A few weeks ago, I wrote a back-to-school essay for National Review, reflecting on the perpetual cycles of hype and disappointment within the education technology sector. Remember the days when handing every student a cell phone was seen as groundbreaking? It often leaves me wondering if this is more a case of unchecked optimism or if there’s something more dubious at play, driven by opportunistic individuals. Recently, I received a message from CIOLook that epitomizes this phenomenon. To quote the legendary Dave Barry, “I am NOT making this up.”
CIOLook, which proudly brands itself as a “prominent global business magazine and platform,” reached out to me to celebrate my “remarkable accomplishments as an EdTech pioneer” (yes, that was oddly bolded in their original message). They offered to “spotlight your expertise and the transformative strides you’ve made in the industry” in their upcoming edition titled “The 10 Most Visionary EdTech Leaders to Watch, 2024.” Their bold approach seems to be part of their branding strategy.
The pitch continued with the promise of inspiration and widespread recognition, stating, “We’d be honored to feature you prominently and share your inspiring journey with our extensive readership.” The prospect of inspiring readers with my journey was exciting; after all, who wouldn’t want to inspire?
The perks sounded enticing: my image would grace the cover, along with “eight full pages of profile” in both print and online formats. They also offered a “guest article” in the edition, two full-page ads, free space on their website for announcements, and 10 free copies of the magazine (with the option to order up to another 10,000).
Initially, I felt validated and acknowledged for my contributions. However, the excitement quickly faded when I noticed the fine print: “There is a nominal cost of $3000 USD for the above-mentioned benefits offered to you.”
It became clear that they weren’t interested in my insights or contributions; they were merely seeking my credit card number. But I suspect you saw that coming.
What broader lessons can we draw from this experience?
First, variations of this kind of solicitation are more common than many realize, and many parents and educators remain unaware. Those well-publicized “40 Under 40” lists, for example, often prioritize networking and public relations over genuine achievement. Yet, these accolades frequently serve as credentials when school systems or educational organizations choose speakers, trainers, or vendors, allowing less-than-deserving candidates to overshadow true merit.
Second, certain areas of education appear particularly vulnerable to dubious products, misleading public relations, and questionable self-promotion. Fields lacking clear standards and metrics, especially those filled with insider jargon—like “setting a vision” or “social-emotional learning”—are ripe for exploitation. While it’s not impossible for shady practices to infiltrate more structured areas like early literacy or standardized test preparation, there are typically clearer benchmarks that help maintain some integrity. Educators, parents, and policymakers should remain vigilant.
Third, while I can’t definitively say that education is more prone to fraud than other sectors, it does possess unique vulnerabilities. Education attracts impassioned optimists and true believers while often lacking skeptical voices. While this isn’t inherently negative—some fields are overly cynical—it can lead to naivety in education. Additionally, the absence of a profit-driven motive in non-profit and public sectors can create an environment where spending grants or budgets takes precedence over critical evaluations of expenditures. This can lead to questionable decisions that ultimately compromise quality.
For those who are distanced from the auto-generated emails of PR firms, it’s crucial to recognize that these practices are pervasive. We must approach lists of “leaders,” “visionaries,” and “influencers” with skepticism. These honorifics do not necessarily indicate expertise or achievement; often, they merely reflect effective PR strategies or a willingness to pay for recognition.
4o mini
