Pearson - Revision history

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 2 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T12:51:51Z

Added archive URLs for 2 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:51, 23 February 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\|Logo=Pearson plc logo.svg}}		\|Logo=Pearson plc logo.svg}}

	Pearson (formerly Pearson Education) is the for-profit global education business arm of the Pearson plc conglomerate. Pearson provides textbooks, homework system platforms, educational content, assessment tools, exam proctoring and digital platforms to schools, universities and professional certifications worldwide.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.pearson.com/en-us.html\|title=Pearson\|access-date=11 Jan 2026}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.pearsonvue.com\|title=Pearson Exam Proctoring\|access-date=11 Jan 2026}}</ref>		Pearson (formerly Pearson Education) is the for-profit global education business arm of the Pearson plc conglomerate. Pearson provides textbooks, homework system platforms, educational content, assessment tools, exam proctoring and digital platforms to schools, universities and professional certifications worldwide.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.pearson.com/en-us.html\|title=Pearson\|access-date=11 Jan 2026 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260223025440/https://www.pearson.com/en-us.html \|archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.pearsonvue.com\|title=Pearson Exam Proctoring\|access-date=11 Jan 2026 \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260217020107/https://www.pearsonvue.com/ \|archive-date=17 Feb 2026}}</ref>

	==Consumer-impact summary==		==Consumer-impact summary==

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 16 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T07:00:28Z

Added archive URLs for 16 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

Show changes

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: -notices

2026-01-14T07:15:01Z

-notices

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:15, 14 January 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{StubNotice}}~~
	~~{{ToneWarning}}~~
	{{CompanyCargo		{{CompanyCargo
	\|Founded=1998		\|Founded=1998

Gem: /* Incidents */ typo

2026-01-14T06:50:21Z

Incidents: typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 14 January 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:

	===Pearson Moves to Textbook Subscription Model ''(2021)''===		===Pearson Moves to Textbook Subscription Model ''(2021)''===
	Pearson launched their subscription service, Pearson +, in 2021, for $14.99 a month to access the platform's full library or $9.99 a month if only one textbook was needed, requiring students to subscribe to a minimum of four months.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web \|last=Schwartz \|first=Natalie \|date=2021-07-30 \|title=Pearson launches direct-to-consumer subscription service in bid for student sales \|url=https://www.highereddive.com/news/pearson-launches-direct-to-consumer-subscription-service-in-bid-for-student/604242/ \|website=Industry Drive}}</ref> Pearson reported sales growth due to their Inclusive Access deals, which automatically bills the cost of educational materials into student tuition fees rather than students purchasing books elsewhere or using secondhand sources. College administrators ~~expresseed~~ hesitancy about using just one publisher, with some instructors pivoting toward open educational resources (OER).<ref name=":8" />		Pearson launched their subscription service, Pearson +, in 2021, for $14.99 a month to access the platform's full library or $9.99 a month if only one textbook was needed, requiring students to subscribe to a minimum of four months.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web \|last=Schwartz \|first=Natalie \|date=2021-07-30 \|title=Pearson launches direct-to-consumer subscription service in bid for student sales \|url=https://www.highereddive.com/news/pearson-launches-direct-to-consumer-subscription-service-in-bid-for-student/604242/ \|website=Industry Drive}}</ref> Pearson reported sales growth due to their Inclusive Access deals, which automatically bills the cost of educational materials into student tuition fees rather than students purchasing books elsewhere or using secondhand sources. College administrators expressed hesitancy about using just one publisher, with some instructors pivoting toward open educational resources (OER).<ref name=":8" />

	==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===		==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===

Gem at 06:49, 14 January 2026

2026-01-14T06:49:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:49, 14 January 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches from 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage failures in inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risks in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-12-15 \|title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance.<ref name=":6" /> Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards, AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches was noted to have significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web \|date=2022-12-13 \|title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref>		Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches from 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage failures in inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risks in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-12-15 \|title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance.<ref name=":6" /> Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards, AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches was noted to have significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web \|date=2022-12-13 \|title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref>

	=== Pearson Moves to Textbook Subscription Model ''(2021)'' ===		===Pearson Moves to Textbook Subscription Model ''(2021)''===
	Pearson launched their subscription service, Pearson +, in 2021, for $14.99 a month to access the platform's full library or $9.99 a month if only one textbook was needed, requiring students to subscribe to a minimum of four months.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Schwartz \|first=Natalie \|date=2021-07-30 \|title=Pearson launches direct-to-consumer subscription service in bid for student sales \|url=https://www.highereddive.com/news/pearson-launches-direct-to-consumer-subscription-service-in-bid-for-student/604242/ \|website=Industry Drive}}</ref> Pearson reported sales growth due to their Inclusive Access deals, which automatically bills the cost of educational materials into student tuition fees rather than students purchasing books elsewhere or using secondhand sources. College administrators expresseed hesitancy about using just one publisher, with some instructors pivoting toward open educational resources (OER).		Pearson launched their subscription service, Pearson +, in 2021, for $14.99 a month to access the platform's full library or $9.99 a month if only one textbook was needed, requiring students to subscribe to a minimum of four months.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web \|last=Schwartz \|first=Natalie \|date=2021-07-30 \|title=Pearson launches direct-to-consumer subscription service in bid for student sales \|url=https://www.highereddive.com/news/pearson-launches-direct-to-consumer-subscription-service-in-bid-for-student/604242/ \|website=Industry Drive}}</ref> Pearson reported sales growth due to their Inclusive Access deals, which automatically bills the cost of educational materials into student tuition fees rather than students purchasing books elsewhere or using secondhand sources. College administrators expresseed hesitancy about using just one publisher, with some instructors pivoting toward open educational resources (OER).<ref name=":8" />

	==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===		==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===

Gem: Added incident

2026-01-14T06:48:47Z

Added incident

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:48, 14 January 2026
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Pearson has admitted to ongoing surveillance of online activity and social media accounts, comments made about their tests and test contents, and checking social media accounts against a list of students taking their exams. This has created backlash from parents and the consortium of states against child surveillance.<ref name=":5" /> Among the information collected include the child's name, state of residence, and which school they attend. Pearson states the surveillance is for due diligence and test security. <ref name=":5">{{Cite web \|last=Singer \|first=Natasha \|date=2015-03-17 \|title=Pearson Under Fire for Monitoring Students’ Twitter Posts \|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/pearson-under-fire-for-monitoring-students-twitter-posts \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>		Pearson has admitted to ongoing surveillance of online activity and social media accounts, comments made about their tests and test contents, and checking social media accounts against a list of students taking their exams. This has created backlash from parents and the consortium of states against child surveillance.<ref name=":5" /> Among the information collected include the child's name, state of residence, and which school they attend. Pearson states the surveillance is for due diligence and test security. <ref name=":5">{{Cite web \|last=Singer \|first=Natasha \|date=2015-03-17 \|title=Pearson Under Fire for Monitoring Students’ Twitter Posts \|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/pearson-under-fire-for-monitoring-students-twitter-posts \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

	==='''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''(2025)'''===		==='''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''''(2025)'''''===
	Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches from 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage failures in inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risks in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-12-15 \|title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance.<ref name=":6" /> Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards, AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches was noted to have significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web \|date=2022-12-13 \|title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref>		Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches from 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage failures in inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risks in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-12-15 \|title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance.<ref name=":6" /> Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards, AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches was noted to have significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web \|date=2022-12-13 \|title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref>

			=== Pearson Moves to Textbook Subscription Model ''(2021)'' ===
			Pearson launched their subscription service, Pearson +, in 2021, for $14.99 a month to access the platform's full library or $9.99 a month if only one textbook was needed, requiring students to subscribe to a minimum of four months.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Schwartz \|first=Natalie \|date=2021-07-30 \|title=Pearson launches direct-to-consumer subscription service in bid for student sales \|url=https://www.highereddive.com/news/pearson-launches-direct-to-consumer-subscription-service-in-bid-for-student/604242/ \|website=Industry Drive}}</ref> Pearson reported sales growth due to their Inclusive Access deals, which automatically bills the cost of educational materials into student tuition fees rather than students purchasing books elsewhere or using secondhand sources. College administrators expresseed hesitancy about using just one publisher, with some instructors pivoting toward open educational resources (OER).

	==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===		==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===
	The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software.<ref name=":7" /> The data breach resulted in administrator login credentials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords to be stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web \|last=Page \|first=Carly \|date=2021-08-16 \|title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach \|url-status= \|website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>		The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software.<ref name=":7" /> The data breach resulted in administrator login credentials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords to be stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web \|last=Page \|first=Carly \|date=2021-08-16 \|title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach \|url-status= \|website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>

	==='''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments (2013)'''===		==='''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments ''(2013)'''''===
	$400,000 endowments were made by Pearson and their charity to The University of Texas College of Education Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, which provides evaluation services for policymakers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web \|last=Stanford \|first=Jason \|date=2013-12-19 \|title=It's Time to Investigate Pearson in Texas, Too \|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pearson-new-york-settlement_b_4469167 \|website=HuffPost}}</ref> State policymakers have went on to award Pearson over $1 billion in contracts since 2010, suggesting a conflict of interest, including a 5-year deal worth $462 million.<ref name=":3" /> Public opinion, advocates and lawmakers argued Pearson had too much influence over the state's education policy without scrutiny. Although Texas made it illegal for testing company lobbyists to serve on advisory boards and make campaign contributions, Pearson was allowed to operate without oversight. The Texas stance against lobbying was initially aimed at Sandy Kress, the architect of No Child Left Behind policy and a Pearson lobbyist who served on several state advisory boards.<ref name=":3" /> In 2021, Texas scaled down the 30-year Pearson monopoly by signing on ETS and Cambium Assessment, a Washington D.C.-based testing company a $262 million contract while reducing Pearson's contract to $126 million. <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />		$400,000 endowments were made by Pearson and their charity to The University of Texas College of Education Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, which provides evaluation services for policymakers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web \|last=Stanford \|first=Jason \|date=2013-12-19 \|title=It's Time to Investigate Pearson in Texas, Too \|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pearson-new-york-settlement_b_4469167 \|website=HuffPost}}</ref> State policymakers have went on to award Pearson over $1 billion in contracts since 2010, suggesting a conflict of interest, including a 5-year deal worth $462 million.<ref name=":3" /> Public opinion, advocates and lawmakers argued Pearson had too much influence over the state's education policy without scrutiny. Although Texas made it illegal for testing company lobbyists to serve on advisory boards and make campaign contributions, Pearson was allowed to operate without oversight. The Texas stance against lobbying was initially aimed at Sandy Kress, the architect of No Child Left Behind policy and a Pearson lobbyist who served on several state advisory boards.<ref name=":3" /> In 2021, Texas scaled down the 30-year Pearson monopoly by signing on ETS and Cambium Assessment, a Washington D.C.-based testing company a $262 million contract while reducing Pearson's contract to $126 million. <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

	==='''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)'''===		==='''Self-Dealing Fraud ''(2013)'''''===
	Pearson was charged in the state of New York with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web \|last=Gose \|first=Ben \|date=2014-11-18 \|title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation \|url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ \|archive-url= \|website=Philanthropy}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, which then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hernández \|first=Javier \|date=2013-12-12 \|title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html \|website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />		Pearson was charged in the state of New York with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web \|last=Gose \|first=Ben \|date=2014-11-18 \|title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation \|url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ \|archive-url= \|website=Philanthropy}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, which then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hernández \|first=Javier \|date=2013-12-12 \|title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html \|website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />

Gem at 06:32, 14 January 2026

2026-01-14T06:32:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:32, 14 January 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:

	==='''Market Control'''===		==='''Market Control'''===
	Pearson is the largest company in higher education with influence over test administration, teacher licensing, educational software, eBooks, grading, guidelines. The company has a history of undisclosed lobbying and applying non-profit funds towards their for-profit business.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hu \|first=Winnie \|date=2011-12-21 \|title=Testing Firm Faces Inquiry on Free Trips for Officials \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/education/new-york-attorney-general-is-investigating-pearson-education.html \|website=New York Times}}</ref> Since 2021, the state of Texas has made efforts to move away from Pearson's 30 year monopoly over exam testing. <ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|last=Gross \|first=Allie \|date=2015-05-20 \|title=Pearson loses Texas testing account to ETS after 15-year relationship \|url=https://www.k12dive.com/news/pearson-loses-texas-testing-account-to-ets-after-15-year-relationship/399546/ \|website=~~ABC 13 Eyewitness News~~}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web \|last= \|first= \|date=2021-01-05 \|title=Texas hires two companies to run STAAR, moving toward statewide online testing \|url=https://abc13.com/post/staar-tests-online-texas-public-schools-cambium-assessment-pearson/9357526/ \|website=ABC 13 Eyewitness News}}</ref>		Pearson is the largest company in higher education with influence over test administration, teacher licensing, educational software, eBooks, grading, guidelines. The company has a history of undisclosed lobbying and applying non-profit funds towards their for-profit business.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hu \|first=Winnie \|date=2011-12-21 \|title=Testing Firm Faces Inquiry on Free Trips for Officials \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/education/new-york-attorney-general-is-investigating-pearson-education.html \|website=New York Times}}</ref> Since 2021, the state of Texas has made efforts to move away from Pearson's 30 year monopoly over exam testing. <ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|last=Gross \|first=Allie \|date=2015-05-20 \|title=Pearson loses Texas testing account to ETS after 15-year relationship \|url=https://www.k12dive.com/news/pearson-loses-texas-testing-account-to-ets-after-15-year-relationship/399546/ \|website=K12 Dive}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web \|last= \|first= \|date=2021-01-05 \|title=Texas hires two companies to run STAAR, moving toward statewide online testing \|url=https://abc13.com/post/staar-tests-online-texas-public-schools-cambium-assessment-pearson/9357526/ \|website=ABC 13 Eyewitness News}}</ref>

	==Incidents==		==Incidents==
Line 46:		Line 46:

	==='''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)'''===		==='''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)'''===
	Pearson was charged in the state of New York with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web \|last=Gose \|first=Ben \|date=2014-11-18 \|title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation \|url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ \|archive-url=}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, which then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hernández \|first=Javier \|date=2013-12-12 \|title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html \|website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />		Pearson was charged in the state of New York with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web \|last=Gose \|first=Ben \|date=2014-11-18 \|title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation \|url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ \|archive-url= \|website=Philanthropy}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, which then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hernández \|first=Javier \|date=2013-12-12 \|title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html \|website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />

	===New York Statewide Exams Failure (''2012'')===		===New York Statewide Exams Failure (''2012'')===

Gem: grammar and typos

2026-01-14T06:30:28Z

grammar and typos

Show changes

Gem: /* Products */

2026-01-14T05:58:28Z

Products

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 14 January 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:
	This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|{{PAGENAME}} category]].		This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|{{PAGENAME}} category]].

	=== '''Pearson Surveillance of Children's Social Media Accounts (2015 - )''' ===		==='''Pearson Surveillance of Children's Social Media Accounts (2015 - )'''===
	Pearson has admitted ongoing surveillance of online activity and social media accounts, comments made about their tests and test contents, and checking accounts against a list of students taking their exams. This has created backlash from parents and states against child surveillance. Among the information collected is is the child's name, state of residence, and which school they attend. The consortium of states has asked Pearson to stop checking names against its own list of students, but Pearson claims it is for due diligence and test security. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Singer \|first=Natasha \|date=2015-03-17 \|title=Pearson Under Fire for Monitoring Students’ Twitter Posts \|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/pearson-under-fire-for-monitoring-students-twitter-posts \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>		Pearson has admitted ongoing surveillance of online activity and social media accounts, comments made about their tests and test contents, and checking accounts against a list of students taking their exams. This has created backlash from parents and states against child surveillance. Among the information collected is is the child's name, state of residence, and which school they attend. The consortium of states has asked Pearson to stop checking names against its own list of students, but Pearson claims it is for due diligence and test security. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Singer \|first=Natasha \|date=2015-03-17 \|title=Pearson Under Fire for Monitoring Students’ Twitter Posts \|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/pearson-under-fire-for-monitoring-students-twitter-posts \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

	=== '''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''(2025)''' ===		==='''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''(2025)'''===
	Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches spanning between 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risk in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-12-15 \|title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, serious systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance. Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2022-12-13 \|title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref>		Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches spanning between 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risk in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-12-15 \|title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, serious systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance. Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2022-12-13 \|title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref>

Line 42:		Line 42:
	The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach involving a data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software that resulted the administrator login credentials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Page \|first=Carly \|date=2021-08-16 \|title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach \|url-status= \|website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>		The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach involving a data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software that resulted the administrator login credentials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Page \|first=Carly \|date=2021-08-16 \|title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach \|url-status= \|website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>

	=== '''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments (2013)''' ===		==='''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments (2013)'''===
	$400,000 endowments were made by Pearson and their charity to The University of Texas College of Education Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, which provides evaluation services for policymakers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web \|last=Stanford \|first=Jason \|date=2013-12-19 \|title=It's Time to Investigate Pearson in Texas, Too \|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pearson-new-york-settlement_b_4469167 \|website=HuffPost}}</ref> State policymakers have went on to award Pearson over $1 billion in contracts since 2010, suggesting a conflict of interest, including a 5-year deal worth $462 million in testing contract.<ref name=":3" /> Although Texas made it illegal for testing company lobbyists to serve on advisory boards and make campaign contributions, Pearson was allowed to operate without oversight. The Texas stance against lobbying was initially aimed at Sandy Kress, the architect of No Child Left Behind policy and a Pearson lobbyist who served on several state advisory boards.<ref name=":3" />Public opinion, advocates and lawmakers argued Pearson had too much influence over the state's education policy without scrutiny. In 2021, Texas scaled down the 30-year Pearson monopoly by signing on ETS and Cambium Assessment, a Washington D.C.-based testing company a $262 million contract, reduced Pearson's contract to $126 million. <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />		$400,000 endowments were made by Pearson and their charity to The University of Texas College of Education Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, which provides evaluation services for policymakers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web \|last=Stanford \|first=Jason \|date=2013-12-19 \|title=It's Time to Investigate Pearson in Texas, Too \|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pearson-new-york-settlement_b_4469167 \|website=HuffPost}}</ref> State policymakers have went on to award Pearson over $1 billion in contracts since 2010, suggesting a conflict of interest, including a 5-year deal worth $462 million in testing contract.<ref name=":3" /> Although Texas made it illegal for testing company lobbyists to serve on advisory boards and make campaign contributions, Pearson was allowed to operate without oversight. The Texas stance against lobbying was initially aimed at Sandy Kress, the architect of No Child Left Behind policy and a Pearson lobbyist who served on several state advisory boards.<ref name=":3" />Public opinion, advocates and lawmakers argued Pearson had too much influence over the state's education policy without scrutiny. In 2021, Texas scaled down the 30-year Pearson monopoly by signing on ETS and Cambium Assessment, a Washington D.C.-based testing company a $262 million contract, reduced Pearson's contract to $126 million. <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

	=== '''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)''' ===		==='''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)'''===
	Pearson, the education-publishing company was charged with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web \|last=Gose \|first=Ben \|date=2014-11-18 \|title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation \|url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ \|archive-url=}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, who then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hernández \|first=Javier \|date=2013-12-12 \|title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html \|website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />		Pearson, the education-publishing company was charged with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web \|last=Gose \|first=Ben \|date=2014-11-18 \|title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation \|url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ \|archive-url=}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, who then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hernández \|first=Javier \|date=2013-12-12 \|title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html \|website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />

Line 53:		Line 53:

	==Products==		==Products==
	~~{{Ph-C-P}}~~

	==See also==		* MyLab®
			* MyMathTest® and Mastering®
			* Pearson Plus + eTextbooks
			* Revel® multi-media eTextbooks and interactive learning
			* Connections Academy full time online virtual Schools
			* K-12 Online Schools<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Pearson K-12 Online Schools \|url=https://www.pearson.com/en-us/schools/products-services/k12-online-schools.html \|website=Pearson}}</ref>
			* K-12 Assessments for School Districts
			* Pearson Clinical Assessments for Professionals, including BASC™-3, aimsweb®Plus and Q-global®<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Pearson Asessments \|url=https://www.pearsonassessments.com/professional-assessments/training.html \|website=Pearson Assessments}}</ref>

			== See also ==
	{{Ph-C-SA}}		{{Ph-C-SA}}

	==References==		== References ==
	{{reflist}}https://www.wiredacademic.com/2011/10/pearson-draws-criticism-from-new-york-to-texas-justified-or-unjustified/		{{reflist}}https://www.wiredacademic.com/2011/10/pearson-draws-criticism-from-new-york-to-texas-justified-or-unjustified/

Gem: /* Incidents */

2026-01-14T05:54:28Z

Incidents

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:54, 14 January 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	==Consumer-impact summary==		==Consumer-impact summary==

	=== '''No Ownership Rights, Limited Access to Purchased Materials:''' ===		==='''No Ownership Rights, Limited Access to Purchased Materials:'''===
	Pearson is phasing out ownership of print textbooks and replacing them with digital textbooks and subscription services. CEO John Fallon stated in a BBC interview, the move is made in "hopes the move will make more students buy its e-textbooks which are updated continually" and that the next generation of consumers, "they expect to rent not own." Purchase of print textbooks has been replaced by a monthly subscription service (Pearson+) and rented e-books have limited access periods that prevent access for future referencing.<ref>{{cite web \|date=2019-07-16 \|title=Education publisher Pearson to phase out print textbooks \|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48998789 \|website=BBC}}</ref>		Pearson is phasing out ownership of print textbooks and replacing them with digital textbooks and subscription services. CEO John Fallon stated in a BBC interview, the move is made in "hopes the move will make more students buy its e-textbooks which are updated continually" and that the next generation of consumers, "they expect to rent not own." Purchase of print textbooks has been replaced by a monthly subscription service (Pearson+) and rented e-books have limited access periods that prevent access for future referencing.<ref>{{cite web \|date=2019-07-16 \|title=Education publisher Pearson to phase out print textbooks \|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48998789 \|website=BBC}}</ref>

	* '''DRM Prevents Resale and Sharing of Purchased Materials:''' Pearson restricts copying, pasting and printing pages from purchased ebooks and digital content. Unlike a physical book, a student cannot sell, give away, or lend their digital copy.		*'''DRM Prevents Resale and Sharing of Purchased Materials:''' Pearson restricts copying, pasting and printing pages from purchased ebooks and digital content. Unlike a physical book, a student cannot sell, give away, or lend their digital copy.

	* '''Limited Access''' '''to Purchased Materials:''' Pearson uses access codes for both "owned" and "rented" books and learning materials that limit access, after which the student loses access to material they bought or rented. This limited access prevents people from referencing study materials for future courses and careers. Consumers are essentially purchasing a license to use, not own their books and education.		*'''Limited Access''' '''to Purchased Materials:''' Pearson uses access codes for both "owned" and "rented" books and learning materials that limit access, after which the student loses access to material they bought or rented. This limited access prevents people from referencing study materials for future courses and careers. Consumers are essentially purchasing a license to use, not own their books and education.

	=== Inclusive Access & Default Opt-In Raises Tuition Fees ===		===Inclusive Access & Default Opt-In Raises Tuition Fees===
	Pearson's use of Inclusive Access prevents students and professionals from purchasing books and materials from other sources, buying older edition textbooks, or renting materials through other sources.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web \|last=Duplantis \|first=Hilary \|date=2024-08-24 \|title=Inclusive Access in Higher Education: Unlocking Student Success \|url=https://www.pearson.com/en-us/higher-education/insights-and-events/teaching-and-learning-blog/2024/02/inclusive-access-in-higher-education--unlocking-student-success.html \|website=Pearson Inclusive Access}}</ref> Known in the publishing industry as Inclusive Access or Equitable Access programs, students are automatically charged by colleges or bookstores for access to mostly online versions of course materials assigned for their classes. This practice has enabled the growth of a digital subscription business model, as the default opt-in automatically bakes Pearson materials costs directly into student tuition and fees. Pearson claims it is to make things convenient and cheaper for students. <ref name=":0" /> There have been criticisms over extensive, round about opt-out processes and mandatory Pearson courseware systems used to grade homework and administer tests that prevent those who opt-out from participating in their classes.<ref name=":0" />		Pearson's use of Inclusive Access prevents students and professionals from purchasing books and materials from other sources, buying older edition textbooks, or renting materials through other sources.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web \|last=Duplantis \|first=Hilary \|date=2024-08-24 \|title=Inclusive Access in Higher Education: Unlocking Student Success \|url=https://www.pearson.com/en-us/higher-education/insights-and-events/teaching-and-learning-blog/2024/02/inclusive-access-in-higher-education--unlocking-student-success.html \|website=Pearson Inclusive Access}}</ref> Known in the publishing industry as Inclusive Access or Equitable Access programs, students are automatically charged by colleges or bookstores for access to mostly online versions of course materials assigned for their classes. This practice has enabled the growth of a digital subscription business model, as the default opt-in automatically bakes Pearson materials costs directly into student tuition and fees. Pearson claims it is to make things convenient and cheaper for students. <ref name=":0" /> There have been criticisms over extensive, round about opt-out processes and mandatory Pearson courseware systems used to grade homework and administer tests that prevent those who opt-out from participating in their classes.<ref name=":0" />

Line 28:		Line 28:

	==='''Market Control'''===		==='''Market Control'''===
	Pearson is the largest company in higher education with influence over test administration, teacher licensing, educational software, eBooks, grading, guidelines. The company has a history of undisclosed lobbying and applying non-profit funds towards their for-profit business.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hu \|first=Winnie \|date=2011-12-21 \|title=Testing Firm Faces Inquiry on Free Trips for Officials \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/education/new-york-attorney-general-is-investigating-pearson-education.html \|website=New York Times}}</ref> The state of Texas has made efforts to move away from Pearson's 30 year monopoly over exam testing. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Gross \|first=Allie \|date=2015-05-20 \|title=Pearson loses Texas testing account to ETS after 15-year relationship \|url=https://www.k12dive.com/news/pearson-loses-texas-testing-account-to-ets-after-15-year-relationship/399546/ \|website=ABC 13 Eyewitness News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last= \|first= \|date=2021-01-05 \|title=Texas hires two companies to run STAAR, moving toward statewide online testing \|url=https://abc13.com/post/staar-tests-online-texas-public-schools-cambium-assessment-pearson/9357526/ \|website=ABC 13 Eyewitness News}}</ref>		Pearson is the largest company in higher education with influence over test administration, teacher licensing, educational software, eBooks, grading, guidelines. The company has a history of undisclosed lobbying and applying non-profit funds towards their for-profit business.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hu \|first=Winnie \|date=2011-12-21 \|title=Testing Firm Faces Inquiry on Free Trips for Officials \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/education/new-york-attorney-general-is-investigating-pearson-education.html \|website=New York Times}}</ref> The state of Texas has made efforts to move away from Pearson's 30 year monopoly over exam testing. <ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|last=Gross \|first=Allie \|date=2015-05-20 \|title=Pearson loses Texas testing account to ETS after 15-year relationship \|url=https://www.k12dive.com/news/pearson-loses-texas-testing-account-to-ets-after-15-year-relationship/399546/ \|website=ABC 13 Eyewitness News}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web \|last= \|first= \|date=2021-01-05 \|title=Texas hires two companies to run STAAR, moving toward statewide online testing \|url=https://abc13.com/post/staar-tests-online-texas-public-schools-cambium-assessment-pearson/9357526/ \|website=ABC 13 Eyewitness News}}</ref>

	==Incidents==		==Incidents==
	This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|{{PAGENAME}} category]].		This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|{{PAGENAME}} category]].

			=== '''Pearson Surveillance of Children's Social Media Accounts (2015 - )''' ===
			Pearson has admitted ongoing surveillance of online activity and social media accounts, comments made about their tests and test contents, and checking accounts against a list of students taking their exams. This has created backlash from parents and states against child surveillance. Among the information collected is is the child's name, state of residence, and which school they attend. The consortium of states has asked Pearson to stop checking names against its own list of students, but Pearson claims it is for due diligence and test security. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Singer \|first=Natasha \|date=2015-03-17 \|title=Pearson Under Fire for Monitoring Students’ Twitter Posts \|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/pearson-under-fire-for-monitoring-students-twitter-posts \|website=The New York Times}}</ref>

			=== '''Standards Breaches and System Failures''' '''(2025)''' ===
			Pearson was fined more than 2 million pounds ($2.68 million) in 2025 due to standards breaches spanning between 2019 and 2023 that affected tens of thousands of students. Pearson failed to identiy and manage inconsistent grading standards, despite Britain's Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, Ofqual, highlighting the risk in 2022 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-12-15 \|title=Ofqual fines Pearson £2 million for rule breaches affecting thousands of students \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-fines-pearson-2-million-for-rule-breaches-affecting-thousands-of-students \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref> A £1,200,000 fine was also levied against Pearson several years prior for prolonged, serious systemic failures to comply with the reviews of exam marking, which must be conducted by an examiner who is not the original marker. Pearson was charged for operating under a "false assumption" of compliance. Problems continued even after Ofqual flagged similar problems at other exam boards AQA and OCR. Pearson's breaches significantly undermined and eroded public confidence in UK testing qualifications.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2022-12-13 \|title=Notice of monetary penalty: Pearson, Reviews of Marking \|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking/notice-of-monetary-penalty-pearson-reviews-of-marking \|website=GOV.UK}}</ref>

			==='''Data Breach and S.E.C. Settlement ''(2018)'''''===
			The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach involving a data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software that resulted the administrator login credentials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Page \|first=Carly \|date=2021-08-16 \|title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach \|url-status= \|website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>

			=== '''Unregistered Lobbying through University of Texas Endowments (2013)''' ===
			$400,000 endowments were made by Pearson and their charity to The University of Texas College of Education Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, which provides evaluation services for policymakers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web \|last=Stanford \|first=Jason \|date=2013-12-19 \|title=It's Time to Investigate Pearson in Texas, Too \|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pearson-new-york-settlement_b_4469167 \|website=HuffPost}}</ref> State policymakers have went on to award Pearson over $1 billion in contracts since 2010, suggesting a conflict of interest, including a 5-year deal worth $462 million in testing contract.<ref name=":3" /> Although Texas made it illegal for testing company lobbyists to serve on advisory boards and make campaign contributions, Pearson was allowed to operate without oversight. The Texas stance against lobbying was initially aimed at Sandy Kress, the architect of No Child Left Behind policy and a Pearson lobbyist who served on several state advisory boards.<ref name=":3" />Public opinion, advocates and lawmakers argued Pearson had too much influence over the state's education policy without scrutiny. In 2021, Texas scaled down the 30-year Pearson monopoly by signing on ETS and Cambium Assessment, a Washington D.C.-based testing company a $262 million contract, reduced Pearson's contract to $126 million. <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />

			=== '''Self-Dealing Fraud (2013)''' ===
			Pearson, the education-publishing company was charged with a $7.7 million settlement for self-dealing fraud. <ref name=":4">{{Cite web \|last=Gose \|first=Ben \|date=2014-11-18 \|title=After a Scandal, Pearson Dissolves Foundation \|url=https://www.philanthropy.com/news/after-a-scandal-pearson-dissolves-foundation/ \|archive-url=}}</ref> Investigations found that Pearson contributed funds to its charity, Pearson Foundation, who then sent $540,000 of the funds to the Chief State School Officers and the copyright holder of the Common Core State Standards. Along with the Gates Foundation, the Common Core course was sold back to the for-profit Pearson company for $15.5 million.<ref name=":4" /> “The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” said Attorney General Eric Scheniderman. <ref>{{Cite web \|last=Hernández \|first=Javier \|date=2013-12-12 \|title=Educational Publisher’s Charity, Accused of Seeking Profits, Will Pay Millions \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/educational-publishers-charity-accused-of-seeking-profits-will-pay-millions.html \|website=The New York Times}}</ref> <ref name=":1" />

	===New York Statewide Exams Failure (''2012'')===		===New York Statewide Exams Failure (''2012'')===
	{{Main\|link to the main CR Wiki article}}		{{Main\|link to the main CR Wiki article}}
	Pearson obtained a $32 million contract to administer New York academic tests plus a $1 million contract to maintain testing services with the New York State Education Department and in 2012, a statewide systemic failure involving numerous test errors, printing errors, security breaches and lack of transparency affecting test administration and test scores of hundreds of thousands of students. Thousands of students were denied from graduating due to the Pearson failure on test scoring. The students were assigned further summer school attendance. The Department spokesperson's response was the victimized students would "benefit from the extra instruction in summer school."<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Gonen \|first=Yoav \|date=2012-06-26 \|title=7,000 city students wrongly blocked from attending graduation \|url=https://nypost.com/2012/07/26/7000-city-students-wrongly-blocked-from-attending-graduation/ \|website=New York Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Otterman \|first=Sharon \|date=2011-08-12 \|title=In $32 Million Contract, State Lays Out Some Rules for Its Standardized Tests \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/nyregion/new-york-in-contract-with-pearson-lays-out-rules-for-state-tests.html~~}}</ref>~~		Pearson obtained a $32 million contract to administer New York academic tests plus a $1 million contract to maintain testing services with the New York State Education Department and in 2012, a statewide systemic failure involving numerous test errors, printing errors, security breaches and lack of transparency affecting test administration and test scores of hundreds of thousands of students. Thousands of students were denied from graduating due to the Pearson failure on test scoring. The students were assigned further summer school attendance. The Department spokesperson's response was the victimized students would "benefit from the extra instruction in summer school."<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Gonen \|first=Yoav \|date=2012-06-26 \|title=7,000 city students wrongly blocked from attending graduation \|url=https://nypost.com/2012/07/26/7000-city-students-wrongly-blocked-from-attending-graduation/ \|website=New York Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Otterman \|first=Sharon \|date=2011-08-12 \|title=In $32 Million Contract, State Lays Out Some Rules for Its Standardized Tests \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/nyregion/new-york-in-contract-with-pearson-lays-out-rules-for-state-tests.html}}</ref>

	~~==='''Securities and Exchange Settlement and Investor Omissions ''(2018)'''''===~~
	The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $1 million settlement against Pearson for omissions and misleading investors about a 2018 data breach involving a data breach related to its AIMSweb1.0 web-based student performance tracking software that resulted the administrator login credientials of 13,000 schools, district and university customer accounts, along with millions of student usernames and passwords stolen. Pearson did not disclose this breach to investors until it was contacted by the media.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Page \|first=Carly \|date=2021-08-16 \|title=Pearson to pay $1M fine for misleading investors about 2018 data breach \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/16/pearson-to-pay-1m-fine-for-misleading-investors-about-2018-data-breach \|url-status= \|website=Tech Crunch}}</ref>

	==Products==		==Products==