Former Governor Bob Wise and the Alliance for Excellent Education released a video touting “personalized learning” as the key to academic success. He speaks in the foreground of what he says is the Rio Olympics (actually the footage is from 2012, according to the credits). A short video shows students engaged in “personalized learning,” some of which appears to be centered on a computer.
Let’s say this much for the ad: at least it is not insulting like the one created by Michelle Rhee and StudentsFirst in 2012, which showed a flabby American man falling on his face while competing in a women’s event and said he represented American students. It was shown on national television during the Olympics and was highly demeaning to our nation and our students.
Bob Wise partnered with Jeb Bush in creating a document called “Digital Learning Now,” which claimed that learning online was the secret to high achievement for everyone. None of its assertions had any evidence behind them, and the report was financed by the tech industry.
“Personalized learning” is a very problematic concept these days. Most people think it means that the teacher and the student work closely together, and the teacher understands the student’s needs.
But in the education industry, “personalized learning” means computer-based instruction. In theory, the computer knows the student well. The student and the computer interact and collaborate, so they are close friends.
The paid journalistic touting of computer-based learning is intensifying. I can’t keep up with all the articles that promote machine learning and mislabel it “personalized” learning.
There is nothing “personal” about learning from a machine. The machine doesn’t know you. It stores your data, but it has no feelings, no emotions, no empathy. It doesn’t like you. It doesn’t love you, it doesn’t dislike you. It is indifferent. If your mother dies, it won’t feel any sympathy for you. It is a machine. Whatever you call it, please don’t say it is “personalized” to you. It’s not.

Learning from an electronic machine programed by invisible designers is hyper-depersonalized. It is depersonalized, indeed Orwellian, even if you get some “facetime” or “screentime” with a teacher.
Double speak, jargon proliferates in education and in business.
For fun, you might want to visit the random business phrase generator at
http://projects.wsj.com/buzzwords2014/?standalone=1…
LikeLike
Love the link, shared it on FB. Wish we had one specially for political ed jargon.
LikeLike
Can’t you just see the marketing meeting a bunch of tech marketers sitting in a meeting where they came up with calling computer instruction personalized learning?. I can see the high fives, back slaps and guffaws celebrating their own brilliance.
LikeLike
I’m afraid it will turn into pushing cheap, canned product to replace teachers in low and middle income schools.
Maybe ed reform could address that issue honestly instead of relying upon these ridiculous and patronizing slogans to sell product.
They’re obviously pushing this. Can any of them explain WHY they want public schools to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in tech? Does the cost and risk justify the expense? Do they care?
I don’t want my son’s public school turned into Ohio’s garbage “online sector”. We don’t want that. Why are they selling it? Who is paying them and backing this PR campaign?
LikeLike
As a doc student studying online teaching and learning, I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
Obviously another brainwashed progressive.
LikeLike
Karen Bracken is a far right, hyper partisan, Tennessee conspiracy theorist and preaches about the imaginary threats of Agenda 21, Common Core, and anything and everything that is not Tea Party Republican.
She calls herself and her fellow fearmongers “patriots” and, of course, everyone who does not agree with them is an enemy to be feared, fought, and dehumanized.
Hurling ‘progressive’ at Diane like an epithet is akin to calling her a muderer or a war criminal in Bracken’s warped world view,
Pity her, She is lost in the pits of rightwing paranoia and fear and will probably never see light again. I pray for her daily.
LikeLike
Chris: that’s OK, background unnecessary. Her black/white thinking is there for all to see:
doctorate student in ed = brainwashed progressive
LikeLike
Chris “I pray for her daily.”
What a waste of spiritual energy. 🙂
LikeLike
My fear is the real objective here is to get high test scores while bringing down investment to 5k per student.
I didn’t make that number up. Ed reformers in Michigan said that was the goal.
I don’t want cheap schools for low and middle income students. These lobbyists are ripping us off again.
LikeLike
Utah does it with $6500 a year. The class sizes are horrendous and the “achievement” is only middling, but our state legislature will do no more. In fact, a rapidly-growing school district in southern Salt Lake County is being pushed to give up $240 million so that a Facebook data center will come in. Robbing the children for a center that will take a lot of water from a very dry state, and will create very few jobs. But hey–it’s Facebook!
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4228139-155/school-board-delays-decision-on-240
LikeLike
There’s already a huge conflict of interest problem in ed tech. They’re going directly from public employment to working in ed tech promotion and sales.
We know how this ends. I have no idea who is working for whom. I can’t tell the salespeople from the consultants from the “public servants”.
None of these people are credible. I would need to know who is paying all of them.
Half of these think tanks are working for corporate entities. How am I supposed to tell the difference?
We had a sales pitch from a consultant who was pushing “High Tech High”- supposedly an unbiased expert. It was comically blatant.
If they’re selling product why don’t they just say so? We could all save a lot of time.
LikeLike
The taxpaying public need not wait for public actors to be transparent about their motives. The old “If it looks like a duck…”, “Cui bono?” & “Follow the $” measures still work fine.
LikeLike
Personalized learning, rigor, accountability,choice, yadda,yadda,yadda. By pointing out reformer’s meaningless marketing phrases & political hackery, teachers are responding strategically to GERM in RIo. Guess where the Rio teachers are getting their inspiration? From Diane’s blog. Let’s keep inspiring teachers to resist.j
https://www.thenation.com/article/teachers-and-students-occupy-schools-in-shadow-of-olympic-rio/
”Eduardo jumps in to say, “What happens in America effects the whole world.… I don’t remember the woman’s name, but I always use the work of this woman in the United States who initially supported standardized testing and is now against it and trying to keep it out of US schools.”
He is speaking, we quickly realize, about Diane Ravitch.
Raphael then says, “The systems of education permitted in America, like standardized testing, are being copied by Brazilians, so when you guys are fighting against those policies over there, you are helping us too.” Teachers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but standardized testing. Or as Marilia said,”I would only express my deep solidarity because your struggles is our struggle, and our struggle is also yours.”
LikeLike
JCGRim, that is so cool!
LikeLike
Another problem with online Machine Learning, (AKA Adaptive Learning, Personalized Learning) is the online programs collect hidden data about the student users, in order to get to know them, personalize the experience. This data goes way beyond simple answers of correct or incorrect, and algorithms can be used to detect personality, behavior, and ability to focus, to name just a few. Who sees and who uses this highly sensitive and predictive information? (It certainly isn’t transparent to the student, parent or teacher.) Are the predictive analytics used fair or accurate? Will this predictive data be used in predicting job placement or future hires, as is already happening per the Wall Street Journal posted below? Another author asks, “Is Personalized Learning” too Personal”?
“There is a great tension between how software is tracking the outcomes and the learning that students are doing and what happens to that data,” said Betsy Corcoran, chief executive and co-founder of EdSurge, an education technology news site that also sponsors conferences. “Who owns the data? Who is responsible for making sure that data is not abused in some way?”
http://www.recode.net/2015/12/9/11621282/when-personalized-learning-gets-too-personal-google-complaint-exposes
Privacy advocates are calling for transparency and regulation of these “Black Box” or secret algorithms. The Federal Trade Commission agrees and has called on the industry to regulate themselves, asking for algorithmic transparency.
Bottom line: Machines and algorithms should not be allowed to secretly predict people, period; but this is especially heinous when it is happening to children while at school under the guise of “personalized” learning.
Wall Street Journal: Bosses using data brokers to predict applicants. http://www.wsj.com/articles/bosses-harness-big-data-to-predict-which-workers-might-get-sick-1455664940
When Personalized Learning gets too personal. http://www.recode.net/2015/12/9/11621282/when-personalized-learning-gets-too-personal-google-complaint-exposes
FTC Data Brokers- Call for Transparency and Accountability https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf
focuses on the first three steps in the life cycle of big data within that industry—collection, compilation, and analytics. discusses how information gathered for one purpose (e.g online assessment or video evidence in data badge) could be compiled and analyzed for other purposes, such as for marketing or risk mitigation in hiring or insurance or line of credit.
FTC the Bias of Big Data: A tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/big-data-tool-inclusion-or-exclusion-understanding-issues/160106big-data-rpt.pdf
FTC- A Call for Algorithmic transparency
https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2015/12/transparency-trust-consumer-protection-complex-world-keynote-address
LikeLike
Suggest that data is never abused; rather, persons are. So, corporations abuse
students WITH data. (Important distinction.)
LikeLike
The machine is neutral, but the software is programmed by humans acting amid institutions and systems with certain assumptions that may or may not be beneficial to children. The machine is neutral, but the programs can be ineffective, biased and socially malevolent.
LikeLike
Diagree with this: The machine is neutral. Agree on the software.
The machine did not invent itself.
All of the parts have a history and they are a result of a reasoning process that provided a warrant for X machine rather than another.
LikeLike
Doubtless, Laura, since the machines too are the outcome of a social process, and structurally embed ways of accomplishing work.
However, as Silicon Valley snake oil salesmen like to say, “Code is law.”
LikeLike
Time is ripe to opt out of CBE, Personalized Learning, Badges, and other non-human education schemes.
LikeLike
“There is nothing ‘personal’ about learning from a machine. The machine doesn’t know you. It stores your data, but it has no feelings, no emotions, no empathy.”
This is also a fitting definition for Bill Gates, the Walton family, the Koch brothers, Eli broad, the hedge fund billionaires, etc. Just substitute “them” for “it”
LikeLike
Good one.
LikeLike
FINALLY your true progressive colors have been exposed. I have always felt your “reign of error” was just a radical seeing the gravy train and not wating to mi$$ an opportunity and jumped on board. But the truth has finally been revealed.
LikeLike
Bwahahaha! You’re talking about a “gravy train”? Really? That is exactly what digital, so-called “personalized” learning is all about. A gravy train for the companies that are shoving their products onto the schools so that they can make more money.
They don’t care about what is best for the kids. All they care about is how much money they can make.
How much are the Gates, the Waltons, Eli Broad, etc., paying you?
It is your truth that you have revealed. And it’s an ugly truth. Not at all one that gives a royal rat’s @ss about the best interests of the children.
LikeLike
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our troll of the week!
LikeLike
Karen Bracken is a far right, hyper partisan, Tennessee conspiracy theorist and preaches about the imaginary threats of Agenda 21, Common Core, and anything and everything that is not Tea Party Republican.
She calls herself and her fellow fearmongers “patriots” and, of course, everyone who does not agree with them is an enemy to be feared, fought, and dehumanized.
Hurling ‘progressive’ at Diane like an epithet is akin to calling her a muderer or a war criminal in Bracken’s warped world view,
Pity her, She is lost in the pits of rightwing paranoia and fear and will probably never see light again. I pray for her daily.
LikeLike
Diane Ravitch is part of the reason we are in this mess. The gravy train I speak of is the fact that she is paid opposition. She saw a way to get herself back in the limelight and jump on board. She is no more a conservative when it comes to education as Marc Tucker. She runs a 7 part series on ESSA with her buddy and progressive destroyer of education Lamar Alexander?? The person that wrote that I was a right wing Tea Party conspiracy theorist has no clue who I am or what I do or who I work with. Funny how whenever someone goes up against paid opposition they right away are labeled Tea Party. That tells me they are also part of the progressive tribe to destroy education. I know exactly what digital learning is all about and I am totally against it. I encourage parents to opt out of the digital platform, high stakes testing, surveys, NAEP and the system itself. I work to encourage and help parents get their kids out of the system and into safety.
LikeLike
” I work to encourage and help parents get their kids out of the system and into safety.”
What do you recommend them to do to be safe?
LikeLike
Who pays me, Karen? I haven’t seen the checks.
LikeLike
Friend, if you are going to post YouTube vidoes, interviews, hold rallys, and start an organization under your own name then it isn’t very hard to find out who you are and what you do.
LikeLike
LOL! Chris, you are being more than kind to Karen by calling her “friend.”
She does not seem to be much of a friend to Diane or most of the people who comment here.
LikeLike
Watching this video,
I have to agree with Karen that it’s very simplistic and unfair to label her as a tea-party enthusiast—as simplistic and unfair her labeling of other people as progressive.
LikeLike
If we are talking about the same Karen, she accused me of being a paid agent of the billionaires. Name-calling encourages name-calling. Truth: Karen pays me millions. I forget why. I’m on her payroll. Right, Karen?
LikeLike
“she accused me of being a paid agent of the billionaires. ”
No doubt, Karen is an angry woman, taking trash. Based on the video, she is angry about the corrupt, antidemocratic way CC was forced on the whole country. But why is she mad at you, when you have been making the same observation?
LikeLike
Must be Alex Jones fan, I guess.
LikeLike
I agree with this quote from Alfie Kohn:
“When -ized is added to personal, again, the original idea has been not merely changed but corrupted — and even worse is something we might call Personalized Learning, Inc. (PLI), in which companies sell us digital products to monitor students while purporting to respond to the differences among them.
“Personal learning entails working with each child to create projects of intellectual discovery that reflect his or her unique needs and interests. It requires the presence of a caring teacher who knows each child well.
“Personalized learning entails adjusting the difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores. It requires the purchase of software from one of those companies that can afford full-page ads in Education Week.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/24/four-reasons-to-seriously-worry-about-personalized-learning/
LikeLike
““Personalized learning entails adjusting the difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores. It requires the purchase of software from one of those companies that can afford full-page ads in Education Week.””
Great definition! 🙂
LikeLike
“But in the education industry, “personalized learning” means computer-based instruction. In theory, the computer knows the student well. The student and the computer interact and collaborate, so they are close friends.”
Unfortunately, “personalized learning” has become an education buzzword, and there are so many definitions of what it actually is. Integrating tech is a way to personalize learning for a student, but it is not the only way. Personalized learning means meeting the students where they are. If the student is struggling, find a way to help them, face to face or through the use of technology. The same is true if the student is a child who needs to be challenged. Technology can not replace a good teacher, however using it in your classroom will not suddenly make you a bad one.
LikeLike
The decision to use technology in the classroom to enhance learning must and should be left up to professional, highly educated teachers.
LikeLike
That would be the end of K-8 technology in the classroom.
LikeLike
Educational technology can be and is overused, according to the OECD study and others. It is not personalized learning unless it is used sparingly and as a supplement to, not a guide or engine of instruction. Additionally, I am still waiting for the study that shows education should be personalized as opposed to esprit de corps. Until that happens…
LikeLike
…That is to say technology is not personalization unless it is used sparingly.
LikeLike
And maybe esprit de coopératisme would be better than de corps. (Sorry if my French is incorrect.)
LikeLike
Personalized learning has EVERYTHING to do with the relationship between teacher and student. Computers MAY/might/possibly be one of many resources a teacher uses to help “personalize” the learning but there will NEVER be the day that a computer will replace a teacher-ever!!!
Big “T” is Teacher…..little “t” is technology…
LikeLike
It is unfortunate that, once again, a valid descriptor has been appropriated by the education industry. Ted Sizer was an education reformer in the true sense of the word, now Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee are “reformers”. Vermont wrote a law requiring personalized learning plans that would be developed by human beings. Now personalized learning plans are algorithms developed by reformers who see computers as our salvation.
LikeLike
Call it PET, Personalized Education by Things.
LikeLike
Here is the real message from the Alliance for Excellent Education https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tilUwegm4ao
LikeLike
There are many crucial differences between training in competitive sports and education. Perhaps the most relevant is that in the early ages, there’s nothing personalized in sports, kids get very little individual attention. Once they are selected for a team to compete, they’d get more individual instruction that would fit their personality or their role in the team.
Public education, on the other hand, will do (or is supposed to do) much more hand holding in the beginning and will do less as kids mature. But public education cannot and will not select a few capable kids and abandon the rest.
In sports, only the best get individual attention. The rest get weeded out.
In fact, the purpose of competitive sports is to create a few winners and the rest are mostly considered losers. Just watch the Olympics: only gold medals are focused on, little attention is paid to bronze medals, and Americans finishing 5th barely get mentioned, and the camera would not show their faces. If a medal contenders doesn’t make the final, the reporter will ask “so what went wrong?”. Do you do this in education? Is this individual attention?
Also, sport is about teaching the body certain movements it was not really designed to do, and the body has to do the movements repeatedly with very little deviation from the standard. It follows that coaching is more militaristic than educational, since the kids have to be able to do movements without thinking, as if they were born with the skills. At practices, kids have to execute orders, and their creative input is not needed—not at practices, anyways. Kids are more like soldiers than anything else.
LikeLike
Personalized learning does have far too many definitions – and some definitions are minimally better than others, but the reality is far less rosy. Here’s what it includes for us in Baltimore County Public Schools – young elementary students having computers read them books thru headphones, and personalized math machine based adaptive learning programs with lots of video game like features – providing continuous extrinsic rewards for children, and first graders through middle school children watching videos from machine based learning programs to provide instructional content prior to taking tests within those same systems.
LikeLike
Chicago Now: Chicago Public Schools’ Newly Posted Job for Executive Director of Personalized Learning Comes with Dire Warning from Baltimore County.
http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-public-fools/2016/06/cps-newly-posted-job-executive-director-of-personalized-learning-comes-with-a-dire-warning/
LikeLike
Diane, You have written about Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS) a couple of times, about our personalized learning/digital experiment. In all honesty, some of us are at our wits end with the level of pretending and celebration going on here and are barely clinging onto wanting to continue any advocacy about it. The lies and pretending are so profound that it is like living in the movie Alice in Wonderland. What keeps some of us hanging on is a sense of responsibility that we feel to call out the lie (for others), due to knowing that Baltimore County is continuing to collect awards and recognition for STAT when it is unwarranted and undeserved. Note: We are a great school system for so many reasons, including our talented teachers and diverse student population; but, as you may know, we have been positioned as a leader for this digital personalized learning thing and IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE. For some of us, our beef with this has less to do with personalized learning and the downsides of computer-based education and more to do with the fact that something is terribly wrong here, so to have to pretend that something is successful when it simply is not. So much energy has been put into making this appear to be successful and that is what is so alarming. That is what is so disturbing.
Would you consider looking into these two things? Would you help to expose what is really going on here. Please.
Here is the latest Johns Hopkins University evaluation for STAT/BCPS’ digital initiative They have said many times that they will not be evaluating academic performance for three or four years. This report is for Year Two): http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/bcps/Board.nsf/files/ABKPXH661993/$file/STAT_Year2_SummativeEvaluationReport.pdf
YET… here is a recent press release about Baltimore County Public Schools’ superintendent and a White House ball in which the superintendent will be honored with a prestigious White House award due to improving teaching and learning due to STAT: http://www.bcps.org/news/articles/article8273.html
Help! This just does not make any sense.
LikeLike
Here is the original (full) press release:
Superintendent to be honored at Presidential Inaugural Ball
Dance to receive prestigious national award for improving teaching and learning via technology
TOWSON, MD — The National Coalition for Technology in Education and Training (NCTET) announced today that Baltimore County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. S. Dallas Dance is one of five award winners who will be recognized at NCTET’s ball to honor the inauguration of the nation’s 45th president. The ball will be held on Jan. 20, 2017, at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC.
Dance is one of four Community Builder Award winners along with The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, justice (retired), United States Supreme Court, and chairperson, iCivics; The Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel, commissioner, Federal Communications Commission; and Vince Bertram, executive director, Project Lead the Way. The NCTET Founders Award will be presented to David Byer, senior group manager, Worldwide Education Advocacy, Apple Inc.
Since 2001, NCTET has honored individuals from the public and private sectors for their outstanding contributions to the organization’s mission of effectively integrating technology into teaching and learning. Prior honorees included the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), George Lucas (Lucasfilms and Edutopia), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and John Gage (director of the science office, Sun Microsystems).
Dr. Dance is being recognized for his leadership of the school system’s S.T.A.T. (Students and Teachers Accessing Tomorrow) and Passport initiatives. S.T.A.T., a comprehensive and fundamental shift in teaching and learning, uses technology and other strategies to personalize learning. The Passport Program begins world language instruction at Grade 4 using software and conversational lessons to prepare students to graduate fluent in a second language.
“We cannot be more thrilled to honor these five incredible men and women for their efforts to leverage the latest technologies to support the success of all learners,” said Ann Flynn, NCTET Board Chair and Director of Education Technology at the National School Boards Association. “Their efforts have made a lasting impact on teaching and learning, and we look forward to honoring them all at our upcoming Inaugural Ball in Washington, DC this coming January.”
NCTET is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization of education stakeholders that promotes and supports the effective use of technology to improve education and training in America by acting as a convener, catalyst, and resource for relevant and timely information. Based in Washington, DC, and founded in 1993, NCTET organizes policy briefings and issue forums, produces white papers, recognizes exemplary leadership in education and technology, and creates networking opportunities.
LikeLike
Absolute nonsense ! It is simply Common Core with new creepy social and emotional testing added! CC was a disaster… This is worse! If that’s even possible .. But looky .. It is!
These companies are bereft of interest in healthy children’s development and are poised simply to be first in que to dump unneeded tech gear.. Programs.. As well as intrusive spyware on schools and children! Read about it.. This is training for nothing more than a generation of gray cubical chair warmers who will acquiesce to the norms dictated to them as they will be indoctrinated since kindergarten !
This is tragic for children and teachers who have and will leave in droves due to this failed market based ideology!
Shameful that you support this!
LikeLike
Jennifer, to whom are you replying? Because if you are responding to Diane Ravitch, you have totally misunderstood everything she has written about. She does not support Common Core or the increasing tech emphasis in the schools.
Just the exact opposite. Reread everything Diane has written on this blog.
LikeLike
Here’s another problem we have in Baltimore County: we’re obviously under the oversight of the MD State Board of Ed, a member of which is Fordham Institute Senior Fellow Chester Finn. He’s extremely pro-charter school and pro-personalized learning, as evidenced in his recent open letter to Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. https://edexcellence.net/articles/an-open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-and-priscilla-chan?mc_cid=6a42180ce9&mc_eid=2addd07c5c It’s extremely long, but here are some “high” points: he praises them for creating an LLC vs. a private foundation, since this enables them to invest in for-profit ventures, start-ups, and political activities, and urges them to create institutions and programs the established structures of American public education can’t/won’t go near, and to stick with them long enough —provided they’re successful—to create traction and “some hope of longevity.” The LLC should be “receptive to educators and entrepreneurs who are keen to explore those boundaries.” According to Finn, “high-class technology with solid content for use in “blended learning” settings is a no-brainer for you, and it holds great potential for the future.” As for attracting teachers, Finn lauds “great outfits” like TFA, the Relay Graduate School of Education, New Leaders for New Schools, and the Broad Fellows program, which help talented individuals bypass “traditional certification hoops” to gain entry. This is what we’re up against in MD, and Baltimore County is THE test bed for all this “innovation” and “disruption.”
LikeLike
This sounds like a letter that should receive its own post.
LikeLike
The arrogance of Finn is beyond belief. He clearly believes that he has the answers, and while he plays lip service to demonstrating some humility, he really has no idea what that means. He is scary.
LikeLike
Checker Finn’s children–now adults–went to the finest private boarding schools, as he did. They were taught by experienced teachers (not TFA), their class size was usually 12, they did not learn online. They had the best education money can buy.
LikeLike
For those still following along, I highly recommend Tim Scott’s new piece “Education Technology, Surveillance, and America’s Authoritarian Democracy” in Dissident Voice. It offers many compelling insights into ed-tech and personalized learning and the implications widespread adoption of these platforms will have on children and society. It’s long, so be sure to set aside a chunk of time to go through it. Better yet read it more than once. It’s packed with excellent (and scary) information: http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/education-technology-surveillance-and-americas-authoritarian-democracy/
“While social control is often considered to be one of the primary purposes of schooling, in the age of neoliberal financialization, this purpose is being taken to new heights through the instruments of education technology (EdTech) as part of the Big Data infrastructure. Fundamentally, the primary function of EdTech within this landscape is intended to build and reinforce schooling as a structure of social control as part of the all encompassing Big Data/Internet of Things surveillance ecosystem. To do this, digital education software products on tablets, laptops, mobile devices, wearable technology and more enable deep learning analytics and artificial intelligence systems. Within this environment, teachers function as highly disciplined data technicians tasked to monitor student behavior and compliance.”
LikeLike