The Gates Foundation now says that its grants for the galvanic skin response monitor had no connection with teacher evaluation, even though the statement on its web site says the purpose of the grant is to “determine the feasibility and utility of using such devices regularly in schools with students and teachers” and says that the researchers at Clemson will be working with the MET (teacher evaluation) project of the Gates Foundation.
The foundation issued the following statement yesterday (sent to me by a reporter, without a link), responding to the questions raised on this blog and elsewhere:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is funding a portfolio of nearly $1.4 million in grants to support researchers interested in studying students’ classroom engagement – based on biometric measures like skin sensitivity, as indicated through bracelets. This pilot of approximately 100 students has not yet begun. Past studies with autistic children have used the bracelets to show those who might seem unresponsive to external stimuli are engaged and learning .
These grants are not all related to the Measures of Effective Teaching research project, and will not in any way be used to evaluate teacher performance. Rather, these are tools to help students and teachers gain a better understanding how and when students are most engaged in the classroom, with the ultimate goal of learning how to help students learn better.
The foundation is funding, rather than conducting this research, and specific questions about research design and objectives are best directed to researchers Rosalind Picard picard@affectiva.com and Shaundra Dailysdaily@clemson.edu.
In this statement, the foundation insists that the bracelets “will not in any way be used to evaluate teacher performance.” That is interesting since the grant announcement said the money was connected to the Gates MET (Measures of Effective Teaching) program. But, let’s take them at their word. Developing these biometric measures has nothing to do with measuring teachers’ performance, which is a major focus of the foundation at this time.
But here’s more new information.
A reader sent the following comment:
| In 2008 Microsoft filed a patent application for a system that monitors employee metabolism: “one or more physiological or environmental sensors to detect at least one of heart rate, galvanic skin response, EMG, brain signals, respiration rate, body temperature, movement, facial movements, facial expressions, and blood pressure.”Here is the patent application. And here is an article about it. |
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Techies gone wild. . .
I see the Gates foundation’s declaration of intent of the purpose of possible uses of these bracelets as nothing more than a disclaimer that will allow them to throw their hands up in the air and say, “Don’t look at us. We said not to use these for accountability measures…” (or whatever other measures may one day be the trendy flavor) when the government mandates utilization of these bracelets for teacher effectiveness. However, that would be a far too open, honest and transparent approach. What will most likely happen is that individual state govts will most likely start to “make these available” for “voluntary” use in their respective states. Of course I’m sure some sort of financial carrot will be dangled out in front as bait making it too good to refuse. Results will come back, state education depts will spin the data and sell the idea to other schools or just decide there is sufficient evidence and sell the idea to the voters, and then eventually they will quietly slip the use of these bracelets into the next education reform bill and use them for teacher effectiveness measures.
I’m pretty confident that this will be their M.O. just by looking at the structures in place. The Common Core Standards movement, Race to the top, National Governors Association, and that other association of state superintendents (i forget the name)….all working together to make this a national effort. Although, just like the Common Core Standards movement, governors will be able to profess to their constituents that they took back education from the federal govt and are giving it back to the people. My daughter starts Kindergarten in the fall in a Wisconsin public school. She will never take a govt mandated test, and she certainly will never wear one of these bracelets.
Galvanic skin response (GSR) which goes by many other names, from wiki:electrodermal response (EDR), psychogalvanic reflex (PGR), skin conductance response (SCR) or skin conductance level (SCL), is another of a long line of pseudo scientific techniques which rely on correlations and not causations as the hard sciences do. These pseudo scientific techniques consider a correlation coefficient of .4 (hardly ever see anything over a .5) to be excellent. All that means is that if the factor being studied has a .4 coefficient the chance of the factor causing the outcome is only 16% or roughly a 1/6 chance of causing the effect. I certainly would take that chance to the casino, it’s a guaranteed loser. Hard sciences accept a .99 or 1 coefficient in order to state that the effect is caused by the factor.
Unfortunately we in public education have been beguiled in our training to believe this pseudo scientific nonsense of the statistical validity of correlation coefficients of .4 to be excellent indicators when they are in reality very bad predictors of outcomes. Most of “data driven dialogue” and standardized testing are partially based on this false concept. If it starts out with a falsehood more likely than not the results will be a falsehood. And GSR is one of those falsehoods.
Dang, I wish there was an edit function. I meant to say “I wouldn’t take. . . to the casino”.
Gosh, maybe the website manager, or what ever you call them, just really didn’t understand what sent up? Misinterpretation? 🙂 Certainly is a bit of contradiction from website to email.
went instead of sent…sorry about that!
Looks suspiciously like backpedaling to me.
Either way it seems like a giant invasion of privacy. I don’t like where this is headed. Pretty soon we will be living in a world with GPS built into our skin, and everything we do monitored.
I’m sorry, ya’ll (as we say in Kentucky), but your collective reaction to all this is ridiculous: http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2012/06/biometric-hysteria.html
Dr. Houchens,
I respectfully disagree with your absolute assertions that our reactions are ridiculous and irrational. I might consider the same of your claim that Diane Ravitch is a defender of the status quo. I suggest the status quo is exactly this type of mentality that learning must be reduced to data and numbers quantified in a nice neat graph to insert into the next power point at the next symposium. This data driven decision making craze is ridiculous and irrational. It is fine when the input is raw materials and the output is some sort of manufactured goods that can be sold for a profit. However, when the raw materials become human beings and the manufactured goods become educated individuals and the profit is measured by test scores instead which in turn to be measured in dollars, we’ve lost touch with basic human understanding.
I’m reminded of one of the deleted scenes in the movie “We Were Soldiers” which depicted the first major offensive military action in the Ia Drang Valley in the Central Highlands of South (then) Vietnam in Nov 1965 where helicopter transport of combat troops was the latest technology. The scene depicted a debriefing of Lt. Col.(then) Hal Moore, who led the U.S. combat forces, with General Westmoreland and Robert McNamera. I don’t recall from the book that Hal Moore and Joe Galloway wrote if the actual meeting is 100% accurate but the debriefing did take place as reported by Hal Moore. General Moore wrote in the book that McNamera was obsessed with numbers, kill ratios, troop strenghth, statistical analysis, etc. In many articles since Joe Galloway does not write very favorably of McNamera and usually refers to him as the “Head Bean Counter”. In any case McNamera worked and lobbied hard fo present a case based on numbers to win the war to President Johnson. Hal Moore tried to tell him that his numbers did not take into account the will to fight of the Vietnamese people in spite of our superior military power, and that they weren’t going to give up very easily if at all. In McNamera’s case to Johnson, he provided two options; one based on numbers and a goal of defeating the Communist through military force and the other by using diplomacy to bring it to an earlier end with less favorable outcomes for the U.S. I think we know the outcome.
This “Bean Counting” we are currently obsessed with in education will prove to be as futile as an unwinable war because it lacks any human understanding, which I would like to conclude my response a few passages form English Philosopher John Locke wrote in the Epistle to the Reader in his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” Locke of course being one of the three greatest minds ever to have lived according to Thomas Jefferson, who as we know was an early pioneer in public education.
“He that hawks at larks and sparrows, has no less sport, though a much less considerable quarry, than he that flies at nobler game: and he is little acquainted with the subject of this treatise, the Understanding, who does not know, that as it is the most elevated faculty of the soul, so it is employed with a greater, and more constant, delight, than any other. Its searches after truth, are a sort of hawking and hunting, wherin the very pursuit, makes some discovery, which is not only new, but the best too, for the time at least….Thus he who has raised himself above the alms-basket, and not content to live lazily on scraps of begged opinions, sets its own thoughts on work, to find and follow truth, will (whatever he lights on) not miss the hunters satisfaction; every moment of the pursuit, will reward his pains with some delight, and he will have reason to think his time not ill spent, even when he cannot much boast of any great acquisition.”
I have been following a lot of Diane’s work and am thus familiar with it. So far I am only aware of your one article so I cannot comment on your work other than what you’ve written in your one piece. In this responder’s humble opinion, Diane’s views on education draw many parallels to what John Locke’s views on learning and knowledge are rooted as evidenced in the passage I provided. What John Locke asserts is far from any status quo I’ve seen in education for the 45 years I’ve been alive. I do know that this current unfortunate obsession with data driven decision making or value added measures or whatever other statistical collection scheme is utilized is far from anything John Locke describes in his Epistle.
Diane Ravitch= Lockean
Data obsession bean counting = education’s Vietnam.
Respectfully,
Jim Cooper
Jim, I appreciate you noting that you haven’t read any of my other writings. When you do, you’ll see that I agree with you (and Diane) that the bean-counter mentality and data-reductionist movement hasn’t served us well in education in many ways (though some of my proposed alternatives probably differ significantly from yours): http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2012/06/the-pushback-against-high-stakes-testing-and-some-alternatives.html
My main point remains: the reaction to this Gates study is overblown.
Gary,
perhaps from an educaional standpoint maybe there is room for argument as to the degree some are reacting. However, from a standpoint of government overreach to where it weakens individual liberty, I don’t think we as citizens can overreact. If parents have the final say as to whether or not their child wears one without punitive measures imposed or lack of incentive rewarded, then I suppose my mind would be a bit rested. However, as I think I posted in a previous post. Govt rarely lays its cards on the table open for us all to see from the beginning. These sorts of things tend to sneak up on us gradually so as not to shock our system. If the establishment (of which I think our definitions may differ) sees the results it is seeking as a means to a predetermined end, it is an absolute certainty that these will be used for the purposes as it sees fit. So from a scientific perspective I can see the research side of this being possibly worthwhile to psychologists, neurologists, psychometricians, etc. However, government corrupts through its own abuse of its powers. For me I value liberty, and if I don’t want my child to wear one of these, then that ought be preserved and protected. Even if it is though, if education policies and decisions are made based on these results, I should still be able to protect my child from them. I’ll be sure to check out your work. I find great value in dissenting opinioins. That’s another quality govt ought to employ more readily.
Jim
Jim, In terms of this research study, human subjects research protocols require that parents give permission before any such data can be collected from children.
I share your concern about government overreach. I think this is a tremendously important issue, not just in education, but in all aspects of our lives.
Because I value liberty so much, I also support school choice. Anyone who. like yourself, has deep reservations about the efficacy of government to fix problems large and small ought to give expanding school choice serious consideration.
Gary,
Sounds like you might have a little Ron Paul in you. If so, I like it! I think with school choice we need to be careful so as not to use government to intentionally undermine public education in order to bring about school choice. With so much federal intervention and fiscal bullying it does to the states, I don’t know how we will ever get a fair and just school choice system in place. I really think we need to get back on track to abolish the U.S. Dept of Ed. first and foremost. I don’t see it possible to have a discussion about school choice when the federal govt is there guiding us to the choices. There is very little I see in such a scenario that is beneficial to a free society that respects personal liberty.
Jim
Ron Paul – yes! Now we’re talking the same language.
Bracelets by Gates are scary enough. Have you heard about internet glasses by Google? http://www.gazettebw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13925:google-internet-glasses-on-the-way&catid=13:business&Itemid=2