Hot and steamy here, which still makes us better off than some corners of the world. Here's some reading for the day. Remember-- share the stuff that really speaks to you.
The Teaching Machine Imaginary
I do miss Audrey Watters, but here's a new Hack Education post that, in typical Watters fashion, links book editing, the Jetsons, teaching machines, and pigeons.
Education Reformers Still Don't Understand Racism
Rann Miller over at the Progressive takes a look at what reformsters still don't get.
Did Busing Ever Succeed?
Matt Barnum takes a dive into the research to see if he answer the newly-revived question.
Charter Schools Unleashed Education Hunger Games in California
Andrea Gabor's background as a business journalist lets her bring a special level of insight to ed reform coverage. Here's the story of the ups and downs of charters in California.
L.A. charter schools’ plans: Take back mayor’s office, sue district, battle teachers union
Meanwhile, California charters haven't learned much.
Charter Schools Aren't a Radical Solution and Neither Is Blaming Them
Andre Perry with a thoughtful and nuanced look at some of the systemic problems schools face.
Indiana's Catholic schools get millions in public money. Some lawmakers want that to stop.
In Indiana, some folks are finally figuring out how vouchers really work to give tax dollars to private religious schools (including those that actively discriminate against LGBTQ students).
People Who Regulate Charter Schools Also Make Millions From Them
It's this story again. This time we're in Utah for a local TV station's tale of self-dealing and profiteering.
The Facts About Newark Schools-- Update
Since Cory Booker's Presidential run brought the subject up again, here's Jersey Jazzman with the actual facts about the big money play in Newark.
The Breaststroke
Jose Vilson reflects on the last year of school.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Elizabeth Warren's Better Answer On Testing
Yesterday the NEA did quickie interviews with ten of the Democratic candidates, ranging from the front-runners like Sanders and Warren all the way down to (checks notes)-- some guy named Tim Ryan who is apparently also running.
There were plenty of fine moment and plenty of pandering, and, it has to be noted, plenty of issues that went unaddressed by some candidates because they didn't get asked a question about them. If, like me, you found the streaming experience frustrating, you can watch the whole thing over on YouTube.
The favorite headline for coverage involves all the folks who have jumped on the Make A Teacher Secretary of Education bandwagon. But there were several moments I found more important-- especially this next one.
Elizabeth Warren was handed a question about ending high stakes testing (not even "would you" but "how would you") and she started out by offering her own version of putting someone from public education in the office, then she moved on to this:
"It's about our values," she says as she pivots. She invokes her special needs teacher background (again) and says, "This notion that it's all about testing, that it's all about what somebody far off in the state capitol or far off in the national capitol says here's what constitutes success, and worse yet, here's what constitutes failure-- no, that's not what education is about."
"Education is about what goes on in the classroom," she continues. A teacher sets a goal and a teacher knows when a student has met that goal. "We do not need high stakes testing." That gets big applause, and then Warren adds something that I think is important.
"I think this goes to the fundamental question of respect for our teachers. Too many folks seem to have gotten the idea that teaching is kind of like, y'know, working on an assembly line, and we'll just test your widgets to see if they're coming out all right, you must be a good teacher, and if they don't meet the standards set somewhere else, you must not be. No, that is not what teaching is all about."
She winds up with some nice words about teaching and focusing on children and that's not testing and teachers need to be front and center.
The Warren record on testing has been spotty and a little scary-- in 2015, she came down on the side of needing testing in order to know if schools are doing a good job with their widgets or not.
This clip doesn't get into the more concrete ways in which high stakes testing has damaged US education (narrowing and refocusing the curriculum, etc), and that's not a knockcause Warren was racing the clock. But it does show an appreciation for one of the underlying features of testing-- the foundational idea that teachers can be neither trusted nor believed, and therefor we must have tests, because somehow those are more reliable and trustworthy.
Like many of the candidates (cough*cough*Biden*cough) she would be well-served by talking about what she used to believe and how she has come to understand that she got parts wrong. And I still worry about some of the company she keeps. However, it's July, and my Christmas shopping is more urgent than my need to pick a Dem candidate.
But here she has nailed a policy idea that has been missing from all the platforms. Modern charters, as currently implemented and regulated, are a problem. Getting people to drive policy who aren't rank-but-rich amateurs would be great. But nothing in the last twenty years of education has done more far-reaching and pervasive damage than high stakes testing. If the candidates want a bandwagon to jump on, I recommend this one.
The favorite headline for coverage involves all the folks who have jumped on the Make A Teacher Secretary of Education bandwagon. But there were several moments I found more important-- especially this next one.
Elizabeth Warren was handed a question about ending high stakes testing (not even "would you" but "how would you") and she started out by offering her own version of putting someone from public education in the office, then she moved on to this:
"It's about our values," she says as she pivots. She invokes her special needs teacher background (again) and says, "This notion that it's all about testing, that it's all about what somebody far off in the state capitol or far off in the national capitol says here's what constitutes success, and worse yet, here's what constitutes failure-- no, that's not what education is about."
"Education is about what goes on in the classroom," she continues. A teacher sets a goal and a teacher knows when a student has met that goal. "We do not need high stakes testing." That gets big applause, and then Warren adds something that I think is important.
"I think this goes to the fundamental question of respect for our teachers. Too many folks seem to have gotten the idea that teaching is kind of like, y'know, working on an assembly line, and we'll just test your widgets to see if they're coming out all right, you must be a good teacher, and if they don't meet the standards set somewhere else, you must not be. No, that is not what teaching is all about."
She winds up with some nice words about teaching and focusing on children and that's not testing and teachers need to be front and center.
The Warren record on testing has been spotty and a little scary-- in 2015, she came down on the side of needing testing in order to know if schools are doing a good job with their widgets or not.
This clip doesn't get into the more concrete ways in which high stakes testing has damaged US education (narrowing and refocusing the curriculum, etc), and that's not a knockcause Warren was racing the clock. But it does show an appreciation for one of the underlying features of testing-- the foundational idea that teachers can be neither trusted nor believed, and therefor we must have tests, because somehow those are more reliable and trustworthy.
Like many of the candidates (cough*cough*Biden*cough) she would be well-served by talking about what she used to believe and how she has come to understand that she got parts wrong. And I still worry about some of the company she keeps. However, it's July, and my Christmas shopping is more urgent than my need to pick a Dem candidate.
But here she has nailed a policy idea that has been missing from all the platforms. Modern charters, as currently implemented and regulated, are a problem. Getting people to drive policy who aren't rank-but-rich amateurs would be great. But nothing in the last twenty years of education has done more far-reaching and pervasive damage than high stakes testing. If the candidates want a bandwagon to jump on, I recommend this one.
Eight Weeks of Summer: Learning Conditions
This post is week 4 of 8 in the 8 Weeks of Summer Blog Challenge for educators.
I'm continuing this challenge, answering the questions from the viewpoint of my old non-retired self. Here's this week's prompt:
What are optimal conditions in which to learn, for you, and for students?
For me, it's mostly a matter of opportunity and independence. Probably the biggest single thing I learned in college was how to teach myself, and I was born just in time for the biggest explosion of self-education resources in the history of the world. But that's as an adult, and the biggest advantage that adults have is that we rarely have to learn anything we don't want to learn.
I've always said-- I could probably learn conversational Chinese, but the time and effort involved, compared to the actual benefits, is such that I choose not to. But I'm an adult, so I can make that choice and nobody thinks worse of me. However, if a teenager made that same calculation and choice about my English class, then we might call him lazy or worse. Not that I think teens are necessarily good judges of what they do or don't need to learn for life; just that adults have a type of freedom when it comes to learning that students generally do not.
As a student, what I most needed was a safe space, security. If I spent the whole class time worrying about how other students or the teacher might react if I said X, if I had to carefully watch every single word that came out of my mouth, then it was hard to have much mental energy left to spend on paying attention to the actual lesson.
Students need to be able to work on the content-- what are adjectives, what is Hamlet's motivation, what's the best introduction to craft for an essay-- without that content mastery somehow becoming evidence about whether or not they have the right to take up space on the planet. In the quest for leverage, schools too often escalate the stakes so that school is about judging who the student is as a human being instead of letting her figure that out while feeding her brain.
I often describe education as the process of learning how to be more completely yourself, and how to be fully human in the world. That's a process that requires a broad, open playing field and an atmosphere that assures students that they are okay, and that they are going to be okay. Plus a useful balancing of the tension between order and chaos, freedom and authority.
That also means a setting that handles fundamentals-- physical safety, solid resources, food, shelter.
Plus, a teacher with expertise in the content area. It will require some combination of sage and guide, but that teacher must know the content, know the material, know what the heck she's talking about.
I'm continuing this challenge, answering the questions from the viewpoint of my old non-retired self. Here's this week's prompt:
What are optimal conditions in which to learn, for you, and for students?
For me, it's mostly a matter of opportunity and independence. Probably the biggest single thing I learned in college was how to teach myself, and I was born just in time for the biggest explosion of self-education resources in the history of the world. But that's as an adult, and the biggest advantage that adults have is that we rarely have to learn anything we don't want to learn.
I've always said-- I could probably learn conversational Chinese, but the time and effort involved, compared to the actual benefits, is such that I choose not to. But I'm an adult, so I can make that choice and nobody thinks worse of me. However, if a teenager made that same calculation and choice about my English class, then we might call him lazy or worse. Not that I think teens are necessarily good judges of what they do or don't need to learn for life; just that adults have a type of freedom when it comes to learning that students generally do not.
As a student, what I most needed was a safe space, security. If I spent the whole class time worrying about how other students or the teacher might react if I said X, if I had to carefully watch every single word that came out of my mouth, then it was hard to have much mental energy left to spend on paying attention to the actual lesson.
Students need to be able to work on the content-- what are adjectives, what is Hamlet's motivation, what's the best introduction to craft for an essay-- without that content mastery somehow becoming evidence about whether or not they have the right to take up space on the planet. In the quest for leverage, schools too often escalate the stakes so that school is about judging who the student is as a human being instead of letting her figure that out while feeding her brain.
I often describe education as the process of learning how to be more completely yourself, and how to be fully human in the world. That's a process that requires a broad, open playing field and an atmosphere that assures students that they are okay, and that they are going to be okay. Plus a useful balancing of the tension between order and chaos, freedom and authority.
That also means a setting that handles fundamentals-- physical safety, solid resources, food, shelter.
Plus, a teacher with expertise in the content area. It will require some combination of sage and guide, but that teacher must know the content, know the material, know what the heck she's talking about.
Friday, July 5, 2019
CAP & Fordham Shoot The Moon
When the Moonshot For Kids competition first crossed my screen, I took a moment to consider it as a topic for commentary, then moved on. But then this tweet popped up today:
Well, now.
There's a lot to unpack here.
First of all, the partnership. The Center for American Progress is theoretically a left-tilted thinky tank, a place where many Clinton staffers were parked in stasis awaiting the ascension of Hillary to the White House. But they have been relentless in their advocacy for corporate ed reform, to the point that I literally ran out of ways to title blog posts some variation of "CAP tries pushing Common Core and Testing again" (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for just a few examples).
So while it may seem odd to the casual observer to see CAP teaming up with Fordham, which is a notably right-tilted thinky tank, the two organizations, despite any apparent political tilts, are full-on fans of corporate ed reform. Their partnership here is just a reminder that when it comes to education, some progressives are just free market conservatives in sheep's clothing.
But this idea.
What's education's version of the self-driving car?
Do you mean something that's promoted relentlessly but is still far off in the future? Or do you mean a program that faces major obstacles that tech-cheerleaders just sort of gloss over?
Perhaps you meant a tech-based solution that strips all participants of power and agency and gives it instead to a bunch of programmers? Or did you mean a new tech initiative that promises to make a bunch of people rich?
Or do you mean something that can fail with really catastrophic results?
It's a holiday weekend, so maybe that tweet comes from some CAP intern who just didn't think things through. But "self-driving car" is an analogy that I would pick were I trying to argue against most ed reform ideas. Except-- no, there it is in Mike Petrilli's pitch.
They should have stuck with the moon shot analogy. But let's look past the wrapping, the overall idea of search for "the rationale, potential, and possible design of a sizable new investment in basic and applied research and development that leads to innovation on behalf of America’s children" and see if the actual goals are worthwhile.
They're looking for an idea that would help achieve one of the following goals:
* Cut in half the number of fourth graders reading “below basic”
* Double the number of eighth graders who can write an effective persuasive essay
* Shrink by 30 percent the average time a student spends in English-language-learner status
* Double the amount of high-quality feedback the average middle schooler receives on their academic work
* Ensure that every student receives high-quality college and career advising by ninth grade
* Double the number of students from low-income families and students of color who graduate from high school with remediation-free scores on the SAT, ACT, or similar exams
* Double the number of young women who major in STEM fields
Cut number of below basic fourth graders? Many states have already figured this one out-- just give third graders a test that they must pass to get into fourth grade. Then your fourth grade classes are only populated with pre-proven reading test takers. Boom-- mission accomplished.
Double eighth graders who can write an effective persuasive essay? Also easy. Just dumb down your definition of "effective persuasive essay," (which you'll have to do anyway in order to assess on your standardized writing test) until it's just a paint-by-numbers template, then teach and drill the template. You won't teach anyone to write, but you'll get those test scores up.
Magically make ELL students learn English faster. Sure. Or I suppose we could change the criteria for ELL status.
Double high quality feedback? Well, again, we need a helpful definition of "high quality feedback." At any rate, this one is easy peasy-- smaller class sizes, more work time for teachers during the day. Or did you want a solution that wouldn't cost schools money?
High quality college and career advising by ninth grade. Again, those words. "High quality." Again, an easy solution-- hire more counselors (of course, you'll have to find a deep pool of people who can cope with the challenge of talking to a young person about college and career-- "Chris, please put down the blocks so we can talk about how you can best be useful to employers in the future.")
Raise SAT and ACT scores for non-white non-wealthy kids. I suppose discussing why we should just scrap these tests entirely is not the direction these corporate types want to go.
Double the number of women who major in STEM. That seems pointless unless we somehow address the fact that women are driven out of STEM employment in huge numbers.
These goals are all about changing numbers; they are an open invitation to apply Goodhart's or Campbell's Laws, in which focus on a measurement leads to that measurement being rendered useless. This is about coming up with ways to make better numbers. Yes, one way to improve numbers can be (though not always) to improve the underlying reality those numbers are supposed to represent. But those techniques are hard to scale, expensive and not easy to devise. There are always simpler methods.
If you want a piece of this action, the group is open to submissions of 500 words until the end of the month. But remember-- this is not about coming up with a self-driving car. It's about coming up with a marketing package that makes it look like a self-driving car has been perfected. It's about doing a good job of using modern CGI to fake your presence on the moon without all the hard work, expense and challenge of actually getting a rocket up there.
What is education’s version of the self-driving car?— CAP K-12 Education (@EdProgress) July 5, 2019
Let @edprogress and @educationgadfly know your innovative idea to improve student outcomes through a #MoonshotForKids and you could win $10,000 https://t.co/evwibCFhrl
Well, now.
There's a lot to unpack here.
First of all, the partnership. The Center for American Progress is theoretically a left-tilted thinky tank, a place where many Clinton staffers were parked in stasis awaiting the ascension of Hillary to the White House. But they have been relentless in their advocacy for corporate ed reform, to the point that I literally ran out of ways to title blog posts some variation of "CAP tries pushing Common Core and Testing again" (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for just a few examples).
So while it may seem odd to the casual observer to see CAP teaming up with Fordham, which is a notably right-tilted thinky tank, the two organizations, despite any apparent political tilts, are full-on fans of corporate ed reform. Their partnership here is just a reminder that when it comes to education, some progressives are just free market conservatives in sheep's clothing.
But this idea.
What's education's version of the self-driving car?
Do you mean something that's promoted relentlessly but is still far off in the future? Or do you mean a program that faces major obstacles that tech-cheerleaders just sort of gloss over?
Perhaps you meant a tech-based solution that strips all participants of power and agency and gives it instead to a bunch of programmers? Or did you mean a new tech initiative that promises to make a bunch of people rich?
Or do you mean something that can fail with really catastrophic results?
It's a holiday weekend, so maybe that tweet comes from some CAP intern who just didn't think things through. But "self-driving car" is an analogy that I would pick were I trying to argue against most ed reform ideas. Except-- no, there it is in Mike Petrilli's pitch.
They should have stuck with the moon shot analogy. But let's look past the wrapping, the overall idea of search for "the rationale, potential, and possible design of a sizable new investment in basic and applied research and development that leads to innovation on behalf of America’s children" and see if the actual goals are worthwhile.
They're looking for an idea that would help achieve one of the following goals:
* Cut in half the number of fourth graders reading “below basic”
* Double the number of eighth graders who can write an effective persuasive essay
* Shrink by 30 percent the average time a student spends in English-language-learner status
* Double the amount of high-quality feedback the average middle schooler receives on their academic work
* Ensure that every student receives high-quality college and career advising by ninth grade
* Double the number of students from low-income families and students of color who graduate from high school with remediation-free scores on the SAT, ACT, or similar exams
* Double the number of young women who major in STEM fields
Cut number of below basic fourth graders? Many states have already figured this one out-- just give third graders a test that they must pass to get into fourth grade. Then your fourth grade classes are only populated with pre-proven reading test takers. Boom-- mission accomplished.
Double eighth graders who can write an effective persuasive essay? Also easy. Just dumb down your definition of "effective persuasive essay," (which you'll have to do anyway in order to assess on your standardized writing test) until it's just a paint-by-numbers template, then teach and drill the template. You won't teach anyone to write, but you'll get those test scores up.
Magically make ELL students learn English faster. Sure. Or I suppose we could change the criteria for ELL status.
High quality college and career advising by ninth grade. Again, those words. "High quality." Again, an easy solution-- hire more counselors (of course, you'll have to find a deep pool of people who can cope with the challenge of talking to a young person about college and career-- "Chris, please put down the blocks so we can talk about how you can best be useful to employers in the future.")
Raise SAT and ACT scores for non-white non-wealthy kids. I suppose discussing why we should just scrap these tests entirely is not the direction these corporate types want to go.
Double the number of women who major in STEM. That seems pointless unless we somehow address the fact that women are driven out of STEM employment in huge numbers.
These goals are all about changing numbers; they are an open invitation to apply Goodhart's or Campbell's Laws, in which focus on a measurement leads to that measurement being rendered useless. This is about coming up with ways to make better numbers. Yes, one way to improve numbers can be (though not always) to improve the underlying reality those numbers are supposed to represent. But those techniques are hard to scale, expensive and not easy to devise. There are always simpler methods.
If you want a piece of this action, the group is open to submissions of 500 words until the end of the month. But remember-- this is not about coming up with a self-driving car. It's about coming up with a marketing package that makes it look like a self-driving car has been perfected. It's about doing a good job of using modern CGI to fake your presence on the moon without all the hard work, expense and challenge of actually getting a rocket up there.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
When The Wall Of Separation Comes Down
As noted earlier this week, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that could blow a hole in the wall separating religion from public schools. Lots of folks are salivating at the prospect, from hard-core libertarians to the Dominionist folks who think the church should take back the school system.
So let me say again what I have said many times before-- if the wall separating church and state comes down, people of faith will rue the day.
June provided an example of exactly why rue-age will ensue. The Kenai Peninsula Borough council decided it would try to work its way around the establishment clause since, like many local government bodies around the country, it really wanted to get some prayer into its meetings. But not just any prayer-- so they whipped up a policy saying that only chaplains serving in the military, law enforcement agencies, or representatives of local established religious organizations could offer a pre-meeting prayer. The Alaska Superior Court, because they've read the Constitution and are not dopes, ruled that policy unconstitutional. The board tried to broaden its policy, feeling the heat from an atheist, a member of the Satanic Temple and a representative of the local Jewish community. They were unsuccessful.
And that's how members of the council and the public ended up walking out on their own meeting while Iris Fontana opened the government meeting with a prayer to Satan.
It never fails. Enthusiastic fans of bringing down the wall always seem to imagine that only their own Christian faith will come through the breech. And yet it has been almost fifteen years since the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster became a visible advocate for religious pluralism.
Here's what's going to happen. If you win the right to spend tax dollars on religious institutions (like, say, private schools), sooner or later you are going to be shocked to discover that your own tax dollars are supporting Sharia Law High School or Satan's Own Academy. And that's not going to be the end of it. Where resources are limited (there can only be, for instance, as many meeting opening prayers as there are meetings), some agency will have to pick winners and losers. Worst case scenario-- you get a government agency empowered to screen churches and religions. You can paper over it, as Kenai Peninsula apparently did, by turning it into a lottery (but what does it mean that God apparently let Satan's crew win that drawing).
No matter how you slice it, busting that wall of separation will not just let religion on to the government side-- it will force government onto the religion side. Your church will have to lobby and politic for representation on the Upper Boswash Religious Observance Approval Commission.
And all of that is separate from further issues--like whose faith-based bad science gets taught, or whether or not smaller religious groups are entitled to a certain minimal amount of taxpayer support to keep things equitable.
Not to mention the great encouragement this gives people to fake faith. Many many many local government boards open meetings with prayers; while I'm sure in many cases that has grown out of a sincere faith, I'm betting it's an awful lot of putting on a good Godly faith for the electorate. How many fake Christians does the church want to absorb?
Yes, the wall is probably going to come down, and I'm going to hate that. But before all is said and done, I'm betting lots of people of faith are going to learn to hate it, too.
So let me say again what I have said many times before-- if the wall separating church and state comes down, people of faith will rue the day.
And that's how members of the council and the public ended up walking out on their own meeting while Iris Fontana opened the government meeting with a prayer to Satan.
It never fails. Enthusiastic fans of bringing down the wall always seem to imagine that only their own Christian faith will come through the breech. And yet it has been almost fifteen years since the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster became a visible advocate for religious pluralism.
Here's what's going to happen. If you win the right to spend tax dollars on religious institutions (like, say, private schools), sooner or later you are going to be shocked to discover that your own tax dollars are supporting Sharia Law High School or Satan's Own Academy. And that's not going to be the end of it. Where resources are limited (there can only be, for instance, as many meeting opening prayers as there are meetings), some agency will have to pick winners and losers. Worst case scenario-- you get a government agency empowered to screen churches and religions. You can paper over it, as Kenai Peninsula apparently did, by turning it into a lottery (but what does it mean that God apparently let Satan's crew win that drawing).
No matter how you slice it, busting that wall of separation will not just let religion on to the government side-- it will force government onto the religion side. Your church will have to lobby and politic for representation on the Upper Boswash Religious Observance Approval Commission.
And all of that is separate from further issues--like whose faith-based bad science gets taught, or whether or not smaller religious groups are entitled to a certain minimal amount of taxpayer support to keep things equitable.
Not to mention the great encouragement this gives people to fake faith. Many many many local government boards open meetings with prayers; while I'm sure in many cases that has grown out of a sincere faith, I'm betting it's an awful lot of putting on a good Godly faith for the electorate. How many fake Christians does the church want to absorb?
Yes, the wall is probably going to come down, and I'm going to hate that. But before all is said and done, I'm betting lots of people of faith are going to learn to hate it, too.
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Big Brother Is Listening (More Ed Tech From The Surveillance State)
We have repeatedly seen examples of ed tech innovations that hinge on surveillance, and not just surveillance, but software to interpret what the surveilled data means.
This results in some huge promises. Here's software that says it will read student facial expressions and eye movements to determine if anyone is learning. Companies are lining up to tell you all about the social and emotional well-being of students. And in one of the finest examples of building mountainous conclusions out of data molehills, NWEA will now tell you how hard students are working and how well they're engaged, based on how long it takes them to bubble in a multiple-choice answer.
ProPublica and Wired decided to take a look at yet another piece of software that claims to be able to read hearts and minds both in schools and in a few other places as well. You will be shocked--shocked!-- to discover that this is yet another piece of tech that has big dreams but little to back them up with.
Sound Intelligence, a Dutch company that hopes to set up shop in Chicago, has some audio analytics it wants to sell you.
Sound Intelligence's patented sound classification solutions make security monitoring systems proactive, enabling early detection of potential incidents, swift intervention, and in many cases, prevention of further escalation.
Yes, in addition to more standard fare like gunshot detection and breaking glass detection, Sound Intelligence offers aggression detection that promises, among other things, to detect "fear, anger, duress and verbal aggression" including "early warning and intervention to prevent physical aggression." It can also be seamlessly integrated with your video surveillance. Good to know.
To be fair, there is a level of credibility here. Most high school teachers can quickly parse the difference between the sound of students screwing around play fighting and the sound of students who are a few seconds away from throwing down. Can that be translated into software and science?
Well, ProPublica finds the aggression detector "less than reliable." In their trial, it ignored a student screaming and flagged a student coughing. It also flagged a YouTube clip of Gilbert Gottfried. Guessing at Pictionary triggered it, as did students cheering for the arrival of pizza.
The article doesn't really address the other problem with surveillance software-- the storage and use. The company promises that it will record triggering incidents for playback, but where do they store all this, and who has access. Which students will later have trouble getting a job because they were recorded coughing aggressively in fourth grade?
The article is otherwise thorough and worth the read, if for no other reason to remind you that the continuing problem with all these tech surveillance solutions is not just that they are intrusive and Big Brothery, but also that they aren't very good at doing what they say they're going to do. But remember-- not only is Big Brother watching, but he is also listening.
This results in some huge promises. Here's software that says it will read student facial expressions and eye movements to determine if anyone is learning. Companies are lining up to tell you all about the social and emotional well-being of students. And in one of the finest examples of building mountainous conclusions out of data molehills, NWEA will now tell you how hard students are working and how well they're engaged, based on how long it takes them to bubble in a multiple-choice answer.
ProPublica and Wired decided to take a look at yet another piece of software that claims to be able to read hearts and minds both in schools and in a few other places as well. You will be shocked--shocked!-- to discover that this is yet another piece of tech that has big dreams but little to back them up with.
Sound Intelligence, a Dutch company that hopes to set up shop in Chicago, has some audio analytics it wants to sell you.
Sound Intelligence's patented sound classification solutions make security monitoring systems proactive, enabling early detection of potential incidents, swift intervention, and in many cases, prevention of further escalation.
Yes, in addition to more standard fare like gunshot detection and breaking glass detection, Sound Intelligence offers aggression detection that promises, among other things, to detect "fear, anger, duress and verbal aggression" including "early warning and intervention to prevent physical aggression." It can also be seamlessly integrated with your video surveillance. Good to know.
To be fair, there is a level of credibility here. Most high school teachers can quickly parse the difference between the sound of students screwing around play fighting and the sound of students who are a few seconds away from throwing down. Can that be translated into software and science?
Well, ProPublica finds the aggression detector "less than reliable." In their trial, it ignored a student screaming and flagged a student coughing. It also flagged a YouTube clip of Gilbert Gottfried. Guessing at Pictionary triggered it, as did students cheering for the arrival of pizza.
The article doesn't really address the other problem with surveillance software-- the storage and use. The company promises that it will record triggering incidents for playback, but where do they store all this, and who has access. Which students will later have trouble getting a job because they were recorded coughing aggressively in fourth grade?
The article is otherwise thorough and worth the read, if for no other reason to remind you that the continuing problem with all these tech surveillance solutions is not just that they are intrusive and Big Brothery, but also that they aren't very good at doing what they say they're going to do. But remember-- not only is Big Brother watching, but he is also listening.
Monday, July 1, 2019
This Case Could Break The Wall Between Church And School
Three weeks ago, I wrote about the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case for Forbes, trying to explain why it would be a big deal if the Supremes decided to hear this case. One thing has changed since then-- the court has decided they will hear the case.
This is a big deal. Here's a slightly modified version of that Forbes piece to serve as an explainer for why we need to pay attention.
This is a big deal. Here's a slightly modified version of that Forbes piece to serve as an explainer for why we need to pay attention.
This summer the US Supreme Court has decided to hear Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Its decision will have huge repercussions for public education. To grasp why this case matters and why it's coming up now, there are two pieces of background you need to understand.
Tax Credit Scholarships
Tax credit scholarships are yet another variation on a school voucher program. With vouchers, a family picks the school it wants its child to attend, and the state hands that child's "share" of education funding to that school. The problem is that when a family chooses a religious school (as is often the case), that can run afoul of the separation of church and state in general, and Blaine Amendment laws in particular. The Blaine Amendment was a failed Constitutional amendment that prohibited spending tax dollars on sectarian schools; 38 states adopted it for their own constitutions. It's not an easy law to defend, because it rose out of nativist reaction to immigrant Catholics, even if does fit with the wall between church and state.
Tax Credit Scholarships do an end run around the wall. A business or wealthy individual gives a contribution to a special "scholarship" organization that then hands out scholarships to private schools. The state lets the business or wealthy individual count that contribution as some or all of their tax liability. Think of it this way: I'm the state, and you owe me $100. I am not allowed to gamble, but if you give that $100 to my bookie instead, I'll consider us square.
Rules vary from state to state (in Georgia, for example, contributors can actually turn a profit on the TCS donation). But one feature is constant--whatever money is fed into the TCS represents money subtracted from state revenue. This, it should also be noted, is the model for Betsy DeVos's proposed Education Freedom Scholarships. In all cases, these are vouchers dressed up with fancy accounting.
A Church Parking Lot In Missouri
The other factor here is Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. The case seems like small potatoes; a church in Missouri wanted to apply for a public monies grant to help resurface its playground. It was disqualified because it's a church. The case ended its five-year trek to the Supreme Court in 2017, and Chief Justice Roberts said, "The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution … and cannot stand.” This was a big deal because, as Bloomberg noted:
It’s the first time the court has used the free exercise clause of the Constitution to require a direct transfer of taxpayers’ money to a church. In other words, the free exercise clause has trumped the establishment clause, which was created precisely to stop government money going to religious purposes.
Some of the majority tried to rein in the implications of the case by noting it was a ruling strictly about playground resurfacing. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, however, indicated that they believed that discriminating against religious practices was not okay "on the playground or anywhere else."
Meanwhile, In Montana
Montana's legislature tried to get a voucher foot in the door with the Montana Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which allowed a not-very-staggering tax credit of $150. There was just one problem; the Montana Department of Revenue wouldn't implement the program, claiming it broke the law. The Montana Supreme Court agreed that the tax credit benefited religious schools and therefore broke the rules.
The case has found its way very quickly to the Supreme Court, and the long list of very conservative and religious school choice fans filing amicus briefs lets us know just how much some folks are hoping the Supremes will reverse Montana's own high court. Cato Institute, EdChoice, Christian Legal Society, Liberty Justice Center, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, Georgia Goal Scholarship Program, Alliance for Choice in Education, and former governor Scott Walker are among the many who have been urging SCOTUS to take this case and run with it.
The case matters because it could extend the Trinity Lutheran notion that free exercise beats the establishment clause. The case matters because it could open the door wide to the use of public tax dollars for private religious schools. The court could also drive a stake through the heart of voucher programs aimed at shuttling public funds to private religious schools, no matter how clever and convoluted the voucher scheme may be. That last possibility seems less likely, because, as with many issues beloved by the right, this is an issue that may be facing the friendliest court in many decades. This is definitely one case to watch for this summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)