Content uploaded by Craig Sower
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Craig Sower on Mar 30, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Common Core’s Panopticon
Craig Sower
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) has created a system to
produce and sell standards, curriculum materials, textbooks, and assessments. Working
with federal agencies and corporate sponsors, the CCSSI has foisted itself upon half the
states. The last piece of the system is data collection. Bill Gates and government officials
have long sought to track students’ beliefs and performance. Now they would like to
micromanage educators, as well. This puts the CCSSI on a collision course with parents,
teachers, and civil libertarians who do not trust the government to use such data wisely.
According to the Gates Foundation website, on July 21, 2009, Gates told the National
Conference of State Legislatures:
“Common standards define what the students need to learn; robust data
systems tell us whether they’re learning it — and they tell us a whole lot more
than that … The stimulus package contains funding for longitudinal data
systems; I hope you will use this funding to support systems that track
student performance from early childhood education through high school and
college and into the workplace … All states and districts should collect
common data on teachers and students. We need to define the data in a
standardized way, we need to collect all of it for all of our students … Of
course, if you do build this system and get this data, you may have to deal with
people who don’t want you to use it.”
“Dealing with people” who do not want strangers using their children’s data
sounds a bit ominous, but at least Gates was honest about it. Unfortunately for
supporters, the CCSSI has come online at a time when distrust of the government is
high. The recent scandal with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents using confidential
1 Sower
taxpayer information to punish citizens whose political beliefs differ from their own
makes people nervous about the government collecting sensitive data on children.
Assurances that bureaucrats only want to help are likely to fall on deaf ears, especially
in light of what federal agencies have already written and put into motion. In February
2013, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) Office of Educational Technology issued
a report titled “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success
in the 21st Century.” The report focuses on how fine-grained data about students can be
gathered, stored, processed, and used. It reads in part:
“[M]easurement may focus on sequences of behaviors, emotions, physiological
reactions, and/or thoughts that unfold over time during learning, extracting
indicators of persistence and giving up. New technologies using educational data
mining and ‘affective computing’ (the study and development of systems and
devices that can recognize, interpret, process, and simulate aspects of human
affect) are beginning to focus on ‘micro-level’ moment-by-moment data within
digital and blended-learning environments to provide feedback to adapt learning
tasks.”
The technical implements to accomplish this are shown on page 44 of the report:
The report goes on to say, “Ed Dieterle and Ash Vasudeva of the [Gates
Foundation] point out that researchers … are beginning to use multiple methods to
explore how specific brain activity is correlated to other cognitive affective indicators
2 Sower
that are practical to measure in school settings.” The authors briefly mention ethics in a
section titled, “Ethical Considerations for New Types of Personal Data.” It reads: “As
new forms of measurement emerge and new types of personal data become available,
the field must also deal with critical ethical considerations … especially when
leveraging data available in the ‘cloud’ that users may or may not be aware is being
mined … Learners and educators have the potential to get forms of feedback about their
behaviors, emotions, physiological responses, and cognitive processes that have never
been available before … developers must carefully consider the impacts of releasing
such data, sometimes of a sensitive nature, and incorporate feedback mechanisms that
are valuable, respectful, and serve to support productive mindsets.” The concern seems
to be that students, parents, and teachers may be incapable of handling the information
collected about them.
A search of this 126-page report finds the word “ethical” used four times
including in the title of the above section and the table of contents. On the other hand,
the report is expansive about the data they think should be gathered on students,
including their “beliefs, attitudes, dispositions, values, and ways of perceiving oneself.”
Gathering such information violates a slew of existing federal regulations including the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. As with laws forbidding federal
involvement with K-12 curriculum, however, the DOE is skirting the need for parents’
permission before collecting data. In effect, the information belongs to whoever gathers
it; they may retain, dispense, or use it as they see fit. The National Center for Education
Statistics has taken the position that parental approval is required only for studies
funded directly by the U.S. DOE, and therefore does not apply to data collected by other
entities.
The now-defunct private database inBloom, funded by the Gates Foundation,
was just such an entity. Begun in 2011, inBloom was intended as a repository of data
3 Sower
collected on American schoolchildren to be made available to “interested parties,” the
definition of which was so broad as to be meaningless. This is a continuation of
corporate data mining done in the private sector, but applied to the captive market
created by CCSSI, and to teachers. The tactic used is to provide schools with “free”
services like email and then mine data on users. Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo already
employ sophisticated algorithms to comb all data collected on individual users —
emails, web searches, websites visited — and use the results. Orwell’s Thought Police
were less thorough. Clearly the effort to correct Big Brother’s shortcomings is well
under way.
One shudders to think where we are headed. Do children have any right to
privacy, or does “affective computing” preempt it? Will teachers remain free to adjust
lesson plans to better serve students, or will a new Taylorism be the wave of the future?
Will the new mind-reading technologies obviate the need for the reflective practice of
teaching? Are there any limits on government or on how intrusive technocrats can be?
How much data is enough, and will the same people control it as controlled the IRS
files? The Panopticon planned by developers is one more reason parents, teachers, and
citizens should oppose the CCSSI.
4 Sower