Also, stuff like this (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/552012/approved/20...) seems to give Pearson the ability to arm-twist states into using their standardized tests ("otherwise we'll move somewhere else").
We will also be opting out like @themartorana. In case you want similar content about opting out with regards to NY state, look here:
That is the key question. And it is a rhetorical question. It would be better to point to the fact that "this is not supposed to be the job of a private company." Phrasing it as a question implies that there may be a legitimate answer, and offers the people pulling this crap an opportunity to try to justify it with an answer.
I've been to school board meetings where concerned parents ask rhetorical questions. IMHO the approach needs to shift to pointing out the boards responsibilities and the fact that they are not meeting them. Outsourcing is both failure to do your job, and also violating the childrens privacy as mandated by law. "Opting" in or out is just a diversion - it implies again that what they're doing ok because it's optional.
In a nutshell: because a profound ideological shift has occurred in the last 40 years, which dictates that nearly all aspects of public life should ultimately be privatized -- real effectiveness, hidden costs (and nefarious side effects) be damned.
now they moved several undergrad and extra classes that were taught by phd TAs to 60% online on Pearson black board system. which is a piece of crap site made in java.
their selling point to the university was that they could save money they pay to TAs. as if TAs are even paid... there is nothing in their pitch (which became public after a small strike) mention better learning.
Welcome to money in American politics, and one of many reasons behind the outrage at the result of Citizens United v FEC