In case you didn’t know it already, privacy is dead. The
National Security Agency has asserted the power to listen to your
phone calls and read your emails.
Now we
learn from Pearson and the esteemed (Sir) Michael Barber (the
architect of a philosophy known as “Deliverology”) that the
capability to monitor the actions, behaviors, even
thoughts of every student is at hand. We are all about to take a
dive into the Digital Ocean, whether we want to or not. Big data
will tell Pearson and other vendors whatever they want to know.
They will know more about our children and our grandchildren
than we do. Arne Duncan loosened the federal privacy regulations in
2011, so there is no limit on the information that Pearson and
others will collect. But never forget: It is all for the
kids.
Peter Greene shared his thoughts about Pearson’s digital ocean here.
he writes:
“Barber assures us that personalized learning at scale will be possible, and again I want to point out that we already have a system that can totally do that (though of course the present system does not provide corporations such as Pearson nearly enough money). I will not pretend that the traditional US public ed system always provides the personalized learning it should, but when reformy types suggest that’s a reason to scrap the whole system, I wonder if they also buy a new car every time the old car runs out of gas (plus, in that metaphor, government is repeatedly pouring sand into the gas tank).
“But no. There will have to be revolution:
“…schools will need to have digital materials of high quality, teachers will have to change how they teach and how they themselves learn…
“This shtick I recognize, because it is as old as education technology. Every software salesman who ever set foot in a school used this one– “This will be really great tool if you just change everything about how you work.” No. No, no, no. You do not tell a carpenter, “Hey, newspaper is a great building material as long as you change your expectations about how strong and protective a house is supposed to be.”
“You pick a tool because it can help you do the job. You do not change the job so that it will fit the tool…..Barber praises the authors of the paper for their “aspirational vision” of what success in schools would look like.
“They see teaching,learning and assessment as different aspects of one integrated process, complementing each other at all times, in real time;
To which I reply, “Wow! Amazing! Do they also envision water that is wet? Wheels that are round?”
Public schools can use technology to good effect without the middleman if they adopted some kind of open source framework. I think we need to find a way to embrace those aspects of technological advancement that will help achieve equity and effectiveness. See this post from a few months ago for examples: http://waynegersen.com/2013/11/30/technology-can-make-a-difference/
And now the NSA is snooping on our children’s standardized tests: http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2014/04/nsa-snoops-on-ela-test.html
“Deliverology?”
And people actually take this person seriously?
Back in the 70’s-90’s, the notorious boxing promoter Don King used to talk about “Trickeration,” while he was stealing the boxers he “represented.”
King and his ilk at least had some entertainment value; as for the so-called reformers, their viciousness makes it hard to respond to them with the derisive laughter they would otherwise deserve.
Oh, this is very serious.
These people and their partner, Mr. Gates, cooked up (and paid for) the Common Core State Standards because they needed a single set of standards to tag their software to, and they needed to effect that switch from traditional textbooks to Big Data based on databases that only they had access to because they were about to have their business model completely undermined by the open-source textbook movement. In other words,
all this was done to keep them from experiencing what Wikipedia did to Encyclopedia Britannica and what video did to the radio star.
Strategic planning. That’s why you have the Common Core. It was created for business reasons, not for educational reasons.
And, in order to get a little of what we already have, the ability to “personalize” our teaching, all we have to do is
1. Redefine personalization to mean continually testing kids to determine where to plop them down into a software system with invariant outcomes for all, invariance of outcomes, or regimentation, being the goal of personalization, and
2. Inure our students to continual, total surveillance, to being subjects of a Total Information Awareness system.
Wow. What a deal.
Extra Extra Read All about It:
Open Source Textbooks, Big Data, and the Origins of the Common Core:
The amazing true story of how some educational publishers PLAYED (gamers would say pwned) a whole lotta educrats and politicians.
Again and again, Peter Greene knocks it out of the park. Another awesome piece from Peter!
I just finished reading EdWeek’s “Technology Counts” supplement (March 13, 2014). Peter Green’s remarks and his examples of flawed reasoning are on the mark. The articles assume that the major issue is hardware, pipelines (bandwidth), and software that allows for data mining suitable for use by a teacher envisioned as if the ideal teacher (high quality, effective) is an avatar.
Soft-sell ads are embedded in the editorial content. Example (pages 13, 15): After a discussion praising the accuracy of software that automates the evaluation of writing (with colorful screen shots of Writing Roadmap) this 31-paragraph article devotes three paragraphs to criticism. That comes from an MIT expert who generated a high score on an essay-grading program by writing gibberish.
Another article discusses the technology issues in the forthcoming Common Core tests for 2014-2015. It reveals that districts are investing in “test-ready” technology, which is (last paragraph again) not the same as “instruction first” technology. About 72% of schools do not have the Internet-band width that designers of CCSS tests believe to be necessary (100 kilobits per second per student). In 2013, about 40% of schools did not have wireless service.
Most of the articles assume that content for instruction must be shaped to fit the technology. This is Peter Green’s point. Proponents think it is great if a game takes 10 hours, and produces 6,600 data points that a proprietary algorithm can then crunch in order to search for a latent construct that might have educational significance (p. 38).
In almost every case, the designers of software assume there is one best answer to a question or a problem, that there is one best path to an “efficient” solution (shortest time to the best answer). “Personalized” instruction and learning is simply a matter of prompting students to click on predetermined options that lead the student away from all of the wrong and inefficient paths to the answer.
The ideal teacher is an avatar. That’s just perfect.
The reformers have been hypnotized by their own technology.
In the long they will be tripped up by their failure to recognize the significance of the human factors; factors that no machine or program can adequately attend to.
Beware of techno-utopians and gadget worshippers…
One more PEARSON TENTACLE:
edTPA for New York State
Candidates applying for initial certification in New York on or after May 1, 2014, will be required to take and pass the edTPA.
edTPA is a student-centered multiple measure assessment of teaching. It is designed to be educative and predicting of effective teaching and student learning. Stanford University faculty and staff at Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) developed edTPA. They received substantive advice and feedback from teachers and teacher educators.
edTPA required for NY teacher certificato. Can you GUE$$ WHO the provider is?
How Pearson got into New York’s teacher licensure program can probably be attributed to another one of its higher-powered partners—Susan Fuhrman, president of Teachers College. Not only is Fuhrman the head of one of the most prestigious teacher education schools in America, but she now holds the title of “Non-Executive Independent Director ofPearson PLC” and has received almost one million dollars in stock and fees to date.[12] So it is really not surprising that Pearson has its foot in the door to make decisions about who will hold NY Teaching Licenses.
There used to be rules about conflict of interest…
What they are doing is laughing all the way to the bank. That and power over others is all they care about. They are fascists and dangerous to the rest of us.
If Pearson is going to help us swim in the digital ocean, who will protect us from the digital sharks?