Now that we live in the new gig economy, where kids in their 20s become instant multimillionaires by disrupting every industry, here come the hawkers of (de)personalized learning to replace teachers with smart (but not cheap) machines. These machines never need pensions or health care. They don’t care about tenure or due process.
Jennifer Berkshire (once known as EduShyster) and historian of education Jack Schneider survey the plan to disrupt American education.
“Podcast: My Teacher is an Algorithm
“Silicon Valley billionaires want to replace teachers with technology, and their big money cause is attracting some strange bedfellows.
“Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is in. So is Reed Hastings from Netflix. In fact, it’s hard to find a Silicon Valley billionaire who doesn’t want to disrupt public education by replacing teachers with algorithms. In the latest episode of the Have You Heard podcast, co-hosts Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider talk to Common Sense Media’s Bill Fitzgerald about how so-called “personalized learning” is actually a misnomer. Learning by algorithm, says Fitzgerald, isn’t particularly personal, or even human. And the closed learning systems of which Zuckerberg et al are so enthusiastic about give adults far too much opportunity to limit the content of what kids are exposed to—one reason why fans of religious education, including Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, are all over this trend. Don’t be fooled by Silicon Valley’s talk of equity and civil rights as part of its sales pitch for personalized learning, says Fitzgerald. Automating the learning experiences of the most vulnerable students will only exacerbate the country’s stark educational inequities. You can hear the entire episode here.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Is this an education plan that they would foist onto their very own kids?
Actually Zuckerberg is now targeting Montessori and Reggio Emilio programs, too. There is a movement to create value-model tech schools along the lines of Alt School. Most people don’t think to question the technology.
Alt School equipment hardware and software is discussed here and it is far from being ready for the extravigant claims about cost-effectiveness and need for a sound education. I think the “brand image” of Montessori and Reggio Emilio are wanted but not the whole nine yards of what these programs can offer and the teacher education for each.
Click to access AltSchool_Classroom_Technology_Guide_2017-18.pdf
I don’t think private “micro-schools” are on the radar of most people yet. Not just AltSchool, but Acton Academy franchises, the Khan Academy Lab School and others. People are accustomed to saying well that would never happen in a private schools, so they shouldn’t be doing it in a public school. Or the wealthy wouldn’t do it to their children, so we shouldn’t do it to low-income children. And that won’t necessarily carry through under Ed Reform 2.0, because tech is going after ALL markets. The branding is different, but the fundamental idea of data-mined education with limited resources spent on human teachers is the same. The poor get Rocketship, the affluent get AltSchool. The poor get cubicles, the rich get wool rugs and natural light, but they all get plugged in. I’m sure there are mid-level brands in the pipeline. My guess is that if they are successful coming up with a voucher program, a whole crop of tech-based “privates” will pop up with tuition a few thousand above the voucher cost-so the banks can profit on millions of smallish size loans taken out by families who will stretch rather than send their kids to the crumbling public schools that remain. Sadly, it’s all part of the plan.
Reblogged this on Exceptional Delaware 2017.
It’s been very clear for some time that the real leading edge of the privatization/school reform movement is “technology in the classroom.”
As always it has been very legible, loud, and clear for anyone to see. As always, our side will “see” it much too late and respond way too sloppily.
In fact, the ship has sailed. States, school districts, and huge amounts of teachers have already bought in to the techno-utopian narrative. In my district, they are quadrupling down on technology in the classroom with near unanimous teacher buy-in, zero union resistance, and complete administrator joy. So, as always, narratives matter. They had one. We didnt. We lost. And believe me, we have lost on this front already.
It’s amazing how so many educated people can be so gullible. It’s the same as NY here in LA.
Of those “educated people” involved in public education, sheople* led by adminimals* explains it all!
*otherwise known as GAGA Good Germans.
The devastating truth about test-score school reform so clearly stated: THEY HAD A NARRATIVE. WE DIDN’T.
We have a narrative. We call it Ed Reform 2.0.
The merging of the security state with education was one topic pioneered by David F Noble, who passed away in 2011, but he was a deeply respected academic with many honest colleagues. Others have picked up the torch. For some reason, it’s hard to get our comments up, but you can read some at Wrench in the Gears. Google for it, I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Noble
This is all about money, not education of children. I support the use of technology to do what it does best, but that is not to replace teachers with a computer. Note the champions of this movement. They all stand to earn a tidy profit on the dehumanization of education.
Zuckerberg/Chan’s “philanthropic foundation” is actually a for-profit, limited liability corporation; these people are getting to the point where they don’t even try to disguise their greed.
AMEN, Michael.
Yes it’s about money.
No, this isn’t about technology as a supplement and aid to learning. It’s about teacher replacement. Period.
This conversation about the depersonalization of learning and the inhumanity of it is all philosophically correct of course, but is really a day late and many dollars short. There were folks, after all, who cared about the inhumanity and depersonalization of auto manufacturing. Alas, cars are made by robots in large part nonetheless.
Having worked with poor ELLs for many years, I understand that depersonalized instruction would have limited impact and would be inappropriate for their needs. Many poor students have been victims of or witnesses to a great deal of trauma. As a result, they are emotionally fragile. In the case of ELLs, they are coping with tremendous cultural changes as well as extreme poverty. They need a personal human anchor, not depersonalized machine. I cannot even begin to explain the number of emotional wildfires I have helped to extinguish during my career. These young people need to attach to a caring human to guide emotional and social adjustment.
“And the closed learning systems of which Zuckerberg et al are so enthusiastic about give adults far too much opportunity to limit the content of what kids are exposed to”
This is a real concern. As Diane pointed out in her book The Language Police, prefab published materials are necessarily, because of political forces from Left and Right, anodyne. If all kids consume is the interactive digital modern analogue of textbooks,, they’re going to get a sanitized and distorted view of the world. I suspect the best part of what I teach is what’s not in the history textbook.
The money aspect is only partially about reducing staffing costs by replacing human teachers with devices and the profit to be made from sales of the hardware and software. The big piece everyone is missing is that digital education combined with austerity budgeting is ushering in an era of public-private partnerships that will use Pay for Success to build a speculative market in educational data. There are plans in place to create Asset Backed Securities from Social Impact Bonds, and education is a target of their investment. Once the infrastructure is in place to scale this, all bets are off. Children will only be of value to the extent they they can generate data to drive the derivatives markets. Education will be the next big short. The weighted funding formula everyone has been pushing? In the end it won’t be going to school districts, but stashed into digital ESAs so students can shop around for badges and micro credentials online and in community-based centers. That is our future unless we can educate one another about the REAL end game and come up with better strategies to resist.
By the way this New Business Item passed at the NEA annual meeting yesterday.
“NBI 135. NEA will investigate and produce a research analysis of computer-based programs, often wrongly promoted as “personalized” or “competency-based” learning programs that use learning analytics to simply customize standardized learning and replace human educators with digital training and tracking systems.”
And here I thought education was taking a turn towards returning to the model of building relationships with students. As someone who embraced the use of iPads in my classroom, I have to say the reason for its success were the classroom management tools I had in place as well as the expectations set by me, the teacher standing in front of them.
The advantage of using this technology is that I can differentiate for my students as well as give feedback much faster. The almost immediate feedback provided students the attention needed to master concepts.
I started teaching in 1980 and the term “individualized” instruction was used quite often. I don’t know of any parent who wants their children being educated by computers. Technology must be used as an enhancement, NOT a replacement.
“who embraced the use of iPads in my classroom, I have to say the reason for its success were the classroom management tools (CMT) I had in place as well as the expectations set by me, the teacher standing in front of them. The advantage of using this technology is that I can differentiate for my students as well as give feedback much faster. The almost immediate feedback provided students the attention needed to master concepts.”
BINGO! I WIN!
What? Repeat the words/phrases on my card to verify my winning?
Differentiate, CMT, expectations, technology, and immediate feedback.
Billionaires are missing something in their psyche, because they are so wrapped up in their money, power, and eliteness.
I did not enter the Sound Cloud website to hear the discussion, but I did look at the “terms of service” that would allow for data-gathering about me and allow Sound Cloud to avoid any legal responsibility for privacy on its website.
I think this is one of the main points not often made about the invasion of the tech moguls–their sense of entitlement to unlimited data about the users and the legal loopholes that marketing of that data possible. Parents and students are valued as sources of marketable data.
There is nothing benign about the belief that tech is the greatest thing in education (since the last greatest thing in education).
Spare us the marketing hype. Show us the fine print. Offer some educational rationale, not more hype about innovation, not praise for disruptive innovation in education.
Stop shoving products and services at schools that you would not approve for your own children. Stop the nonsense about saving hapless students, addressing civil rights issues, and saving money on education through tech.
Stop shoving money form Gates into your platforms and pilot programs. ANd stop thinking that online courses for college students can be re-worked for preschoolets then K-12 through “backmapping.” http://acrobatiq.com/platformservices/pilots/
One item that few people ever discuss is if schools are ready for all this technology or not. I’ve had a front row seat for many large scale digital roll-outs in schools across America. And most, not all, but most of them fail for the same reasons. A lack of human bodies to do the work. And a gross underestimate of the time and effort required to deploy and support these devices/technologies.
Technology has come a long way, but it’s still not “plug and play” as they like to say. Devices break. Devices get lost. Devices get left at home. They get stolen. Applications do not work as advertised. Data loss. Constant updates/upgrades. School networks are woefully over subscribed. School IT departments are grossly understaffed.
And do not ever make the mistake of assuming a schools core mission is education. From what I have observed curriculum always takes a back seat to the administration.
America has not made a proper investment in our schools and/or our technology infrastructure for these digital pipe dreams to be a reality.
I’m no commie, I like capitalism as well as the next guy, but not everything in America needs to be a market. We need certain things to be in the public domain and for the good of the entire country.
Good points. True of my district.
“I’m no commie,”
Perhaps you might reconsider, eh!
Important comment made elsewhere by
ed blogger “wrenchinthegears” :
“The money aspect is only partially about reducing staffing costs by replacing human teachers with devices and the profit to be made from sales of the hardware and software. The big piece everyone is missing is that digital education combined with austerity budgeting is ushering in an era of public-private partnerships that will use Pay for Success to build a speculative market in educational data. There are plans in place to create Asset Backed Securities from Social Impact Bonds, and education is a target of their investment. Once the infrastructure is in place to scale this, all bets are off. Children will only be of value to the extent they they can generate data to drive the derivatives markets. Education will be the next big short. The weighted funding formula everyone has been pushing? In the end it won’t be going to school districts, but stashed into digital ESAs so students can shop around for badges and micro credentials online and in community-based centers. That is our future unless we can educate one another about the REAL end game and come up with better strategies to resist.”
If kids need a badge, they can join the Boy or Girl Scouts. If young people need education, trust the public school.
At this point, rt, I’m not sure that I trust those in charge of public education-state depts of ed, district and school level administrators and/or even the teachers to provide a proper and well-rounded education. Actually, I’m quite sure that they are not providing that education.
A few teachers, even fewer administrators struggle against the GAGA Good German members of the public education machine-the bastards who put personal expediency over justice for the students. From “A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues”:
“Should we therefore forgo our self-interest? Of course not. But it [self-interest] must be subordinate to justice, not the other way around. . . . To take advantage of a child’s naivete. . . in order to extract from them something [test scores, personal information] that is contrary to their interests, or intentions, without their knowledge [or consent of parents] or through coercion [state mandated testing], is always and everywhere unjust even if in some places and under certain circumstances it is not illegal. . . . Justice is superior to and more valuable than well-being or efficiency; it cannot be sacrificed to them, not even for the happiness of the greatest number [quoting Rawls]. To what could justice legitimately be sacrificed, since without justice there would be no legitimacy or illegitimacy? And in the name of what, since without justice even humanity, happiness and love could have no absolute value?. . . Without justice, values would be nothing more than (self) interests or motives; they would cease to be values or would become values without worth.”—Comte-Sponville [my additions]
Sounds like the “education” system on Camazotz in “Wrinkle in Time”.
We will have to wait a bit before we can say if this new communication technology has as great an impact on education as the invention of the printing press, but I suspect that it will have as great an impact as the inexpensive book did on how and what we teach.