306 page pdf by GSV on “How Education Innovation is Going To Revitalize America and Transform the US Economy”. This obviously attempts to be comprehensive about ed tech innovation ongoing and future trends thereof.
Just their perspective of course, and GSV has invested in some of the companies mentioned in this report, so in a way, it’s at least partly hype and advertising to boost their investment portfolio.
Guess PSA has been saying something along these lines for a while now. But perhaps this is the invitation to big corporations to “buy in” sooner than later by GSV. In other words, the call is out that there’s ROI to be had in education reform and innovation.
This is the core issue, the political issue, that looms over educational reform and innovation. Can we get the innovation goodies without ceding control of education to private hedge funds, establishment powers that be in education, government level politically based decisions?
The teachers’s unions are definitely paranoid about private investment. NEA local in Las Cruces recently said she was “paranoid about people who’s motivation for involvement in education is “getting rich” taking over education. She said it twice, or three times. I guess NEA is good at sticking with talking points.
Educational innovators have reason to be paranoid about teacher’s unions who have been battling successful charter schools, and are in a knock down drag out fight over teacher evaluations and student testing.
PSA might hope that innovation will be on behalf of students and parents first, communities second, with teachers in an important role, but a role undergoing change. Maybe teachers can use the innovation to finally get out from under the “restrictions of bureaucratic administration”, and help guide reforms towards what is best for learning.
But it would be naive to believe that teacher’s unions will uniformly pursue the general goal of students advancement through innovation at their own expense in job security, and bargaining power. It would be equally naive to believe that private investment in education for profit will be “all about the students learning” when it conflicts with profits.
As to the appropriate role for private sector investment and control, it remains to be seen how well the “profit motive” can work for educational public services; the pros and cons are complex, as is the economic theory. There are real dangers, and real opportunities. Which illustrates the folly or intrinsic complexities of a “city on the hill” wishes for “best results” of innovation. It’s going to be quite messy.