KEEP TABS ON SCHOOL TECH

 

Dear Friends,

 

A very informative article in the Dallas Morning News on Monday June 26, 2017.  Written by Cathy O’Neil, a mathematician who has worked as a professor, hedge-fund analyst and data scientist.  She is the author of “Weapons of Math Destruction.” She wrote this column for Bloomberg.

 KEEP TABS ON SCHOOL TECH

School Tech

Many schools have partnerships with big tech firms that provide free tablets to students and in some cases access to student information to the companies.

 

Silicon Valley tech moguls are conducting an enormous experiment on the nation’s children. We should not be so trusting that they’ll get it right. Google has taken a big role in public education, offering low-cost laptops and free apps. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook is investing heavily in educational technology, largely though the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Netflix head Reed Hastings has been tinkering with expensive and algorithmic ed-tech tools.

Encouraging as all this may be, the technologists might be getting ahead of themselves, both politically and ethically. Also, there’s not a lot of evidence that what they’re doing works.

Like it or not, education is political. People on opposite sides of the spectrum read very different science books, and can’t seem to agree on fundamental principles. It stands to reason that what we choose to teach our children will vary, depending on our beliefs. That’s to acknowledge, not defend, antiscientific curricula.

Zuckerberg and Bill Gates learned this the hard way last year when the Ugandan government ordered the closure of 60 schools — part of a network providing highly scripted, lowcost education in Africa — amid allegations that they had been “teaching pornography” and “conveying the gospel of homosexuality” in sex-ed classes. Let’s face it, something similar could easily happen here if tech initiatives expand beyond the apolitical math subjects on which they have so far focused.

Beyond that, there are legitimate reasons to be worried about letting tech companies wield so much influence in the classroom. They tend to offer “free services” in return for access to data, a deal that raises some serious privacy concerns — particularly if you consider that it can involve tracking kids’ every click, keystroke and backspace from kindergarten on.

My oldest son is doing extremely well as a junior in school right now, but he was a late bloomer who didn’t learn to read until third grade. Should that be a part of his permanent record, data that future algorithms could potentially use to assess his suitability for credit or a job? Or what about a kid whose “persistence score” on dynamic, standardized tests waned in 10th grade? Should colleges have access to that information in making their admissions decisions?

These are not far-fetched scenarios. Consider the fate of nonprofit education venture InBloom, which sought to collect and integrate student records in a way that would allow lessons to be customized. The venture shut down a few years ago amid concerns about how sensitive information — including tags identifying students as “tardy” or “autistic” — would be protected from theft and shared with outside vendors.

Google and others are collecting similar data and using it internally to improve their software. Only after some prompting did Google agree to comply with the privacy law known as FERPA, which had been weakened for the purpose of third-party sharing. It’s not clear how the data will ultimately be used, how long the current crop of students will be tracked, or to what extent their futures will depend on their current performance.

Nobody really knows to what educational benefit we are bearing such uncertainties. What kinds of kids will the technological solutions reward? Will they be aimed toward producing future Facebook engineers? How will they serve children in poverty, with disabilities or with different learning styles? As far as I know, there’s no standard audit that would allow us to answer such questions. We do know, though, that the companies and foundations working on educational technology have a lot of control over the definition of success. That’s already too much power.

Blindly trusting the tech guys is no way to improve our educational system. Although they undoubtedly mean well, we should demand more accountability.

 

 

 

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller

SBOE, District 12

tincymiller35@gmail.com

www.tincymiller.com

Resurrecting Handwriting

 

Dear Friends,

A very informative article on Handwriting and Common Core from the Education Reporter, The Newspaper of Education Rights, March 2017 issue.

Resurrecting Handwriting

New York state Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis attending a voter registration event where she encountered an 18-year-old student. She asked him to please sign his name instead of using block letters he’d put on the signature line of his form. But the young man replied, “That is my signature. I never learned script.”

Emily Ma is among the 2.7% of students accepted by New York City’s Stuyvesant High School, out of roughly 30,000 who take an annual exam they hope leads to admission. Emily, who is now a senior, believes handwriting is important but had to teach it to herself because it was never taught to her before she started high school.

Thanks to Common Core English standards, many students are no longer taught handwriting. They can only print or type.

The people who wrote the Common Core standards did not include handwriting because they believed that “keyboarding” alone is the way to prepare students for “college and career.”

Student Achievement Partners, consisting of David Coleman, Susan Pimentel, and Jason Zimba, were lead writers of the Common Core standards. Core, Coleman, admitted that his group was unqualified.

Coleman said about the group in 2011:

[W]e’re composed of that collection of unqualified people who were involved in developing the [Common Core] standards.  And our only qualification was our attention to and command of the evidence behind them.

Although he told the truth about being unqualified, Coleman still prevaricated because Common Core is in no way evidenced-based. One result of that is the failure to teach students handwriting.

Trying to defend handwriting’s exclusion from the standards, Susan Pimentel said, “One of the things we heard from teachers around the country – in some cases, obviously not all – was that sometimes cursive writing takes an enormous amount of instructional time.” It also takes an enormous amount of time to teach students to read; luckily Pimentel et al. didn’t drop that from Common Core.

Many parents and watchdog groups saw immediately the gaps in the federally promoted set of standards. But many school bureaucracies are still slow to understand the great disservice they have done students.

About 16 states have chosen to add handwriting back into their curriculum. New York City is adding handwriting thanks to efforts of Bronx Assemblywomen Malliotakis.

Brain research shows that many people retain more information or learn better when they write on paper, as opposed to when they type. Individuals who can’t read handwriting are unable to decipher documents like the original Constitution or do “research with literary papers and archival collections.” Letter from their grandparents will remain mysterious and they’ll be unable to sign contracts or voter registration forms.

 

Respectfully,

Tincy Miller

SBOE, District 12

tincymiller35@gmail.com

www.tincymiller.com