Archives for category: Technology, Computers

This morning, Amplify laid off two-thirds of its staff–some 800 people. Amplify is a division of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. Its CEO is education reformer Joel Klein. Murdoch invested $1 billion in Klein’s Amplify. NewsCorp has been trying to find a buyer for Amplify since it has never earned a profit in the five years of its existence. This past year it lost $371 million.

“In a tweet this morning, Alex Modestou wrote that Amplify Education laid off 800 employees today. The Observer has reached out to the company to confirm. NewsCorp has been looking for an investor to take over the division, as the Observer previously reported.

“Multiple sources inside and outside the company said that most of its staff lost their jobs today, effective immediately, at around 10:30 a.m.

“Mr. Modestou told the Observer in a phone call that he worked part time on the math curriculum for the company in its Durham office, before being let go today at 10:30 a.m. Mr. Modestou wrote the tweet, he told us, because full time employees had been offered three months salary in a lump sum in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement. He did not sign because he was not offered any kind of package.

“He said, “This is like the cold, inhumane hand of capitalism at work, and it seems wrong that they could stay in the shadows.”

“The 800 employee figure was based on an estimate Mr. Modestou made based on documents he’d seen before leaving. When Amplify announced it was first looking for a buyer, he said that people in the company had warned staff to expect layoffs of a sixth of the company. That rose to half over time. If 800 people were laid off, that would be roughly two-thirds of the reportedly 1,200-person company.

“Another source told the Observer in a phone call that employees in New York City were taken to meetings in the company’s Manhattan office and its Dumbo offices today. Employees in the Manhattan office were told that they were either keeping their job or they would be staying longer to help with the transition, in some new role.

“Mr. Modestou said that he and his fellow employees were told by Amplify CEO Joel Klein and Amplify Learning President Larry Berger via a conference call. We’ve also heard that this is how employees sent to the Brooklyn office were told. Mr. Modestou described the call for us, saying that “They didn’t say anything but ‘we’re letting you go’ in very lawyerly terms.”

“He added that the pair added a note of appreciation for their service and an apology that they had let the company grow larger than its revenue could support.”

Zahira Torres and Howard Blume wrote a blockbuster assessment of John Deasy’s tumultuous tenure as superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School
District. Being good reporters, they bent over backwards to tell this sordid tale without rendering judgment. But the facts they present are damning. They were largely gathered from Deasy’s travel and expense records, which the reporters obtained by a Freedom of Information request.

1. He had a heavy travel schedule, which took him away from the district for 200 days. His travels interfered with his responsibilities.

“At key moments of tumult in the district, the records show, Deasy was simply not in town….

“The beginning of the end came a year ago, just before the school year started. Deasy was in New York to discuss challenges threatening education reform.

“Back at home, the city’s public schools were in disarray. By the time Deasy returned for the first day of classes, a malfunctioning scheduling system had forced students into gyms and auditoriums to await assignments. Some of them ended up in the wrong courses, putting their path to graduation in jeopardy.

“Two months later, in October, a Superior Court judge ordered state education officials to meet with Deasy to fix the scheduling problems that he said deprived students of their right to an education. But Deasy flew to South Korea the next morning to visit schools and meet government officials. A week later, he resigned, under pressure, as head of the nation’s second-largest school system.”

2. He spent lavishly on travel and meals; foundations with their own agenda subsidized his expenses.

“Deasy, who was paid $350,000 a year as superintendent, took more than 100 trips, spent generously on meals as he lobbied state and national lawmakers and wooed unions, foundations and educational leaders, according to credit card receipts, calendars and emails obtained under the California Public Records Act.

“Deasy spent about $167,000 on airfare, hotels, meals and entertainment during his tenure; half paid by philanthropists and foundations, and the other half by the district. Private foundations often make contributions to school districts, and the LAUSD’s position is that those funds can be used for the superintendent’s expenses.

“Among the philanthropists who subsidized his expenses, according to district records, were entertainment executive Casey Wasserman and Eli Broad, both of whom support education causes through their foundations.

“Deasy attended conferences and held meetings in cities including Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The tab for an evening with teachers union officers at Drago Centro in Los Angeles ran to more than $1,000. During a one-night stay at the Four Seasons hotel in New York, for which he spent $900, he met, among others, Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and president of the Emerson Collective, which awards grants and invests in education initiatives.”

3. Deasy was hired without a national search. “Influential philanthropists” and then-Mayor Villaraigosa selected Deasy. We may safely assume that Eli Broadwas one of those influential philanthropists.

4. Deasy’s pals in Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and those “influential philanthropists” poured millions into school board elections to defeat Deasy critics and elect Deasy allies.

“Groups with ties to Silicon Valley and Wall Street have played growing roles in the education reform movement by donating to school board candidates. The Emerson Collective, along with Broad and others, put hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaigns for board members who supported Deasy’s goals.”

5. Despite his large salary, Deasy asked his powerful friends to pay for some of his expenses. Here is one example, that a tuay sounds humiliating to Deasy, who extends a begging bowl to Eli Broad.

“Some board members said they also worried that by requesting and accepting reimbursement for travel from Wasserman, Broad and others who supported his reform efforts, Deasy was creating the perception that he might give a special hearing to those donors.

“In an email, for example, Deasy sought a “scholarship” from Broad to attend a dinner in New York honoring two education leaders who shared his vision for turning around troubled school districts.

“Would Eli support my attendance at an event?” Deasy wrote in October 2011 to Gregory McGinity, a senior official with the Broad Foundation. “I do not have such means to buy the ticket myself…. Do you think he would ‘scholarship’ me?”

“The Broad Foundation reimbursed the district $1,400 for Deasy’s airfare and hotel. A board member of the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan think tank hosting the event, covered the superintendent’s $1,500 ticket for the dinner, according to the email.”

6. Deasy’s iPad fiasco was a disaster that is now being investigated by the FBI.

“Deasy’s signature effort to provide iPads to all students failed, and the cost of untangling the troubled student records system has now topped $200 million.”

7. Deasy had to go not only because of the iPad mess and the disaster with the district’s computer programming, but because he testified for the plaintiffs when LAUSD was sued in the Vergara case, instead of testifying for the district he led.

“Board President Steve Zimmer said Deasy’s confrontational approach reached a breaking point for him when the superintendent became a star witness for the plaintiffs in Vergara vs. California.

“That case, now on appeal, was heralded by national school reformers for making it easier to fire teachers and ending the current practice of layoffs based on seniority. It angered teachers who believed that they were under constant attack from the superintendent, who did not consult the board about the litigation.

“Once he chose to do what he did in the way that he did it, I knew I could no longer support his superintendency,” Zimmer said. “There was no reason he had to be on that stand.”

And where does Deasy work now? For Eli Broad, training school district leaders based on his own experience as a leader of the reform movement.

You are surely familiar with Sheri Lederman. She is a fourth-grade teacher in Great Neck, Long Island, New York, whose “growth” scores dropped inexplicably from 14 of 20 to only 1 of 20 in a single year, causing her to be labeled “ineffective” on that measure. The score was assigned by a computer, which compared the growth of students in her class to avatar students in other parts of the state. The assumption is that children are inanimate objects that can be shaped and compelled to increase their standardized test scores. The computer is, in this case, at odds with Sheri’s principal, superintendent, parents, and former students.

Sheri’s husband Bruce Lederman is a lawyer. They decided not to accept this slap in the face to a teacher who had served with distinction for nearly 20 years. Bruce sued and the case was recently heard in state supreme court in Albany.

Here is a video about the case. Meet Sheri and Bruce, who are fighting for teachers across the state and the nation. The best part is the clip where Governor Andrew Cuomo declares his unqualified faith in using test scores to judge teachers and his belief that students will get a better education (or higher test scores) if teachers compete in a market.

This case is of national significance. It is a powerful weapon in the battle to restore humanity to teachers’ workplace.

In recent days, you have read posts about the program in Lawrence, Massachusetts, called NNN (No Nonsense Nurturing), a for-profit program in which coaches sit in the back of the room and tell teachers what to do and say via a wireless earbud. EduShyster wrote the original post. Others did research on google and connected NNN to the Gates Foundation and KIPP. It is a behaviorist approach to classroom discipline.

One reader points out that NNN was tried out first in Memphis.

Some wired-for-sound city school teachers are testing the value of real-time coaching that the NFL has made as common as a Sunday in the park.

Through earbud headphones, the teachers hear cues from experts observing from the back of the room.

“Once a teacher understands what it feels like to be successful, it takes root immediately,” said Monica Jordan, coordinator of teacher professional development in Memphis City Schools.

“The teachers get training first. It’s not like someone walks in and shoves an (earbud) in your ear and starts rattling in your ear,” she said.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the work in Memphis, Tampa and New York, hoping to prove that tailoring professional development raises the needle on test scores….

Teach for America in Memphis sees so much promise it is spending $15,000 to conduct its own earbud research next year.

“Essentially we are looking at a control group that doesn’t get coaching to see to what extent coaching and real-time feedback enhances the process,” said Athena Turner, TFA executive director.

“We want to know, does it speed up the timeline in which a teacher develops?”

The back-and-forth between the coach and teacher is happening through walkie-talkies now. As early as March 2, the coach could be anywhere in the world, coaching with digital video feeds from Memphis classrooms….

“I think this new approach gives you an opportunity to differentiate professional development based on teachers’ own strengths and weaknesses,” said Thomas Kane, a Harvard University researching working with the Gates Foundation.

Kane’s hypothesis is that teachers who can watch themselves work will see places to improve.

“Next year, we would hope to have enough classrooms so we can start to answer that question,” Kane said.

Memphis ordered 11 180-degree cameras at $4,500 each. When parent permission slips are returned, the cameras will be set up in classroom corners.

“We’re asking teachers to watch themselves and reflect,” Jordan said. “What does it feel like to be your own observer? … What would you tell yourself if you had to give yourself feedback?”

The technology is so new that the cameras, which also record audio, are being built as they’re ordered.

“Memphis is right behind Harvard’s order,” Jordan said.

Question: Did Harvard get its order? Is it videotaping professors? Who is being videotaped and given earbud instructions at Harvard?

Next question: Is Lakeside Academy in Seattle, where Bill Gates’ children are students, putting earbuds in their teachers’ ears?

Next question: Four years have passed since the experiment was launched in Memphis: What are the results? Was there an experimental group of teachers with earbuds and a control group without earbuds? What happened to the test scores of their students?

Last question: Was the experiment worthwhile? O should the money have been spent on reducing class sizes and tutors?

Professor Yong Zhao is one of the most respected experts in the world on the dangers of standardized testing. I reviewed his latest book in the New York Review of Books. I urge you to read the book, as it explodes the myth that Chinese schools have mastered some secret methods of producing high test scores. Zhao shows in fascinating detail how those scores are produced, how they hurt students, and how they undermine creativity and individualism.

 

I recently received an email with a post by Emily Talmage of Save Maine Schools. She  warned about the big profits embedded in the revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These days, we have become accustomed to the entrepreneurs and lobbyists who put their fingers into public education funds, stealing money from classrooms. The author was rightly skeptical of the corporate sales pitch for “personalization,” which all too often means that computers will replace teachers and students will advance at their own pace through scripted lessons. We have all heard tech companies selling product with the phony promise of personalization, customization, and individualization, when it’s all about selling software with a scripted curriculum and making money, not about meeting the needs of students.

 

But as I read on, I saw that the author accused Yong Zhao of being deeply complicit in the “personalization” claims and furthermore of being a profit-seeker. I was very dubious that this was true. I have read all of Zhao’s books and have found him to be a deeply humanistic scholar who is technologically adept. I found it hard to believe that he was promoting companies in which he was an investor.

 

So I sent the post to Yong Zhao, who is one of best informed critics of standardized testing.

 

He responded with the following comment:

 

Dear Ms. Talmage,

I read your post about the ESEA reauthorization with great interest. Thank you for pointing out the potential financial motives behind education policies and defending the interests of all children against potential damages.

However, your characterization of my views and myself in the post is inaccurate.

First, my view of personalized learning is not the one you criticize in the post. There are different interpretations of personalized learning. The version of personalized learning I support in the Department of Education’s Ed Tech plan is not the Skinnerian approach you point out: “students progress at their own pace, moving from one lesson to the next when they have proven “mastery.””

I myself have criticized such views and a blind faith in big-data driven Skinnerian approach toward education. For example, last year at the COSN conference, I questioned the value and promises of personalized digital learning driven by big data in a debate with Bob Wise, former governor of West Virginia and now president of The Alliance for Excellent Education (http://all4ed.org/), a DC-based non-profit organization that seems to an advocate of the type of technology in education you criticize (see its policy recommendations here: http://all4ed.schoolwires.net/Page/235). Some of the points made during the debate are summarized here: http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/03/cosn-2014-how-do-big-data-and-digital-learning-improve-education

I have also written about my views of education and personalized learning in various places; none would come close to the one you criticize. If you are interested, I just posted an excerpt of a chapter I wrote in a new book concerning personalized learning (the post is here: http://zhaolearning.com/2015/07/20/outcome-versus-process-different-incarnations-of-personalization/). You can also find my views of personalized learning and student autonomy in my 2012 book World Class Learners. The essence of my view of personalized learning is to enable each and every child to pursue education opportunities that enhance their strengths and support their passion. I don’t believe in the idea of a one-size-fits all curriculum and approach.

Second, I am not the head an online learning company. Oba is not an online learning company. It is not even a company. It is the name of an online collaborative learning platform. It is designed to support learning communities organized by students and teachers. It does not deliver curriculum or instruction to students. Teachers and students use it to create lessons and collaborate with each other. It is an initiative within the University of Oregon. One version of it is completely free and the other version charges a very minimal fee of one dollar per student per year, which is much less than most commercial learning systems schools pay for. More important, I have no financial interest in Oba.

Third, my praise for China’s moving away from standardized testing is not to promote the version of personalized learning you criticize. It is to show how harmful standardized testing is and that a country that has long practiced the approach is moving away from it.

Fourth, my “touting” of ePals is specific about its work and intention to provide online learning communities across different countries to promote student-student understanding and mutual learning, not about it as an “online learning company.” The comment was made several years ago when it was about launch an effort for Chinese-English language learning. I do not know what the company does now. I never had any financial relationship with ePals.

Again, thank you for standing up for children. I hope this message helps clarify my stance on personalized learning.

 

 

Texas is gifted with some superintendents who are visionaries. They know that what the feds and the legislature now mandate is not good education. They want something better to prepare students to live in the world. They were leaders in the pushback against high-stakes testing in Texas. And they continue to write their vision for the future.

Jeffrey Weiss of the Dallas Morning News is live-tweeting their conference this year, and I thought you would enjoy reading his latest report. One of the speakers he enjoyed most was George Couros from Canada, who believes that students should be able to use their smartphones and computers during exams. The line of the day: “If I can look up the answers to the questions on your test on Google, your questions suck.”

Another speaker talked about a program with no grades. It reminded me that when I attended my college reunion, I learned about courses where students are not graded, which encourage them to take risks, to explore their interests without fear of ruining their grade point average. I thought about it and wished I had had that opportunity.

Here is the handbook of the for-profit education industry (although it does advise you to drop the label “for-profit”).

 

Here are some basic facts that it recites. The world spends many billions on education. The United States spends close to $2 trillion on education, nearly $900 billion on K-12.

 

This is a huge market for investors seeking to make a profit.

 

And then it launches into spin about how terrible the American public education system is, never mentioning that our students (white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian) now have the highest test scores ever on NAEP, the highest graduation rates in history (for all groups), and the lowest dropout rates (for all groups). It is the usual “sky-is-falling” hokum, all intended to persuade the public to turn their public schools over to hedge fund managers and equity investors and hucksters who know nothing at all about education.

 

There is also no mention of the many scandals that have surrounded the charter industry, as fly-by-night operators cash in on a newly deregulated industry.

 

The main point, the same point that Michael Moe of GSV Investors has been making for nearly 20 years, is that the education industry offers the opportunity to clean up for the canny investor and entrepreneur, by siphoning off taxpayer funds that were supposed to go to children and classrooms.

 

If you love Teach for America, charter schools, consultants, for-profit schools and colleges, online universities, and technology, you will love this report. If you loved No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and “Waiting for Superman,” you will love this report.

 

If you think that corporate reform is a pox on American education, read it and arm yourself for the battles ahead.

 

 

 

 

Bryan Alleman, the technology coordinator for Acadia Parish schools in Louisiana, sent the following story. VAM, as you know, is “value-added measurement,” or “value-added modeling,” which is used in many states to evaluate teachers. If test scores go up as predicted by a computer, the teacher is effective; if they exceed the computer prediction, the teacher is “highly effective.” If they don’t, the teacher is “developing” or “ineffective.” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has pushed some version of this approach into almost every state as a condition of Race to the Top funding or waivers from the onerous sanctions of No Child Left Behind.

Bryan writes:

Greetings from south Louisiana! I wanted to share with you an interaction I recently had with a Pearson representative at a technology leadership conference I attended in Baton Rouge, LA a couple of weeks ago.

At the conference, I noticed Pearson was present as a vendor. Pearson owns Powerschool, a Student Information System (SIS), that has a small presence in Louisiana. Rumor is that Pearson is selling off Powerschool.

Typically, SIS systems can be very profitable for a company. Working in SIS management for the past 7 years, I wanted to confirm this rumor.

So, I approached the Pearson rep., a nice gentleman, who confirmed that indeed Pearson was selling off Powerschool. Curious, I asked him, why? Imagine my surprise when I heard the following (paraphrasing):

“…Pearson is strongly committed to improving student outcomes and has decided to score every single product it owns to determine the impact on student achievement. Powerschool didn’t score well so we are selling it off…”

So there I stood–mouth agape—at the realization that Pearson has fallen for it’s own scam. They have actually VAM’d themselves. And, as a result, is selling of a profitable product.

The parallels to students, teachers, principals, and whole schools who have also fallen victim to VAM flooded my brain.

Education has lost valuable human capital (I despise that reference typically….we are human resources, not capital) as a result of VAM.

Pearson is losing a valuable product as a result of their own VAM. I wonder how the Pearson shareholders feel about this.

Just amazing.

Bryan

__________________________

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain
a thought without accepting it.”
-Aristotle

Diane,

is that Pearson is selling off Powerschool. Typically, SIS systems can be very profitable for a company. Working in SIS management for the past 7 years, I wanted to confirm this rumor. So, I approached the Pearson rep., a nice gentleman, who confirmed that indeed Pearson was selling off Powerschool. Curious, I asked him, why? Imagine my surprise when I heard the following (paraphrasing): “…Pearson is strongly committed to improving student outcomes and has decided to score every single product it owns to determine the impact on student achievement. Powerschool didn’t score well so we are selling it off…”

So there I stood–mouth agape—at the realization that Pearson has fallen for it’s own scam. They have actually VAM’d themselves. And, as a result, is selling of a profitable product.

The parallels to students, teachers, principals, and whole schools who have also fallen victim to VAM flooded my brain.

Education has lost valuable human capital (I despise that reference typically….we are human resources, not capital) as a result of VAM.

Pearson is losing a valuable product as a result of their own VAM. I wonder how the Pearson shareholders feel about this.

Just amazing.

Bryan

__________________________
Bryan P. Alleman
Technology Coordinator
Acadia Parish School Board
P. O. Drawer 309
Crowley, LA 70527-0309
phone: (337) 783-3664 x279
fax: (337) 783-0194
balleman@acadia.k12.la.us
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain
a thought without accepting it.”
-Aristotle

,

Les Perelman, former director of undergraduate writing at MIT has been a persistent critic of machine-scored writing on tests. He has previously demonstrated that students can outwit the machines and can game the system. He created a machine called BABEL, or Basic Automatic B.S. Essay Language Generator. He says that the computer cannot distinguish between gibberish and lucid writing.

 

He wrote the following as a personal email to me, and I post it with his permission.

 

Measurement Inc., which uses Ellis Paige’s PEG (Project Essay Grade) software to grade papers all but concedes that students in classrooms where the software has been used have been using the BABEL generator or something like it to game the program. Neither vendor mentions that the same software is also being used to grade high stakes state tests, and in the case of Pearson, is being considered by PARCC to grade Common Core essays.

 

http://www.pegwriting.com/qa#good-faith

 

What is meant by a “good faith” essay?

 

 

It is important to note that although PEG software is extremely reliable in terms of producing scores that are comparable to those awarded by human judges, it can be fooled. Computers, like humans, are not perfect.

 

PEG presumes “good faith” essays authored by “motivated” writers. A “good faith” essay is one that reflects the writer’s best efforts to respond to the assignment and the prompt without trickery or deceit. A “motivated” writer is one who genuinely wants to do well and for whom the assignment has some consequence (a grade, a factor in admissions or hiring, etc.).

 

Efforts to “spoof” the system by typing in gibberish, repetitive phrases, or off-topic, illogical prose will produce illogical and essentially meaningless results.

 

Also, both PEG Writer and Pearson’s WriteToLearn concede in buried FAQ’s that their probabilistic grammar checkers don’t work very well.

 

PEG Writing by Measurement Inc.
http://www.pegwriting.com/qa#grammar

 

PEG’s grammar checker can detect and provide feedback for a wide variety of syntactic, semantic and punctuation errors. These errors include, but are not limited to, run-on sentences, sentence fragments and comma splices; homophone errors and other errors of word choice; and missing or misused commas, apostrophes, quotation marks and end punctuation. In addition, the grammar checker can locate and offer feedback on style choices inappropriate for formal writing.

 

Unlike commercial grammar checkers, however, PEG only reports those errors for which there is a high degree of confidence that the “error” is indeed an error. Commercial grammar checkers generally implement a lower threshold and as a result, may report more errors. The downside is they also report higher number of “false positives” (errors that aren’t errors). Because PEG factors these error conditions into scoring decisions, we are careful not to let “false positives” prejudice an otherwise well constructed essay.

 

Pearson Write to Learn
http://doe.sd.gov/oats/documents/WToLrnFAQ.pdf

 

The technology that supports grammar check features in programs such as Microsoft Word often return false positives. Since WriteToLearn is an educational product, the creators of this program have decided, in an attempt to not provide students with false positives, to err on the side of caution. Consequently, there are times when the grammar check will not catch all of a student’s errors.

 

MS Word used to produce a significant number of false positives but Microsoft in the current versions appears to have raised the probabilistic threshold so that it now underreports errors.

Kentaro Toyamo worked briefly as a tutor at the Lakeside Academy in Seattle, which is richly endowed with technology. He observed that what students needed most was adult guidance.

In this article, he discusses both the value and limits of educational technology. It may be used for education or for distraction.

But there are some systemic problems that technology can’t fix. Like inequality.

He writes:


In America, much of our collective handwringing about education comes from comparisons with other countries. In the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), American students ranked twenty-seventh in math and seventeenth in reading. But while the United States as a whole may be losing its competitive edge, stronger students aren’t sliding. At the annual International Math Olympiads, for example, where countries send their six best precollege mathematicians to solve problems that make SAT questions seem like 1+1, the United States regularly places in the top three.

“But as data from PISA show, high-scoring countries emphasize high-quality education for everyone, not just the elite. America, unfortunately, does poorly here when compared against thirty-three of the world’s wealthiest countries. We have the third-lowest school enrollment rate for fifteen-year-olds (nearly 20 percent of our kids are not in school!), and we’re ninth worst in educational disparity—scores vary particularly widely between well-off students and low-income ones. We all know that our schools are unequal. Less acknowledged is that this inequality is responsible for our lack of global competitiveness.

If educational inequality is the main issue, then no amount of digital technology will turn things around. This is perhaps the least-understood corollary of technological amplification. At a talk Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave at the South by Southwest conference, he pressed the case for more technology in education (mentioning “technology” forty-three times, and “teachers” only twenty-five). He claimed, “Technology can level the playing field instead of tilting it against low-income, minority and rural students—who may not have laptops and iPhones at home.” But this is wishful thinking; it’s misleading and misguided. Technology amplifies preexisting differences in wealth and achievement. Children with greater vocabularies get more out of Wikipedia. Students with behavioral challenges are more distracted by video games. Rich parents will pay for tutors so that their children can learn to program the devices that others merely learn to use. Technology at school may level the playing field of access, but a level field does nothing to improve the skill of the players, which is the whole point of education. Mark Warschauer, a professor at University of California, Irvine, and one of the foremost scholars in the field of educational technology finds that “the introduction of information and communication technologies in … schools serves to amplify existing forms of inequality.”

How many times have you heard Secretary Duncan say the word “inequality”? He has often said the opposite–that poverty can be overcome by “no excuses” charter schools, pointing to schools with high graduation rates and high attrition rates (“same school, same students, different results”). How’s that theory working out?