 In the last week, I learned that the founders of the EdTech company I worked for finally left. I have mixed emotions about this. I poured my heart into that company for five years, and I was left with empty promises, so on one hand, I am glad they are gone. On the other hand, I do feel a bit sorry for them.
The trash bag promises that were made to me failed because of two factors. The first is the complete arrogance of my former company’s co-founders, which you can read about HERE. The second reason was out of their control, and it boils down to the scam of the parent company that acquired my former company. In the end, my former cofounders became enamored with size and valuation, and it has come back to bite them in the butt. The parent company has now completely failed, and it can be used as a lesson on the dangers of private equity funding. This parent company got its start in India. It was founded by two former teachers (although now part of me doubts that story) and around tutoring. India has significant high-stakes testing, and these two teachers have made their name known by tutoring massive groups of Indian students in stadiums. This success made private equity take notice, and the funding started to pour in. I first heard of them before COVID-19, when they started expanding internationally. Their first US acquisition was a company that built apps for the iPad and used the iPad’s camera to mirror what students were doing with tangible pieces in front of the camera. I had been connected to the company through the EdTech world and was happy about their acquisition (I had friends who worked there), but the fact that the acquiring company was internationally based did give me pause. By 2020, this company hit what they thought to be the jackpot for their business. The COVID pandemic struck, and schooling became web-based. COVID became an opportunity for a company that prides itself on online tutoring. More funding poured in (even though revenue wasn’t close), and the company went on a spending spree, acquiring 10 Ed-Tech startups, including my former company. Through all this, the private equity money was pouring in (even from well-known groups like Mark Zuckerberg’s foundation). Still, corporate governance might have been one of the worst situations in business history. Private Equity firms had seats on the board of directors, but they could not pull the founders with them. The founders had no interest in putting in place governing measures; their decisions were incredibly flawed, and at this point, the only conclusion is that either they are arrogant fools or it was all set up for them to get rich quickly, and it was a scam. A multitude of insane decisions led to where we are now. There was spending 1 million + on ISTE. There was the hardware device that they bet on and then shelved. Somebody decided to keep all companies separate with separate leadership. There were what felt like the 100’s of Vice President titles that stepped over each other. There was the 60 million + in hardware inventory that one of the US companies was stuck with, but above all, there was the 1.2 billion loan the company took out to fund everything. They never thought the money spigot would turn off, and it showed. The story of this company shows the dangers of private equity in EdTech. It’s all a bet on potential, and those firms are never in it for students. They are there to make money, and students be damned. Many EdTech companies in the US are funded by private equity. While some have the resources to survive, where will others be when the check comes due? Will they make the right decisions to conserve funding? Will they spend the money to innovate when the market changes? There might be more collapses coming. Will your favorite tool be ready?
0 Comments
 I recently left an EdTech company, and my time there evolved into a version of Stockholm Syndrome. I identified with the company's founders because I believed a shared goal existed. I had a great middle manager who was a true mentor. I loved the product. Those positive aspects blinded me. I ignored the company's true self, so I was caught there when I should have been elsewhere. This was a company run by Silicon Valley lifers, not educators. Their goals were inherently different than mine.
Three men founded the company I was with. As I think about my time with them, all I keep returning to is arrogance. It’s what permeated my time with them and led to the situation they put us all in. That arrogance focused on two of them, while the third was the programming genius behind the platform. The programming genius is brilliant and incredibly kind. I don’t lump him in the arrogant pool at all, even though he is the one who would be the most justified if he was. Like I said, he is brilliant. As I think back, I should have seen this issue right away. In 2018, I began looking for my next step as I had done what I could as an education technology coach. I began looking into the EdTech industry because I had friends who loved life there. I knew I would be great in a community manager or professional development role. I started exploring my options and was recruited by my former company after a chance meeting at a conference. The executive who recruited me was tight with the founders, and I thought it would be in a teacher-facing role. As I interviewed, though, I quickly realized it was sales. Sales scared me. I had heard horror stories about folks not meeting target numbers and being let go. I voiced those concerns in my interview but was quickly told we could teach you. This is the first point where I should have seen that arrogance. I was someone who had never been in sales. I needed time, and I did not get it. Almost instantly, I was in meetings where one of the two arrogant leaders would yell intensely at the sales team about their lack of numbers. I got little training from a salesman with a personal style that was incredibly hard to recreate. They even actively kept me away from learning through the other former teacher on staff whose style would closely resemble mine. I was terrified I would get fired, and mind you, this started in OCTOBER. I was not going to be able to fall back on a teaching job until the following August! Thankfully (at the time, not sure now), the company hired a wonderful man to lead the education side about a month after my hire. By March of the following year, I had a long call with him late at night, questioning whether I could do the sales job. Things had gotten so depressing on my end that I thought the end was near. At the time, I did not realize that the founder's arrogance meant I was not set up for success. I barely had any training. I did not have support. Most importantly, I was not given time. Sales takes time to develop a process, approach, and relationships. What I realized later, as we cycled through salespeople, it was not me. It was them. The education leader saw something in me and moved me to a more teacher-facing role in April of the following year to avoid my termination. It meant I had just seven months in the sales cycle, and some were just the SLOWEST months. However, they still had me selling part-time, so I closed with 150K in sales before I was pulled out in September. I look back and am proud of that record, considering where the product was and what happened with salespeople after me. I won’t let the founder's arrogance take that pride from me. Over the years, the entire sales process and team show a clear picture of that underlying arrogance. The answer to every problem was always that we needed more salespeople. It was never let’s build community, let's build word of mouth, let’s market, or let’s fully take care of our existing customers. It was always that we just needed more bodies. I think it came back to the fact that the cofounder had the arrogance to believe that he would be selling millions of dollars if he were in the role. Do you know where that got us though? In my five years there, we cycled through close to 20 sales professionals, with only 2 of them sticking with us for a year. I started betting over/under on people because I knew they would likely fail. Yet, as I sit here today, I see that they are still likely to add more even though the company is close to financial ruin. It also wasn’t just sales. At the start of the 23-24 school year, the company decided they needed more education users, and they decided to go “free.” That free/grant program was one of the most apparent instances of their true arrogance. It started as a way to challenge the free competitor (they are a non-profit) but became so watered down by the founder that it failed miserably. The idea was to give each education user a “grant license,” and they would love it so much that they would purchase the full license the following year. The program had massive problems. To start, it was only for 30 kids. Most of our teachers were elective teachers with multiple classes, had over 30 students in one class, or needed more budget control to make a purchase. Yet, as we rolled this out, the message was that they would love things so much they would have no choice but to purchase. There was 0 understanding of our actual users. There was 0 understanding of what would make them buy. It was just an arrogance of our product that the product was so great we won’t be denied. I did try initially to voice my concerns, but after I was shut down I knew there was no point. Guess who got blamed for the failure, though? The edu team. It wasn’t the absolutely nonsensical water-downed program from the founder. It wasn’t the lack of understanding of what users actually wanted. It was a lack of effort in our arrogant cofounder's mind. And it did not end with that founder. The second founder has always been one to downplay education sales and uplift consumer sales, even though education had always beaten consumer. He thought our product was so good that parents would not have a choice to purchase even at a high price. He operated under the impression that it was the more significant business to scale, so let's focus there and spend money on it. It basically made the edu team second-class citizens in a company where they held up the bottom line. There was never any accommodation that US parents don’t typically spend money on expensive learning software. They thought so little of our role on the Edu team that they felt they could replace things I was doing with folks who had never been near a classroom. For all of us who have been in education, we know that you have to talk the talk. Teachers will figure out the fakes quickly. I imagine that’s where things will be headed soon. I even offered to stay on part-time just to help with that voice, but that arrogance peaked its ugly head through again. I repeatedly saw this arrogance shoot us in the foot in so many other instances. It even led us to where we are today, waiting on promised financial benefits that may never come. It pains me to write this, but I know this story is not exclusive. There are others in that same boat with other companies. I let what I thought was the needed ruthless businessman mentality excuse many of these behaviors. Ultimately, it shot me in the foot, and I would love to have those 5 years back. Hopefully, others can learn from my mistakes. And that’s not to say that founders are all bad. I have met many EdTech founders over the years and had great relationships with several. Even with those folks, though, I can see where the arrogance may have killed them with just a little adversity. Thankfully, I am free of that, and I am led now by a leader here to make things truly better for kids instead of some sort of payout or pumping up his own ego. I am not kissing that ring anymore.  I was a teacher for ten years, and ten years ago, I faced a choice.
I needed a path to advancement, a path to advancing my family's fortunes, and a path to further my career. At that time, I had become enamored with the EdTech world. It was such a fun place to be in 2014. It was a world filled with fun startups making a difference in classrooms. Most were free because they were just worried about user growth. There were fun speakers, conferences, and things to do. I dreamed about what that world could be for me and jumped headfirst into it. I started in 2014 as a tech coach with Kennesaw State University. This role kept me in schools (we were contracted out), but it also let me spread my wings in the EdTech world. I worked with schools on personalized learning initiatives and spoke at conferences. I built a decent brand and helped create a MakerBus. By the time I got to 2018, I felt like I had done everything I could do there. That choice came back. I faced either returning to schools in some capacity or joining the EdTech vendor side. In 2018, an opportunity came up on the vendor side, and I took it. I spent five years with this vendor, supporting teachers with my hands in almost everything that impacted our education users. I had a great mentor, and I loved having the ability to help teachers from around the world. When 2021 hit, this vendor went through what every vendor wants. They got acquired, and that acquisition has been an unmitigated disaster. Someday, I will tell that whole story, but I need to wait for many reasons. That bad acquisition meant that choice came back again. Do I stay in the EdTech industry or head back to school? My first thought was always the EdTech industry, but getting the proper role in the industry proved challenging, and it started with my previous experience. I was working for the EdTech vendor in a role that had left me in a vulnerable spot. The vendor had always kept their team small, and in reality, my role with them crossed several standard lines. I supported customer success, professional development, and even helped manage product development on some of their teacher-facing features. It was a role I loved because my hands were in many pots, but as I started to interview, it became clear that it was a role that was hard to define. I did not have one of those standard titles, and without that, it’s tough to get noticed. My experience as a teacher did not help that much either. While many EdTech companies want former teachers, the roles best suited for them (things like PD and community building) either did not have salaries that worked for my situation or had just dried up. EdTech just wasn’t this same anymore. I could see it when I went to conferences. Booths were almost all hardware vendors or massive companies that you had to buy into their whole portfolio. I could see it with friends of mine who had their jobs either eliminated or downgraded. Flip (formerly Flipgrid) is a great example. Microsoft decided to kill the product and make it a Teams feature. It also meant their whole team (who had built one of the best communities in EdTech) got laid off. The fact that Microsoft could not find a way to repurpose these notable personalities made the direction I needed to take clear to me. It is time to return to the classroom and return to my roots. While I learned a great deal at the EdTech company I worked for, I made a mistake going there. One of the many reasons I started as a teacher was for stability, and I let myself get to a place where that wasn’t the case. I let myself get lost there, but going back to the classroom has given me a new sense of purpose. I have landed at a great school where I can make a difference every day, and it's just in time to be on the sidelines with my son. After the chaos of the acquisition years, being in the classroom makes me happy. Many teachers feel like the grass is greener on the tech company side. I am here to tell you it isn’t. While the flexibility can be great, the instability makes it not great. The salaries aren’t necessarily better (I am getting a raise in the classroom.) The healthcare is better in schools. The retirement package is better in schools. You would think the pressure is less, but it is not. The overall stability is a huge reason to stay with a school system and work yourself up that way. So, you're saying it may be all bad with an EdTech company? No, but if you want to move onto the vendor side, I would measure if the juice is worth the squeeze. You only need to examine two factors: 1) Is there long-term stability? 2) Is this a position that can quickly transfer to another company? In retrospect, I should have answered no for both of those questions. The company I went to was a startup looking for an acquisition. While an acquisition can be lucrative, it also can be a significant hindrance as it goes south. You can also look at others challenges. Flipgrid ended as a feature in a Microsoft product with that whole team moving on. I knew almost the entire team at Nearpod before Renaissance acquired them, and nearly all of those folks have moved on. If you're looking for long-term stability, you can limit your search to just a few (Apple, Google, Adobe, Clever, ClassLink, Canvas, Schoology, and others). Even Microsoft isn’t necessarily stable, as their EdTech side recently went through multiple layoffs. I was also not in a transferable position. I did some of everything in the startup world, including support, PD, teacher community, LMS management, customer success, and even a little product development. It meant my title was unique, which was great when I was happy, but it killed me in the EdTech job search. You would think being involved in everything would help, but when competing against thousands of others, getting through the first culling of resumes is hard if an AI is just looking at job titles. If you want to go to the EdTech world, your best route will always be a revenue-generating position, whether direct sales or customer success. That just comes with a whole other group of challenges. If that’s the route you want, just make sure the company is committed (in writing) to giving you time to learn it. Looking back at my time, I will get value out of it. I can lean on my experience in support doing customer service as I work with parents. I have seen the other side so that I can deal with vendors more efficiently. I can help others by telling my story. I am excited to do all that while returning to my roots and doing something rewarding. I will even get to rebuild Big Guy in a Bow Tie. It’s time to get to work. Hi everyone who has supported and read the blog over the years! I appreciate all of the support.
I am writing this post to let everyone know that I am going to take an extended break from the blog. There is a project that I have always wanted to do, and I need to set some things aside to do it. This project is something I have been working on for a long time, but it has always been stop and start. If I want to actually do it, I need to set some things aside. It doesn't mean that this blog will go away. There are tons of old posts and content that you can sort through. I am also not going to give up presenting. I hope to see you at a conference soon, and you will be able to see all of the presentation resources through membership and this site. I will come back to this, I just don’t know when….. David  For the last tool, let's go with something completely free. Not only is it completely free, it is also the best educator community out there, and you can use the tool in multiple ways. Have you figured out what I am talking about yet? Of course it is Flip from Microsoft, and if you have never heard it by that name it used to be called Flipgrid.
At its core, Flip is a platform where you can respond with Video. The basic idea is that you can post a topic/question, and students can easily respond. At its core, that is a great tool for student responses because you can see both their natural explanation of a topic and body language. With Flip being video, it also can be an amazing creative tool. Flip has an easy to use camera tool to take video and edit. You can also add in some of the modern flare like filters and emojis. It means that Flip can drive any creative project since kids can record and edit. It all just depends on the scenario you outline. The other thing that stands out with Flip is the Educator Community. They had an amazing group of people before it was acquired by Microsoft, and Microsoft has been smart enough to just let them continue to build. If you need that place to feel welcome in Ed Tech, this is the one. You should try them out today.  Aw man, it’s time to head to NY again for NYSCATE in Rochester, NY. This is a conference that I have had the joy of going to twice, and I always love it because it is a different experience then the conferences down here in the south. This year my schedule is packed and it includes:
 Every teacher needs that formal testing tool. They need that Ed Tech tool that will allow them to give a test or a quiz to many, but give personalized and quick feedback. They need that tool that makes grading easy, and it makes things like a final fast. They need Formative.
Formative at its base is a great assessment tool where you can build test and quizzes, but in recent years they have also added support for enhancing things like Google Docs, PDF’s, Google Slides, and Videos. You can take their amazing library of question types and add them there. Those question types are really what makes Formative stand out. You can add almost any question type here including all the basics like multiple choice, fill in the blank, matching, and others. It also has some more intense question types that are incredibly helpful like video responses and whiteboards. If there is a question type you like, it’s probably here. The other key is that all data you get in real time. I know how busy teachers are and how hard it is to give quick feedback. This tool allows teachers to get that feedback instantly, and they can intervene right then and there if a student is having an issue. There are a whole lot of assessment tools out there, but Formative has just the right combination of features and simplicity. I suggest giving it a go today.  As we approach the holidays, I will take a break from this blog and return in January. I however wanted to share with you a series of steps to have an Amazing Hour of Code to close out the year.
The Hour of Code is a yearly event putting schools focus on computer science education, and this year it’s December 5-11. The basic idea is that schools take the time to have kids try code to build interest and understanding. It’s basically many schools' solution to get kids coding while they try and figure out how to get it embedded in the curriculum. The Hour of Code was started by code.org, and code.org has several steps you can take to get things going. It’s a good pathway to take so with this blog posting right before the 5th I thought this would be a great time to share. Steps to an Amazing Hour of Code
 GAETC is my home conference, and this year is officially my 10th! I started speaking at GAETC in 2021 and have been every year since. It’s always good to be home, and this year I have two sessions at the conference. I can’t wait to be there! Here are the two sessions I have
 Assessment tools are an interesting lot. You can look at formal tools that allow you to take decent grades, and you have others which are less formal and can be used as both quick checks and reviews. The tools we are going to talk about today are the latter, and many of you have likely already heard of them: Kahoot and Quizziz.
The basic idea with both tools is the teacher puts in multiple choice questions. Students log into the quiz with a code, and then they score points with quick correct answers. It makes the quz a fun competitive game and kids love it. Both tools are fairly similar, but Kahoot started being a bit more teacher directed. Quizziz was the one that was more student directed with the difference being on who advances the question. The other difference is they both have a very unique look and feel. Quizziz uses memes to bring a fun vibe, while Kahoot’s structure and music make it feel like a game show. They are both structured to bring fun to the classroom, but students are also learning as they go! |
Archives
December 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed
