Corporate intrusion in education has been mapped

The Innosight Institute has created an online map to help you find what corporations are finding their way into education.

The Institute was created by some academics, including Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen.  Christensen was the author of Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns.

The map is a “the map is a graphical, interactive representation of the burgeoning K-12 education technology market designed to help investors, donors, and entrepreneurs better evaluate today’s landscape of education technology ventures.”

The intention clearly is to assist those who want to “disrupt education,” as they describe it, by bringing business into the schools, particularly technology corporations.  Innosight pats itself on the back because they “continue to make inroads among policymakers and other influential stakeholders.”

Christensen is also a principal in Innosight Ventures.  It is a venture capital company that “identifies, incubates, and funds ventures that fit the patterns of disruptive innovation.”

Want to know which corporations are offering online education?  The K-12 education technology market map will tell you.

Want to build a “data warehouse”?  How about Learning Management Systems?  You can find all this and more on the education technology market map.

These extended lists of education technology corporations give a sense of how big a business education has become.  More technology.  More corporate intrusions.  You can find the map here.  http://www.newschools.org/entrepreneurs/edtechmap

The Innosight website can be found here.  http://www.innosightinstitute.org/

"21st Century learning": a contest to define a meme

According to a Wikipedia, "a meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices." 

"21st Century learning" is a meme over which there is a cultural struggle in the area of education.  Needless to say, the technology industry has been quick to grab the phrase for its commercial purposes.  After all, what could be more pushing us into the future of this new century than technology?

However, even among those promoting a new paradigm for education that takes advantage of information and communications  technology, there are, in fact, different approaches that reflect different views of what technology is appropriate and how each might contribute to education.

Meme X is about clearly defined outcomes, databases, individualism and "mass customization."

Meme Y is about fluid and rich communication networks, process as outcome, growth and collaborative work.

What does Meme X look like?

One version of Meme X is presented in a set of PowerPoint slides titled "The Future of Learning" from IBM Global Education Industry. The essence of it is presented in a "Road Map for Education Transformation," provided to executives to sell clients on what IBM has to offer.

Of course, what it has to offer grows out of the nature of its technology and the understanding of the world built into that technology.  The IBM definition of the purpose of education is quite telling of that view:

           

Provide every student with optimized learning and skills development to enable them to compete in the new economy through a dynamic, cost effective and adaptive learning environment.

If education is about preparing social capital for the economy.  How can the technology accomplish this?:

• Increase results by shifting to data-driven decisions
• Leverage analytics to identify performance issues early
• Build and manage customized intervention plans using district and other models

IBM, of course, has some tools to sell, as well as space in the cloud to store and manipulate the data: a student performance data system, predictive analysis, intervention case management and digital content delivery.

To some degree, these are the basic steps a teacher always takes: assessing where the student is, identifying problems and strengths, providing resources and assignments and offering lessons and resources that help students learn.  

However, there are significant differences. 

To be fully digitized, all the aspects of the process must be predefined.  Pre-define the objectives to be achieved, the processes that will develop the skills, the specifics of possible interventions based on the analysis and the delivery of the specific lesson plans and resources.  This leaves the teacher primarily to make sure the students show up and are following the program.

This is what Ursula Franklin calls a prescriptive technology production model.  It requires every element to be broken down into identifiable steps to make production predictable.  She says that "prescriptive technologies are designs for compliance."

21st Century Meme X as exemplified by IBM's "The Future of Learning" has its goals and processes built in and is non-negotiable.

What does Meme Y look like?

Franklin talks about needing a holistic technology based on a growth model for education.  The model calls for interventions by the teacher to find the best conditions for growth, assessing the environment, the person and the intention.  It draws on craft knowledge to accomplish this, being able to apply experience to each unique situation, unlike Meme X which seeks to define and digitize the craft knowledge.

"Any tasks that require caring," Franklin says, "whether for people or nature, any tasks that require immediate feedback and adjustment, are best done holistically.  Such tasks cannot be planned, co-ordinated, and controlled the way prescriptive tasks can."  Further, "if there ever was a growth process, if there ever was a holistic process, a process that cannot be divided into rigid predetermined steps, it is education."   

The IBM vision of Meme X is clearly about a very different kind of education than Franklin's.  Franklin is not alone is seeing an alternative to the prescriptive approach.

Another view is nicely captured in the title of a small book:  A New Culture of Learning:  Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown.

Thomas and Seely Brown say that the new culture of learning in the fluid environment of technology is like play:  "When play happens within a medium of learning it creates a context in which information, ideas, passions grow."

While today's typical classroom does not produce these conditions and "much of the new learning takes place outside traditional educational forums, we do not argue that classrooms are obsolete or that teaching no longer matters.  Our goal is quite the opposite.  We believe that this new culture of learning can augment learning in nearly every facet of education and every stage of life."

They say that this new culture of learning comprises two elements.  One is the massive information network that gives the opportunity to learn anything.  The second is "a bounded and structured environment that allows for unlimited agency to build and experiment with things within those boundaries." 

Thomas and Seely Brown adopt the metaphor of cultivation to describe the process and the relationships among the learner and the teacher, much as Franklin talks about growth and its unpredictability.

Which meme will be chosen?

Both Meme X and Meme Y are imbedded in technology.  Decision-makers may get enthused about Meme Y and the promise it seems to hold.  But can the politicians and the bureaucrats accept the ambiguity that is implied in a system based on imagination and exploration?

Accountants' forms of accountability dominate in education decision-making, today.  IBM promises specific results that can be measured and a sound bite to say everything is fine or an unmet measureable outcome is all the fault of the teachers.  Education publisher, Pearson, promises textbooks, scripts and data systems that produce results by being teacher-proof.

Will children--and their teachers--be allowed the space for cultivation and growth rather than compliance with a corporate plan ?

References:

Franklin, U.  (1990). The Real World of Technology.  Toronto:  CBC Enterprises.

IBM.  (2011).  "The Future of Learning:  Executive Insights."  Produced by IBM Global Education.

Thomas, D. and Seely Brown, J.  (2011).  A new culture of learning:  Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change.

Originally published in Our Schools, Our Selves http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2012/02/osos106_21stCentury_Learning.pdf

Data-mining: Do we really want to know?

"Big data" is appearing frequently in any discussion of technology.  It is the ability to mine huge databases to find patterns or monitor developments.

Generally the data miners claim the wonders of good that will come from the practices--but one has to wonder.  An example is an item from the Globe and Mail titled "Big Brother on campus?"

Data mining is creeping into every aspect of student life – classrooms, advising, socializing. And now it’s hitting textbooks, too,” reports The Chronicle of Higher Education.

“CourseSmart, which sells digital versions of textbooks to big publishers, announced [this month] a new tool to help professors and others measure students’ engagement with electronic course materials.

When students use print textbooks, professors can’t track their reading. But as learning shifts online, everything students do in digital spaces can be monitored, including the intimate details of their reading habits. … [CourseSmart can] track students’ behaviour: how much time they spend reading, how many pages they view, and how many notes and highlights they make.

[Those] data will get crunched into an engagement score for each student.” Faculty members can reach out to students showing low engagement."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/facts-and-arguments/twentysomethings-dont-know-how-cold-it-used-to-be/article5534829/

Copyright improvements for education take effect

The use of copyrighted materials for education expanded substantially in November when the new Canadian law came into effect.

Some of the gains for education, as identified by Michael Geist, the public intellectual most on top of copyright issues:

*The addition of education as a category for "fair dealing" purposes.

*No penalty for infringement on copyright for non-commercial activity under $5000, reducing potential liability of educational institutions for infringement.

*The inclusion of an exception for publicly available materials on the Internet for education. This covers the content found on millions of websites that can now be communicated and reproduced by educational institutions without the need for permission or compensation.

*The adoption of a technology-neutral approach for the reproduction of materials for display purposes. The current law is limited to manual reproduction or on an overhead projector. The provision may be applicable in the online learning context and open the door to digitization activities.

*The implementation of a distance learning provision, though use of the exception features significant restrictions that require the destruction of lessons at the conclusion of the course.

These open up many areas for use of materials in classrooms and online, without having to get permissions or paying a fee.  The tens of millions currently paid by ministries of education to Cancopy can now be used for other purposes, such as buying more materials for libraries.

The one strange provision in the law is the one that requires the destruction of online lessons at the end of an online course.  However, since many courses are given on a continuing basis, with students signing up at any time during the year, the provision may not have much impact.

As Geist points out, the major gains in the legislation are that user rights have been acknowledged and balanced with creator rights.  Previous legislation primarily enshrined only the rights of the owners of copyright.

Source:  www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/

BCeSIS is going, but not soon

This article will appear in the November issue of TEACHER, the newsmagazine of the BCTF.

 

The good news is that BCeSIS will be replaced.  The bad news is that it won't be soon, and getting it right the next time will not be easy.

BCeSIS is the troubled student information system that the Ministry has spent $100 million on in the last decade.  That doesn't count the many local costs and the price of extreme aggravation of many teachers produced by the limitations of BCeSIS.

The Ministry knew by the fall of 2010 that BCeSIS had to be replaced. There had been a disastrous opening of school where the system simply failed to deliver at a crucial time in the school year. In addition, the Pearson corporation bought out the company that developed the software for BCeSIS, the AAL company.

Pearson is expanding its reach into all aspects of education by buying companies and closing down their products. In effect, they are buying a customer base for their existing products. This is what Pearson did--it told the ministry that the company would stop supporting BCeSIS software as of 2013 and offered its PowerSchool student information system to replace it.

Pearson's offer was not accepted and the Ministry started a process of finding another alternative.  The process has included getting advice from consultants and defining design requirements.

The Ministry last summer brought together a group of 44 administrators, teachers and others to define the "Functional Requirements."  Those involved were recommended to the Ministry by superintendents. The functional requirements are a key to whether the new system will be better or worse for educational practice.

Ursula Franklin tells us that "every tool shapes the task."  The student information system shapes what goes on in our schools and a different one will shape it differently.  That is why it must be consistent with what we philosophically believe is appropriate for a sound public education.

The tool shapes the task--so the design of the tool is crucial.  The "functional requirements" are that chance to influence the design of the tool.

The document that the Ministry has produced has 48 pages of what will be told to the businesses that want the contract for the next student information system.  The functional requirements are up on the Ministry website at www.bcedplan.ca/actions/technology.php. 

Not surprisingly, a significant share of the requirements identified are aimed at not repeating the problems we all had with BCeSIS.  It must have a user interface that is friendly and easy to use.  It has to be flexible and eliminate what Assistant Deputy Minister Renate Butterfield calls the "pain points," the many elements that took too much time, were inflexible and didn't do what they should.

However, designing the future primarily based on correcting the failures of BCeSIS in the past is what Marshall McLuhan called driving forward while you are looking in the rear-view mirror.  The BC Education Plan is supposed to lead to some changes in practice in our schools.  What kind of a student information system will serve the needs of a system that is different from the one that existed when BCeSIS was designed?

But designing for the future is difficult when the BC Education Plan is a work in progress, is centred on "personalization," and which has no common definition.  The "functional requirements" document addresses that by calling for flexibility in many of the areas, presumably allowing the software to be shaped to fit the evolving definition of BC's education system.

The next stage of the Ministry process is to issue a request for proposals.  This invites companies to respond with a proposal for a system that would meet the needs defined by the "functional requirements."

Is any company likely to meet all those requirements?  They certainly were not when BCeSIS was developed.  The Ministry says that the technology consultants they hired to survey what is out there said that there are off-the-shelf systems that have been developed for a number of states in recent years.  The US government has thrown hundreds of millions to have states develop centralized data systems.  Unfortunately, that is because the No Child Left Behind and the Obama education policies require states to focus on identifying "failing schools" and creating systems aimed at merit pay and firing teachers based on student standardized test scores.  They are not directed at supporting progressive pedagogy in a high-performing school system.

The Ministry doesn't want to buy software or hardware or run the implementation and training necessary for a new system.  Rather, they want to buy a service for a 10-year period from a company, much as many employers buy a payroll service, for example.  Only a large corporation that is already running a similar service is likely to be able to provide this.  And, of course, the expectations of this system will be substantially more complex than for a payroll system which has a lot of standard components, rather than many flexible elements required of a personalized education system.

The Ministry--and most of the other "stakeholders" except the BCTF--insist that the new system must be centralized.  Two reasons are given for this.  One is that BC has a centralized education funding system and the student information system must provide the information needed for the allocation of funds.

The other reason for centralization is that BC has a situation where increasingly students are cross-enrolled.  Because of this, the Ministry contends a central system is necessary to keep track of students where ever they are.  As an example, a secondary student might have four face-to-face courses at one school and four other Distributed Learning courses offered in the DL programs of three different public school districts and their biology course at the Christian Heritage DL school.  To give the students this flexibility, a centralized system is required to track them.

Neither of these, of course, is the only way of organizing a school system.  The information needed for a funding system does not require all the other personal and academic information about an individual student to be in one comprehensive database. Other provinces don’t have students enrolling in DL courses outside their school district, unless it is through the district making arrangements with another and thus don’t have to track on a provincial basis.

A number of other elements will particularly the raise eyebrows of teachers.

One, for example, is that the functional requirements document suggests direct parent/student access to a portal with information from the teacher "grade book.”  The name "grade book" itself suggests a traditional record-keeping system of summative marks rather than a flexible system of formative assessment and feedback.

The requirements document also indicates that data from the student information system would feed a data warehouse and that “analytics” tools would be provided.  The data in the warehouse could be accessed from the school, district or provincial level.

Built into the definition of requirements is an assumption that personalization will require that every student has their own student learning plan.   Students with special needs would have IEPs that are just more complex versions of the student learning plan, thus facilitating inclusion by eliminating the labels.  This suggests some fundamental shifts in support for students with special needs that need to be discussed as policy issues, not adopted through the design of a student information system.

These and many more issues deserve attention by more than IT specialists and others whose job is specific to the technology.  Every tool shapes the task and it is essential that all teachers pay attention to the shaping of a new student information system.

 

 

 

 

 

"Investors are hungry" for education technology

The Financial Post says investors are hungry for edtech investments.  The evidence for this is an increase in U.S. education technology investments from $52 million in 2005 to $930 million in 2011.  The global "education market" is estimated to be about $2 trillion.

A spillover investor interest in Canada was identified by the Post as well.  Desire2Learn (D2L) raised $80 million from venture capital investments in September, the largest amount ever raised as a software investment in Canada, according to the Post.   The next step for D2L is to "start scooping up smaller startups with innovative technologies."

D2L is a learning management system (LMS), the software used to manage the assignments, marks and other information about students.  It is particularly used in online learning programs, but can be used to manage classroom information as well. 

The company that produces D2L is located in Waterloo, Ontario.  Its major proprietary competitor is Blackboard, which took over the other main Canadian-created LMS, WebCT.  Moodle is the main open source LMS, free to use, but with high time demands for maintenance and upgrades.

The link between privatization and education technology is made explicit in the Post article.  Teach for America (TFA)  is a program that puts university grads without teaching qualifications into U.S. public schools as teachers.  The Post reports that TFA "has trained an education corps of almost 28,000 young teachers interested in education reform. Many of them, disillusioned with traditional classroom teaching, have started private companies or not-for-profits to change the system from the outside."

The Post does have some strategic advice for edtech businesses that might be directed to the promoters of the BC Education Plan as well :

"Smart entrepreneurs dole out their technological solutions in easily digestible chunks that don’t force busy teachers to re-imagine their classrooms from the ground up. After all, teachers still have many other low-tech realities to consider: paper report cards, chalkboards and overhead[s]. The everyday reality of a ringing bell and a packed curriculum makes implementation of sweeping digital reform all the more difficult."

Find the Financial Post article from September 10, 2012 at http://natpo.st/SdZngW

Please, not another $100 million failed system

 

BCeSIS is the troubled student information system that the Ministry has spent $100 million on in the last decade.  This article is a description of the plan by the Ministry to replace it with a new system for the next decade.

The Ministry knew by the fall of 2010 that BCeSIS had to be replaced.  There had been a disastrous opening of school where the system simply failed to deliver at a crucial time in the school year.  In addition, the Pearson corporation bought out the company that developed the software for BCeSIS, the AAL company.  Pearson is expanding its reach into all aspects of education by buying companies and closing down their products.  In effect, they are buying a customer base for their existing products.  This is what Pearson did, when it told the ministry that the company would stop supporting BCeSIS software as of 2013.

To get an idea of how to move beyond these problems, the Ministry hired Gartner, a technology consulting corporation, to look at BCeSIS, consult with users about future directions and make recommendations.

The consultants interviewed technology coordinators and people who had played a role in BCeSIS.  They also developed a questionnaire and ask superintendents to identify who should be surveyed.  In at least some cases, only administrators and technology staff were identified for the survey.

The consultants interviewed me as well.

The report Gartner produced recommended that the province develop another centralized system and that the province should buy off-the-shelf software that could meet the system needs. You can find their report at http://www.bcedplan.ca/actions/technology/gartner-report-highlights.php

The report said that everyone they interviewed, except the BCTF, essentially wanted what BCeSIS was supposed to be—an “enterprise” system where all the data for the system goes into a central database.  It noted that I had disagreed with this—I had said that it should be a decentralized system where data was held locally and only data that needed to be reported provincially should be drawn from the locally held database and sent to a central database.

The ministry then had another consultant contact people who had been contacted before to see if they agreed with the Gartner recommendations. 

In a recent meeting, the ministry offered to brief the BCTF on the developments in proceeding with the replacement system.

I had a phone discussion on October 22 with Renate Butterfield, an Associate Deputy Minister and this is some of the information from that meeting:

*It will be an “enterprise-wide” system—meaning a single point database and access.

*It will be based on a 10-year service contract—the ministry or districts won’t own it. Rather, a company will provide the service.

*It will not be just “off-the-shelf”—in other words, there will be programming to meet the needs identified.  This is essential if it is to meet the changing needs of the BC Education Plan.

*Lots of companies have expressed interest through the processes of requests for information and qualifications to carry out a project of this size.

*The request for proposals will be based on a description of the functional requirements aimed at meeting the administrative needs, the teacher needs and student and parent needs.  Each would have access to only a pre-determined level according to role.

*The request for proposals will be issued at the end of November.

*The functional requirements will be an important part of the request.

*The ministry brought together 44 people over the last summer to create the functional requirements document.  They say that some of those were teachers, but the BCTF was not asked to identify participants, as far as I know. 

*The 56 page list of functional requirements was posted on the ministry web site this week.  It can be found on the BC Education Plan web site at www.bcedplan.ca/actions/technology.php.

*The ministry is looking for feedback which must be posted by November 16.  A web-based survey is on the ministry website at http://www.bcedplan.ca/actions/technology/sis-feedback.php

*The “Application Design Requirements” are

            1)         It will be a single student record/data model

            2)         It will be built on an information sharing/security model

3)         It will include analytics and a data warehouse (analytics tools have been developed by the ministry, including a dashboard provided to districts)

4)         It will include data retention for 55 years

5)         It will be usable on mobile platforms

6)         It should support attaching digital files to student records

*The ministry estimates that the cost of this system will be $10 each per student for the board and the ministry.  That, of course, is only the cost of operating the system, not the hardware, training and support locally required to actually run the student information system.

One of the dangers of consultation on technology issues is that people comfortable with the technology are more likely to respond to consultation.  Since the day to day work of all teachers will be affected by the nature of the student information system, all teachers should spend some time looking at the functional needs.

Again, the functional needs can be found here [www.bcedplan.ca/actions/technology.php.]