Archives for category: Data and Data Mining

Parents and school districts are beginning to understand that student information will no longer be private.

The Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation created something called the Shared Learning Collsborative, now called inBloom. They have a contract to Wireless Generation, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, to create the software to collect massive amounts of data. InBloom will collect confidential data about students. It will be stored on a “cloud” managed by Amazon. There is no guarantee that the data cannot be hacked.

All if this became possible when the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations governing privacy rights in 2011. Thus, the data about students may now be stored on this cloud without parental permission. This is new and disturbing.

Who will have access to your child’s information?

Robert Shepherd” is concerned about where this is heading. He wrote:

“So, here’s a question: what is the purpose of inuring students to total surveillance–to having no privacy whatsoever, to being continually monitored, to having everything go into their permanent record, available to anyone with the money to pay for it?

What a great way to prepare people to be free citizens of a democratic state!

All this is about obedience training for the proles. The kids of the oligarchs will go to private schools where this sort of thing is not done.”

Robert D. Shepherd, curriculum writer and author, left the following comment following Andrea Gabor’s post about the data collecting and data mining business called inBloom.

He writes:

“There were 55,235,000 K-12 public school students in the US in 2010. At $5.00 apiece for inBloom, that would amount to $276,175,000 a year. And if inBloom had a large existing database, it would become a monopoly provider. Switching from it would be next to impossible.

But that’s just the beginning. The whole point of gathering this real-time data on student responses is to link it to online adaptive curricula, with inBloom 2.0 as the gateway, the portal, for delivery of that curricula–

serving up the mind-blowingly inane online worksheet on the schwa sound to little Yolanda and the Powerpoint-like online worksheet on the foil method for factoring to little Kwame. The fans of this online adaptive curricula are the sort of people who think that all learning can be reduced to bullet points on a screen.

At any rate, when the inBloom database becomes the portal for curricula, that’s when the big bucks start rolling in, from inBloom’s “partners,” like Murdoch’ and Klein’s Amplify, for example. And inBloom has made it VERY clear from the start that that’s their plan. That’s the “promise” of having such a database.

Quite a promise.

In short, inBloom is a strategic powerplay for the education market.

I dearly hope that people will have the sense to stop this Orwellian operation before it sinks its data-gathering tentacles into our nation’s children.

Think of it, a nationwide portal for delivery of curricula, a gateway with inBloom as toll-taker.

As Arne Duncan’s office put it, “The new standards are about creating a national market for products that can be brought to scale.”

Bill Gates earned his billions by selling a small amount of stuff to practically EVERYONE.

It appears that inBloom has a very similar long-term business model.

It gets even worse. Read the Department of Education’s Report on “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century.” This report envisions hooking kids up to real-time monitors of their affective states and feeding THOSE into the database as well so that grit, tenacity, and perseverance can be measured continually.

This kind of thing goes WAY BEYOND Orwell’s Telescreens in 1984. The whole concept is sickening.

And Arne Duncan’s Department of Education is serving as the facilitator for the creation of this Orwellian Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth (Minitrue).

You have to give it to these guys for cooking up such a diabolical strategic plan. And almost no one seems, yet, to be hip to what this national data-gathering is really about over the long term. Such plans could be carried out only if people weren’t really paying attention. So far, that’s worked well for the, ahem, “reformers.” We have new NATIONAL “standards” even though most U.S. citizens have never heard of them and haven’t a clue what they are, what’s in them, who paid for them, who created them, what consequences they will have for curricula and pedagogy, and so on. All that new standards and testing stuff was done with NO national debate and with no vetting.

I’m sure that the inBloom folks were hoping for the same here. And the truly frightening thing is that their hopes might well be fulfilled.

Totalitarianism can come about through violent revolution. It can also come about because no one is paying attention.”

Marc Tucker posted a fascinating dialogue with two testing experts, Howard Everson and Robert Linn.

 

Here are some of the salient points.

MT: Is this country getting ready to make a profound mistake? We use grade-by-grade testing in grades 3-8 but no other country is doing it this way for accountability; instead they test 2 or 3 times in a students’ career. If the United States did it that way, we could afford some of the best tests in the world without spending any more money.

BL: Raising the stakes for our test-based accountability systems so that there will be consequences for individual teachers will make matters even worse. Cheating scandals will blossom. I think this annual testing is unnecessary and is a big part of the problem. What we should be doing is testing at two key points along the way in grades K-8, and then in high school using end-of-course tests.

HE: I am in the same place as Bob. The multiple-choice paradigm first used in WWI and eventually used to satisfy the NCLB requirements has proven to be quite brittle, especially when applied in every grade 3-8 and used to make growth assumptions. The quick and widespread adoption of multiple-choice testing was in hindsight a big mistake for this country, but—now — states will tell you it is all they can afford.

Bob Linn points out that the increased reliance on external tests reflects a fundamental distrust of teachers. Our nation relies on these tests because teachers can’t be trusted to test their own students. The conundrum is that the reliance on standardized tests demoralizes and deskills teachers and reduces the prestige of the teaching profession

BL: One big difference between the United States and other countries is the prestige and trust in teachers, which is very low in this country and tends to be quite high in the top performers. This has led to the development of accountability systems that use external measures to see if schools and individual teachers are doing a good job. This has morphed into the next level: evaluating individual teachers. Unless we can find a way to increase the prestige of teachers and public confidence in them, it will be hard to move too far away from using testing for these purposes.

I am not a testing expert. I am a historian. I have studied the history of testing (see Left Back), and I served for seven years on the National Assessment Governing Board. One thing I know: the testing industry is the greatest beneficiary of the testing mandates of No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Top. The testing industry has lobbyists who look out for the interests of the industry. They work on Capitol Hill and in the state capitols.

Can they be stopped? Can we bring the best interests of children to the fore, to replace the best interests of the testing industry?

Yes.

Opt out.

Do not allow them to test your child.

Show your disdain for their flawed product.

Do not allow them to use your children as data points.

I was invited to contribute an article of 500 words to a special issue of Scientific American. I assumed that most of the other articles would be unalloyed cheerleading for the wonders of technology. So I decided to talk about both the promise and the perils of technology.

I have seen teachers doing amazing things with the Internet. I have gone to conferences where thousands of teachers were learning how to use technology creatively. I know that technology, in the hands of inspiring teachers, can bring learning to life and empower students to self-direct their studies.

But it is in my nature to look at questions from all angles. That is what is known as critical thinking.

So I wrote about three ways in which technology may be a danger to education.

First is the for-profit online charter school, which provides a poor substitute for real education but is quite profitable.

Second is the use of computers to grade essays, which severs the teacher-student relationship and mechanizes what should not be mechanized.

Third is the effort to impose Big Data on school issues, assuming that inputting enough data will somehow tell teachers what each student needs.

I end thus:

“Here is the conundrum: teachers see technology as a tool to inspire student learning; entrepreneurs see it as a way to standardize teaching, to replace teachers, to make money and to market new products. Which vision will prevail?”

Ken Bernstein, retired teacher, posted this comment:

“There are other issues that need to be included, even if there are no problems with erasures. States report scaled scores. They can and do change the conversion rate from raw to scaled in order to show “improvement” year to year. The year before I taught in Virginia the school in which I taught had a 58% pass rate on the Middle School American History test. The year I was there the pass rate was 81%, my own was 89%. Sounds great, right? Except they had lowered the cut score and changed the conversion. If the previous year’s raw scores had been converted using the same matrix, the score would have been 71% or so. Thus we showed “improvement” but not that much.”

Here is a good account of the plans that Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch have for your child’s personal information.

Hey, the data will generate a $20 billion industry. Not for you, of course.

Leave a comment, if you are do inclined.

A reader explains why policymakers and the public are hoodwinked by numbers. Follow the links:

Diane-

I got to this article in the WSJ through the Naked Capitalism blog I read daily:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578219873933502726.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks_4

The Naked Capitalism blog also included a link to this article from 2006 on the same topic:
http://www.auroraadvisors.com/articles/Webber-Metrics.pdf

I forward these because I think they explain why school boards and politicians are hoodwinked by VAM. I know enough about statistics to know that VAM is junk science… but most people (and especially businessmen) want to believe everything can be reduced to a mathematical model and so we find ourselves in VAM-land.

When I worked in the federal Department of Education twenty years ago, I recall getting blizzards of postcards and letters from individuals and groups that were worried that the government was collecting too much information about them or their children. I pointed out repeatedly that the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which was in my tiny domain, did not collect information about individual students or their families. There was no vast federal storehouse of information about people.

Now I am no so sure. A reader just sent this announcement in a comment.

Here is the full comment:

In October, while announcing a series of actions to lower student loan payments, President Obama tasked the US Chief Technology Officer with further leveraging data and technology to help provide students and parents with more comparative information about college costs and college aid, so they can make more informed decisions about where to enroll.

This morning, the Administration announced several public- and private-sector initiatives—including the launch of education.data.gov, the latest in a growing number of data.gov communities—that respond to and even reach beyond the President’s call, in order to unlock the power of education data to make it accessible and useful for all Americans.http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ed_data_commitments_1-19-12.pdf

MAKE SURE YOU LOOK AT THE WHITE HOUSE COMMITMENTS TO:
The California Department of Education
The New York State Department of Education
The Michigan and Florida Departments of Education
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Pearson
JISC/UK, a technology branch of the UK Government
ETS, in cooperation with StraighterLine
Microsoft
Parchment
Personal

And check out “Data Jam Materials” July 10, 2012
ALL 54 PAGES!!!
http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2012/07/ED-Data-Jam-Materials.pdf

How have we managed to survive all these years without a “Learning Registry” or  “MyData” button?

The data-gathering seems to have no end point. I recently asked someone who works for a higher education association why the federal government was pressuring independent colleges to join the data hunt, and he said that the goal was to ascertain whether a grade in University A was the same as a grade in University B. I wondered why the federal government wanted to know this. He had no answer.