Archives for category: Technology

Leonie Haimson, leader of Class Size Matters and Student Privacy Matters, gathered the following links to an important story: China has developed a credit score game that rates its citizens by their behavior.

 

She writes:

 

“Check out this video and news articles about Sesame Credit, the big data social credit score and game being used in China to encourage obedience to the government — to be mandatory for all citizens by 2020. Very scary stuff!”

 

http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2016/12/a-terrifying-look-at-future.html

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-has-made-obedience-to-the-state-a-game-a6783841.html

 

 

In this article, posted on Valerie Strauss’s blog, Lis Guisbond of FairTest interviews New York opt out leader Jeanette Deutermann about the creeping incursion of online assessment into regular classroom use. i remember hearing New York ‘s Commissioner of Education MaryEllen Elia predict the advent of “embedded assessments,” in which students would be continually assessed, as they complete their assignments online. No need for a “test.” The testing would be daily, continual, and invisible.

 

Guisbond writes:

 

 

Long Island parent Jeanette Deutermann is only half-joking when she says she should give a Christmas gift to her son’s school computer this year instead of the teacher. She sees the way computer-based curriculum-plus-testing packages have taken control of her son’s classroom, and she doesn’t like it.

 

Deutermann has been a leader in New York State’s unprecedented opt-out movement. Now she is calling out the latest damaging twist in education reformers’ efforts to fatten the pig by weighing it even more often.

 

Deutermann’s fifth-grade son and his classmates are among those on the edge of this craze, now that their school has adopted a product called i-Ready. She’s alarmed that her son gets daily computer-based math and reading lessons triggered by the results of a computer-based test. He also has thrice yearly (or more) i-Ready exams and even i-Ready-based homework.
She laments a shift away from students learning how to communicate and collaborate with one another on group projects to more and more time in solitary communion with a computer screen…

 

We already know that high-stakes exams narrow and dumb down instruction, depress student engagement, and produce inaccurate indicators of learning. Now we must be vigilant and prepared to push back against these new threats:
The push for frequent online or computer-based testing threatens to reverse recent progress in reducing testing and lower the stakes attached.
*Instead of schools with trained educators who use their professional expertise to personalize learning for students, these programs perpetuate standardized, test-driven teaching and learning, now automated for “efficiency.”
*Frequent online student assessments require teachers to review copious amounts of data instead of teaching, observing and relating to students.
*In truly student-centered learning, children guided by teachers can choose among topics, materials and books based on their interests and passions. But the vision promoted by many education technology vendors and proponents is of students learning material selected by online or computer-based adaptive assessments.
*Companies and government agencies are amassing unprecedented amounts of student data through online learning and testing platforms. There is widespread concern about accessibility of this data to third parties and violations of privacy through data. Parent groups and others advocate legislation to provide transparency and protect data from misuse. In the meantime, security breaches or data sharing are serious risks.
*Frequent online testing creates obstacles to opting out as a way to call attention to and protest testing overkill. A robust national opt-out movement created enormous pressure for change. But a shift to online exams creates new hurdles for parents who want to opt their children out.
*After several decades, researchers have seen little positive impact from educational technology. Meanwhile, researchers warn of a range of negative consequences from overexposure to technology and screen time. These include damage to intellectual, physical and emotional development, threats to privacy, and, ironically, increased standardization.

 

 

We are all aware that our personal data are being collected, stored, sold, and used every time we log on to a computer. Yet it never ceases to surprise when we learn this again. Bill Fitzgerald is a teacher, administrator, and technology director. He signed a petition called neveragain.tech. He explains why in this post.

 

Here is his conclusion:

 

Third party tracking is pervasive on the web. This technology creates marked and growing information asymmetry, where the odds are increasingly stacked against people, and stacked for corporations. Technology fuels this power imbalance, and technologists build the tools that make it possible.

 

The day before the leading technologists in our country shuffled into Trump Tower, news broke of 200 million records for sale on the dark web containing information that appears to come from a data broker. The records identify individuals, and include details like spending habits, political contributions, political leaning, credit rating, charitable contributions, travel habits, and information on gambling habits/tendencies. These records were certainly assembled and stored via different tracking technologies.

 

With this as a backdrop, when I see something like neveragain.tech I will admit a degree of skepticism. The profiling tools are built, and the data sets are assembled, multiple times over. I also want to make explicitly clear that my signature, or lack of signature, on the list is pretty unimportant in the larger scheme of things. But with all that said – and with all the technology that has been built, and is right now humming along, collecting data, serving bad search results, and tracking us – we can still make things better. Hell, we might even be able to make things right.

 

With regard to privacy, people often use two metaphors to describe why the efforts to increase privacy protections are meaningless: “the genie is out of the bottle” and “the train has left the station.” What people using these metaphors fail to recognize is that the stories end with the genie returning to the bottle, and the train pulling into another station. “Too late” is the language of the lazy or the overwhelmed. Change starts with awareness, and change grows with organized voices. That’s something I can get behind, and is the reason I signed neveragain.tech.

This is an astonishing petition, created and disseminated within the technology industry, to protest the use of technology to carry out abhorrent policies against Muslim Americans, immigrants, and others who displease the incoming Trump administration. Please read the statement to see the links, recommended readings, and organizations. Some might say that it is too late, that the information is already collected, but it is nonetheless heartening to see so many sign this statement protesting the use of technology to invade privacy and violate human and civil rights.

 

Our pledge

 

We, the undersigned, are employees of tech organizations and companies based in the United States. We are engineers, designers, business executives, and others whose jobs include managing or processing data about people. We are choosing to stand in solidarity with Muslim Americans, immigrants, and all people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by the incoming administration’s proposed data collection policies. We refuse to build a database of people based on their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs. We refuse to facilitate mass deportations of people the government believes to be undesirable.

 

We have educated ourselves on the history of threats like these, and on the roles that technology and technologists played in carrying them out. We see how IBM collaborated to digitize and streamline the Holocaust, contributing to the deaths of six million Jews and millions of others. We recall the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. We recognize that mass deportations precipitated the very atrocity the word genocide was created to describe: the murder of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey. We acknowledge that genocides are not merely a relic of the distant past—among others, Tutsi Rwandans and Bosnian Muslims have been victims in our lifetimes.

 

Today we stand together to say: not on our watch, and never again.

 

We commit to the following actions:

 

We refuse to participate in the creation of databases of identifying information for the United States government to target individuals based on race, religion, or national origin.
We will advocate within our organizations:
to minimize the collection and retention of data that would facilitate ethnic or religious targeting.
to scale back existing datasets with unnecessary racial, ethnic, and national origin data.
to responsibly destroy high-risk datasets and backups.
to implement security and privacy best practices, in particular, for end-to-end encryption to be the default wherever possible.
to demand appropriate legal process should the government request that we turn over user data collected by our organization, even in small amounts.
If we discover misuse of data that we consider illegal or unethical in our organizations:
We will work with our colleagues and leaders to correct it.
If we cannot stop these practices, we will exercise our rights and responsibilities to speak out publicly and engage in responsible whistleblowing without endangering users.
If we have the authority to do so, we will use all available legal defenses to stop these practices.
If we do not have such authority, and our organizations force us to engage in such misuse, we will resign from our positions rather than comply.
We will raise awareness and ask critical questions about the responsible and fair use of data and algorithms beyond our organization and our industry.

Many of us have wondered about the practice of measuring, rating and ranking every student, every teacher, every school. We know that Big Data is insatiable.

China is perfecting Big Data.


“Imagine a world where an authoritarian government monitors everything you do, amasses huge amounts of data on almost every interaction you make, and awards you a single score that measures how “trustworthy” you are. 


“In this world, anything from defaulting on a loan to criticizing the ruling party, from running a red light to failing to care for your parents properly, could cause you to lose points. 
And in this world, your score becomes the ultimate truth of who you are — determining whether you can borrow money, get your children into the best schools or travel abroad; whether you get a room in a fancy hotel, a seat in a top restaurant — or even just get a date.


“This is not the dystopian superstate of Steven Spielberg’s “Minority Report,” in which all-knowing police stop crime before it happens. But it could be China by 2020.
It is the scenario contained in China’s ambitious plans to develop a far-reaching social credit system, a plan that the Communist Party hopes will build a culture of “sincerity” and a “harmonious socialist society” where “keeping trust is glorious.”

Big Data has valuable uses for macro-trends in society. Big Data is dangerous when it scoops up personally identifiable data.

Leonie Haimson, one of the nation’s leading champions of student privacy, posted a detailed description of the Summit/Facebook platform, now in use in more than 100 schools (mostly public schools), and soon to be found in your own district or school, whether it is public or private.

She writes:

Summit is sharing the student personal data with Facebook, Google, Clever and whomever else they please – through an open-ended consent form that they have demanded parents sign. A copy of the consent form is here.

I have never seen such a wholesale demand from any company for personal student data, and can imagine many ways it could be abused. Among other things, Summit/Facebook claims they will have the right to use the personal data “to improve their products and services,” to “conduct surveys, studies” and “perform any other activities requested by the school. ”

The Terms of Service (TOS) limit the right of individuals to sue if they believe their privacy has been invaded:

As the Washington Post article points out, the TOS would force any school or party to the agreement (including teachers) to give up their right to sue in court if they believe their rights or the law has been violated, and limits the dispute to binding arbitration in San Mateo CA – in the midst of Silicon Valley, where Facebook and Google presumably call the shots. This is the same sort of abuse of consumer rights that that banks and credit card companies have included in their TOS and that the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now trying to ban.

–The CEO of Summit charters, Diane Tavenner, is also the head of the board of the California Charter School Association, which has aggressively tried to get pro-privatization allies elected to California school boards and state office, and has lobbied against any real regulations or oversight to curb charter school abuses in that state.

You will not be surprised to learn that the big money behind this privacy invasion venture is Bill Gates and Laurene Powell Jobs.

In my view and that of many other parents, the explosion of ed tech and the outsourcing of student personal data to private corporations without restriction, like this current Summit/Facebook venture, is as risky for students and teachers as the privatization of public education through charter school expansion. In this case, the risk is multiplied, since the data is going straight into the hands of a powerful charter school CEO – closely linked to Gates, Zuckerberg and Laurene Powell Jobs, among the three wealthiest plutocrats on the planet.

Gates has praised Summit to the skies, has given the chain $11 million, and has made special efforts to get it ensconced in his state of Washington; Zuckerberg is obviously closely entrenched in this initiative, and Laurene Powell Jobs has just granted the chain $10 million to launch a new charter school in Oakland.

Don’t let them data-mine your child.

Get informed. Contact Leonie or other privacy advocates. Leonie’s email address is included in her post.

Another post by the reader called “Democracy”:


Part 2

A new player in this realm is Lauren Powell Jobs, who has “an M.B.A. from Stanford University‘s Graduate School of Business and experience as a fixed income trading strategist at Goldman Sachs, she is the founder and chair of the Emerson Collective. The collective, which does not maintain a website, focuses on using entrepreneurship to advance social reform and find solutions to help under-resourced students in America’s public schools, according to one description. She also serves on the boards of the New America Foundation and Teach for America.”

Powell Jobs is tied to the New America Foundation (funded by the Gates and Walton Foundations) and Teach for America (funded by a host of conservative foundations and big banks). She has helped to fund a “network of small private schools” that has extensive staff ties to Teach for America, and she helped to finance the purchase of Amplify from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. It appears that Powell Jobs’ conception of “reform” is really not very different from that of Whitney Tilson, or Wendy Kopp, or the other ed “reformers.”

The network of schools Powell Jobs is helping to fund seeks to apply a “reform” formula “… to private, public, and charter schools across the country. Of course, they’re also money-making operations.”

See, for example: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/altschool/

About 10,000 public schools have applied for the Powell Jobs’ XQ Super Schools grants. I know of one in central Virginia that is under consideration for $2 million a year for five years, $10 million total. This school system touts itself as “visionary,” and has had strong, undisclosed connections to the tech company SchoolNet, which was purchased by Pearson. The school division has thrown millions at technology, and recently converted all of its high schools to STEM “academies,” never mind that there is a nation-wide glut of STEM workers. And people in the community don’t bat an eye.

The top executive at Powell Job’s “reform” entity is Russlyn Ali, a former top aide to Arne Duncan, who is also ensconced as a “senior partner” with Powell Jobs.

Ali formerly worked for the Education Trust and the Broad Foundation. She supported No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. She wrote that California should not suspend Common Core assessments because “The Common Core provides the promise and the opportunity for California to again lead the country in education.” Otherwise, she asked, “Will America be ready to compete?”

It’s pure nonsense. But many in public education have responded enthusiastically to it. They respond even more enthusiastically – it seems – when the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) bogeyman is invoked. Go figure.

Powell Jobs also heads up College Track, which “provides tutoring, SAT and ACT preparation and college counseling” to low-income students, Interestingly, according to its tax filings, College Track “qualifies as a publicly supported organization.” It receives money from the Emerson Collective – another Powell Jobs education enterprise, which is organized as a LLC and does not have to publicly report its donations – and from JP Morgan Chase, venture capitalist John Doerr, and Summit 54, a Colorado organization conceived in the wake of ‘Waiting for Superman’ and dedicated to the proposition that “Our education system is not preparing our students for jobs of the future” and “this is having a detrimental effect on our economy.”

Holy Mother of God. Why does anyone believe these people?

This is what education “reform” – especially technology-oriented “reform – has shaped up to be.

It’s not a pretty sight. And it cannot be healthy for public education.

A reader who signs in as “Democracy” posted the following:


Part 1

As some have noted, technology is a valuable tool. The problem is that it’s too often misused, and not necessarily for the better–– think texting and selfie-taking while driving, political and corporate hacking, nanosecond stock trading.

Anyone who’s become relatively adept at using technology knows something about becoming involved in multi-tasking.

Consider the following, reported in 2008 by Christine Rosen:

“Numerous studies have shown the sometimes-fatal danger of using cell phones and other electronic devices while driving, for example, and several states have now made that particular form of multitasking illegal. In the business world, where concerns about time-management are perennial, warnings about workplace distractions spawned by a multitasking culture are on the rise. In 2005, the BBC reported on a research study, funded by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London, that found, ‘Workers distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers.’ The psychologist who led the study called this new ‘infomania’ a serious threat to workplace productivity.”

The threat to workplace productivity is not made lightly. Rosen added:

“One study by researchers at the University of California at Irvine monitored interruptions among office workers; they found that workers took an average of twenty-five minutes to recover from interruptions such as phone calls or answering e-mail and return to their original task. Discussing multitasking with the New York Times in 2007, Jonathan B. Spira, an analyst at the business research firm Basex, estimated that extreme multitasking—information overload—costs the U.S. economy $650 billion a year in lost productivity.”

Public schools are not exempt from this cautionary information.

In his 2003 book, The Flickering Mind, Todd Oppenheimer wrote that
technology was a “false promise.” That is, all too often technology is no
panacea to improving learning and often undermines funding that might have
gone to reducing class sizes, and improving teacher salaries and facilities.
Based on his many classroom observations, Oppenheimer said that “more often
than not” classroom use of computers encouraged “everybody in the room to go
off task.” He noted that a UCLA research team investigating results from
the Third International Math and Sciences Study (TIMSS) reviewed video from
8th grade math and science classes in seven different countries. One
difference stood out: while American teachers use overhead projectors (and
increasingly now LCDs), teachers in other countries still use blackboards,
which maintain “a complete record of the entire lesson.”

A recent Texas study found that “there was no evidence linking technology immersion with student self-directed learning or their general satisfaction with schoolwork.” And the New York Times reported recently on classroom use of technology in Arizona, where “The digital push aims to go far beyond gadgets to transform the very nature of the classroom.” As the Times reported, “schools are spending billions on technology,even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.”

But it is quite beneficial to the companies that peddle computers, software, and technological gadgetry. And the big push now is for “technology-enhanced instruction” and “innovation” and virtual schools (on-line instruction).

After the disputed 2000 election, Congress established a national commission to review the voting process and make recommendations for change. The commission was co-chaired by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I was a member of the commission. We held four meetings, one in each region of the country. We discussed requirements for voting, mail-in voting, removing barriers to voting, and the mechanics of voting.

Everyone was keenly aware of the “hanging chads” in Florida. We discussed such questions as: How could voting be secure, how could all votes be accurately counted, how could more options be available to encourage voting?

We reviewed the evidence for different types of voting machines. I recall that the most reliable of all machines was the old-fashioned pull-the-lever machine used in New York for decades. It counted every vote, made no mistakes, and was reliable. And, it could not be hacked. However, this voting machine was considered obsolete because it was not electronic. The company that made it was phasing it out.

All the other choices, other than handwritten ballots, were electronic machines. They were reliable if everything went well but subject to malfunctions, and of course, to hacking.

All such concerns were brushed aside, and the commission recommended modernizing the voting machines to avoid hanging chads and indistinct marks on ballots. Now many states and districts use touch-screen technology.

Now we confront a danger that was not imagined in 2001: what if the Russians hack into our election machines?

How will we know that the results are real? Will Putin choose our next president?

Kevin Ohlandt, a parent blogger in Delaware, says that Bill Gates no longer even pretends to hide his ultimate goal: to digitize education and put all children online.

He writes:

Bill Gates wants a Federal Student Data Tracking System. That’s right. He also wants competency-based education, more career pathways programs, and personalized learning to take over public education. This is the same guy who funded Common Core. Remember that when you read the document released by the Gates Foundation today. If I had to guess, now that many education bloggers have exposed all the agendas which will lead to the Bit-Coin inspired Blockchain Initiative, the corporate education reformers (clearly led by Bill Gates) have nothing to lose by getting it all out there now. Now I know why U.S. Senator Chris Coons (Delaware) is chomping at the bit for his post-secondary legislation to get passed by Congress.

Read this. Every single word. Read between the lines. This is the endgame they have been pushing for, the complete and utter destruction of public education in anticipation of online education for all. Where you will be tracked from cradle to grave, with data allowed to be looked at through a federal database, which will track everything about you. The sad part is they play to civil rights groups by assuring more success for minorities. They screw over students with disabilities every chance they get. But their manipulation of under-served communities is at an all-time high in this document. Words like “outcome-based funding” scare the crap out of me, and it should for every single American. Look at all the footnotes in the below document. Look at the companies and think-tanks that are reaping immense profits for every bogus report they come out with. Look how embedded this already is in every single state and our national government.

This is all about the workforce of tomorrow. It has nothing to do with education, or liberal education, or liberating education.