The Advertorial Education Machine: How Capitalism Has Ignored 40% of the Population for Decades
In today’s education reporting, particularly from outlets like The 74, articles often serve as subtle advertisements for corporate-backed interventions, blurring the line between journalism and commercial interest. These pieces frequently promote specific solutions, backed by well-funded corporations, to justify more government spending on interventions that have repeatedly failed to deliver promised literacy gains. This pattern stretches back decades, with billions spent on products that address only a portion of the student population. A key issue consistently ignored in this narrative is the systemic exclusion of Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs). These learners, who make up around 40% of the human population, are left struggling because (as you should know by now) most literacy products are designed for Analytical Language Processors (ALPs), the majority’s learning style. As a result, we see stagnant literacy results, not because of a lack of investment, but because the education system continues to ignore the needs of nearly half the population. By promoting corporate solutions that align with capital interests, outlets like The 74 fail to acknowledge this crucial oversight, further entrenching a flawed system that prioritises profit over effective educational strategies. Today’s article will dive deeper into how these dynamics have shaped decades of literacy interventions.
The Corporate-Education Complex
The corporate influence in education, especially literacy interventions, has its roots in the Cold War era of the 1960s. As the United States competed with the Soviet Union, education became a battlefield for global supremacy. Soviet-aligned nations like Vietnam, Angola, and Cuba saw remarkable literacy gains, boasting near-total literacy within their populations. However, instead of examining what the Soviets had done to achieve such success, capitalists in the U.S. suppressed that information, hidden behind the so-called ‘Iron Curtain.’ They avoided any serious analysis of these successes, not wanting to disrupt the lucrative potential of the U.S. education market.
Under the banner of “It’s for the children,” corporations framed literacy interventions as essential for national security and the future success of America, creating a cash cow for corporate-driven solutions. This messaging, paired with fear of falling behind the Soviets, prompted massive government spending on educational products, most of which were designed with profitability in mind rather than effectiveness. Over the decades, hundreds of billions have been poured into these programs, yet literacy rates have barely improved.
Media outlets, particularly those like The 74, play a key role in perpetuating this cycle by presenting these interventions as critical and ‘evidence-based,’ thus encouraging further government spending. However, these products often cater exclusively to ALPs, leaving GLPs—again, roughly 40% of the human population—without adequate support. The focus remains on profit, and the consistent failure to recognise or support GLPs ensures that the system continues to falter. Despite the lack of progress, corporations have faced little accountability, all while maintaining the revenue flow from public funds. This corporate-education complex has done more to serve its financial interests than to meaningfully address literacy challenges in the U.S.
The Case of the 95% Group
The 95% Group is a prime example of how corporate-driven “solutions” continue to dominate the educational landscape, often to the detriment of students. Their literacy programs, heavily marketed as “evidence-based,” are underpinned by research produced by so-called evidence mills. These companies are hired to conduct studies that meet the bare minimum for federal funding requirements, such as ESSA’s Tier 3 standards, without necessarily producing reliable, meaningful results. The research these companies provide often lacks the rigor of randomised control trials and instead relies on quasi-experimental designs with non-randomised control groups, which introduce bias and reduce the credibility of the findings. Yet, these studies are presented as authoritative, convincing school districts and governments to continue investing in products that don’t actually address the root causes of literacy challenges.
A critical flaw in these programs is their design for only ALPs, completely ignoring GLPs in the student population. This oversight is not just a gap in pedagogy—it’s a systemic failure. By focusing only on ALPs, these programs serve to widen the literacy gap rather than close it. GLPs process language differently, relying on patterns, context, and meaning, and thus need different instructional approaches. Without these tailored strategies, GLPs are left behind, contributing to the very same literacy failures these products are supposedly designed to solve.
The disproportionate success of ALPs in these programs, and the resulting underachievement of GLPs, can be seen in national literacy rates, where approximately 40% of students consistently fail to meet grade-level expectations. This is no coincidence; it aligns almost perfectly with the population percentage of GLPs, indicating that the problem is not with students but with a system that ignores how they learn.
Despite this, corporate-backed programs like those from the 95% Group continue to receive government support and funding. Media outlets, backed by corporate interests, play their part by promoting these products through “evidence” that is neither independent nor accountable. This perpetuates a cycle where superficial success is marketed, while nearly half the student population remains underserved. In reality, the real winners are the corporations, not the students, as billions of dollars continue to funnel into ineffective programs that are far from inclusive. True progress in literacy will only come when educational solutions are designed to support all students, including GLPs, and not just the segment of the population that fits neatly into the existing system.
Ignoring GLPs: A Systematic Issue
GLPs differ significantly from ALPs in how they approach language. GLPs acquire language through multi-sensory chunks or “gestalts,” focusing on patterns, context, feelings, and meaning as a whole rather than breaking down sentences into smaller, analytical components like ALPs do. For GLPs, meaning comes from the complete context of the entire sentence or phrase, often relying on memorised scripts or familiar phrases. This contrasts sharply with ALPs, who tend to focus on phonics, grammar rules, and the sequential structure of language. This fundamental difference means that literacy programs designed with an ALP-centric approach—focused heavily on phonics and isolated skills—are inherently flawed when applied to GLPs.
The vast majority of current literacy programs, including those marketed as “evidence-based,” have been developed exclusively with ALPs in mind, completely overlooking the unique needs of GLPs. As I discussed in my book, Holistic Language Instruction, I wrote in direct response to not seeing GLPs represented in any of the literacy programs I encountered throughout my journey as a special education teacher. This absence persists even in professional development settings, where the default approach is still to cater to ALPs, leaving GLPs unsupported and misunderstood. Consequently, these programs fail to engage GLPs and don’t provide the structure or strategies they need to succeed in literacy.
The lack of consideration for GLPs has clear consequences in national literacy data. Approximately 40% of students consistently fail to meet grade-level literacy expectations, again a number that closely mirrors the estimated percentage of GLPs in the population. This is not a coincidence. It’s the result of a systemic issue where literacy programs, educational policies, and research are skewed towards ALPs, leading to the persistent underachievement of GLPs. By failing to design inclusive literacy programs that address both processing types, the education system continues to leave a significant portion of students behind.
The Fallout of Ignoring GLPs
The corporate-driven education model, by ignoring GLPs, fails nearly half of the student population. These students, whose language processing style is not accounted for in mainstream literacy programs, are left to navigate a system that not only overlooks their needs but actively alienates them. The powerlessness GLPs feel in this system is a core aspect of the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF). GLPs are left powerless to affect change in an educational environment that not only fails to represent them in the curriculum but actively imposes threats to their well-being. This manifests in feelings of anxiety and panic, especially for autistic and AuDHD GLPs, where anticipatory anxiety is a constant presence. Knowing that the curriculum is structured around a learning style that doesn’t fit their own creates a deep sense of alienation and dread, leaving students to wonder why they should even show up if the system doesn’t acknowledge their existence.
Burnout and absenteeism are closely linked to this systemic neglect. Schools that fail to create supportive environments for GLPs drive these students toward disengagement. As the system continues to push ALP-centric programs that trigger anxiety and fail to provide meaningful support, GLPs often experience profound burnout. The anticipatory anxiety that comes with knowing they will face yet another day of being misunderstood, unsupported, and overwhelmed leads to chronic absenteeism. GLPs are left in an unsustainable cycle where they are asked to conform to a learning process that feels foreign, draining their energy and pushing them further away from academic success. This situation is compounded by the lack of accommodations and tailored teaching approaches, which makes it difficult for GLPs to see a place for themselves in the classroom.
In response, many students “vote with their feet.” By disengaging, whether through chronic absenteeism or outright dropping out, they make a clear statement that the system isn’t working for them. The meanings GLPs assign to their educational experience—feeling unseen, unsupported, and alienated—naturally lead to the conclusion that attending school isn’t worth the emotional and mental toll. Why show up to an environment that consistently drives your anxiety, when no part of the curriculum or teaching strategies speaks to your needs? This disengagement is a rational response to a system that has failed to acknowledge, let alone support, nearly 40% of the population.
The Need for a Paradigm Shift
The need for a paradigm shift in literacy interventions goes far beyond pedagogical adjustments—it demands a reckoning with the deeply ingrained systems of power, exclusion, and oppression that have shaped educational policies and practices for generations. The corporate-driven literacy interventions currently in place are not only ineffective for a large segment of the student population, but they also reflect a much darker history rooted in eugenics, ableism, and racism. This historical context, often overlooked, reveals why it’s crucial to hold corporations accountable for their failures and to rethink how we support diverse learners, particularly GLPs.
The legacy of eugenics in the United States has long targeted populations deemed “undesirable,” including students with disabilities, English Language Learners (ELLs), and those from non-dominant cultural backgrounds. For students with Individualised Education Programs (IEPs), the threat was once as tangible as state-sanctioned sterilisation programs that sought to eliminate people with disabilities from the gene pool. Today, autistic individuals face similar existential threats through genetic studies aimed at ensuring that no autistic person is ever born again. Meanwhile, ELLs are marginalized through systemic racism, shaped by exclusionary laws such as the Asian Exclusion Acts and today’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, which frames non-English-speaking students as disposable. This gruesome history underscores the critical need to question why corporations, often complicit in these exclusionary practices, are not held accountable for the ongoing lack of success in their literacy interventions.
Recognising GLPs in literacy interventions is not just a matter of pedagogical adjustment but a call for justice. GLPs have been systematically ignored in favour of programs that cater exclusively to ALPs. This exclusion is both a reflection and a continuation of the eugenicist mindset that privileges certain types of learners over others. Literacy programs must be redesigned to acknowledge and support GLPs, recognising their strengths in pattern recognition, contextual learning, and holistic language acquisition. To continue ignoring GLPs is to perpetuate a system that marginalises a significant portion of students, effectively deeming them invisible or unworthy of support.
A more inclusive future in education would be one that recognises the diverse ways in which students process and engage with language. An education system designed for both ALPs and GLPs would prioritise universal design principles that accommodate all learners, rather than forcing students to conform to a narrow, one-size-fits-all model. This means creating literacy programs that are flexible, responsive, and grounded in a true understanding of neurodiversity. It means developing curricula that incorporate both phonics and whole-language approaches, making room for both analytical and gestalt processing styles. Such a system would also actively resist the legacy of eugenics and exclusion, ensuring that students from marginalized backgrounds, including ELLs and students with disabilities, are seen, supported, and empowered.
Ultimately, this shift requires a critical examination of the systems of power that have shaped educational policies and practices, calling into question who benefits from the current model and at whose expense. Holding corporations accountable for their failures is the first step in dismantling a system that prioritizes profit over the well-being of students (… or, how about we demand our money back?!). A truly inclusive education system would recognise and support the diverse ways in which students learn, ensuring that no one is left behind simply because they don’t fit the mold.
Final thoughts …
After decades of corporate-driven literacy interventions, the results are clear: the needle on literacy has barely moved, and nearly half the population continues to be underserved. Programs designed exclusively for ALPs have consistently failed to support GLPs, leading to systemic underachievement. The focus on profit over pedagogy has left millions of students behind, reinforcing an education system that prioritises the needs of a select few while ignoring the diverse learning styles of others.
It’s time for a complete reevaluation of how literacy products are designed and implemented. Accountability is long overdue for the corporations profiting from programs that continually fail to meet the needs of GLPs. As my book Holistic Language Instruction explores in depth, the solution lies in creating a more inclusive approach—one that supports both ALPs and GLPs in the same classroom. This approach addresses not only early literacy but also adult literacy, for those, like myself, who were failed by the system and reached literacy much later in life. The poor economic outcomes for individuals who do not master their home language early are stark, as they often enter adulthood functionally illiterate, at a severe disadvantage in a capitalist society that equates literacy with economic mobility.
Capitalism has thrived by ignoring the needs of nearly half the population, profiting from interventions that fail to support all learners. A shift toward an inclusive model that recognises the strengths and needs of both ALPs and GLPs is not just an educational necessity but a moral imperative. By acknowledging the diverse ways students learn, we can finally begin to create an education system that works for everyone—not just for corporate interests.