This is a fascinating and informative article about the perilous world of edtech by the mistress of edtech debunkers, Audrey Watters.
Watters attended a meeting of edtech entrepreneurs and investors in San Diego, where she quickly picked up on their braggadocio, their lingo, and their misinformation.
We used to speak of hedge fund managers as the “masters of the universe.”
Once you have read Watters, you will see that the edtech entrepreneurs see themselves in that esteemed role, ruling our universe and controlling our future.
Of course, they all share the belief that they must reinvent the schools by privatizing them.
And they worship at the shrine of Zuckerberg and other titans of their industry.
Join her as she takes you to the ASU-GSV annual conference, which, she says, is timed to coincide with AERA, so that the entrepreneurs will never be tainted by contact with any actual education researchers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
What exactly is a “mistress of edtech debunkers”?
Does that mean she was having affairs with them?
I think in this context, she simply is whipping their butts, wearing a black leather outfit.
Thanks for the image.
Ha ha ha.
“Indeed, the more one examines the interlocking directorates of the ed-tech movement and Silicon Valley, the breathless boosterism of this or that disruptive software pitch recedes, and a striking behind-the-scenes business narrative emerges: many of those involved in education reform in the years following A Nation at Risk—those arguing for vouchers and charter schools and testing, for example—are still heavily involved in ed-tech investing today. The financialization of education, that is to say, is not particularly new nor is it coming from a particularly innovative crowd—just a decidedly persistent one.”
What I think should make people question ed reform- question how “rigorous” it is or how “innovative” it is, is that there’s no real internal debate in the movement.
There’s no dissent. No one in ed reform ever actually opposes a Gates or Walton or Zuckerberg initiative or idea. How is that possible in a group of people with diverse ideas and approaches? They all just coincidentally ALWAYS agree with the billionaire backers? It’s just a happy accident? I just don’t believe that.
There’s some kind of pressure being applied to adopt a particular ideological approach- the funding acts as a gatekeeper only allowing certain approaches in – they all agree with one another because no one who disagrees ever makes it to the table where decisions are made.
and an additional note to attach to the concept of the ed-tech investors’ “fascination” with education reform: educational funding is truly massive….where else to find such a source for an ongoing — and, as you mention, unquestioned — profit
All during the Obama years I waited for someone in the Obama Administration to take exception to a Gates or Walton initiative- to publicly say “we don’t agree with this and it should be questioned before being endorsed and promoted by the federal government”
It never happened. It never happens in ed reform.
So one of two things is true- everything Gates and Walton cook up and propose and fund is by definition such a good idea no one in their right mind would ever question it OR ed reform is an echo chamber and is wholly captured by the powerful backers of ed reform.
Just take Audrey Watters as an example. While I’m relieved there is ONE person questioning the value of ed tech inside ed tech circles, shouldn’t there be MORE than one?
Given that there are tens of thousands of paid ed reformers, there’s ONE person who actually critically evaluates this stuff? That is a REALLY closed system and it shouldn’t surprise anyone! Look at the work history of the ed reform leaders- they move from government to one of three foundations and then back again. Over and over. Same people.
This post debunks all the false claims and hype surrounding technology. Waters examines the history of all the marketing ploys that the ed-tech entrepreneurs use to peddle their software. She reveals how widespread and lucrative all of the disruption is. The only reason ed tech staggers on with its “innovative” sideshow is that there is so much money behind it. There is no evidence to support their claims. It is all about marketing and hiring the right ringmasters with lots of money in their pockets to bribe politicians and district administrators.
It is interesting that many of the investors in ed-tech are right wing conservatives like Bush and DeVos. These people are looking for cheap “solutions” to lower the costs of educating the “unworthy.” They latch on to any hair brained scheme like Neurocore or Duckworth’s grit that offer some “easy, magical solutions to education.” Waters compares ed-tech to the great scam of Theranos.
Personalized learning is no more than reductionist behaviorism that is frankly 19th century rote learning. The only difference is that the prompts are delivered by a machine. Real teachers understand that rote learning may be foundational, but real learning that a trained professional delivers is so much more than that. Ed-tech in its current form is a scam supported by lots of wealthy people that seek to destroy a democratic institution in order to generate a profit while reducing the taxes of those that are already wealthy. It is all smoke and mirrors, and much ado about nothing.
Correction Watters
retired teacher, you just described what is laughingly called “ed reform” in general. The only reason it continues is because there is so much money devoted to disrupting our schools, our children, and our lives. The ed reformers believe in disruption and they won’t stop because the money keeps flowing. But everything they have done has failed. Failure is their only option but it is not a deterrent to continuing because, that is where the money is.
I wish everyone with whom I work in my district would read this article. Keep those kids away from those hazardous computers! Disruptive technologies and privatization are all just part of a big money making scam, thirty years of banal greed and ignorance ruling over education. Read the article. Actor Matthew McConaughey will break your brain, but only temporarily, so read it anyway.
District administrators should have to read this post in order to get a full picture of the scam. Then, perhaps they would see through the snake oil salesmen and their products. They should not fall victim to false advertising by bringing products with no evidence to support their adoption.
As for McConaughey, he has always been a “hippy dippy” conservative that marches to his own drummer. His celebrity status gives him some ability to influence others.
District administrators should have to read this post in order to get a
full picture of the scamjob.They should be asked about it in their interview and if they do not agree, they should not be hired (ever again, by any school district in the United States).
The superintendents that have backed Common Core, standardized testing and all the rest do not belong anywhere near our schools and children.
They have caused untold damage and it’s long past time they were given the boot and told never to return.
Teachers and administrators get hired to work in my district if they have an affirmative answer to the always-asked interview question, “How do you use technology?” There is even a rubric they use to rate interview answers (and performance evaluations [and yes, using tech is part of my evaluation for crying it loud]) wherein high scores are awarded for allowing tech products to drive instruction as opposed to supplementing it. It’s insane.
The amount of tech Koolaid being consumed rivals the volume of the seven seas. Those flashy sales conferences sold as professional development overpower people who don’t read Diane Ravitch’s books and blog posts. It’s like the tech industry is pulling a Jedi trick on the weak-minded. It is distressing to watch. And when I try to intervene, well, I learned to stop trying by myself to intervene.
“Then, perhaps they [adminimals] would see through the snake oil salesmen and their products.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ad infinitum!
District administers have been coopted and are part of the problem. This is a must read post from Mercedes Schneider.
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/erdi-paying-school-admin-to-review-ed-products-that-those-admin-could-then-purchase/
Max Born observerd this 50 years ago.
All attempts to adapt our ethical code to our situation in the technological age have failed.
No new results have been reported.
What ethical code?
I guess if you don’t have one, it’s hard to adapt it.
I assume he was talking about physicists’ ethical code which is “work on it if it’s interesting and don’t worry about the consequences until afterward ” (when it is too late.)
“Physicists have known sin” — Robert Oppenheimer, after the first ABomb blast
Translation: ” oh crap, the genie’s out of the bottle. Maybe we can reason with him…”
I don’t know about theory, but there is no doubt that technology was allowed to advance at a much faster pace than its consequences could be examined and evaluated.