The Accountability Grift: Why Aren't Educational Corporations Held to the Same Standards as Students?
In two recent articles on the current lack of education policy focus in the 2024 presidential campaign—Peter Greene’s “Are Candidates Ignoring Education? Should We Care?” and Bettina L. Love’s “Education Is an Afterthought in This Election. That’s a Problem for All of Us”—both authors grapple with the disheartening absence of meaningful education discourse. But while both critiques are well-argued, they ultimately miss the forest for the trees by accepting the dominant premise: that students and schools are responsible for their own failures, whilst big education corporations are free to cash in without delivering meaningful results.
Greene’s article reflects his frustration with the repeated promises made by presidential candidates, from George H. W. Bush to Joe Biden, all of whom have claimed to prioritise education reform, only to implement policies that either worsened existing inequities or failed to make a lasting impact. He’s understandably weary of federal interventions, as each new administration seems to introduce its own ‘silver bullet’ solution, which more often than not is nothing more than a shiny, PR-friendly boondoggle that leaves students, teachers, and districts bearing the consequences of failure. Bettina Love’s piece echoes this sentiment but hones in more specifically on the inequities within the K-12 system, where students of colour and those from low-income families are disproportionately harmed by flawed policies that perpetuate a two-tiered education system.
Whilst both writers hit on crucial points, they fall into a common trap: accepting the framing that places the onus of accountability on schools and students, rather than where it truly belongs—on the corporations profiting from the education-industrial complex. For decades, educational corporations have developed and sold curriculum and software, promising it will solve every educational problem under the sun. But when these solutions fail to deliver, it’s the students, teachers, and schools that bear the brunt of the blame. Where is the accountability for these companies that have made billions off taxpayer dollars?
The problem with both articles—and indeed with most mainstream education discourse—is that they implicitly accept the current framework of accountability, where students and teachers are held responsible for making inherently flawed software and curriculum work, whilst corporations face no real consequences for their failures. It’s time to flip the script. Instead of holding students accountable for the failures of garbage software like iReady, let’s hold these companies’ payments hostage until they deliver programs that actually work. After all, isn’t that how the rest of the economy works?
Pay on Success: A Model for Real Accountability
In many areas of the economy, businesses don’t get paid until they deliver a product or service that meets a certain standard. Consider the construction industry: contractors don’t receive their final payment until the project is completed to the client’s satisfaction. If a building is poorly constructed, payment is withheld until the problems are addressed. Even in healthcare, doctors and hospitals are increasingly moving toward outcome-based models, where payment is tied to the successful treatment of patients rather than the mere delivery of services.
So why is it that in education, companies can sell schools a shiny new curriculum or piece of software, walk away with millions, and then wash their hands of the whole thing if it doesn’t work? Imagine if a district could withhold payment from a company like Curriculum Associates (the creators of iReady) if, after several years of use, student performance doesn’t improve. If SBAC scores don’t increase, why should the company still be paid in full?
This approach—pay on completion or performance—would fundamentally change the relationship between schools and the education-industrial complex. Rather than acting as passive consumers of whatever new ‘solution’ corporations are hawking, schools could leverage their purchasing power to demand real, demonstrable results. And if those results aren’t delivered, companies shouldn’t get paid.
Where Pay-on-Performance Models Work
This model is hardly revolutionary. It already works in various sectors of the economy where accountability and performance are essential. Let’s take a look at a few examples where companies are only paid when they deliver a successful outcome:
Construction and Contracting: As mentioned, contractors are typically paid in instalments, with a significant portion of the payment withheld until the project is completed to the satisfaction of the client. If the building doesn’t meet code, or if structural issues arise, the contractor is often required to fix the problems before receiving final payment.
Healthcare: In healthcare, pay-for-performance models tie compensation to patient outcomes. Hospitals and doctors are increasingly compensated based on the quality of care provided, rather than the volume of services. If a patient is readmitted within a certain time frame for the same issue, the hospital may not receive full compensation, incentivising quality care.
Software Development: Many software contracts, particularly in the private sector, include performance-based milestones. Companies pay developers once certain functionalities are proven to work, and if the software doesn’t meet expectations, payment is either delayed or reduced.
If these industries can implement pay-on-performance models, why not education? Imagine how this could change the dynamic in a district like LAUSD, where iReady has been used for years without a corresponding rise in SBAC scores. Under this new model, Curriculum Associates would either have to deliver measurable improvements in student performance or offer a refund or discount to the district. This would not only incentivise companies to create better products but also encourage a deeper alignment between corporate interests and the actual educational outcomes that matter—student success.
Accountability in Education: A New Era
For too long, educational corporations have existed in a bubble where they’re shielded from the consequences of their failures. Schools are required to show improvement, students are required to pass tests, and teachers are required to implement whatever half-baked solution a district buys into—but the corporations? They get to walk away with their profits, regardless of whether their products actually work.
A pay-on-performance model would force companies to think twice before overpromising and underdelivering. Instead of designing software and curricula that merely look good in a sales pitch, companies would have to invest in research, development, and ongoing support to ensure their products can actually meet the needs of the schools they serve. And districts, in turn, would have a powerful tool to hold these companies accountable.
This model could also push the education sector to focus more on what truly matters: student outcomes. Too often, decisions about curriculum and software are made based on flashy presentations, slick marketing, or the latest buzzwords, rather than on what will genuinely help students learn. But if companies know they won’t get paid unless they deliver results, they’ll be incentivised to prioritise substance over style.
Flipping the Script
The current accountability framework in education is broken. It holds students and teachers responsible for the failures of corporations, while the corporations themselves continue to rake in profits. It’s time to flip the script. If a company promises that their product will improve student outcomes, then they should be paid only when they deliver on that promise. It’s a simple, common-sense approach that works in other sectors—and there’s no reason it couldn’t work in education.
In a system where educational corporations are finally held accountable for their failures, we might see a new era of innovation, transparency, and, most importantly, improved student outcomes. After all, if companies know their bottom line depends on actual success in the classroom, perhaps they’ll stop treating education like just another growth sector and start treating it like the public good it truly is.
Let’s stop letting these corporations off the hook. It’s time to make them accountable—not just to school boards, but to the students they so often fail to serve. If they can’t deliver, they shouldn’t get paid. Simple as that.