Pearson: Difference between revisions

Line 36:

Pearson has admitted to ongoing surveillance of online activity and social media accounts, comments made about their tests and test contents, and checking social media accounts against a list of students taking their exams. This has created backlash from parents and the consortium of states against child surveillance.<ref name=":5" /> Among the information collected include the child's name, state of residence, and which school they attend. Pearson states the surveillance is for due diligence and test security. <ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Singer |first=Natasha |date=2015-03-17 |title=Pearson Under Fire for Monitoring Students’ Twitter Posts |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/pearson-under-fire-for-monitoring-students-twitter-posts |website=The New York Times}}</ref>

==='''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''(2025)'''===

==='''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''''(2025)'''''===

Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches from 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage failures in inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risks in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-12-15 |title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students |website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance.<ref name=":6" /> Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards, AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches was noted to have significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=2022-12-13 |title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking |website=GOV.UK}}</ref>

=== Pearson Moves to Textbook Subscription Model ''(2021)'' ===

Pearson launched their subscription service, Pearson +, in 2021, for $14.99 a month to access the platform's full library or $9.99 a month if only one textbook was needed, requiring students to subscribe to a minimum of four months.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schwartz |first=Natalie |date=2021-07-30 |title=Pearson launches direct-to-consumer subscription service in bid for student sales |url=https://www.highereddive.com/news/pearson-launches-direct-to-consumer-subscription-service-in-bid-for-student/604242/ |website=Industry Drive}}</ref> Pearson reported sales growth due to their Inclusive Access deals, which automatically bills the cost of educational materials into student tuition fees rather than students purchasing books elsewhere or using secondhand sources. College administrators expresseed hesitancy about using just one publisher, with some instructors pivoting toward open educational resources (OER).

==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software.<ref name=":7" /> The data breach resulted in administrator login credentials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords to be stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Page |first=Carly |date=2021-08-16 |title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach |url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach |url-status= |website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>

==='''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments (2013)'''===

==='''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments ''(2013)'''''===

$400,000 endowments were made by Pearson and their charity to The University of Texas College of Education Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, which provides evaluation services for policymakers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Stanford |first=Jason |date=2013-12-19 |title=It's Time to Investigate Pearson in Texas, Too |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pearson-new-york-settlement_b_4469167 |website=HuffPost}}</ref> State policymakers have went on to award Pearson over $1 billion in contracts since 2010, suggesting a conflict of interest, including a 5-year deal worth $462 million.<ref name=":3" /> Public opinion, advocates and lawmakers argued Pearson had too much influence over the state's education policy without scrutiny. Although Texas made it illegal for testing company lobbyists to serve on advisory boards and make campaign contributions, Pearson was allowed to operate without oversight. The Texas stance against lobbying was initially aimed at Sandy Kress, the architect of No Child Left Behind policy and a Pearson lobbyist who served on several state advisory boards.<ref name=":3" /> In 2021, Texas scaled down the 30-year Pearson monopoly by signing on ETS and Cambium Assessment, a Washington D.C.-based testing company a $262 million contract while reducing Pearson's contract to $126 million. <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

==='''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)'''===

==='''Self-Dealing Fraud ''(2013)'''''===

Pearson was charged in the state of New York with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Gose |first=Ben |date=2014-11-18 |title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation |url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ |archive-url= |website=Philanthropy}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, which then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Hernández |first=Javier |date=2013-12-12 |title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html |website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 Pearson has admitted to ongoing surveillance of online activity and social media accounts, comments made about their tests and test contents, and checking social media accounts against a list of students taking their exams. This has created backlash from parents and the consortium of states against child surveillance.<ref name=":5" />  Among the information collected include the child's name, state of residence, and which school they attend. Pearson states the surveillance is for due diligence and test security. <ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Singer |first=Natasha |date=2015-03-17 |title=Pearson Under Fire for Monitoring Students’ Twitter Posts |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/pearson-under-fire-for-monitoring-students-twitter-posts |website=The New York Times}}</ref>
-==='''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''(2025)'''===
+==='''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''''(2025)'''''===
 Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches from 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage failures in inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risks in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-12-15 |title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students |website=GOV.UK}}</ref>  A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance.<ref name=":6" /> Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards, AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches was noted to have significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=2022-12-13 |title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking |website=GOV.UK}}</ref>
+=== Pearson Moves to Textbook Subscription Model ''(2021)'' ===
+Pearson launched their subscription service, Pearson +, in 2021, for $14.99 a month to access the platform's full library or $9.99 a month if only one textbook was needed, requiring students to subscribe to a minimum of four months.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schwartz |first=Natalie |date=2021-07-30 |title=Pearson launches direct-to-consumer subscription service in bid for student sales |url=https://www.highereddive.com/news/pearson-launches-direct-to-consumer-subscription-service-in-bid-for-student/604242/ |website=Industry Drive}}</ref> Pearson reported sales growth due to their Inclusive Access deals, which automatically bills the cost of educational materials into student tuition fees rather than students purchasing books elsewhere or using secondhand sources. College administrators expresseed hesitancy about using just one publisher, with some instructors pivoting toward open educational resources (OER).
 ==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===
 The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software.<ref name=":7" /> The data breach resulted in administrator login credentials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords to be stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Page |first=Carly |date=2021-08-16 |title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach |url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach |url-status= |website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>
-==='''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments (2013)'''===
+==='''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments ''(2013)'''''===
 $400,000 endowments were made by Pearson and their charity to The University of Texas College of Education Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, which provides evaluation services for policymakers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Stanford |first=Jason |date=2013-12-19 |title=It's Time to Investigate Pearson in Texas, Too |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pearson-new-york-settlement_b_4469167 |website=HuffPost}}</ref> State policymakers have went on to award Pearson over $1 billion in contracts since 2010, suggesting a conflict of interest, including a 5-year deal worth $462 million.<ref name=":3" /> Public opinion, advocates and lawmakers argued Pearson had too much influence over the state's education policy without scrutiny. Although Texas made it illegal for testing company lobbyists to serve on advisory boards and make campaign contributions, Pearson was allowed to operate without oversight. The Texas stance against lobbying was initially aimed at Sandy Kress, the architect of No Child Left Behind policy and a Pearson lobbyist who served on several state advisory boards.<ref name=":3" />  In 2021, Texas scaled down the 30-year Pearson monopoly by signing on ETS and Cambium Assessment, a Washington D.C.-based testing company a $262 million contract while reducing Pearson's contract to $126 million. <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />
-==='''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)'''===
+==='''Self-Dealing Fraud ''(2013)'''''===
 Pearson was charged in the state of New York with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Gose |first=Ben |date=2014-11-18 |title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation |url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ |archive-url= |website=Philanthropy}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, which then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Hernández |first=Javier |date=2013-12-12 |title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html |website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />