What is competency-based education? Twenty or thirty years ago, it referred to skill-based education, and critics complained that CBE downgraded the importance of knowledge.
Today CBE has a different meaning. It refers to teaching and assessment that is conducted online, where students’ learning is continuously monitored, measured, and analyzed. CBE is invariably susceptible to data-mining of children, gathering Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that can be aggregated and used without the knowledge or permission of parents.
The first time that I heard of CBE (although it was not called that) was in a meeting in August 2015 with The State Commissioner of Education in New York, MaryEllen Elia, after her first month in office. I organized a discussion between Commissioner Elia and several board members of NYSAPE (New York State Allies for Public Education), the group that created New York State’s massive opt out that year (and again this year). It was a candid e change, and at one point, Commissioner Elia said that the annual tests would eventually be phased out and replaced by embedded assessment. When asked to explain, she said that students would do their school work online, and they would be continuously assessed. The computer could tell teachers what the students were able to do, minute by minute.
This kind of intensive surveillance and monitoring is very alarming. Once teaching and testing goes online, how can parents say no?
A group of bloggers wrote posts last week to express their concern and outrage about the stealth implementation of CBE. The lead post warns that opting out of annual tests is not enough to stop the digitized steamroller. It’s title is: “Stop! Don’t Opt Out. Read This First.” The author argues that parents are being deceived.
The blogger warns:
Schools in every state are buzzing this year with talk of “personalized” learning and 21st century assessments for kids as young as kindergarten. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and its innovative pilot programs are already changing the ways schools instruct and assess, in ways that are clearly harmful to our kids. Ed-tech companies, chambers of commerce, ALEC, neoliberal foundations, telecommunications companies, and the government are working diligently to turn our public schools into lean, efficient laboratories of data-driven, digital learning.
He or she recounts the ways the technocracy responds to parents’ concerns and fears. The new way, they will say, is “personalized learning.” Don’t worry. We know what is best. When the parent objects that the test results come back too late to inform instruction, the technocrat says, “embedded instruction provides real-time feedback. No problem.” Parent asks, what about the stress? Technocrat: “Children won’t even know they are being tested.”
The blogger doesn’t actually say to parents, “Don’t opt out.”
Quite the contrary:
“Opt out families nationwide are encountering these same arguments, as though a pre-set trap is being sprung. Great. So opting out of end-of-year testing isn’t the silver bullet we hoped it would be. Now what?
Now that we know the whole story, go ahead and opt out of the end of the year tests. No child should suffer through them. But we have to expand our definition of opting out, to protect our children from data mining and stop the shift to embedded assessments and digital curriculum.
In addition to opting out of end-of-year testing, there are other important steps we need to take to safeguard our children’s access to human teachers and to protect their data, their vision, and their emotional health. There is no set playbook, but here are some ideas to get us started.
1. Opt your child out of Google Apps for Education (GAFE).
2. If your school offers a device for home use, decline to sign the waiver for it and/or pay the fee.
3. Does your child’s assigned email address include a unique identifier, like their student ID number? If yes, request a guest log in so that their data cannot be aggregated.
4. Refuse biometric monitoring devices (e.g. fit bits).
5. Refuse to allow your child’s behavioral, or social-emotional data to be entered into third-party applications. (e.g. Class Dojo)
6. Refuse in-class social networking programs (e.g. EdModo).
7. Set a screen time maximum per day/per week for your child.
8. Opt young children out of in school screen time altogether and request paper and pencil assignments and reading from print books (not ebooks).
9. Begin educating parents about the difference between “personalized” learning modules that rely on mining PII (personally-identifiable information) to function properly and technology that empowers children to create and share their own content.
10. Insist that school budgets prioritize human instruction and that hybrid/blended learning not be used as a back door way to increase class size or push online classes.
Parents, teachers, school administrators, and students must begin to look critically at the technology investments we are making in schools. We have to start advocating for responsible tools that empower our children to be creators (and I don’t mean of data), NOT consumers of pre-packaged, corporate content or online games. We must prioritize HUMAN instruction and learning in relationship to one another. We need more face time and less screen time.
Every time a parent acts to protect their child from these harmful policies, it throws a wrench into the gears of this machine. The steamroller of education reform doesn’t stand a chance against an empowered, educated army of parents, teachers and students. Use your power to refuse. Stand together, stand firm, be loud, and grab a friend. Cumulatively our actions will bring down this beast!”
Yes… There are lots of ways to opt out. One does not exempt the others.
And it feels more logical each year to directly connect the problems of (1) standardized testing and (2) key-stroke tracking as they are ever more intimately tied together.
This is a huge topic- one that many of us are already part of. As we each try out new tech tools, there is a hidden and unknown cost of what commercial interests we are subjecting our students to. Even as I assign students to watch a video on YouTube, I worry about the barrage of advertisements and further videos that will be offered to them. A “free” keyboarding program used in class comes with pop up advertisements as they log in. And Google classroom and school google accounts are used to help a seamless interaction between the teacher, student, and a multitude of tech applications. Even I as a mother and teacher who argued for less screen time outside of school, can no longer figure out how to address what’s happening inside of school. How can we effectively judge, limit or separate what is a healthy use of technology, and what is an erosion of privacy, liberty, and humanity? And what is the human cost of the manufacture and disposal of our technology? While one part of the world believes computers necessary to the future of civilization, another part of the planet are denied workers rights and environmental protections as they are bathed in the toxic sludge of “progress”.
You gave me an idea: since I’m forced to use new laptops in my classroom, I have have students use them to research working conditions in Shenzhen.
“CAN have”
My first unit this year was a similar discussion. I focused on the social costs and benefits of technology as a distraction, tool for bullying, etc., along with increased communication, global knowledge and connection with our separated families.
An excellent topic for modern-day instruction, up to and including conversation centered on how technology now increasingly separates the haves from the have-nots — all while those in charge of educational mandates turn an (elitist’s) blind eye.
Regarding
“1. Opt your child out of Google Apps for Education (GAFE).”
Perhaps, Google Apps for Faux Education, GAFFE?
Can I naively ask what’s wrong with GAFE? I’m not currently in the classroom, but am planning to return in a few years. When I taught high school in ’12-13, we didn’t have enough tech for me to really use many online tools. But I went to college in the age of Google Docs–I expect to have access to GAFE when I go back to teaching, and am excited about being able to teach with at least some tech. Just managing assignments alone–I am SO much more organized digitally than on paper. Is the concern with many of these tech tools, including GAFE, that they are providing corporations with student data? Is it something else that I’m missing? As a “tech native” millennial, I’m probably blind to some of the drawbacks, and would love to think more critically about how I use tech in the future!
Someone in the know really needs to point us to the more detailed information about the drawbacks of applications like GAFE. Erinharrington brings up some valid concerns.
Both of my high school children have a “flipped” class. Their homework is to sit in front of a screen for all instruction. They can’t ask questions and there is no discussion. They are alone with the screen. The next day in class the teacher takes questions. But this is after they have attempted to learn it and then slept on it- too late if you ask me. What ends up happening is that a majority of the class blows off watching the videos and then bogs down the class next day to get the teacher to do some teaching. The few kids who actually did the homework and learned it end up sitting there bored. At the end of the year when students are asked to review the class, that majority responds favorably. They just took an honors science class and did next to zero homework. The “teacher” thinks it is great with all of those wonderful reviews.
And our once good school continues its downward spiral.
That is sad. A haunting tragedy. I would like to use foul language to describe it. If anyone tries to get me to flip my classroom– again– there will be an earful for their troubles.
Oh, but “blended learning” sounds so cutting-edge, innovative and 21st Century — it must be good (even though it’s never been proven to work). Therefore, like a true-believing education reformer, I shall discount your extensive first-hand experience with it. I still believe!
My son was assigned to a history “teacher” that conducts his class in a computer lab and does everything on computer modules. Once I learned that, I moved my son out of the class immediately. I am also a history teacher (my son had my class for two years), and I know the department chair of his school, who, upon seeing the guy’s name, said, “That’s not good,” and moved my son out.
The question, though, is: WHY were other students having to take him? Apparently, he’s popular (probably for the same reasons as discussed above), but the cost of next to no knowledge about world history is TOO much. Frankly, I don’t understand how the school (and that department head) aren’t going after this guy’s methods.
When I was teaching math at one school, part of my evaluation was student surveys. I caught a conversation amongst a group of high school students rating teachers by how they looked in jeans. And our state legislators have decided in their infinite genius the student surveys remain a good idea.
Sounds familiar. Utah REQUIRES all teachers to be evaluated by student AND teacher surveys. It’s stupid.
In response to the question about GAFE. Below are a few links that may be of help.
GAFE, Google, Chromebooks… seem to suffer transparency issues on how they track and use and analyze student data. When parents have asked to see what data points Google collects, how that information is analyzed, who it is shared with, there are no transparent answers. Many privacy organizations and advocates have concerns and questions about the algorithms used and data collection/ sharing in GAFE.
Google Chromebooks are pre-set to send student data, all user activity, back to Google. This article explains how ChromeSync feature tracks students. Some schools purposely leave the SYNC feature on. Others, however, turn off Sync before asking students to use Chromebooks. MANY schools and parents are NOT AWARE of the Chrome Sync tracking feature. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies-confusing-consumers-profit
This blog does a great job explaining GAFE issues in Where The Sidewalk Ends: Wading Through Google’s Terms of Service for Education:
Google defines a narrow set of applications as “core” Apps for Edu services. These services are exempt from having ads displayed alongside user content, and from having their data used for “Ads purposes”. However, apps outside the core services – like YouTube, Blogger, and Picasa – are not covered by the terms of service that restrict ads. The same is true for integrations of third party apps that can be enabled within the Google Apps admin interface, and then accessed by end users. So, when a person in a Google Apps for Edu environment watches a video on YouTube, writes or reads a post on Blogger, or accesses any third party app enabled via Google Apps, their information is no longer covered under the Google Apps for Education terms.
To put it another way: as soon as a person with a Google Apps for Education account strays outside the opaque and narrowly defined “safe zone” everything they do can be collected, stored, and mined.
So, the next time you hear someone say, “Google apps doesn’t use data for advertising” ask them to explain what happens to student data when a student starts in Google apps, and then goes to Blogger, or YouTube, or connects to any third party integration.” read more…
https://funnymonkey.com/2015/where-the-sidewalk-ends-wading-through-googles-terms-of-service
EFF COMPLAINT against GOOGLE
The privacy watchdog group Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a complaint with the FTC about Google’s deceptive tracking of students.
Chrome books are set to send back students’ entire browsing history to Google but that is not all.
Google’s Student Tracking Isn’t Limited to Chrome Sync
Many media reports on (as well as at least one response to) the FTC complaint we submitted yesterday about Google’s violation of the Student Privacy Pledge have focused heavily on one issue—Google’s use of Chrome Sync data for non-educational purposes. This is an important part of our complaint, but we want to clarify that Google has other practices which we are just as concerned about, if not more so.
In particular, the primary thrust of our complaint focuses on how Google tracks and builds behavioral profiles on students when they navigate to Google-operated sites outside of Google Apps for Education. We’ve tried to explain this issue in both our complaint and our FAQ, but given its significance we think it’s worth explaining again.
To understand what’s going on, you first have to understand that when it comes to education, Google divides its services into two categories: Google Apps for Education (GAFE), which includes email, Calendar, Talk/Hangouts, Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Sites, Contacts, and the Apps Vault; and everything else, which includes Google Search, Blogger, Bookmarks, Books, Maps, News, Photos, Google+, and YouTube, just to name a few.
Google has promised not to build profiles on students or serve them ads only within Google Apps for Education services. When a student goes to a different Google service, however, and they’re still logged in under their educational account, Google associates their activity on that service with their educational account, and then serves them ads on at least some of those non-GAFE services based on that activity.
In other words, when a student logs into their educational account, and then uses Google News to create a report on current events, or researches history using Google Books, or has a geography lesson using Google Maps, or watches a science video on YouTube, Google tracks that activity and feeds it into an ad profile attached to the student’s educational account—even though Google knows that the person using that account is a student, and the account was created for educational purposes.
This is our biggest complaint about Google’s practices—that despite having promised not to track students, Google is abusing its position of power as a provider of some educational services to profit off of students’ data when they use other Google services—services that Google has arbitrarily decided don’t deserve any protection. read more https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/googles-student-tracking-isnt-limited-chrome-sync
Google and other apps may be “free”, but as privacy experts warn, your child’s data is the price. GAFE is just one example of needing transparent and enforceable privacy laws to protect students and why schools and teachers should read the privacy policies, terms of service surrounding data collection and use…and communicate that information with parents before signing a child up for GAFE or any app. Ideally, every parent should be given the choice to opt-in, as many parents are not aware of data privacy issues surrounding edtech.
…and as privacy groups warn, Google is playing with [COPPA] fire in promoting GAFE to children under 13. http://www.cio.com/article/2855414/google-will-target-kids-with-redesigned-versions-of-its-products.html
Thomas Newkirk from University of New Hampshire wrote a piece on CBE:
Click to access Newkirk_11_final.pdf
Forgive me if this has already been posted. It does give a good view.
Thank you, Cheryl. Newkirk’s essay is very well written. Read it, people. It’s not that long, and it is not at all “windy.”
That is a top notch list of ten responsibilities for parents, teachers, and young people. Read them. Read them again. Memorize them. Do them. Every citizen deserves not to be denied future employment, support, or advancement based on data collected on them while learning from mistakes. Big Brother is here. It will take all of us to put him back in Pandora’s Box.
On a teacher’s point of view, I am caught in the middle. The resources given to me for interventions is mainly on line programs. The Intervention team demands 10 weeks of data on a graph to progress monitor the students. When I turn in my hand made graph, they baulk because I might have used the wrong assessment to progress monitor. I then have to provide copies of each assessment and more paper work to prove I was on the correct path.
They are slowly trying to take the teach out of teaching. No wonder there are so many vacancies! Unless we actively resist the hostile takeover of Silicon Valley, the cyber bullies will destroy meaningful human education and replace it will products that make money for the tech industry, despite the fact there is little evidence that shows this is a valid approach, despite the fact we don’t know what the long term effects of sitting in front of screen for extended periods of time has on the developing brain.
I know what effect it has on my aging brain! 🙂 It can’t be good for youngsters.
It makes IEP goals easy to write, too. 7/10, 8/10, 9/10 on a benchmark test of some online quiz on anything you can quantify.
Thank you, Diane, for posting this important blog and further shining light on the next phase of the corporate reform agenda that, if left unchallenged, will undoubtedly put an end to public education as we have known it. Some may be sucked in and think that public education is hopelessly broken and needs to be dismantled. What needs to be dismantled is the technocratic mindset that with arrogance, callousness, and hubris assumes that teaching/learning is all about skill development in the service of a “knowledge economy” driven by multi-national corporations whose bottom line is profit. The humongous industry that has grown up over the standardized testing, test prep, test prep curricula, digital 1:1 learning with incessant monitoring, assessing, and tracking individual students to provide a cradle to workplace profile is dystopian and fundamentally unAmerican. Students have unique hopes, dreams, talents, and needs. Multi-national corporations know nothing of child development, language development, literacy development, or academic fields of study. Parents, teachers, and all concerned citizens need to harness the momentum of the intelligence and passion of the Opt Out of HST movement and apply it to this even more nefarious assault on our children, families, and teachers. Parents Across America has recently put out resources to inform parents about the dangers of the all digital agenda, dangers to children’s physical health, psycho-social health, academic well-being, and emotional/behavioral health. http://parentsacrossamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Documentationfinal-1.pdf
I also highly recommend Nicholas Kardaras’s new book on the dangers of incessant screen use, particularly for young children. Glow Kids: How Screen Addiction Is Hijacking Our Kids-and How to Break the Trance
I just watched the PBS “Schools of the Future” program. Boy, what a nice infomercial for all of the current fads in education. Zero critical analysis, just breathless cheerleading for anything new and shiny: mindfulness training, personalized learning with computers, etc. Sprinkled with talking heads from the billionaire’s foundations and Berkeley, Stanford and Harvard spouting the acceptable cliches-du-jour (e.g. kids need to feel connected to their schools) with almost no backup for any of their broad claims. Before you have a chance to formulate critical questions about one fad, they’re on to the next glossy ad for another trendy idea. Very disappointing journalism. When is PBS going to do a critique of education technology? They can start by interviewing the commenter “math man”.
I love the “connected to their schools” crap. How does ANYONE feel connected to anything when all they do is stare at a screen and don’t interact with each other?
My students are currently working on a project that requires them to make a scale map of my classroom. They have to take the measurements and figure out the scale and then hand draw and color the thing. I always love to watch the groups as the students interact with each other and help each other. They really get to know each other. Never going to happen with computers. PLUS, they get to move around, and use tape measures, which they love.
We know that cyber charters have terrible outcomes for children. Why in the world would we allow essentially the same thing (now branded as “blended” learning and 1:1 device programs) to take up residence in bricks and mortar neighborhood schools and suck up time and resources that would otherwise be spent on authentic teaching and learning?
Thank you for posting this! I am so appreciative of your willingness to spur further conversation about this by posting the link and adding your commentary.
Thanks for posting this Diane! The key to stopping the data mining would be for FERPA to go back to pre-2011 levels. Once that changed, it allowed for the data mining to happen, and it IS happening.
I would like to know which politicians are responsible for changing FERPA in 2011. We need to publicize a list and vote them out of office. Anyone know where to find such a list?
I believe it was Arne Duncan and President Obama okayed it.
But didn’t our representatives vote it through? I’m hoping to find out who voted to take our children’s privacy away.
If you find out, please let me know!
I don’t think anything went up for a vote at all. Just Arne Duncan changing it on his own.
The US Department of Education under Arne Duncan changed the FERPA regulations. The changes were never reviewed by Congress.
Reblogged this on Exceptional Delaware.
CBE and personalized learning are all-too-often being painted with a broad brush. Some of the high-profile and well-funded systems do what Diane has described, but there are other systems that decouple lessons and assessments – providing room for teacher and judgment and protecting student identities. Full disclosure… I’m a big fan of LiFT™ by SchoolHack Solutions.
It looks like you work there too. http://www.schoolhack.io/company/
Cut it out, parent! Cockroaches do not like it when the lights turn on.
Wow parent! I almost snarfed my soda.
So, Gary, why didn’t you come out and say from the start that you are connected with SHS??
Or is that just a little too honest for your business plans?
Diane, Thank you for posting this.
And THANK YOU for saying before that you will fight to fix FERPA. Of course, CBE (and soon k-12 data badges), collecting and sharing of student data without parent consent was enabled by the gutting of this federal law, FERPA, in 2011.
Until we get enforceable laws protecting children’s privacy, this digital “personalized” education with its online hidden, embedded data collection and PREDICTIVE (unknown, black-box) algorithms should be questioned. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation asks, Who is spying on students? https://www.eff.org/issues/student-privacy
*** WE NEED every policy maker, every ed advocate like yourself, asking our next President to FIX FERPA and repeal that 2011 change. ***
Further Reading on 2011 FERPA changes see below. BE SURE to read the remarks by Data Quality Campaign’s attorney who said that USDoE needed to change FERPA to keep parents from getting in the way.
Public Comments on FERPA Changes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including those made (page 7) by Steve Winnick, attorney for Data Quality Campaign, May 23, 2011 https://epic.org/apa/ferpa/Public%20Comments%20Pt.%203.pdf
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers OPPOSED FERPA changes, May 23, 2011 http://tinyurl.com/gwfq3vg
EPIC, Comments on the FERPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, May 23, 2011
Click to access EPIC_FERPA_Comments.pdf
EPIC’s Complaint against the Department of Education, Feb. 29, 2012
Click to access EPIC-FERPA-Complaint.pdf
Education Department’s Answer to EPIC’s Complaint, May 4, 2012
Click to access ED-FERPA-Answer.pdf
Thank you again.
Cheri
Cheri,
Arne gutted FERPA to help Gates and friends data mine students and develop new product.
It was done by regulation, not law
Cheri,
I have posted on many occasions about the gutting of FERPA by the ED dept
Google my name and FERPA
True. 2011 FERPA changes bypassed Congress, but this change can be reversed. No? http://gai.georgetown.edu/executive-orders-v-executive-actions/
It should be able to be reversed by the next Department of Education. Diane, or whoever can get to Secretary Clinton, this should be PRIORITY ONE for the next Secretary of Education. THEY NEED TO KNOW. I don’t know if they will do it or not, but we need to try.
It depends on WHO that next Secretary of Education will be. If it is my Delaware Common Core/SBAC loving Governor Jack Markell, forget about it. Not sure who else is in contention (assuming Hillary wins). I heard Linda Darling-Hammond’s name thrown around. She popped up on the CBE/digital learning infomercial the other night on PBS. But you never know. It could be M.C. Hammer at this rate!
As much as I agree that privacy protections are hugely important, I think we need to recognize that alone, it won’t stop the implementation of digital curriculum. It would be very disappointing if we come up with a solution promising parents that they will anonymize the data and lock it up in the most secure box ever and never share it, but then continue to allow 1:1 device / screen-based educational models to proliferate.
I was directed to a wonderful book by Douglas Noble, a former computer programmer who later had a long career as a teacher in the Rochester, NY area. It you really want to understand how far back the origins of this effort are “The Classroom Arsenal: Military Research, Information Technology, and Public Education” is a must read. https://www.amazon.com/Classroom-Arsenal-Information-Technology-Perspectives/dp/1850008043
Much of the book focuses on how technology has been used to modify behavior to create more efficient man-machine systems. It is called “human factors engineering,” and a flood of money was released for research in the area in the 1960s via the “National Defense Education Act.”
What we watched this week on the Nova Schools of the Future special is a legacy of this work.
Work on the privacy and reinstating true FERPA protections, but also refuse, refuse, refuse, refuse!
Refuse is also opt out.
Those who refuse are the same as those who opt out.
Added as a keylink on the blog http://www.statusbcps.wordpress.com, which has been following Baltimore County Public Schools’ massive digital transformation. 111,000 students in overcrowded, overheated, crumbling schools each receive a $1,400 device.
YIKES! What a miserable excuse for “education.”
It is very concerning. This is exactly why the national conversation about opting out/refusing and slowing down online CBE is SO important.
What do you do if you’re a teacher and your Broad superintendent-hired assistant principal uses district ID numbers to set up Google and McGraw-Hill accounts for you and your students without permission? Isn’t setting up an online account for someone other than yourself a form of identity theft? FLERP!? Is there a lawyer in the house?
Good question. My district did the same. I don’t use them–is that enough to protect the kids?
Threatened,
Me neither, but who knows? Simply not using the accounts does not seem good enough to me. A principal once set up a LinkedIn account for me. A teacher once set up a Facebook in my name. Those were felonies I chose not to press. I didn’t appreciate having social network accounts that gave me unsolicited messages and were a pain in the neck to have taken down. It’s not acceptable to have online accounts for which the passwords were created by someone else. It is inherently dangerous. This whole thing is disturbing.
You’re probably right, Left Coast. Any of our legal people on here (FLERP: you out there?) that could answer this?
I hope I am not posting this comment twice. The first time, the comment seems to have disappeared. That was a half hour ago.
So, what do you do if your school administration creates accounts with Google and McGraw-Hill in your and your students’ names with district ID numbers? Isn’t setting up an online account for someone other than yourself a form of identity theft and therefore illegal? Is there a lawyer in the house?
Good point. I refused the google account that used my child’s student ID number as the address and requested a guest log in, but I did it only after it was created. It would be great if teachers could push for notification forms to got out parents in advance of creating the accounts. And outline alternate arrangements for those parents that refuse the PII accounts.
HEAR, Hear. Lawsuits needed!
As a parent of a 2nd grader in Baltimore County Public Schools, thank you for writing this. This is our second year of trying to figure out how to navigate this new world of computerized “personalized learning” also known as CBE. $1400 tablets for each kid, changes in grading, larger class sizes and now “teacher shortages” after many experienced teachers have been pushed out- these changes follow the plan for CBE. It is being sold as something shiny and new designed by a young, ambitious superintendent who wants to “level the playing field”. But, it was not designed by him, it is a national plan made by businesses like Pearson. Our teachers are so understanding and keep being told to make the best of what is available. They push dreambox, iready, use the computers in the library, get 6 year olds making posters on wixie. It keeps kids from getting important sensory experiences, including person to person experiences so important at these young ages. There are social emotional programs that track kids and will even “deliver your transcripts to colleges”. The BOE agreed to sign a 13 year contract with Midllebury- a mostly on line spanish program which has a teacher one day per week and the rest is on the computers. How can 9 year olds get anything out of learning a language on a computer? And yet, our superintendent keeps winning awards. Our family is choosing to leave the public system- not without hesitation in how much we will be paying for education. We hope there will be exposure of the damages of CBE in all classrooms but especially our youngest learners who need more face to face time with other kids and their beloved teachers.
Baltimore parent,
That is a sad and alarming story.
I recommend all parents in each state really look and see what their local district and state DOE are doing. Look at their board minutes. See what tech they are voting on to come into schools. Go into your child’s classroom and see how much screen time they are getting. If you oppose it, speak out!!!! Parents are the voice for their children. Don’t be afraid to use that voice. In most situations until they can do it for themselves, you could be the only voice that does so.
In the last election, Governor Cuomo persuaded voters to approve a $2 billion bond for technology for schools.
Now let’s hope it gets used wisely.
I have no doubt Cuomo approved it for this very purpose. I heard there is a push in D.C. for a huge broadband bill to make sure all areas of the country have internet access. While I agree that should be a general practice, I don’t believe it should be for a purpose such as this.
According to this report, link below, prepared for the National School Board Association by legal scholars, some drafts of revised FERPA regulations are in the works, with heavy fines attached to violations. I am not a lawyer but this document offers some key definitions and gives an account of some of the issues and loopholes in FERPA.
One of the most important loopholes exploited by marketers is their status as school approved contractors and authorized agents with ” legitimate” access to student information.
Also, as Diane notes, the goldmine for marketers is the PI data, personal identification for each student. The Gates foundation set up the Data Quality Campaign around 2004 in an effort (largely successful) to gets states on board in linking individual student data to each teacher of record for that student, along with much else. That program was closely coordinated with federal grants for longitudinal data collection that would accomplish the same purpose, a survelliience system with data warehouses for “research” and such.
Click to access 01-Myers-2016-FERPA-Update-Paper.pdf
Thanks, Laura. One of the conditions of Race to the Top was that states were required to keep a longitudinal data warehouse containing personally identifiable information on every student, from cradle to grave. Gates’ inBloom was supposed to be the program for data mining and storage, but the opposition of parents caused states to back out of inBloom (New York, led by John King, was the last to leave), and inBloom folded its tent. Others are willing to step in and have.
The RttT “assurance” did require longitudinal database (SLDS) in every state, but interestingly we are told by USDoE and state DoEs that pii is not shared out of SLDS, unless required by Federal law or approved (under FERPA) for “educational” or “research” purposes. USDoE may also receive student pii directly from schools. (See email from USDoE PTAC inquiry below. )
Conversely, we know that millions of points of data are collected on a student when they log onto online curriculum or apps, much of it pii as the student must log-in. It is nearly impossible to see the data elements collected by many online vendors/ edtech companies, nearly impossible to see how the data is shared and who the sub-contractors are. (Under FERPA, the online edtech company does not have to tell parents this information.)
AND– Online adaptive, “Personalized” Learning– is far WORSE because the program gets to know the child, personalized with algorithms. The student data can be further analyzed and predicted with algorithms that are proprietary and hidden. It is impossible to see how a child’s data is used to predict him/her, impossible to know if it is accurate and also impossible to know if the algorithms are fair, biased in what opportunities may be presented or precluded based on the “personalized” algorithms.
Many say that instead of just privacy, we need to start worrying about a child’s algorithmic identity or their “reputation score”, which apparently will be used to grade them in the future, according to this Globalist map. http://edu2035.org/pdf/GEF_future-map_en.pdf
Finally, with all the data collected, both via online vendors and via collection from schools, students, SLDS etc., it is unclear if /how data from multiple sources is ever combined. We do know that the Federal Learning Registry is a joint data gathering project between the US Dept of Defense and Dept of Education. And we do know that the #GoOpen OER free online curriculum is handled by many in the edtech field and involves the Federal Learning Registry.
We also know from many studies that it takes only a few data points to identify someone.
Changing FERPA to pre-2011 would be a much needed, IMMEDIATE first step in giving parents transparency to see how their children’s data is being used and shared. Then we could hope and wait for Congress to pass stringent privacy law (much like GDPR privacy law recently passed in Europe).
FYI: When USDoE was asked what pii student data they receive, here is the response:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Hawes, Michael
Subject: PTAC Inquiry
I received your inquiry about personally identifiable information collected by the U.S. Department of Education. Here are the answers to your questions.
The U.S. Department of Education collects minimal amounts of personally identifiable information when required to do so for mandated tasks such as administering student loans and grants, conducting research, and investigating individual civil rights complaints. Beyond that, under provisions of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) the Department is not authorized to create a national, student-level database or a student records data system.
In most cases, the limited PII that the Department does receive is collected directly from the student (e.g., when applying for federal financial assistance), or from the student’s school. The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) are administered directly by each state, not by the U.S. Department of Education, and the Department does not have access to the student-level data in those systems.
The Department shares a limited amount of the PII that it collects with other federal agencies or other third parties for necessary activities, such as the administration of the federal student loan program. Information about these data sharing arrangements, including the recipients and the purpose for the data sharing, are detailed in the applicable System of Records Notices (SORNs) and Computer Matching Act (CMA) agreements that are published on the Department’s website at: http://www2.ed.gov/notices/ed-pia.html and http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/om/pirms/cma.html
If you have any additional questions about the Department’s use of PII, or how we protect student privacy, please send them to our Student Privacy Help Desk at PrivacyTA@ed.gov
-Michael Hawes
Michael B. Hawes
Statistical Privacy Advisor
U.S. Department of Education
Sheesh. Thanks Laura. Was Emily Dickinson predicting William Gates the Third?
“…
The Grass divides as with a Comb —
A spotted shaft is seen —
And then it closes at your feet
And opens further on —
…”
Diane, I was sad to see this post. I am so in line with the beliefs and concerns that you and the progressive education community hold. I have opted my own student out out of standardized testing, rallied against charter expansion, and other corporate influence in education, etc. But advocating for the shutting down of all technology use in the classroom is highly reactionary and not the response I would have expected from you.
When I taught in the 90’s and early 2000’s I could only dream of some of the tools that are available today, so much so that I changed careers and now am a programmer for an ed tech startup. We pour our hearts into our product, not to diminish teaching to but to give teachers better tools to do their jobs. Teachers have driven every line of code we write. Personalized learning is not a bad word, it should be one of the many goals of education, one that is extremely difficult to do without technology.
Your post is concerning because it conflates all that is wrong with corporate control of education with the amazing potential that technology can bring our teachers and students when used well. I would much rather that we teach parents about how to advocate for responsible technology products than to resist it outright.
Denis,
I am not opposed to the proper use of technology. I am concerned about data mining of children for the benefit of vendors. I am concerned about constant embedded assessment, because the technology is not suited to it and will never be. Online assessments by necessity are for standardized testing, and I am no fan of standardized testing. I think such tests should be used only for sampling purposes, like NAEP, with full awareness of their limitations. We are investing too much in technology and not enough in teachers. Most tests should be designed by teachers and should encourage students both to ask and answer questions in thoughtful ways
Diane, thanks for the reply. Maybe I have a different notion of what some of these terms mean. “Data mining” can certainly be used for ill purposes. But if we are talking about learning content, it can also mean studying student responses to improve the learning experience for students. Likewise, “Online assessments” and “constant embedded assessment” can certainly mean standardized assessments that inappropriately label children and teachers, and chew up valuable learning time and budgets. But an embedded assessment can be well suited as a short formative guide for student and teacher alike within the context of a smartly designed unit (digital or otherwise). Yes, there are limitations, but there are also limitations on teacher created and delivered assessments. I don’t view these digital tools as a problem as long as they are tools intended to be used by teachers, not replace teachers… and as long as the assessment data is not labeling kids or teachers in high stakes ways.
I agree with the rest of your response.
My disappointment in the post was based primarily on the starter list of ways to resist the machine. Items 1, 2, and 8, suggesting parents opt out of GAFE, one-to-one computing, and any screen time at all. This is too extreme, I cannot imagine enough parents getting behind this to grind any gears, their kids will just get pushed into alternative classrooms.
To avoid McEducation, I would much rather that we keep advocating for awareness building and teacher development and planning time as you suggest in items 9 and 10. And because language matters, I would love to see a document that progressive parents and teachers could put in front of school boards that spells out what good teaching resources (digital or otherwise) look like and what they don’t look like.
Denis,
I believe we should use technology as a tool, not let it use us
Here’s an example of one of the problems of embedded assessments. An administrator noticed that I didn’t often use the program’s suggestion for grouping students for reteaching/practice. The problem was that the program made the decision on the basis of two to three questions in a short online assessment. Now ignore the fact that decisons were made on the basis of limited information (to which I did not have access). The social dynamics of the classroom and the other academic demands meant that extra help might be more effectively offered through more than one group through which I could take advantage of those students who might actually have a more productive working relationship with students chosen by me. That did not factor into this administrator’s critique. He was only interested in what (he thought) the data told him. There was a lot I liked about this program, but the administration bought the claims made by the company sales force for extraordinary growth and ignored the expertise of its teachers and the unique dynamics of the population being served.
2old2teach, thank you for your post. It helps to clarify the issue for me. Yours and Diane’s last comment are right on the mark. So when vendors or administrators purport that data should trump a teacher’s understanding of their children, they are out of line. If there is a disconnect, that should be the beginning of a conversation, not the end of it (in a high stakes way). This is a much more nuanced, and difficult argument than “vendor data is bad”, but I hope we can nuance it.
Personalized learning is not nearly impossible to do without technology. In fact, I PREFER to personalize learning without technology, because then PEOPLE are actually involved. How does one “personalize” with a mindless computer, Denis?
Denis,
Until there is transparency and enforceable privacy law, technology use in education will be stifled, because there is no trust. Technology should not be used to replace the teacher nor should it be used to predict or rate a child.
Denis, if you choose to allow your child to use technology that should be your choice, but your choice should not be imposed on other parents. Wouldn’t you agree ?
Public education must guarantee parents and students equal and equitably funded alternatives to online education.
If you feel so strongly about the benefits of technology, perhaps you could lobby for stronger data privacy laws in your field ?
“Personalized learning is not a bad word…” Neither is reform. Or choice. Or accountability. Or transparency. Leaving no child behind sounds good too. Small schools sound good. All that mangled language… I just don’t go for it. The commercialization of the classroom. The whole sales pitch for technology as a package, a futuristic bundle of joy. Some products are useful, but any product suitable for children doesn’t come with logins. Or cookies. Cookies should only be served with milk. And speaking of serving milk, and of serving, why not go back from writing computer programs into teaching? It’s where the real future begins each day. I appreciate anyone who deplores privatization and the testing industry. Join me! It is indeed difficult teaching — without plopping the kids down in front of a screen — which is why we need more proper teachers to reduce class size. Join. Got milk?
LeftCoastTeacher, I had to smile when I read your comment. The first part is so true. But I disagree that we only need more proper teachers. I believe in the power of technology to organize so much of what teachers do. I also see the inherent danger, but don’t think that rejecting all forms of organized, identifiable data is the answer to that. Better training and laws are.
I can see where you are coming from in that the data-mining of students is deplorable, especially without the knowledge or consent of a parent or guardian. However, many of the tools listed seem quite useful for communication and enhancing instruction. Perhaps instead of opting out altogether, challenge the instructor or school to find or develop computer based resources that 1) are proven to be useful in some way and 2) do not collect or sell data of students. I would be interested in finding out more about the data-mining practices by apps or websites that are claimed in this piece.
With all the misinformation, misleading mantras, and invective; confusion took over ed activism. We forget that parents and community members have a say on how their tax money is spent and how their children are educated. When that say is compromised, then they engage in the degree of dissent with which they are personally comfortable. My daughter, currently a 21-year-old senior in college, did not take any of the Florida annual standardized assessments. Why, because, she, her father, and I said she was not. My granddaughter, currently in elementary school, is not taking any of the Florida standardized assessment, nor is she allowed to engage in any screen time activities in school. Why? Because her father and mother said she is not. Many of my friends still have their children sit for these exams and allow them to engage in digital learning. I still love them.
The same can be said about activists. As activists scream about treating our children like non-individuals to be manipulated and exploited by corporate entities and educated by robotic and scripted curricula, they somehow expect other activists to fit into a Stepford wife mold of activism that is scripted, robotic, and manipulated by a few. That is not realistic. Different states engage according to specific policies, and activists engage based on their own perspectives and most importantly, their own experiences. As activists, we can keep folks informed as we take on the policies, politicians, administrators, and civil rights organizations. However, we must be careful. When activist push mantras such as “opt out is dead” to states that are still using annual testing for high school graduation, pupil promotion, teacher evaluation, and school shutdown/receivership/takeover; it maybe perceived as insensitive or cause confusion. When activists use invective, half truths, or blatant lies against other activists as opposed to constructive criticism, it is conflict fodder.
Bottom line, it boils down to that individual parent standing up for what they want for their child(ren)- and yes, they do have the right to say no to annual testing and no to digital learning/screen time – and taxpayers fighting for quality use of their money. Each activist stands up for what engagement works for them or their group, and hopefully, for now the misinformation, misleading mantra, and invective are done. We have work to do.
Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS) is a VERY good example of how this is going down in many public school systems all across the country. BCPS admin likes to “teach” about what we are doing, which makes for a great deal of material with which to piece together this High-Tech/Ed-Tech ambush. BCPS has in fact mastered it — complete with getting kids to do the sales pitches as well as to create an atmosphere within school buildings of jealously and anticipation amongst the grades which propels STAT forward. (BCPS was right, they have always said that the kids would lead the way!) BCPS has very effectively harnessed the power of the doe-eyed child against the accommodating (or ignorant) parent who stands no chance against a window to the world and the gamification of education. Herein lies the Anatomy of a High-Tech Takeover of a Public School System: Baltimore County Public Schools. What is happening to us in not unique, the massive digital breadcrumb trail of hubris is, however, what sets us apart. We used to think that STAT (BCPS’ digital initiative) was a local tech-obsessed issue. Now we are certain that it is, instead, absolutely the foundation and platform for Competency/Mastery-Based Education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0zRhaokt8