Pros
Connections Education is one of the most flexible work environments I've ever encountered. Most staff are allowed to work from home two or more days a week. The total amount of paid time off is competitive, especially once the 3-year mark is reached, at which time employees receive an extra week. The managers I've worked for have, for the most part, been very fair and understanding, and don't micromanage their employees. Technology department keeps current on toolsets and technologies (for the most part). Great company vision and mission. Connections Education's executive leadership team members (not to be confused with those of our parent company, Pearson) are passionate about their products and services.
Cons
Pearson acquired Connections Education before I was hired, but their influence was barely felt then. The company possessed the buzz and energy of a startup, and our work felt meaningful and exciting. Sadly, this is no longer the case. The taint of Pearson has slithered its way into every second of my work experience, and I often find myself wondering how much longer I can hang on. Pearson is going through a rough time. While still largely profitable, the company missed their 2015 goals by a significant margin. Some of us didn't get raises this year, and many of those who did received only a paltry increase. Pearson's executive team presented a plan to rectify the situation, but the damage was done, and a dozen or so employees from our department have already decided it wasn't worth sticking around to see whether Pearson can deliver on their claims. When I first joined Connections, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the Software Engineering department used outsourcing very sparingly. Fast-forward a few years, and the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. The powers that be have responded to in-house attrition by eliminating the vacancies and repositioning them (sometimes on different teams) as consultancies. As is sadly common in today's corporate world, a lot of engineering jobs have gone offshore. I understand why companies do this, but I've never liked seeing it happen. For the last two years, the company has been constantly reorganizing, often with no advanced notice given. Ironically, all this reorganizing this makes the workforce seem disorganized and chaotic. Maybe those at the top are scrambling to try to find something that will right the ship, but, for those of us with boots on the ground, it's flat-out confusing. On a related note, there have been several initiatives rolled out in the Software Engineering department that come out of nowhere and are poorly communicated, and often target a problem that the majority of our teams/individuals don't have. These initiatives often get rolled back after a few months of begrudging compliance, but a lot of time, effort, and frustration could be saved if the folks in charge would simply involve the people below them in conversations rather than repeatedly making incorrect assumptions. All Software Engineering operational and tactical decisions seem to be made by the directorate (and above) behind closed doors, with no real input from those below, and often with apparent disregard for reality. When decisions are actually made, they are poorly communicated (if at all). When I started working at Connections Education, the health benefits were very competitive. Starting in 2015, we switched providers. Since then, it's been an onslaught of rising premiums, significantly higher copays (that continue to increase every year), and lower coverage rates for some services. I've paid more out of pocket over the last two years than I did cumulatively over the preceding decade.
