A few months back, I penned a back-to-school essay for National Review on education technology鈥檚 constant cycles of hype and subsequent disappointment. (Remember when giving every student a cellphone in school was the of ?) I sometimes wonder how much of this is runaway optimism and how much is something less savory, fueled by grifters. On that count, I couldn鈥檛 resist sharing a missive I got the other day from . To quote the immortal Dave Barry, 鈥淚 am NOT making this up.鈥�
CIOLook is a self-described 鈥減rominent global business magazine and platform,鈥� and they wanted to celebrate my 鈥渞emarkable accomplishments as an EdTech pioneer鈥� (yup, oddly bolded in the original).
They were offering to 鈥渟potlight your expertise and the transformative strides you鈥檝e made in the industry鈥� by featuring me in their upcoming edition: 鈥�The 10 Most Visionary EdTech Leaders to Watch, 2024.鈥� (They sure like to go bold; maybe that鈥檚 part of the whole visionary thing?)
Recent issues have listed other visionaries, like the 鈥�,鈥� 鈥�,鈥� and 鈥�.鈥� Here was my chance to be part of this tapestry of influence and achievement.
The pitch continued: 鈥淵ou have the chance to inspire and gain widespread recognition. We鈥檇 be honored to feature you prominently and share your inspiring journey with our extensive readership.鈥� I was thrilled by the prospect of inspiring readers with my inspiring journey. I mean, inspiration is where I鈥檓 at!
And there were perks! My image would be on the cover, there鈥檇 be 鈥渆ight full pages of profile鈥� in the print and online magazine as well as a 鈥減rint-ready high-resolution PDF of your profile with reprint rights.鈥� I鈥檇 get a 鈥済uest article鈥� in the upcoming edition, 鈥渢wo full-page advertisements in the magazine,鈥� free space on their website for 鈥渘ews鈥� and press releases, and 10(!) free copies of the magazine (with the option to order up to another 10,000).
I was feeling seen and validated. It鈥檚 so nice to see one鈥檚 contributions acknowledged. And then I noticed the (bolded) fine print: 鈥淭here is a nominal cost of $3000 USD for the above-mentioned benefits offered to you.鈥�
So, yeah, it wasn鈥檛 me they wanted, just my credit card. But I鈥檓 betting you knew that already.
Is there any larger point here? Actually, I think there are a few.
First, in my experience, variations on this sort of thing are more common than you might think鈥攁nd a lot of parents and educators don鈥檛 realize it. Those 鈥�40 Under 40鈥� lists you鈥檒l see, for instance, are typically more about glad-handing and good PR than meaningful accomplishment. But these lists and accolades frequently get treated as credentials when school systems or educational organizations are choosing speakers, engaging trainers, or hiring vendors鈥攅nabling malarkey to crowd out merit.
Second, some segments of education seem more susceptible than others to shady products, dodgy PR, and suspect self-promotion. The risks are especially high in standard-free fields dominated by insiders who know the lingo, like when it comes to 鈥渟etting a vision,鈥� leadership, technology, or SEL. It can be more challenging to employ these deceptive tactics, I suspect, when it comes to early reading or SAT-prep programs. I鈥檓 not saying that sleaze merchants can鈥檛 operate in those instances, but there are clear measures and metrics that put some modest guardrails in place. Practitioners, parents, and policymakers should be duly advised.
Third, I鈥檓 not sure whether education is more susceptible to this fraud than other fields, but I do think our sector may have some specific vulnerabilities. Why? Well, education is thick with impassioned optimists and true believers and light on flinty skeptics. This isn鈥檛 all bad; some fields are too heavy on cynics and far too light on humanists (and that鈥檚 probably a bigger problem in the scheme of things). But education can suffer for the field鈥檚 lack of guile. I also wonder whether much of education suffers because it lacks the callous, self-interested discipline imposed by a profit motive. I mean, if you work in a nonprofit or a public entity and feel more pressure to spend down a grant or a budget allocation by the end of a fiscal year than to maximize operating margins, it may be easier for you to sign off on suspect outlays.
Anyway, those who are healthily insulated from the auto-email lists of the PR flacks should still be aware that this stuff is always going on, which means we would all do well to look with appropriate skepticism at various lists of 鈥渓eaders,鈥� 鈥渧isionaries,鈥� and 鈥渋nfluencers.鈥� It鈥檚 a mistake to think these honorifics necessarily reflect expertise, accomplishment, or know-how. They may just reflect good PR . . . or the willingness to cough up some cold, hard cash.
This piece was originally published at and has been reprinted with permission. The original text has been altered slightly to adhere to Education Week鈥檚 editorial standards.
