I'm in the middle of a training programme to teach on courses run by a well-known online education provider, one that has a close association with the Clintons. I'm not allowed to name the company--I signed a confidentiality agreement. Which I'm now regretting. More below the line...
I've worked in higher education for about 15 years now, in education more generally for longer. My specialty is continuing professional development for special education teachers and disability-related staff in a variety of fields, with a particular focus on autism.
The company in question has entered the UK a few years ago, and works with two UK universities to run online courses.
Here's where things get murky.
I have heard from staff who work at the company's European HQ that the basic ethos of this firm--a company making millions from the US taxpayer and US citizens and now settling in to do the same here and, especially, in the developing world--that its basic business model is to accept absolutely anyone who can be construed as meeting entry qualifications, charge them a lot of money (the course I may be working on costs over $10,000), and maintain staff-student ratios that are extremely high.
They aren't fraudsters like Corinthian, just very, erm, "sharp".
But I've recently had a chance to see the (apparently US-developed) curriculum for the course, and am not happy about what I see so far. Alarm bells began ringing when I saw that material from the Dana Foundation is embedded throughout the programme.
Don't know the Dana Foundation? I would guess a lot of people don't. Look at their Web site and they appear to a legit funding and research dissemination charity. Dig a little deeper and you'll find that William Safire was their chair for ages, and that the board of trustees is stacked full of hard-right nutters, including one who's such an Ayn Rand disciple that he actually founded one of the better-known Rand-supporting organisations (more like a fan club).
Look closer at the research, exhibitions and so on that it funds, and a picture emerges of art, education and "science" being marshalled to do duty in the so-called culture wars. By this I mean the kind of "brain science" that says the Bell curve is a reality, that some people are simply a born to be an elite and others should know their place and be more grateful and well-behaved about staying in it. "Brain science" that's being used to hit out at public education and push the agenda of for-profit providers with products of dubious quality.
The course is also full of the kind of "educational leadership" waffle that has caused huge detriment to actual children in actual schools, the sort of self-aggrandising focus on jabbering about bogus learning models with acronyms while aggressively pursuing "personal development goals" that usually translate into "screw the kids, I'm in this for a fat salary and an admin job where I can outsource everything but jobs for people like me" kind of mentality. It's especially egregious when we export this sort of thing to countries where basic education is lacking.
And the Clintons are--did I mention this?--very big boosters and beneficiaries of this particular company.
I have to admit that I have little love for either of them. Bill passed the foundations of what would later become the Patriot Act, and eviscerated public benefit programmes, amongst other things. But this is an affiliation I wasn't aware of until last week, and it's really bothering me!
I'd like to talk more about this, given that I'm teetering on the edge of quitting the training programme. But I can't, not even then. I would be interested to see if anyone here has perspectives to share on this particular company (I'm not going to name them and don't want you to either, because I don't want this conversation found by the firm, but Google will help you find out who they are in a trice if you don't already know). Is there anything I'm missing? Should we be concerned about the Clintons' association with this company, its business activities and its questionable curriculum?