that by turning "schools into businesses" and augmenting personal instruction with digital programs, districts could save as much as $2,000 per student while improving "outcomes." (Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones recently examined these outcomes and found the early results inconsistent with the reform hype.)

In line with the anti-union animus of Murdoch's media outlets, organized labor was the villain at the summit he headlined. By the last panel on the schedule, Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa felt the need to sheepishly preface a comment by saying, "I'm going to be controversial, but I'm pro-union." Chris Cerf, the New Jersey Commissioner of Education and former CEO of Sangari Global Education, expressed the more common view that political combat with unions was a blood sport vital to the success of the movement. "I'm so glad to be talking to legislators," he said. "This is 100 percent about political courage -- a knife fight in a dark room."

If they win their knife fight, the model Murdoch and his education reform allies have in mind is not the best of the state university systems of the past -- affordable, well funded, a symbol of the great middle-class expansion of the twentieth-century -- but rather the scandal-plagued for-profit online education industry of the twenty-first. Not the University of California at Berkeley, but the University of Phoenix. The "Roadmap to Reform" unveiled by summit chair Jeb Bush offered state lawmakers a blueprint for enlarging the space for remote education and expanding charter schools. Like the model bills provided by the business-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, Bush's "Roadmap" encourages lawmakers "to adopt a sense of urgency" in opening up the public coffers to for-profit education, as well as forcing public schools to invest heavily in possibly labor-replacing technologies. Knowing not all reforms will succeed at once, Bush's foundation offers "policy combo-packs" to get the ball rolling on multiple fronts in newly squeezed state legislatures. As an organizer declared at the start of the conference, "The goal is to learn about education reform, then go back and file legislation."

* * *

Murdoch has in the last year pitched the News Corp. flag in the education reform movement. To run the News Corp. Education Division, he hired former chancellor of NYC schools Joel Klein for a reported $4.5 million. Murdoch and Klein had come to know each other through Murdoch's support for Education Reform Now (ERN), an industry-funded group that sided with Klein in a debate over teacher layoffs in New York City. Shortly after Klein joined News Corp., he was named chair of ERN, the growing activities and empowered tone of which testify to an education privatization movement on the march.

News Corp.'s Education Division won a major contract last year when Wireless Generation landed a no-bid $27 million deal to track student performance throughout New York state. But the contract was annulled in the aftermath of the News International phone hacking scandal. (It may or may not have helped matters that Klein, News Corp.'s education guru, played such a high-profile role during the height of the scandal; he was tasked with leading an internal inquiry into the hacking, and sat prominently behind Murdoch during his internationally televised inquisition by members of British Parliament.) From News Corp.'s perspective, the New York State Comptroller decision was a deeply troubling precedent and a lesson that schools are not tabloids: when it comes to people's kids, business ethics and reputation matter very much.

This fact may have had something to do with why Joel Klein pointedly refused to answer a Think Progress reporter's question about whether a firewall exists between News Corp.'s education business and its media operations, specifically its profit leader, the propaganda network known as Fox News.

This question is significant because News Corp. is uniquely situated to take advantage of synergy between the production of education content and distribution. It is easy to imagine News Corp.'s news and entertainment divisions one day producing branded, packaged news for use in schools. Among the earliest successful models of for-profit education products in public schools is Channel One, which offers pre-packaged news shows to schools free of charge in exchange for exposing students -- "captured audiences" -- to the advertisements that accompany the programming.

Some of the education reform entrepreneurs in San Francisco are already thinking along similar lines. Among the vendors at "Excellence in Action" was a firm called Elixer XES 3-D that specializes in glassless 3-D video monitors. The firm's spokesman worked the room with a paper titled, "3-D: The Technology Brought a Pot of Gold to the Motion Picture Box Office. It Has the Potential to Bring 'Golden' Learning Back to Our Schools, at Warp Speed." The company, which is working with 10 school districts and counting, is developing educational videos on the Channel One model. Its promotional materials include several pages devoted to the benefits of advertising to students in 3-D. "An intrinsic property of 3-D advertising is media richness," it states. "Consumers interacting with products in 3-D advertising ... results in a positive consumer response as measured by increases in product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention."

Firms like Elixir 3-D are correct to be excited by an obvious quickening in the education reform movement. Last year's documentary Waiting for Superman disseminated its ideas to a wide audience. Slick new astro-turfy websites -- including ERN's donewaiting.com and choicemedia.tv -- are popping up with hefty funding behind them. February 1, 2012, has been dubbed national "Digital Learning Day," and next year's "Excellence in Action" summit will take place in Washington, D.C. Across the country, state legislators are filing bills and reading from the scripts handed out at events like "Excellence in Action."

This is the result of years of groundwork by conservative groups such as The Heritage Foundation, the Jaquelin Hume Foundation, and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. The latter group, which will celebrate Milton Friedman's centennial next year, feels the movement that Friedman launched with an article in 1955 is finally breaking through. "There is a lot of action," said Leslie Heiner, who directs the Foundation's educational programs. "There's an enthusiasm that's percolating all over the place. It's a very exciting time for school choice right now."

Booster claims aside, it is not a very bipartisan excitement. The heavy presence of Republican legislators and libertarian think tanks belied the claim, made by Jeb Bush at the close of the conference, that the issue unites left and right. Indeed, moderator Michele Bernard concluded the conference by asking Adrian Fenty, "How can we get more Democrats involved?"

One way is to pay them $4.5 million and stock, Joel Klein's reported package at News Corp. It might also help to tone down the Religious Right flavor of education reform events. Despite the protestations of organizers that theirs is an ultra-modern, bipartisan affair, the proceedings in San Francisco ended with a prayer that laid claim not just to the Constitution's blessing, but also that of a Supernatural Being or two.    

"We pray," intoned the event's in-house clergyman, "for the courage to take what we've learned here and apply it in our states for the betterment of our children, in the name of Jesus Christ, son of the Lord our God."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by danielsangeo (October 19, 2011 3:50 pm ET)
      12  
      "For-profit education". Two words that should not go together.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BrunoBehrend (October 19, 2011 5:59 pm ET)
           
        Other than with a knee-jerk ideological bias, can you support that statement?

        First, with superintendents, some teachers, and other connected public monopolists retiring with million dollar pensions (in net present value), One could easily make the case that there are "obscene profits" inside the existing monopoly.

        Next, assuming an open market, it seems clear that a "for-profit" education system, where money followed the child to a vast new array of education services and options, would dramatically outperform the existing (and failing system).

        The existing system is very "profitable" for those inside the system. It's high time we dismantled it. I'm quite confident that a slew of newly liberated teachers, with excellent tools at their disposal, will dramatically outperform both the awful "district system," as well as any set of schools opened up by big, faceless corporations.

        I'm also quite confident that big, faceless corporations will outperform big, faceless, school districts run by corrupt bureaucrats and union drones.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jjames1012 (October 19, 2011 8:52 pm ET)
           
        Do you have any idea what the difference is between for-profit and non-profit education?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Cool Blue Reason (October 20, 2011 10:06 am ET)
           
        Agreed -- particularly to the extent that the comparison here is not apt in the slightest.

        Look, I have no love lost for these guys, but can you show me where any of them are advocating to turn public schools into for-profit institutions?

        The public sector (schools included) has always turned to "for-profit" entities to obtain goods and services ranging from pencils and textbooks to janitorial staff and construction workers.

        Their ideas about improving classroom instruction may not be the right ones to follow, but I don't see how you can realistically call it "for-profit education."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by BrunoBehrend (October 20, 2011 10:46 am ET)
           
        I put a comment/reply to this post up here yesterday, and it hasn't appeared. My guess is the Media Matters doesn't take comments from people who aren't ideologically aligned.

        This is sad. We all know trolls exist on both sides, but why filter genuine debate?

        Mother Jones, to their credit, doesn't suffer this shortcoming.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Iceguy (October 19, 2011 3:52 pm ET)
      10  
      Why you think they have to get the Teachers out of the way...we must stop these evil people Real America.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Liberal in the South (October 19, 2011 3:58 pm ET)
      5  
      right we have too many employed people and our kids are learning too much. We need online courses so we can dumb down America and fire teachers. Sheeesh!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (October 19, 2011 4:11 pm ET)
        2  
        Nothing like a computer to provide that extra attention that some students need to better understand and succeed at their lessons. Great plan.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dogbreath (October 19, 2011 3:58 pm ET)
      3  
      They want to change education in a fricken' video game where they chose the subject matter.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MiG (October 19, 2011 4:02 pm ET)
      6  
      They will not stop until they have turned this country into Somalia.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by AB-001 (October 19, 2011 4:08 pm ET)
      8  
      Having taught in colleges for the better part of the past seven years, and with my limited experiences with "for-profit" schools, I couldn't think of a better match then these places and Murdoch's empire.

      For-profit schools are for the most part sleazy operations that care little for either students or teachers. They demand an great deal from the teachers in terms of "training," a lengthy process for which there is much work required but no compensation, and pay rates are miniscule (at least that's been my case...and I never finished "training" as they required far too much of my time and offered too little in pay to justify the lengthy, time-intensive training).

      Worst of all, they charge high tuition rates, bilking students out of money and encouraging application for student loans, which guarantees the college makes money...even if the student doesn't complete the work, as too often the case. Teachers don't show to class, classes don't offer challenges, and the degrees are generally worthless if trying to transfer to a four-year school. Some of these schools are accredited by the same agencies that accredit dog training schools, beauty schools, and golf schools. Not exactly college level stuff.

      Good rule of thumb: if the school advertises on Springer, then it's probably not a quality education. Rupert picked himself a real winner.

      Now watch Fox start running "news" items on for-profit schools.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by J.Bodin (October 19, 2011 6:07 pm ET)
           
        AB-001

        Your complaint is invalidated by your poor use of the English language. I know this isn't a formal setting, but considering the subject and source of your post, one would expect a higher caliber comment.

        Teachers and teachers unions will always be a source of poor student performance. Not the only source, but A source. However, believing that computers or privatization alone will somehow improve the school system is self-deceptive.

        IMHO, the real problem with poor student performance can't be pinned on a single source. It can't be pinned on teachers, unions, funding, corporations, or parents. There is a serious societal deficiency in America, one that most people are unwilling to acknowledge.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jjames1012 (October 19, 2011 8:54 pm ET)
           
        It is truly unfortunate that you think all for-profit schools are the same.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (October 19, 2011 4:08 pm ET)
      6  
      Come on now! It's cleary worked so well with post secondary institutions!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (October 19, 2011 4:14 pm ET)
        2  
        Oh - and kudos alexander zaitchik!

        Speakers urged lawmakers to seize the moment to push through reforms and defenestrate their best-organized critics -- the teachers unions


        Don't see that used enough imo.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (October 19, 2011 4:37 pm ET)
        2  
        That's a good show. The profit colleges are the next bubble to burst. If I didn't know any better I might think that incentivizing big time investors to pump and dump everything from homes to education is kind of a crummy economic model.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Imbecile (October 19, 2011 4:10 pm ET)
      4  
      Anyone who engages in any type of service that is for profit has only one goal in mind: money.

      Any other lofty goal they preach or any other humbly altruistic narrative they try to advance is bulls**t.

      The only reason anyone gets involved in a for-profit venture is to make money.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjames1012 (October 19, 2011 8:58 pm ET)
           
        Do the people in this forum only think that for-profit schools make money? Your "traditional" schools are free? They do not make money off students? Come on people. The main difference is that for-profit is not funded by the state or receive and funds to help them run. You don't think that you pay for the "traditional" schools? Where do you think some of your tax money is going to??
        Report Abuse
    • Author by BDA (October 19, 2011 4:25 pm ET)
      2  
      The ultimate conclusion to the GOP reforms of education is quite simple. We will have one curriculum with one teacher for all students. One uber-teacher will be online and will teach the lessons. The classrooms will be more like auditoriums packed with students and they will have a couple of low paid assistants there to clarify if a student has a question. Learning will be treated as a one-size-fits-all commodity.

      Isn't is funny how a professional like a teacher is a burden to the system and should be replaced with engineers and businessmen, but no one ever thinks of saving money by hiring an engineer for an operation or hiring a businessman to defend you in court.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BDA (October 19, 2011 4:33 pm ET)
        2  
        Besides, making law and medicine a for profit venture has really driven down the cost of healthcare and legal defense. Conservatives like to claim that we have the greatest healthcare system in the world. Wouldn't they like to make America's education system the best in the world by paying and treating teachers the same as Doctors? Why dont we have all of our sick people just look up diseases online and then go to an assistant for clarification and treatment. An online doctor like WebMD could replace hundreds of thousands of expensive doctors and drive down the cost of healthcare.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Conchobhar (October 19, 2011 4:32 pm ET)
      3  
      As usual with Murdoch, the tentacles of all his operations work together. It now becomes clear that the bashing of the public schools that Hannity and his ilk have been indulging in for the past few years were laying the groundwork for this, just as the relentless, "Government is not the solution; government is the problem," laid the groundwork for the selling of the American Republic.
      I used to joke that I'd have been doing the world a service if I'd sent a bomb with my 3rd grade son when he weekended with the Murdoch's on L.I. 30 years ago. Pretty soon I'll be saying it seriously.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jcgrim (October 20, 2011 10:50 am ET)
        1  
        Conchobahr, you are absolutely correct. However, corporate take over of public education is not confined to Murdoch and the Republicans. Obama's Dep of Ed's Race to the Top mandates (none of which are proven effective according to Institute of Education Science) gave Wall Street the perfect opening for Murdoch and his ilk to form corrupt public/private partnerships in poor, inner city communities. Money laundering charter schools, private school management companies and mayoral takeovers impose a corporate model that generates profits off the backs of poor, powerless children and communities.

        "Private actors who simply take state services over by profiting off of taxpayer money are no different than the government, after all, they’re just for-profit government." -- E.D. Kain

        Hedge fund managers and financial industry millionaires founded Democrats for Education Reform (DFER). The Center for American Progress (CAP)run by John Podesta has produced white papers using the same arguments as Murdoch to crack open public money to privatizers of public education. Stand for Children in Chicago bought off elected officials to undermine the teachers union by lobbying for exactly the same laws being written by ALEC to undermine public education. The similarities between these efforts by allegedly opposing parties are striking. (Be sure and watch the video of Edelman at the Aspen Institute in Klonsky's blog)

        The questions we should be asking of both parties is why does Wall Street suddenly have an interest in public education? Because they like to make money.
        and recent education reforms along with "new tax credits" and Education Management Organizations, EMO's, have provided ample opportunity to make a dollar.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete x tp (October 19, 2011 4:51 pm ET)
      4  
      There are three major factors that influence the success of public schools.

      1. The wealth of the community.
      2. The wealth, motivation, and aspirations of parents.
      3. The quality and dedication of teachers.

      None of those would be helped in any way by privatizing our schools. In fact, they would make it far, far, worse. The wealthiest communities would keep all their own and prohibit outsiders from sharing while poor communities would have horrible schools or no schools at all.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 19, 2011 6:23 pm ET)
        3  
        The wealthiest communities would keep all their own and prohibit outsiders from sharing while poor communities would have horrible schools or no schools at all.
        Absolutely right. As someone yesterday wrote, I've forgotten whether here or elsewhere, without the government the folks in the Tennessee Valley would still be going to bed at dusk, and those who could read would be doing it by candle light. What private electric company would run cables, etc, to an isolated farmhouse? Where's the profit in that? By the same token, what for profit charter school is going to open in a community that can't keep it's execs in Lexuses?

        This whole destroy-public-schools movement absolutely exposes as a vicious lie the right-wing meme, "We believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by danielsangeo (October 19, 2011 7:11 pm ET)
             
          I mentioned rural electrification yesterday. The government is there for what private industry can't (or won't) do, for example, because it's not profitable to run lines out to a single customer and maintain said lines (I wouldn't either if I was trying to run a business so I'm not harshing the business), and if the single customer moves away or otherwise is not able to be a customer , then they have all those lines running out to the middle of nowhere now for no reason at all. That investment, what little it was, has gone down the tubes.

          I understand how good for-profit businesses can be, but for some things, a focus on profit is harmful and detrimental to the American people. A focus on profit instead of the health and well-being of a patient harms the patient. A focus on profit instead of the education of America's youth harms the youth and, eventually, the nation. And so on.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle tearfully55timetable (October 19, 2011 6:05 pm ET)
      1  
      There has been an obvious decline in critical thinking in our schools and in this generation. People, it seems, are communicating in sound bites and snarky remarks to get their point across. Teaching our children who are forming their minds and intellect via digital will futher nail the coffin shut in our Republic. At what point will conservatives decide that we cannot survive as a nation with profit as a motive while couching their concerns in a lack of christian faith or the tearing up of the constitution? Murdoch and education reform, should not be used in the same sentence. Their vision sickens me. I guess the more you know will no longer apply.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NotSure8 (October 20, 2011 2:31 pm ET)
         
      So now who is it that's wanting to "indoctrinate" our students?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.