In the near future, Sony and IBM plan on putting all education eggs in one basket: the Blockchain Ledger. This is very, very bad. Especially when Sony wants artificial intelligence to analyze the information for the classroom.
Beyond making it easier to share information, Sony said also that the stored data sets could potentially be analyzed using AI to provide feedback and improvement ideas for educational institutions and their curriculums and management.
According to Techcrunch, this wouldn’t roll out until next year and it is in the experimental stages now. The idea is to use some school districts as a model. What would be in this digital portfolio? Test scores, diplomas, education records which I can only assume will include social-emotional measurements, discipline records, and health records. While the system touts itself as being the most secure on the planet, that also means all that data would follow a student from cradle to grave. In the article, they talk about how it can be helpful for future employment. My fear is children will be judged based on test scores and potential behavior issues they might have exhibited when they were a teenager. To me, this is a huge mistake.
I wrote about Blockchain and its capabilities in education a year ago. Delaware passed it into law for banking purposes earlier this summer. Both Delaware Governor Carney and former Governor Jack Markell wanted those laws to pass. While much of that was for the financial viability of the state in getting Delaware in on the ground floor, the impact on public education was sure to be a discussion point during these decisions. Governor Markell has always touted himself as the “education Governor” and pimps many corporate education reform companies in Delaware and across the country.
The future I’ve been dreading is coming to pass, right before my eyes. Artificial Intelligence should never replace human decision-making capabilities but our education leaders seem to welcome this corporate invasion of public education. I have no doubt I will be writing more about this in the future. While we can all agree public education needs some changes, this is not the way to go. Our children’s future depends on human interaction, not algorithm, data sets and artificial intelligence. This was why all the states had to create longitudinal data systems during Race To The Top all those years ago. It wasn’t setting up Common Core. It was setting this up. Are we machines or are we human?
The National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado issued a very damning report on the commercialization of America’s public schools as digital technology and “personalized learning” continue taking over our schools. The report, issued today, shows how private companies have invaded the classroom and children’s private information is in jeopardy like never before. Here in Delaware, we have seen a very large push for this from the Rodel Foundation. If you haven’t been paying attention, you really need to start now. And don’t buy their Social-Emotional Learning push either. Just another way for private companies to profit from student data. From the press release:
BOULDER, CO (August 15, 2017) – Digital technologies used in schools are increasingly being harnessed to amplify corporate marketing and profit-making and extend the reach of commercializing activities into every aspect of students’ school lives. In addition to the long-standing goal of providing brand exposure, marketing through education technology now routinely engages students in activities that facilitate the collection of valuable personal data and that socialize students to accept relentless monitoring and surveillance as normal, according to a new report released by the National Education Policy Center.
In Asleep at the Switch: Schoolhouse Commercialism, Student Privacy, and the Failure of Policymaking, the NEPC’s 19th annual report on schoolhouse commercialism trends, University of Colorado Boulder researchers Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar and Kevin Murray examine how technological advances, the lure of “personalization,” and lax regulation foster the collection of personal data and have overwhelmed efforts to protect children’s privacy. They find that for-profit entities are driving an escalation of reliance on education technology with the goal of transforming public education into an ever-larger profit center—by selling technology hardware, software, and services to schools; by turning student data into a marketable product; and by creating brand-loyal customers.
Boninger points out that “policymaking to protect children’s privacy or to evaluate the quality of the educational technology they use currently ranges from inadequate to nonexistent.”
“Schools and districts are paying huge sums of money to private vendors and creating systems to transfer vast amounts of children’s personal information to education technology companies,” explains Molnar. “Education applications, especially applications that ‘personalize’ student learning, are powered by proprietary algorithms, without anyone monitoring how student data are being collected or used.”
Asleep at the Switch documents the inadequacy of industry self-regulation and argues that to protect children’s privacy and the quality of their education, legislators and policymakers need to craft clear policies backed by strong, enforceable sanctions. Such policies should:
Prohibit schools from collecting student personal data unless rigorous, easily understood safeguards for the appropriate use, protection, and final disposition of those data are in place.
Hold schools, districts, and companies with access to student data accountable for violations of student privacy.
Require algorithms powering education software to be openly available for examination by educators and researchers.
Prohibit adoption of educational software applications that rely on algorithms unless a disinterested third party has examined the algorithms for bias and error, and unless research has shown that the algorithms produce intended results.
Require independent third-party assessments of the validity and utility of technologies, and the potential threats they pose to students’ well-being, to be conducted and addressed prior to adoption.
Additionally, the report authors encourage parents, teachers, and administrators to publicize the threats that unregulated educational technologies pose to children and the importance of allowing disinterested monitors access to the algorithms powering educational software.
The Parent Coalition for Student Privacy and the Coalition for a Commercial-Free Childhood released their Parent Toolkit for Student Privacy on May 16th. Full disclaimer, I actively participate and sometimes contribute to discussion surround student data privacy with the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy.
As our schools dive into more and more digital technology in classrooms, many parents have seen things that disturb them. Is our children’s data protected? Not as much as you think it might be. The laws surrounding student data privacy are filled with loopholes and confusing wording. It is more imperative than ever that parents wake up to this new reality facing their children.
To that end, I highly praise this report and believe every single school, state agency involving education, and any organization around education should give this to every single parent. Opting out is NOT just about standardized tests, it is also about unwelcome intrusions into things about our children that, frankly, are nobody’s business.
The upcoming Delaware State Education Association President, Mike Matthews, just wrote an excellent post on Facebook about the rise of digital technology and personalized learning in the classroom. His post was in response to the recent announcements by various Delaware school districts of Reduction in Workforce notices going out to schools based on Governor John Carney’s proposed budget for FY2018.
For the past several years, personalized and blended learning have been strong dialogue points in education circles. The thinking behind personalized and blending learning is that it offers different environments to meet students’ needs for learning. One of those environments is digital, where some of the learning is done on devices as opposed to direct teacher instruction or small-group instruction.
There is a belief out there by some that many education reformers and corporatists are supporting personalized and blended learning because, ultimately, it could reduce personnel costs by getting rid of large numbers of teachers. Me? I’m a fan of “personalized learning” in a very basic sense: that all learning, in effect, should be personalized to meet student needs. However, I am beginning to have some concerns with the personalized and blended learning information I’m seeing as well as the propagation of 1:1 devices in classrooms across the state.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Technology is a must in today’s digital environment and students MUST be exposed to its responsible use. However, eight years ago, then-Gov. Jack Markell made a series of devastating cuts to education. And we still haven’t recuperated from that.
Governor John Carney is proposing a series of devastating cuts to his education budget now. We never saw Gov. Markell’s cuts come back to education. Will we see Gov. Carney’s cuts come back if they’re passed by the legislature? Will these layoffs — these hundreds of human beings about to lose their jobs — be victims to technology because it’s cheaper to purchase a Chromebook than it is to pay a teacher’s salary?
Two years ago, I had a very open mind about personalized learning when I was president of the Red Clay Education Association and some fellow members introduced me to personalized learning. And, to an extent, I’m still VERY open to what personalized learning is and can be. I made sure to share with those teachers that at no time should personalized learning EVER be seen as a means to layoff and cut teachers in our schools and the they agreed with that. However, I’m concerned that these heartless and cruel layoffs coming could only grow worse as policymakers embrace the idea that technology can do cheaper or better what humans can for children.
I will never accept a world where computers take the place of living, breathing, caring human beings. We must fight like hell to bring these positions back to our school districts as quickly as possible. Anything less should be cause for direct, organized action by educators and the public that supports us across the state.
Amen Mike, Amen! With that being said, the reaction of the state and local education associations to this technology push in our classroom will be instrumental in making sure that future never comes to pass. DSEA will have to be at the front of the line opposing this future. When Mike said “some believe”, those numbers are growing fast and it isn’t just a belief. It is happening in districts across the country and it will happen here if we don’t get enough educators, parents, citizens, and students to fight it.
In Delaware, the Rodel Teacher Council has been pushing personalized learning a lot in the past couple months. They met with legislators and the State Board of Education. As I have said many times, I don’t believe these teachers are the bad guys. But I don’t trust Rodel at all. For the life of me, with everything I’ve written, I can’t understand why these teachers continue to listen to Rodel and do their bidding. These teachers spend a lot of time working for Rodel with little to no pay for their time and effort. At the end of the day, Rodel is a corporation. They may say they are a non-profit, but when their CEO Dr. Paul Herdman makes over $350,000 a year, that gives me considerable pause.
The personalized learning push goes beyond computers replacing teachers though. There is the matter of massive exposure to screen time and what kind of effects that has on students. There is the massive amount of data collection. There is the presumption by many that the algorithms in many of these apps and learning programs are being used to push students toward certain types of future careers. There is the competency-based education aspect of it all that has a severe danger of putting at-risk students even further behind than their peers. While I don’t expect many to get this yet, they soon will. Right now, I am John the Baptist, wandering around in the wilderness warning everyone. A madman? No. One who would rather prophet for students than profit from students? Yes.
Delaware Governor Jack Markell sure is going out with a bang. New legislation introduced a week ago in the Delaware Senate all but ensures any citizen requesting information on student data mining in Delaware will be met with a resounding no. While the legislation mentions nothing about student data, it talks about the Delaware information technology system. This bill would prevent a citizen from filing a FOIA request for the following:
Information technology (IT) infrastructure details, including but not limited to file layouts, data dictionaries, source code, logical and physical design of IT systems and interfaces, detailed hardware and software inventories, network architecture and schematics, vulnerability reports, and any other information that, if disclosed, could jeopardize the security or integrity of an information and technology system owned, operated or maintained by the State or any public body subject to the requirements of this Chapter.
On the surface, it looks like a great bill. But the key words in this legislation are in the data dictionaries. This defines how a system operates and what is included in it. You can see one from the Delaware DOE below, from 2012:
The below are recommendations made to the Delaware DOE from Education Insight. Some of the key words in this document pertain to exactly what is happening now, in current talk and pending legislation. But the parties who come up with these ideas are trying to make it seem like this is brand new. The jig is up. This was planned a long time ago.
The four-year plan for DOE data systems as outlined in Race to the Top will result in a significant expansion in the amount of data available for use within the Department and for sharing with outside organizations. This expansion has implications for how data quality and data access will be managed in the future, and how DOE needs to be organized to meet this demand:
And the below document gives it all away:
Expansion of the warehouse to subject areas such as early childhood, higher education, workforce and social services will increase the need for more formal management of the data interchange process and increasing the demand for sharing of this data with owner organizations.
I have talked to quite a few tech people and none of them understand why “data dictionaries” would be included in this. Especially when it comes to student data. But this bill would exempt them from FOIA requests. So what’s the big deal? Who cares if your child’s data is tracked and catalogued? If they aren’t doing anything wrong it should be no big deal, right? Wrong.
Over a year ago, the documentary “Defies Measurement” showed parents the flaws of standardized testing. Back in February of this year, members of the Pennsylvania Parents Across America in Lower Merion Township began showing the documentary to other parents. As a result, opt-outs in Pennsylvania grew bigger by the day. The Philadelphia Inquirer covered what was going on one weekend in February. One teacher from New Jersey spoke about the threats and intimidation going on:
“They’re trying to use the fear and lack of information to coerce parents,” she said.
The documentary, clocking in at over an hour, is very informative. I encourage all Delaware parents, along with any parent in America who cares about education, to watch the entire thing.
In Delaware, parents opted their children out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment which began it’s second year of testing a week on March 9th. Because Delaware agreed to replace Smarter Balanced with the SAT for high school juniors, it is expected opt-out numbers may be less than last year, but it is unknown how many parents opted their children out of the SAT this year. There is one documented opt out from, of all schools, the Charter School of Wilmington according to a draft of their April 26th board meeting. Meanwhile, many Delaware legislators played a high-stakes game of chicken in the Delaware House of Representatives. They had an opportunity to override Governor Markell’s veto of Delaware’s opt-out legislation, House Bill 50, back in January. Instead, they hung onto stagnant and outdated excuses by refusing to suspend rules to allow for a full House vote on the override. Even though the legislation does sit on the Ready List for a full house vote, Delaware Speaker of the House Peter Schwartzkopf has given no indication he will put it on the agenda for a full House vote.
Last June, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed House Bill 2655 which allowed parents to opt their child out of the state assessment. The feds pitched a fit, but Brown heard what the people of Oregon were saying.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, their Senate passed their own opt-out legislation with a 39-9 vote. Georgia Senate Bill 355 is also called the “Student/Teacher Protection Act”. This is very similar to how the votes went down in Delaware last spring in our own Senate and House of Representatives. Did Georgia Governor Nathan Deal sign the bill? Not a chance. He vetoed the bill on May 3rd. Like Markell, he defied the will of the people and his own legislature to cater to corporate interests. But of course he covers it up under the guise of, get this, making sure there is “local control”:
Veto Number 15
Senate Bill 355 allows federal, state and locally-mandated assessments to be optional for certain students. At present, local school districts have the flexibility to determine opt-out procedures for its students who cannot take the assessments in addition to those who choose not to take such assessments. As there is no need for state-level intervention in addition to the regulations already set in place on a local level, I VETO SB 355.
As organizations like the National PTA, the United Negro College Fund, and other Gates Foundation supported organizations come out with “position statements” against opt-out, parents are figuring things out on their own. They are putting the pieces together and realizing how bad these tests really are. What many don’t realize is the data mining that is happening right under our very noses. With these computer-adaptive tests, as well as all the personalized or blended learning modules students log into, there are embedded data mining algorithms involved. These algorithms are sent to a joint system owned by the United States Department of Education and the Department of Defense.
Back in 2011, the US DOE and US DOD partnered together to create the Federal Learning Registry. This joint system purported to be a massive sharing mechanism so anyone involved in education could contribute and access. In an article from Local Journal in November, 2011, it describes the Federal Learning Registry as being designed specifically “so that both commercial and public sector partners could freely take part.”
Even Education Week got in on the upcoming data mining explosion that was about to take place in education:
Predictive analytics include an array of statistical methods, such as data mining and modeling, used to identify the factors that predict the likelihood of a specific result.
It is hard for any federal agency to work with another. So why this unprecedented partnership between US DOE and US DOD? Technology has certainly advanced to this point where collaboration can save taxpayers a lot of money. But in looking at the University of Southern California’s report on potential funding opportunities with the Department of Defense, there are some very distrubing ideas presented. One of these is something called the Minerva Initiative:
Human Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling (HSCB) http://minerva.dtic.mil/
In addition to Service core HSCB programs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) funds S&T programs to address understanding and modeling of human behavior in social and cultural contexts. The basic research component is entitled the Minerva Initiative (see MAPS DOD Chart 128); it is presently administered by ONR.
Another one of these budget items shows where algorithms are changing technology at a rate faster than any of us can imagine or even keep up with:
What is a data-mining algorithm in this case? Microsoft defines it as:
A data mining algorithm is a set of heuristics and calculations that creates a data mining model from data. To create a model, the algorithm first analyzes the data you provide, looking for specific types of patterns or trends. The algorithm uses the results of this analysis to define the optimal parameters for creating the mining model. These parameters are then applied across the entire data set to extract actionable patterns and detailed statistics.
Microsoft, along with Google and Amazon, lobbied heavily against legislation introduced in many states last year. In most of the states, the legislation was amended which allows for these data mining algorithms to go out to different sources. Your child’s data, despite what legislation passed, is not safe. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) does not recognize the algorithms generated by these types of tests and personalized learning modules. It does forbid any personal identifying information to go out. This is otherwise known as PII. This type of information includes name, social security number, address, birth date, and other easily recognized information. This is the information that schools aren’t allowed to get released to everyone. But the information does go out, in a “de-identified” format. So how would a state DOE keep track of what information is going out? They assign each student a student identification number. So while the PII information doesn’t go out, it is attached to a number.
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) covered student data privacy and legislation in several states meant to protect student data in their online April magazine. But like the legislation it glorifies, the article didn’t even touch what happens when outside companies get the de-identified data, make assumptions on it to form policy or assessments, and then send it back to the state. The Every Student Succeeds Act is meant to limit federal control in education. The states and local districts will have more control. But because of the horrible federal mandates of the past eight years, the states are now just satellites of the same corporate education reform madness that infected the US DOE. Instead of one central agency, we now have fifty calling the shots.
When you look closer at NCSL’s “concerns” about student data privacy, it is very alarming to see a study done by the Aspen Institute about the need for outside education companies to obtain student data. This is an organization stacked with more corporate education reform leaders under one membership roof than any other organization I’ve seen. There are many organizations like Aspen, and they all spit out the same bad methodology and education double-talk: high-stakes testing, Common Core, personalized learning, student data “privacy”, school choice, charter schools, turning schools into community centers, and so much more. The problem is more and more of the education organizations that are supposed to be the last wall of defense against these corporate intrusions are joining them. We saw this with the National Educators Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National PTA with the rushed passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Parents have never been more alone in their education battles. In Delaware, our state PTA can’t even talk about opt out due to the immense bullying of the National PTA.
As long as we have high-stakes testing, we will have opt out. But now, happening everywhere across the country, there are many other reasons to opt your child out. Out of anything that could allow your child’s data to be released to any outside organization. Until legislation is passed in every single state stopping this charade, assume your child’s digital footprint is making some company a lot of money. Because the states pay these companies to do the research on YOUR child. And if Delaware has their way, you won’t even be able to track it.
It was for all of these reasons and more that I wrote a Parents Bill of Rights for Education and the accompanying petition. Please sign the petition today and let our political leaders know our children are not data, to be bought and sold. They are human beings. They need to be children, not a part of this absolute destruction of their spirit in the name of corporate wealth. And if you are a parent of a special needs child, a minority student, an English Language learner, or a low-income or poverty student, the time is now to stop listening to civil rights and advocacy groups that spread this disease in public education and start asking yourself- what is this really about?
The corporate education reform juggernaut wants personalized learning in every school in America, and Delaware’s latest educational technology report will help to make sure that happens in The First State. Unless you home school, standardized testing will be impossible to stop in the future. The plans from this report could also bring data mining into your very own home.
Last year, the Delaware 148th General Assembly created a State Educational Technology Task Force through Senate Concurrent Resolution #22. The task force released their final report to the General Assembly yesterday. There are far-reaching and gigantic goals coming out of this report, with huge technological and financial implications for every single student, teacher, school, and citizen in the state.
To be clear from the get-go: I am not against technology in the classroom. What I am against is technology taking the place of a human teacher. Technology, in my opinion, should be used as a support for the teacher, and not the other way around. In today’s society, the majority of us are glued to the internet. This article would not exist were it not for the internet. My other chief concern with the digital invasion into every classroom is the data that comes out of it. I’ve written about this hundreds of times in the past couple years, more so in the past few months. There is nothing in any law that will prevent aggregate data, formed through algorithms embedded into the various learning modules and standardized tests, from falling into outside companies hands. In fact, most states seem to want them to have access to this information. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) had its guidelines relaxed to such an extent that companies have easy access to student data. The data is not connected to any personal identifiable information for each student, but it is all sent to these companies with each student identification number assigned to it based on the information they request.
Imagine, if you will, what happens when you go to Amazon. You’ve been shopping there for years. Amazon knows what you want to look for. If you bought the second season of Downton Abbey through their cloud service, bought a paperback of The DaVinci Code a couple months later, and then a Bananarama mp3 a few months later, Amazon will tailor your shopping experience based on everything you have purchased and browsed. As most of us who have gone through these “suggestive” ideas, there are many times where we don’t want what they are recommending. But it still shows up. The same happens with Google. It remembers what you search for. How many times have you gone to type something in Google, and they automatically know exactly what you are looking for? Or Google thinks it knows and goes right to it but it was wrong? It is all based on algorithms and predictive analysis.
Educational data on your child is crafted the exact same way. It doesn’t know his name or his social security number, but it knows how old they are, what school they go to, what grade they are in, how long it takes to finish a test, all the behavior issues, any discipline problems, and much, much more. It is all assigned to that number. Outside companies get this information for “research” and send it back to the state. The state is then able to come up with a model for that student based on their own data and what these companies are doing with it. In time, states will emulate the Amazon and Google predictive analysis methods and will come up with “suggestive” career paths for students (if they aren’t already). The personalized learning will be tailored towards that career path. And of course all of this will be based on the Common Core, as students move on based on Competency-Based Education. They can’t move on until they have gained proficiency in a subject. Instead of you searching on Google or Amazon, this is the state (already bought by Corporate America) searching on your child and taking those predictive analysis algorithmic conclusions and making decisions on your child. Whatever happened to the uniqueness and individuality of each child? There are human factors and emotions that no computer-based model can ever measure. Corporate Education Inc. wants to take that away from your child. Permanently.
I also have grave concerns with the goal of every single student in Delaware having a state-owned digital device in home AND school by 2020. The report shies away from districts and charters having individual contracts with providers of the devices due to cost. So the technology each student would have would be based on what the state decides to purchase. We are seeing this already in twenty-four Delaware local education agencies with the Schoology Learning Management System.
For teachers, they will be subject to countless hours of professional learning development geared towards the technology and how to implement the technology towards instruction. In time, they will be required to show “confidence” in this ability. Teaching will shift away from teacher to student interaction to a technology-student-moderator environment.
The report also touches on what is known as the K-12 Open Educational Resources Collaborative. This group is comprised of eleven states, including Delaware and the following: California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. But they aren’t the only members. There are companies and “associations” that signed on as well: the Council of Chief State School Officers, Achieve Inc., The Learning Accelerator, Lumen Learning (most likely an offshoot of The Lumina Foundation. Their CEO was a speaker at Delaware’s Pathways To Prosperity conference in February), Creative Commons, State Education Technology Directors Association, Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education, State Instructional Materials Reviews Association, Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, and the International Association for K-12 Online Learning. And just to put the frosting on this corporate education reform entity, guess what they support? A member of their advisory team named Joe Wolf, who is also the Chair of The Learning Accelerator, is into “Social Action Bonds”. But who are we kidding? You can call them whatever you want, they are all Social Impact Bonds. Every day there is some new education company coming out of the woodwork that I never knew existed before!
What concerns me about Delaware’s Educational Technology report is the questions that were not asked. If the goal is to have every single student’s home wi-fi compatible, who pays for the actual internet service provider (i.e. Comcast or Verizon)? How would it connect to the education personalized management systems? If the home becomes a new “learning environment”, would anything on the internet in each person’s home then become “data” available for “education agencies” to request from the state (fully allowable under FERPA)? Since most homes tend to get bundle packages, including cable and phone, does that mean that data could now be fodder for the state? Imagine every single phone call you make on your landline or every television show you watch being a part of data collection. By not answering these types of questions, or even asking them, it is very bold of this task force to suggest these kinds of recommendations. There is a Student Data Privacy Task Force now in session (they meet again on Monday, April 4th from 3:00 to 4:30 pm on the 7th level of the Carvel State Office Building at 820 N. French St. in Wilmington and it is open to the public). But this task force was created from Senate Bill 79 in Delaware which had so much lobbying from Microsoft and Google that the original intent of the legislation was shredded due to their interference and still allows this open flow of student data at an aggregate level (based on each student’s identification number).
This potential future is happening right before our very eyes. There is so much more to this, and a few of us in the education blogging landscape suspect a future where the majority of the population become little drones and worker bees as a result of all of this. We will exist only to serve the hive, aka, the corporate government. Your job will be created for you based on your digital education. Meanwhile, those in power will control it all.
Senate Joint Resolution #2 in Delaware created legislation for the state’s assessment inventory. All assessments given to students are included in this, with the exception of final exams and end of unit tests. This includes the Smarter Balanced Assessment. At their Rep Assembly last weekend, a business item was introduced for the Delaware State Education Association (DSEA) to recommend eliminating the Smarter Balanced Assessment in Delaware. It was a unanimous vote.
Last Spring, when discussion on inclusion of the Smarter Balanced Assessment in the assessment inventory was discussed at a Senate Education Committee, then Education Policy Advisor for Governor Markell Lindsay O’Mara assured the large audience it would be. During the last assessment inventory meeting at the Delaware Department of Education, the Smarter Balanced Assessment was a large topic of discussion. State Rep. Sean Matthews argued the state does not provide any real identifiable data and takes away far too much classroom time.
While DSEA doesn’t have the final say on the assessment inventory, it is a very positive step that they would unanimously pass a recommendation based on the entire rep assembly at their event last weekend. I would love to see the test gone from all schools in Delaware, but I also fear for the future of standardized assessments.
With personalized learning invading our schools in mass quantity, the writing is on the wall for the future of assessments: much smaller standardized assessment chunks embedded into digital format through the modules for personalized learning. As the brilliant blogger EducationAlchemy pointed out in a recent post, what makes personalized learning so personalized if it is a student using a computer? It is all about the data. The predictive analysis algorithms built into the Schoology systems used in Delaware. That legislation to protect student data does not cover at all. All to determine career paths for children at a very young age and guide them toward that profession when they leave secondary education.
Our children are not test scores, and they certainly aren’t your data guinea pigs. The intrusion into children’s personal lives is at an all-time high. We must stop this and take back public education from the reformers who not only want to get very rich off children but also want to mold the future with people on pre-determined career paths.
This has been a huge question on my mind for the past six months: How secure is student data? Next Tuesday, March 15th, Open Data Delaware is hosting a presentation with Atnre Alleyne and Shana Ricketts from the Delaware Department of Education to talk about data in the Department. From the announcement on Meetup.com:
We’ll hear from Atnre Alleyne & Shanna Ricketts, both with the Teacher Leader Effectiveness Unit at the Delaware Department of Education. Most recently Atnre has been the Director, Talent Management & Educator Effectiveness, while Shanna has worked as a Data Strategist. They will be discussing how the DDOE uses data, what education data is currently available to the public, and what some high impact projects could be.
I really want to know what happens to the data once the DOE uses it. How much is going to the Federal Learning Registry, the joint system shared by both the United States Department of Education and the Department of Defense? What happens to data from algorithms in existing programs? How much data from personalized learning and standardized assessments is going out to education vendors? How much social-emotional student data is going out? Will Delaware ever see the very frightening “data badges” Colorado is doing a pilot program for?
For those interested in these kinds of things (something ALL Delaware parents should really know about before it is too late), I highly recommend attending this presentation at 1313 N. Market St. in Wilmington on March 15th at 6pm. If you are unable to attend, I plan on going and I will definitely let everyone know what I am able to find out. Open Data Delaware is sponsored by 1313 Innovation and Zip Code Wilmington.
The official Smarter Balanced Assessment Year 2 window opens up on March 9th. While this doesn’t mean every single student in every single grade will start the Smarter Balanced that day, I would highly recommend opting your child out of the test prior to that. Just write a letter indicating you don’t want your child taking the test and you wish for them to receive academic instruction while their peers are taking it. Make a copy, give it to the principal or head of school, have a witness with you, and be proud of your decision. It is that easy.
As opposed to your child sitting for days on end taking a test that truly has no bearing on his or her unique capabilities and academic strengths or weaknesses. It is a flawed test meant for the sole purpose of giving the government and non-profits data about your child. The algorithms built into the test allow for that data to pass freely into the federal governments hands. Your child is now part of a tracking system that will allow the government and companies to determine what kind of “career path” your child will embark on. And the rest of their elementary or secondary education will be spent guiding them towards that path.
Remember those personality tests or career path tests you may have taken years ago? And then you take it a few days later and your answers may be different? You could go from being a lawyer to an accountant based on a couple different answers. But imagine if you weren’t able to give a different answer? And the rest of your life went by what answers you gave when you were in 3rd grade? That is the future of high-stakes assessment. They may get rid of the false labeling of schools and teachers. They may even shorten the test, or even break it up into smaller segments embedded into personalized learning modules brought to you by Schoology. Your child’s data is going out from those systems as well. And our state’s highest officials know this. Our Governor knows this. And guess what? They don’t care.
If you want to feed the beast, then let your child take the test. If you think, “Hey, it’s the 21st Century. It’s about time our schools become more technologically advanced. Who cares about data,” then let your child take the test. If you do care about these things, opt your child out now. Do you remember what you wanted to be when you were 8 years old? Or even 11 years old? Or even 15? Are you what you thought you would be? I imagine the answer is no. So why would you let the government decide what your child should be? Opt-out now. Do it today. Your child’s future DOES depend on it.
Until our legislators craft a law indicating absolutely NO data goes out from these computer systems and programs, including the very computer code that captures and sends out this data, opt your child out of anything done on a computer at a school. If they have to do research, let them do it from home. This is a major change and the schools will pitch a fit. Ask to see your child’s data file. Chances are they won’t be able to provide it. Ask the state. FOIA the information if they say no or can’t do it. Do not stop until you are able to track down every kilobyte of data that has left school computers and into the welcome hands of the state and federal government and the companies they serve. Schools don’t own your child. The government doesn’t either. Nobody does. They are your child, and you have been given a mission on this earth to protect them from harm. This is harmful, and disturbing, and toxic. Protect your child.
The Season Of Myths 