The Creepy Personalized Learning Virtual Reality “Genie” In Reasoning Mind Math: Who Is Behind The Avatar?

 When a “personalized” MATH program admittedly creates a virtual reality “Genie” to become a child’s best friend… what happens when email secrets start to go out, along with confessions about themselves and their home life?  Many parents in America are very concerned.  Who is behind the Genie? Who gets the information?  When they found out that BILL GATESRUSSIA, and the US DOE are promoting and/or paying for this….  let’s just say they became more concerned.  Please read and share this so more parents can become aware of this child predator in the making!  As for the Genie… Well, how would you feel if your child was emailing grown men, disguised as a friendly Genie?  In another country?

reasoning-mind-real-time-data-ai
Reasoning Mind Math reasoningmind.org

The non-profit Reasoning Mind offers “personalized” on-line math curriculum and a computer-based “Genie” who is virtually a child’s best friend, and knows personal things about them, even confessions.  As first noted in this RM document posted by a blogger known as Educray, Reasoning Mind math curriculum  places a large emphasis on teaching Soviet-style morals, collectivism, and the importance of labor (Tudge, 1991).  Reasoning Mind has given some parents reason to worry.   So, let’s take a look at Reasoning Mind and see what could possibly cause concern.

“The Genie”, according to this Reasoning Mind report:

“Anecdotal evidence suggests that students are quite “attached” to Genie, who regularly receives (and answers) email on topics beyond the scope of the learning software, including jokes, requests for friendship, and  confessions about students’ home life.”

“Every day, Reasoning Mind elementary students send hundreds of messages to the Genie, a “friend and mentor” who guides students through their studies. Here’s our favorite student message from this week. And yes, the Genie does respond!”

 

 

reasoning-mind-genie-message

Since Reasoning Mind offers “personalized” curriculum that knows and also remembers the student, a child can log into RM from home or school. And since it’s adaptive and personalized, RM and Genie will keep track of the child, will remember their profile. If RM and Genie can track a child into consecutive grades,  like an old friend,  Genie will be able to pick up the profile where the child left off last year.  While proponents would say keeping track of learners’ profiles is beneficial, this massive accumulation of student information also begs the question of data privacy, risk, and security.

With all that PERSONAL communication being directly and indirectly (ie: analyzing emotions) shared with RM’s Genie, we wondered what their data sharing agreements and Privacy Policy  look like. If a parent were curious what data was collected and shared on their child, this is what they would find if they went to Reasoning Mind’s website.  There is nothing posted about how RM uses and analyzes and shares the noncognitive and personal information that children are providing to RM and to Genie while logged onto their curriculum.  There is no mention of how RM complies with COPPA law.

reasoning-mind-privacy-policy

reasoning-mind-coppa-privacy-policy

 

Given the many Supporters  and In-Kind Contributors of Reasoning Mind, spanning the globe, parents wonder if organizations like Salesforce, Microsoft, Russian Petroleum, Google, Swagger Films, etc. are allowed access to their child’s profile or personal information.  We know that data is money.

Money and Moscow Connections:

Non-profits must make public their tax returns (form 990).  Here are 990 returns available for Reasoning Mind. Looking at the 2014 return tells us a lot; for starters, Reasoning Mind is connected.

Connected to each other:  Page 32…   FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, THE PRESIDENT AND CEO IS MARRIED TO ONE OF THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT’S AND THEIR SON IS (LINE2) ALSO A SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

Connected to Russia:
Pages 7 and 8 of their 2014 form 990 tax return.  Note the Russia Connections:
reasoning-mind-2014-pg-7
Page 22 of RM’s 2014 return shows Moscow did the computer Programming and Testing of end product (remember that GEF MAP I posted a few months ago).
reasoning-mind-2014-pg-22-tested-in-russia

 

Reasoning Mind is Connected to Bill Gates, with this $300k grant for a math pilot  as seen in Gates Foundation 2011 990 form (hint: take a look for other interesting awardees)

2011-gates-reasoning-mind-math-pilot
Reasoning Mind is AGAIN connected to Bill Gates with this $700+ grant awarded in 2011  for alternative human capital models and Common Core aligned math pilot targeting minority children.
reasoning-mind-2011-gates-700k
Reasoning Mind is featured in this 2013 US Department of Education publication that focuses on “New technologies using educational data mining and “affective computing”:
promoting-grit
“There is a growing movement to explore the potential of the “noncognitive” factors—attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes, and intrapersonal resources, independent of intellectual ability—that high-achieving individuals draw upon to accomplish success… —it is the responsibility of the educational community to design learning environments that promote these factors so that students are prepared to meet 21st-century challenges.
Several private foundations have recently initiated programs to push the frontiers of theory, measurement, and practice around these and related factors, particularly for at-risk and vulnerable students. In national policy, there is increasing attention on 21st-century competencies (which encompass a range of noncognitive factors, including grit), and persistence is now part of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics….
Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance mentions Reasoning Mind as an example of  a system that customizes to a student’s cognitive profile and emotional state (e.g., frustration or boredom) using inputs from physiological indicators and facial expressions” and  they also mention experimenting with “animated, affective [digital] agents perceived as caring can increase the likelihood that students will persist through frustrating portions of instruction”.
reasoning-mind-in-promoting-grit
Reasoning Mind is connected to Rice University, an advisor to Reasoning Minds, Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian is also the Director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. Additionally, Dr. Neal Lane, Professor Emeritus, Rice University; Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Former Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; Former Director of the National Science Foundation–sits on the board of RM.
Reasoning Mind is connected to Columbia University and Worcester Polytechnic Institute who did a study on the “affect and behavior among students at three schools using Reasoning Mind, a game-based software system”.   This study was  paid for by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.   The researchers reporthigh student engagement with this learning system“.  The researchers attribute student engagement to the game-based nature and also because children were embracing the genie as a friend and confidant:
“Anecdotal evidence suggests that students are quite attached to Genie, who regularly receives (and answers) email on topics beyond the scope of the learning software, including jokes, requests for friendship, and confessions about students’ home life.  On the basis of these reports, it seems that the effect of Genie deserves more careful consideration, as the success of her design may contribute significantly to the high levels of engagement observed.  Finally, we should consider the many game-like elements in its design, including a point system that rewards students for speed drills and puzzles. Once sufficient points have been accumulated, students may furnish their own virtual space within RM City or buy virtual books. Particularly at a young age, this kind of autonomy is likely very appealing.”
Some have questioned whether RM’s Genie is gaining children’s trust and using a reward system to train children to  respond in much the same way that  the Russian researcher, Pavlov,  conditioned his dogs.  Speaking of experiments and research…

Is it any wonder that students areengaged in this video-gaming atmosphere?  They are engaged because many like Dr. Kardaras, author of Glow Kids,  know: online games are addictive.

spying-kids

Online Curriculum– or Spying on Children?

This 1984 quote by Dustin Heuston (Geuston), Utah’s World Institute for Computer-Assisted Teaching, seems  remarkably fitting if not foreboding:
We’ve been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were 10 of the top psychologists working with one student… you’ve seen the tip of the iceberg. Won’t it be wonderful when the child in the smallest county in the most distant area or in the most confused urban setting can have the equivalent of the finest school in the world on that terminal and no one can get between that child and that curriculum?”-Dustin H. Heuston, “Discussion–Developing the Potential of an Amazing Tool,” Schooling and Technology, Vol.3, Planning for the Future: A Collaborative Model, published by Southeastern Regional Council for Educational Improvement, P.O. Box 12746, 200 Park, Suite 111, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709/ Grant from National Institute of Education, p. 8.
Even more fascinating and startling is this 2010 research on monitoring engagement [curriculum-usage compliance and Academic learning time (ALT)] of preschoolers while interacting with online curriculum, done by Edward B Heuston of Brigham Young UniversityHis conclusion:
“The ability to remotely and accurately quantify interaction with a computer-based curriculum and assessment in the home defines a new vista in ALT research.”
Should parents and teachers (and friends) and human social interactions be replaced by online “affective” avatar agents, who profile childhood secrets, moods, emotions, failures, and flaws? Will artificial, virtual “friends” like Genie become the Oracle that children consult, confide in? … and take direction from?
Perhaps, parents are wise to question who the Great Oz is behind the curtain.  The entity (or persons), receiving and profiling the hearts and minds of their connected children, both at home and in classrooms.  What has to happen before parents realize the danger they are allowing to come into their child’s life?  Every time you sign a consent form, are you getting this kind of information?  I highly doubt it.  And are parents bothering to educate themselves on privacy policies and how data is disseminated?  I doubt it.  The wolf isn’t at the door.  It is in your home…

The Tentacles Of Corporate Education Reform And How They Pull Parents Down The Rabbit Hole

Embedded in the latest Elementary/Secondary Education Act reauthorization are initiatives and agendas that will transform education as we know it. This is not a good thing. Nothing in Delaware currently going on (WEIC, Student Success 2025, Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities) is original. This is happening across the country. The result: students plugged in to computers all the time who will only advance once they have gained proficiency in the Common Core-infused personalized learning technology. The benefits will not be for the students.  They come in the form of financial benefits which will belong to the corporate education reformers, hedge fund managers, and investors. Tech-stock will go through the roof if the current ESEA reauthorization passes, and companies like Schoology, Great Schools and 2Revolutions Inc. will become billionaires over-night. Meanwhile, our children will indeed become slaves to the system. The future is here!

The ESEA reauthorization has morphed into the classic quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars movie: “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”  If you actually think this latest round of ESEA legislation that will come to a vote next Wednesday will reduce testing, you have been sucked down the rabbit hole!

Who is Schoology?  I’ve heard their name countless times in the past year.  I figured it was long past time I dove into this company that is essentially invading every single school district and charter in the First State.  Especially given the information regarding the upcoming ESEA reauthorization vote coming on 12/2.

Schoology offers a cloud service for personalized and blended learning.  For those who aren’t aware, personalized learning is defined by a Great Schools sponsored company as the following:

Personalized learning is generally seen as an alternative to so-called “one-size-fits-all” approaches to schooling in which teachers may, for example, provide all students in a given course with the same type of instruction, the same assignments, and the same assessments with little variation or modification from student to student.

But this is what it really is: a cash-cow bonanza for corporate education reform companies, especially those on the tech side who are pushing their internet-based modules out faster than you realize.  Schoology opened shop in Delaware with the BRINC partnership between the Brandywine, Indian River, New Castle County Vo-Tech and Colonial school districts.  These four districts used Schoology as the base for their personalized learning partnership, and the Caesar Rodney and Appoquinimink districts have joined as well.  The News Journal wrote a huge article on Schoology last March, and reporter Matthew Albright wrote:

Schools must figure out how to create the right infrastructure, providing enough bandwidth and wireless network capacity. They have to settle on the right computers or tablets and find ways to pay for them, configure them, and teach students how to use them.

And, while many teachers have taken their own initiative to find new educational tools, schools and districts have to find ways to train teachers in using these systems and make sure all educators are on the same page.

In Delaware, a group of districts has banded together to work out the best way to deal with those challenges.

The consortium is called BRINC, after the four school districts that originally participated: Brandywine, Indian River, New Castle County Vo-Tech and Colonial. The group added two more districts, Appoquinimink and Caesar Rodney, this year.

Over a year ago, I was distracted away from this by a company called 2Revolutions Inc.  After their appearance at the annual Vision Coalition conference, I looked into 2Revolutions and did not like what I was seeing.  My eye was on 2Revolutions coming into Delaware as a vendor, and I completely missed Schoology who was already here.  Meanwhile, 2Revolutions invaded the New Hampshire education landscape.  Schoology is not much different.  But they don’t just provide a cloud service in Delaware.  According to the minutes from the Senate Concurrent Resolution #22 Educational Technology Task Force in Delaware, Schoology has also integrated with e-School and IEP Plus.  In a press release from Schoology on 5/20/14, the company announced they were integrating with SunGard K-12 Education (the creators of e-school and IEP Plus):

SunGard K-12 Education’s eSchoolPLUS, an industry-recognized student information system, helps educational stakeholders—students, school administrators, district staff, teachers, parents, and board members—easily manage and immediately access the summary and detailed student information they need, when they need it.

While this seems like a good thing, it is a tremendous amount of data which is now in Schoology’s hands.  Schoology is also branching out like crazy all over the country.  They just announced a contract with L.A. Unified School District, as well as Seattle Public School District and Boulder Valley School District.  In terms of financing, they just secured their fourth round of financing with JMI Investments to the tune of $32 million dollars.  This brings their total financing amount to $57 million over the past couple years from investment firms.  The trick to all of this is in the surface benefits: the cloud-based service where teachers can share instruction is free.  But where it goes from there is unchartered territory, according to Tech-Crunch:

On the other side, there is an enterprise-grade product meant for school districts and universities, that gives richer functionality to administrators to hook into back-end student information systems, build out campuses and building maps, and far more. Schoology said that the price (which is per student, per year) is scaled down for larger clients, but he wouldn’t share the general price range for Schoology Enterprise.

Schoology also provides “assistive technology” services for professional development, according to more minutes from the SCR #22 Task Force:

The creation of comprehensive online professional development using the Schoology platform for both Delaware and Assistive Technology Guidelines documents.

The task force is also going to recommend the following:

Provide district/charters the opportunity to buy-into using Schoology with K-12 students at minimal cost. Increase funding to support growth of the use of Schoology that will drive the per student cost down.
Support the use of Resources within Schoology for sharing teacher-created content and OER.

The SCR #22 Educational Technology Task Force was brought forth by Delaware Senator Bryan Townsend, and sponsored by Senator David Sokola, State Rep. Earl Jaques, State Rep. Trey Paradee, and co-sponsored by Senator Colin Bonini. While this task force is going on, there is another task force called the Student Data Privacy Task Force, which came from an amendment to Senate Bill 79, sponsored by Senator Sokola.  Sokola and Jaques also sponsored the current Senate Joint Resolution #2 Assessment Inventory Task Force. I firmly believe every single one of these task forces, aside from having very similar legislators behind the scenes, will also serve to bring about the complete immersion of Delaware into personalized learning. I wrote last month about the clear and present danger behind the data collection occurring with Delaware students.  But it doesn’t just stop at personalized learning because at a state and national level there is a big push for “competency-based education”, which I wrote about a few weeks ago.

Competency-Based Education, also called Proficiency Based Learning, is a process where students do not advance until they have mastered the material. Instead of a once a year standardized assessment, students will be tested at the end of a unit, on a computer. Think Smarter Balanced Assessment broken up into numerous chunks throughout the year. This “stealth” testing will effectively “reduce the amount of testing” but would also give the exact same tests but at a micro-level. This is also an opt-out killer as parents would have no way of knowing how often their child is being tested, nor would they likely have access to the actual questions on the mini-assessments.  Meanwhile, as President Obama and soon-to-be-former US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan mirror Delaware’s Senate Joint Resolution #2, parents and educators are saying “Yes, yes, yes!” but bloggers like myself are saying “No, no, no!”

Save Maine Schools, a blog written by a teacher from Maine named Emily Talmage, has delved into this digital nightmare in great length.  Talmage bought the product these companies were selling until she wisely began to question the motives behind it all.  Maine, along with New Hampshire, Alaska, and Delaware, is one of the state guinea pigs where the experiment of Personalized Learning and Competency-Based Education is at the forefront.  All four of these states have smaller populations and are led by reform-style education leaders.  Talmage recently wrote about what has been going on while we were testing:

The fact is, the state-led testing consortia , which promised to use our tax money to bring us high quality tests that would get our kids “college and career ready”, were actually business consortia, strategically formed to collaborate on “interoperability frameworks” – or, to use simpler terms, ways of passing data and testing content from one locale to the next (from Pearson to Questar, for example, or from your local town to the feds).

Just as the Common Core State Standards were intended to unleash a common market, so, too, was the effort to create a common digital “architecture” that would allow companies like Questar and Pearson and Measured Progress and all the rest to operate in a “plug in play” fashion. (Think of Xbox, Nintendo, PlayStation, and all the rest teaming up to make a super-video-game console.)

The upcoming ESEA reauthorization, called the “Every Student Succeeds Act”, is filled with easter eggs and cash prizes for companies like Schoology, as seen in the below document from EdWeek.

That is a ton of federal money going out to schools from legislation designed on the surface to halt federal interference in education.  It sounds like Race To The Top all over again, but on a much bigger scale.  The tentacles from the feds reach deep into the states with this latest ESEA reauthorization, and behind the US DOE are all the companies that will feast on tax-payer funds.

The bill also allows for further charter school expansion and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools recently said:

The National Alliance congratulates the conference committee for taking another step forward in the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. While we have not yet seen the full text of the conference agreement, we are pleased to learn the proposal would modernize the Charter Schools Program, supporting the growth and expansion of high-quality charter schools to better meet parental demand.

When the opt-out movement grew in huge numbers earlier this year, many civil rights groups protested opt-out as a means of putting minority children further behind their peers.  What they don’t realize is the current ESEA reauthorization will ensure this happens!  Even the two largest teacher union organizations are jumping on this version of ESEA.  The American Federation of Teachers wrote a letter urging ESEA to pass as soon as possible.  National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen Garcia wrote:

We look forward to working with the congressional conference committee members to ensure that we produce a bill that, when signed by the president, gives every student the opportunity, support, tools, and time to learn.

How much do these civil rights groups and leaders of teacher unions really know about what is inside this bill?  Do they understand the danger of rushing this ESEA version to a vote and what it will mean for the future of education and children?  Don’t the teacher unions realize this will be the death knell for the future of teachers in America?  Once personalized learning is embraced by all public schools in America, teachers will become moderators or facilitators of the personalized learning modules.  The demand for “old-school” teachers will greatly diminish, and teacher qualifications will simply become how to review and program these digital instructional items.  The vast amount of money and resources will pour into technology and only the school leaders will be the ones with high salaries.  The current teacher salary models in each state will become a thing of the past.  With the charter school protections written in this bill, more and more charters will open up that will drain away local dollars.  With each state able to come up with their own accountability systems, the schools with the highest-needs students will slowly give way to charters.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  If I were a public school teacher that is in a union, I would seriously question why the national leaders are endorsing this.

Even American Institutes for Research (AIR), the testing vendor for the Smarter Balanced Assessment in Delaware and holds numerous other contracts with other states and the US Department of Education is in on this new “digital age”:

As part of the Future Ready initiative, President Obama hosted more than 100 school superintendents at the White House during a November 19, 2014 “ConnectED to the Future” summit.  Superintendents signed the Future Ready District Pledge indicating their commitment to work with educators, families and communities to develop broadband infrastructures; make high-quality digital materials and devices more accessible; and support professional development programs for educators, schools and districts as they transition to digital learning.

But it doesn’t stop there, because AIR wants districts to invest heavily in all this technology:

Effectively using technology is an essential skill in today’s workforce but also critical to advancing teaching and learning. Today’s students aren’t just digital natives: they increasingly use digital devices to complete school assignments, stay informed, and network with peers around the world. A tipping point for technology and schooling may be in store soon:  instead of merely enhancing teaching and learning, technology may transform both by better accommodating individual learning styles and facilitating collaboration. Whether through the deeper learning, personalized learning, or blended learning approaches districts are exploring and investing heavily in now, technology could finally help your state unlock instruction—educational policy’s “black box”—and ultimately close achievement gaps.

It all comes back to closing those damn achievement gaps, based on the very same state standards and standardized testing that are creating those very same achievement gaps.  This is something AIR excels at, creating the “need” and then selling the “fix”.  Some have theorized, but been unable to prove due to an inability to get into AIR’s contracts and financial records, that companies like WestEd, Questar, Data Recognition Corp. (the “human scorer” company for the Smarter Balanced Assessment in Delaware), and Measurement Inc. are merely shell companies for AIR.  AIR seems to be controlling so much of what is in education.  So much so, it is hard to tell the difference between AIR and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  Which brings us back to Delaware Governor Jack Markell.

This is a man who has been involved in corporate education reform for well over ten years, possibly longer.  He worked at McKinsey and Associates in the 90’s as a consultant, and after coining Nextel, he became the State Treasurer for Delaware, a role he served from 2001-2009.  Since then, he has served as the Governor of Delaware and been behind every single education reform movement that has swept the country.  When Markell served as the President of the National Governor’s Association in 2013, he attended some very big events.  Including the Milken Institute Global Conference.  While in attendance, he served on several panels that were not open to the public and were considered private “by invitation only”.  Why would an elected official, sworn to uphold the best interests of his state, serve on private panels for huge investment firms?  The panels Markell served on at the Milken conference were “Global Capital Markets Advisory Council” (along with Tony Blair, Michael Milken, Eric Cantor and Rupert Murdoch) and “K-12 Education Private Lunch”.  Those were the only two panels Markell talked on, both private, and both closed to the public.

Jack Markell, the great violator of parental rights, who vetoed opt-out legislation in Delaware that overwhelmingly passed the Delaware House and Senate, is one of the key political figures and puppet masters behind all of this.  With close ties to Achieve, McKinsey, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Rodel Foundation of Delaware, New America, and the Center for American Progress, Markell is a very dangerous man in education.  Markell’s ambitions are not for the good of the citizens of Delaware.  His constituents are the very same companies behind the latest ESEA reauthorization, personalized learning, competency-based education, and the public shaming of educators everywhere unless they happen to belong to a charter school.  He was even involved in the creation of Common Core:

He has also served for three years as Chair of the National Board of Directors of Jobs for America’s Graduates, co-chair of the Common Core Standards Initiative and chair of the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League.

The last of those groups is a civil rights organization in Delaware’s largest city, Wilmington.  When Markell first announced his “original” idea of assessment inventory, he was joined in the press conference by the head of that organization at the time.

In Delaware, we are led by a tyrant who leads the charge in education reform and allows the money-sucking vampires like Schoology to come in and pocket funds that allow bloated classrooms.  Companies like Schoology will make damn sure students with disabilities, children from poverty, and at-risk youth are always behind their peers.  This is what their services thrive on, the constant demand to fix education.  As our US Congress votes on the ESEA reauthorization, keep this in mind: it is not meant for every student to succeed.  It is all about the money.  Follow it, and you too will see the path to success.

What can parents and teachers do?  Aside from following the money, which is a mammoth task and all too frequently a lesson in humility, look at your local, state and national leaders.

Look at legislation and regulations.

What initiatives and plans are your district boards, charter boards, and state boards of education voting on?

For charter school parents, do you ever question why the boards of charters are appointed rather than elected?

Do you ever look at “task forces”, “working groups” and “committees” in your state and wonder who is on them and why there were appointed?

Does  your state sell the term “stakeholders” in determining policies but many of the same people serve on these groups?

Which of your state legislators are introducing legislation that seems harmless on the surface but has caveats and loopholes deeply embedded into it?

Which legislators are up for re-election and could be easily swayed for promises of future power?

Which legislators are running for higher office?

What policies and laws are your state Congress representatives voting on?

What is your Governor up to?  Do you see news blips about them speaking at private organizations but it is not on their public schedule?

Do you see action by legislators that seems to defy the beliefs of their individual political party?

Do you see education leaders and legislators comingling with lobbyists in your state Capital?

For teachers, where does your local union and state union stand on these issues?  Your national?

Parents: if your school has a PTA or PTO, what are their collective stances on these critical issues?

Do you know if your State Board of Education is elected or appointed?

Find out who your state lobbyists are.  Read.  Search.  Discover.  Question everything.  Email your state legislators and Congress representatives when you don’t agree with something you believe will have no direct benefit for your individual child.  Vote for those who you think will stand against this bi-partisan regime of education vampires.  Question those who sit on the sidelines and do nothing.  Push them.  Make your voice heard.  .  Look into initiatives going on in your state, or research groups looking into school funding or redistricting.  Part of the ESEA reauthorization has states looking at “weighted funding”, whereby funds would pour into more high-needs schools.  As well, the reauthorization would allow more Title I dollars to go into the “bottom” schools than they currently do.  When I say “bottom”, these are schools usually with the most high-needs students who do not do well on the standardized tests.  In many states, these schools become charter schools.  Once again, rinse, wash, repeat.

One thing to keep in mind is the corporate education reform movement is everywhere.  Like a secret society, they have embedded themselves and they are hiding in plain sight.  In every single one of the groups mentioned above.  Some of the people I am asking people to look into may not even realize they are a part of these agendas.  Some may just think they are doing the right thing.  For folks like myself, Diane Ravitch, Mercedes Schneider, Emily Talmage and countless others, our job is to expose and name them.  We discover the lies and call them out.  We are the last line of defense before your child’s worthwhile education is completely gone, lost in the shadows and truckloads of money behind those who would dare to steal your child’s benefit for their own future.  Unless you are part of the wealthy and elite, your child’s fate is being decided on next week during the vote for the ESEA reauthorization.  Most of you don’t even realize this.  Many that do have been duped and fooled into believing this is the right thing.  Many of us have been fighting the evil standardized test and opting out, and the whole time they have been plotting and scheming in closed-door meetings with companies to bring about the last phase of corporate education reform: the complete and utter brainwashing of your child wired into a never-ending state of constant assessment and proficiency based on the curriculum that they wrote.  They fooled the bloggers as well.  But we are the resistance, and we will not stop the defense of our children.  We will protect our schools and our communities from the corporate raiders.  We will keep opting out and fighting for the rights of others to do so as well.  We will not be bought or sold into the devious and intrinsic methodologies they seek to perpetuate on our society.  We will fight, not because we gain personal reward or acclaim, but because it is the right thing to do.

Competency-Based Education & Personalized Learning Invaded Delaware…We Didn’t Even Realize It…

Delaware Governor Jack Markell, who has held the role of state leader in Delaware since 2009, also serves on the National Governor’s Association.  This collective of all the United States Governors has several different committees they serve on.  Governor Markell serves on the Education & Workforce Committee.  To any citizen of Delaware, this is not a shock.  Markell serves on this committee with the Chair, Governor Jay Inslee (WA), the Vice-Chair, Governor Robert Bentley (AL), Governor Pete Ricketts (NE), Governor Kate Brown (OR), Governor Tom Wolf (PA), Governor Dennis Daugaard (SD), Governor Bill Haslam (TN) and Governor Scott Walker (WI).  Four of these states, Delaware, Washington, Oregon and South Dakota all administer the Smarter Balanced Assessment.  None of these Governors represent the nine states where the PARCC assessment is administered.

From their website, the Education & Workforce Committee’s main goal is this:

The Education and Workforce Committee has jurisdiction over issues in the area of education (including early childhood, K-12 and postsecondary) as well as in the areas of workforce development. Members of the committee ensure that the governors’ views are represented in the shaping of federal policy.

The committee released a paper two and half weeks ago about “Competency-Based Education” from Kindergarten to college.  In a nutshell, the document (which can be read below), wants to completely gut what is currently done in education.  Instead of students going through grades K-12, this new model would have students advance when they are proficient in a subject.

CBE shows promise for helping more elementary and secondary students meet higher standards of learning and become better prepared for college or a career training program.  Once in higher education or job training, CBE allows older students (traditional-age college students or adult learners) to learn on their own time at their own pace.

While some envision personalized learning as the wave of the future, I think it is ripe for abuse.  If the goal of personalized learning is for each student to advance at their own pace, it presents a clear danger to students who are already behind to become even more so.  Even more frightening is the role of the teacher in this personalized learning environment:

In a CBE system, the role of the educator changes from an individual lecturing in a classroom to that of a coach or facilitator who guides learning.  In a CBE system, the training, certification, evaluation, pay, promotion, and leadership role of educators should all be reexamined.

The role of assessment plays a major part in this.  For those reading this and may be thinking none of this has happened yet, this is exactly what is going on right now in Delaware.  This is the Delaware School Success Framework.

Assessment is frequently tied to accountability in K-12; therefore, policymakers should rethink what their accountability systems measure and value.

The third big area with this revolves around student funding, which has become a hotbed issue in Delaware in the past year.

Altering structures to award funding based on learning could provide incentives for the wider adoption of CBE efforts and allow states to pay for the learning outcomes according to their value.

So we have this competency-based education that turns teachers into facilitators of a computer program, students who either advance fast or fall even further behind (and we all know who that will be: minorities, low-income students, and students with disabilities), and funding that translates to which companies will get very rich very fast off this initiative.  And let’s face it, anytime we hear the word “incentives”, it is more “waivers” where nothing really gets waived except an antiquated No Child Left Behind standard that nobody can meet and forces states to comply with Federal standards.  And when they say “wider adoption” that means comply or you get nothing, just like they did with the Common Core State Standards (developed by this group and the Council of Chief State School Officers) and Race To The Top.  Lest we forget, none of this means Common Core and the current crop of state assessments are going away, because the whole reasoning for this is based on 1/3rd of children in America were proficient on the state assessments.  Which allows them to complete the vicious cycle all over again for their next initiative, Competency-Based Learning.

Imagine, if you will, you are an education-tech company and your personalized program gets picked in this CBE world.  You are instantly rich!  And you will align with all the other companies to make sure you stay that way.  You will join consortiums and committees, and as your company grows, you will own employees in the US DOE and all the State DOEs as well.  But guess what?  This has already happened!  Things in Delaware like BRINC, Schoology, Student Success 2025, the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission, and the DOE/State Board led Statewide Review of Educational Opportunities are all about this.  Even the Assessment Inventory Task Force will make sure assessments are designed towards this model.  We blinked, and personalized learning already infiltrated over half the state.  I warned folks a year ago how this would be a special education killer and competency-based education will do exactly that!

If you don’t think Delaware has been planning ahead for this for a long time, take this piece of information in the paper which talks about New Hampshire and their role in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium:

New Hampshire is working with other states on a task force as part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium to describe how the assessments can comprehensively support a CBE-aligned system.  The task force will recommend enhancements and changes to the assessment components to provide more precise information to teachers that they can use to improve students’ learning within a CBE system.

In other words, the teacher facilitator will simply switch the module in the personalized learning computer system that some Fortune 500 company created so the student can do better on the assessment which is designed to show how much we need this new system based on the amount of students not scoring as proficient.  It is a vicious cycle which rewards students who come from a better economic background and drags the students who struggle through a proficiency nightmare.  If the goal is to challenge “smarter” kids and to make proficiency the goal for “not as smart” kids, what happens when the “not as smart” kids get tired of waiting to become proficient?  If there is no challenge for them and they go over the same material over and over again, they will quickly become very bored and will start to act out in this CBE classroom.  And what is a CBE classroom?  Will it have inclusion for students with disabilities?  How does discipline work with this new working class of facilitators?

There are more questions than answers with all of this, but it is painfully transparent how the stage was set for all of this.  The Common Core was developed to set the “standard”, the state assessments were developed to set the “proficiency”, the accountability systems for teachers and schools (not the students) were set up to “destroy” the public education system as we know it, all leading to this: students getting even more screen time all day in school and getting brief amounts of time off the computer to hear a facilitator summarize or say “time for lunch”.  This is also why we see such a huge push for charter schools.  They have no teacher unions for the most part, and their “models” are based on this type of environment.  As more and more charters choke the traditional school districts, the path to this get-rich future becomes even more clear.  And our Governors seem to be okay with all of this!  Why?

The promise of such a system is that it can adjust the methods of instruction and assistance to provide deeper, more personalized learning and help ensure that all students meet or exceed the high expectations of rigorous and relevant standards.

Or, you can believe this will further separate the haves from the have-nots.  Can anyone stop this train which left the station years ago?  Or is the future already here?  Parents across the country are actually making a difference in stopping this runaway train by opting their children out of the state assessment.  While the motivation is to look out for their child’s well-being, they are also throwing a wrench into this massive machine and stopping it dead in its tracks.  We just need much higher opt-out numbers to blow the whole thing up!

The full document is below:

Delaware Attorney General Responds To Senate Bill 79 and Data Sharing Fears

Last week, I posted a rather long article about data sharing and my fear the recently passed Senate Bill 79 will only make it worse based on some clauses in the legislative language.  Delaware Attorney General Matt Denn responded to me, and addressed his concerns.  I thought that was very forthcoming considering I hadn’t even reached out to him yet on the issue.


From: “Denn, Matthew (DOJ)” <Matthew.Denn@state.de.us>
To: Kevin Ohlandt <kevino3670@yahoo.com>
Cc: “Wright, Christian (DOJ)” <Christian.Wright@state.de.us>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 7:51 AM
Subject: Senate Substitute 1 for SB 79

​Kevin — I saw Mike Matthews’ link to your blog post about Senate Substitute 1 for SB 79.  That bill was written by my office, and it has been recognized by national student data privacy advocates as among the most protective in the country for students.  It does not undo any existing privacy protections — you can actually look at the bill and see that not one word in the existing statute is deleted.  It does set up a task force to look at how DOE’s internal handling of student data should be improved — the majority of the bill relates to sharing and handling of student data by entities outside DOE.  Most if not all of the lobbyists who are listed were registered to lobby against the bill, they represent a variety of large national interests and getting the bill passed over their objections was a difficult undertaking.   I am copying Christian Wright from my office who wrote the bill and is also in charge of enforcing it, if you have any questions about it, he would be happy to answer them.

Matt Denn


I took AG Denn up on his offer and reached out to Christian Wright.


From: Kevin Ohlandt <kevino3670@yahoo.com>
To: “Denn, Matthew (DOJ)” <Matthew.Denn@state.de.us>
Cc: “Wright, Christian (DOJ)” <Christian.Wright@state.de.us>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Senate Substitute 1 for SB 79

Matt and Christian,

I didn’t have concerns with this legislation as it was originally written.  Unfortunately I got very distracted by House Bill 50 while most of the action on this legislation was going on.  The amendment is what I have grave concerns with.  It seems as if it was modeled after “legislation” written by Jeb Bush’s company, Excellence In Education.  http://static.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/Student-Data-Privacy-Accessibility-and-Transparency-Act-Model-Legislation-03.2015.pdf  Many of the sections in the amendment have the exact same working as this mock legislation, especially on pages 10-13.  Jeb Bush has received a lot of criticism for his role in education and the further implementation of Common Core State Standards, high-stakes testing, and things like this.  I can see why Google and Microsoft would lobby against the bill, but my concern is who lobbied FOR the bill, or more specifically, the amendment to it.

There are legal loopholes all over this that can cause data to stream out to outside companies.  As well, this company IMS Global Learning Consortium, which is incorporated in Delaware, seems to be an umbrella company for shared access of a great deal of student data between their “members”.  A blogger in Colorado wrote an excellent article based on this company and what is going on out there with data.  I would like to know how much of this bill was written by your office and how much was taken off templates from outside companies that actually make money off of education.  Legislation can be extremely tricky, but even if certain data is protected, a great deal of it isn’t and it really feels like students are being tracked and catalogued for unknown purposes.  I’m not the only person that feels this way.  Given the numerous issues going on with education in Delaware in terms of the DOE, the Governor’s role in very questionable actions, and the very large influence outside companies have on education in this state, I am attempting to understand what is really going on.  What we are told in the general media and in public meetings does not always gel with what is going on behind the scenes, and this concerns me on levels I never could have imagined.

Thank you,

Kevin Ohlandt


From: Kevin Ohlandt [mailto:kevino3670@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 12:23 PM
To: Denn, Matthew (DOJ) <Matthew.Denn@state.de.us>; Wright, Christian (DOJ) <Christian.Wright@state.de.us>
Subject: Fw: Senate Substitute 1 for SB 79

Matt and Christian,

I’m sorry, I forgot to put up a link to the Colorado blog article: http://colohub.weebly.com/data-connect-the-dots.html.  As well, the Delaware blogger Kavips wrote an article this morning and he really went through what Senate Bill 79 w/SS1 does AND doesn’t do: https://kavips.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/revisiting-the-student-data-privacy-protection-act-sb-79/.

Thanks again,

Kevin


From: Wright, Christian (DOJ)
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:55 PM
To: Kevin Ohlandt <kevino3670@yahoo.com>
Cc: Matthews, Michael J (K12) <michael.matthews@redclay.k12.de.us>; downwithabsolutes@gmail.com; Denn, Matthew (DOJ) <Matthew.Denn@state.de.us>
Subject: RE: Senate Substitute 1 for SB 79

Kevin —

Thanks for your emails.  I have attempted to address what I think are the questions you have raised SS 1 for SB 79, while also trying to provide an overall view of how the bill came about.

Who drafted SS 1 for SB 79?

I was the sole drafter of SS 1 for SB 79.  I modeled SS 1 for SB 79 on California’s Student Online Personal Information Privacy Act (SOPIPA), which is now Section 22584 in the California Business & Professions Code.  SOPIPA had been widely praised by student advocates as being the strongest legislation in the country for protecting student data privacy.  SOPIPA was suggested to us as model legislation by Common Sense Media, one of the top independent NPOs focused on children and technology.  SS 1 for SB 79, like SOPIPA, has been praised by student data privacy advocates and experts for taking one of the strongest stands in the nation to date in favor of student data privacy—most recently this morning during a call I had with a law professor who is a nationally-recognized expert on information privacy and cyber law.

Who lobbied on SS 1 for SB 79?

I handled all negotiations, meetings, and conversations with folks who wanted to provide input for or against SS 1 for SB 79 (and SB 79 before it).  Excluding legislators, the only parties with whom I had dealings on SS 1 for SB 79 (or SB 79 itself) were Common Sense Media, Microsoft, Delaware PTA, Google, DOE, the State Board, and the State Privacy & Security Coalition (whose members include Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, Amazon, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon).  Until your email, I had never heard of either Jeb Bush’s company or IMS Global Learning Consortium.  (Your email was also the first time we have seen the proposed model legislation in the URL you provided, so it played no role in our thinking and drafting.)

Common Sense Media, Microsoft, and Delaware PTA lobbied hardest in favor of the bill, and Google and the State Privacy & Security Coalition lobbied hardest against it.  DOE and the State Board were also in favor of SS 1 for SB 79, but their participation was not as significant once SS 1 replaced the original SB 79.

Why the change from SB 79 to SS 1 for SB 79?

While you didn’t specifically ask this question, you stated that you didn’t have any concerns with SB 79 as originally written, so I thought it would be useful to explain why the substitution took place.  The original SB 79 was modeled on a Georgia student data privacy bill (SB 89), and the student data privacy provisions governing ed-tech companies in the Georgia bill were not as strong as California’s bill.  (At the time, we thought it might be difficult to get a bill as strong as California’s passed.)

During subsequent negotiations on SB 79, it became increasingly likely that SB 79 in its original form would have a fiscal note attached to it because of the provisions applicable to DOE.  We did not want a fiscal note to delay the passage of legislation regulating the security and privacy of student data collected or maintained by ed-tech providers, and Delaware already has laws and regulations addressing the collection and use of student data by DOE, districts, and schools, so we elected to strip all of the DOE provisions in SB 79 out (essentially lines 97-234 and 317-379) in favor of a substitute bill that focused only on the ed-tech providers using California’s best-in-class privacy protections, and the creation of a task force to take a comprehensive look at student data privacy and security in Delaware’s public school system.

What did SS 1 for SB 79 do to “provisions addressing data security and privacy responsibilities currently in code”?

Absolutely nothing.  They are all still there and will remain there until new Chapter 81A in Title 14 goes into effect.  The nine items in the final paragraph of the synopsis—including the language about “deleting provisions addressing data security and privacy responsibilities of the Department of Education in favor of establishing the Student Data Privacy Task Force”—are identifying the differences between SB 79 and SS 1 for SB 79.  This was done because the Division of Research’s Legislative Drafting Manual (p. 49) recommends that “A synopsis to a substitute bill should detail the difference between the substitute bill and the original bill, in addition to explaining what the bill does.”  So the “deleting provisions” language in the synopsis is identifying what was deleted from SB 79 in creating SS 1, not anything that was deleted from the Delaware Code itself.  ALL state and federal laws currently protecting student data (including FERPA, which we couldn’t touch anyway) remain in place until Chapter 81A goes into effect.

What about the legal loopholes in SS 1 for SB 79?

There aren’t any legal loopholes.  As the handout we distributed to legislators explains (see attached), SS 1 for SB 79 protects a broad range of student data, including student records, emails, searches, and personally identifiable information, from commercial use by operators of sites and applications used for school purposes.  The law absolutely forbids ed-tech providers from targeting students and parents with advertising based on student data, creating a student profile based on student data to be used outside of the school, selling student data, or disclosing student data to third parties (except in very limited, specified circumstances, set forth mostly in lines 105-124 of the bill).

The law does not allow student data to be given to marketers.  It does allow an operator to use de-identified or aggregate data—which cannot be traced to any specific student—for its own marketing purposes, but not generally to give to marketers.  If the data can in any way identify a student then it isn’t de-identified or aggregate student data and cannot be used for the operator’s own marketing purposes. 

Let me give you a concrete example of how that works.  Let’s say a Delaware school district hires Acme-Ed Corp. to provide online math services for its students, with personalized learning that adapts to the student’s progress as they learn the material.  The service performs amazingly, with huge leaps in student learning, and Acme-Ed would like to be able to tout this success when it pitches to other school districts (i.e., marketing its service).  Acme-Ed cannot use identifiable student data if it wants to do this—it cannot say “Jane Doe’s math scores jumped 37%, and John Public’s math scores jumped 40%!”.  But Acme-Ed would be able to say something like, “Using our product, the score for one student at an elementary school in Delaware jumped 37%” or “Using our product, the scores for the students at an elementary school in Delaware went by 15-40%, with a median increase of 27%.”

If there are other parts of the bill that concern you that I haven’t covered, please feel free to identify them for me, and I’ll be happy to address them.

Thanks for giving us an opportunity to clarify what SS 1 for SB 79 does (and doesn’t) do.  We are confident that the bill is a giant step forward for protecting student data in Delaware, and is every bit the “big victory for student privacy” that Common Sense Media calls it.  (https://www.commonsensemedia.org/kids-action/blog/big-victory-for-student-privacy-in-delaware)

Regards,

Christian

Christian Douglas Wright

Director, Consumer Protection Unit
Delaware Department of Justice
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, DE  19801
(302) 577-8944
christian.wright@state.de.us


My concerns, which really haven’t changed much at all, are still in the signed legislation, which can be on the Delaware Legislator website.  If you go to the right side, go to “Bill Quick Search”, on the drop bar, put in Senate Bill, and then 79.  When you scroll down, go to “Substitute Legislation for this bill”, and follow the lines by number if you download the Full Text of the Legislation in MS Word.  The following are the lines that I am most concerned about, all of which are already allowed under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Lines 91-93:

An operator shall not knowingly engage in any of the following activities with respect to such operator’s Internet website, online or cloud computing service, online application, or mobile application:

Lines 98-101:

(2) Use information, including state-assigned student identifiers or other persistent unique identifiers, created or gathered by an Internet website, online or cloud computing service, online application, or mobile application as described in § 8102A(10)a. of this title, to amass a profile about a student except in furtherance of K-12 school purposes.

Lines 105-110:

(4) Disclose student data, unless the disclosure is made for any of the following reasons:

a. In furtherance of the K-12 school purposes of the Internet website, online or cloud computing service, online application, or mobile application. The recipient of the student data disclosed for this reason shall not further disclose the student data unless done to allow or improve the operability and functionality within that student’s classroom or school, and is legally required to comply with the requirements of § 8104A of this title or paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section.

Lines 133-135:

2. As allowed by state or federal law and under the direction of a school district, school, or the Department, if no student data is used for any purpose in furtherance of advertising or to amass a profile on the student for purposes other than K-12 school purposes.

Lines 138-141:

(6) Nothing in this subsection prohibits an operator from using student data for any of the following:

a. Maintaining, delivering, supporting, evaluating, or diagnosing the operator’s Internet website, online or cloud computing service, online application, or mobile application.

b. Adaptive learning or customized student learning purposes.

Lines 171-174:

(8) Prevent the Department, school district, or school from recommending, solely for K-12 school purposes, any educational materials, online content, services, or other products to any student or to the student’s family if the Department, school district, or school determines that such products will benefit the student and no person receives compensation for developing, enabling, or communicating such recommendations.

If this was just the Delaware DOE, my concerns could stop there.  But we all know how much money they spend on vendor after vendor.  With Rodel really pushing personalized learning, my fears only magnify.  We already have several school districts in a “consortium” to share “best practices”.

But what makes my hair stand on edge is the words “except in furtherance of K-12 school purposes”.  This is the legal loophole.  Any corporate education reform company is supposedly in business for “school purposes”.  But they make tons of money while doing so, and their goal isn’t to make education better.  They are selling a product, so their goal is to make more and more money.

What safeguards does this legislation have for the student data once it is in the hands of a private operator?  Once the information is out there, it’s not that easy to just put it back.  If the company did violate this law, how would anyone know it?  It’s not like the company would just hand over the information to a concerned parent.  These companies have attorneys that make more in a day than the eight former Race To The Top positions at the DOE.  What normal parent can stand up to these corporate juggernauts?  How many years would it take?  And how much information is already out there?

I can’t believe our General Assembly would overwhelmingly pass this bill.  A hat tip to the four sole Republican Senators who had the courage to vote no.  If I can see the gaping holes in this legislation, why couldn’t they?  This bill was written by lobbyists who knew exactly what they were doing.  These lobbyists are paid handsomely to swindle legislators into obeying their corporate masters.  I’ve heard from a lot of folks indicating they needed more information on this.  Unless you have followed all the movements of the DOE, Governor Markell, and corporate education reform companies, it is hard to pinpoint one glaring point.

Aside from the time away from true teacher-student interaction, this is one of my biggest concerns with personalized learning.  Smarter Balanced was just the beginning in Delaware.  Now the Governor and the Delaware DOE have their “justification” to unleash an unwitting public into the glory of “blended learning”.  This was the true goal of all of this: a trillion dollar industry that has been very patient.  This is the crossroads.  Only you can decided if you want your child to be a commodity.

Four Delaware School Districts On The BrINC Of Massive Data Sharing

I’ve been meaning to write about this consortium for a while now, but other matters kept pushing it to the side.  BrINC stands for Brandywine, Indian River, New Castle County Vo-Tech and Colonial, the four school districts that are part of the BrINC Consortium.  What is BrINC?  It is a massive personalized learning initiative.  And they are using the very same company that has hundreds of other companies under its data sharing umbrella.  The Delaware Department of Education and Rodel love this little group.  Rodel especially has been pushing personalized learning for a couple years now.  I can see why.  It’s a cash cow for education technology companies.  Especially IMS Global Learning Consortium who delivers all these wonderful toys to BRINC.  Think of IMS as a big huge cloud.  It houses all the data, and members pay a hefty fee to be a part of that cloud.  But it looks like Indian River School District, a member of IMS’ elite group of hundreds of other companies, school districts and universities, pays the bills to IMS.

Indian River loves the DOE, and the DOE loves them.  New Delaware State Board of Education member Nina Bunting said at their State Board Retreat last month “When the DOE says jump, we say how high.”  Current Superintendent Susan Bunting was in the running for Mark Murphy’s slot a few years ago.  So that leaves the other three districts: Brandywine, Colonial and New Castle County Vo-Tech.  Brandywine’s Mark Holodick has been hypnotized by the Vision Coalition (Rodel), Governor Markell loves the NCC Vo-Tech schools like Howard High School, and Colonial…things are fairly quiet with them.  Although I do like Colonial’s Superintendent.  Anyone who tells the DOE he wishes he could just “blow it up” when talking about the DOE’s school report card fiasco is okay in my book!  They don’t make a lot of noise.  Not like Christina and Red Clay.  Just think of the geography with this.  All the Wilmington school districts that aren’t a large part of the redistricting efforts and the biggest tourist area in the state.

To see what BrINC is all about, read their grant application below:

DOE Contract Soliciting Bids To Mix Rodel’s Personalized Learning & Markell’s World Immersion Program

The Delaware Department of Education has a Request For Proposal (RFP) for middle-school students to have “blended” learning in the World Immersion Program.  I called this last October!  Rodel has been pimping the whole personalized learning thing for the past year, and I am sure it will be a highlight of their latest Vision fest in September.  Blended learning and personalized learning are essentially the same thing.  The RFP states they want students in 6th to 8th grade to be able to take their time learning another language.

World Immersion, on the surface, looks great.  But it is having the undesired effect in some schools of causing special needs students and low-performing students to not be able to participate in this program.  It is already making it’s mark in Capital and Caesar Rodney.  Students from one school in a district are moving to other ones because this program is offered at that school.  This is creating a shift to occur, whereby some schools will do well and others won’t.  And the districts are the ones doing this!  Check out the below RFP and please let me know what you think of this latest venture.  I know some teachers who agree with me on a lot who think World Immersion and personalized learning are great things, but I just see it as something that will separate the “strong” from the “weak”.  And don’t forget, this is all Governor Markell’s baby.  What happens to those schools in districts in a few years that have all the most high-needs students while all the “smart” ones are at the high-performing schools learning Chinese or Spanish?  The way Delaware sets up certain schools to fail continues to astonish me!  I’m going to predict this now: either Schoology or 2Revolutions will get this contract!