EdSurge

[Commentary] Imagine a school system that operates in an environment where technology is abundant, teachers seamlessly use digital resources, and students communicate and collaborate with other students from around the world.

Imagine that this learning environment has an infrastructure reliable and predictable enough to support such learning, where professional development is ongoing and supported by on-campus specialists. Sound outrageous coming from a small rural school district with limited resources? Maybe not--especially when you take your time.

[Kirsch is the Superintendent of Schools of Franklin West Supervisory Union in Vermont]

Leading education entrepreneurs recently filed concerns about how having a “two-tiered” Internet can stifle innovation.

In May, over 100 Internet companies -- including industry giants like Google and Facebook, which presumably would be able to afford the “fast lane” access -- signed a letter to the FCC in protest of paid prioritization. Andrew Gioia, co-founder and COO of TeachBoost, believes the proposed rules “would open the door for commercially reasonable discrimination by ISPs.” A larger company who could afford a partnership with Internet service providers would be able to bring its content to consumers much more quickly. The changes would place “a very real stifle on startups,” as companies with less funding, unable to purchase the faster access to their sites, would be at a “competitive disadvantage.”

Close to $2 billion dollars in private company resources will flow into US schools through the ConnectED Initiative over the next three to four years.

Ten companies shared the specifics around what they were offering (see list below) at the showcase event on June 28, 2014, organized by the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). Strategically placed during the overlap between the SETDA Emerging Technologies Forum, and the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) annual conference, participants from both conferences could attend to discover what company resources were available to them and how they could be accessed.

[Commentary] The wheels of school bureaucracies may seem creaky and slow -- but so, too, it turns out, are those of corporate America. In February, President Obama announced with some fanfare that he had rounded up technology donations worth more than a $1 billion from US corporations for schools as part of the government’s ConnectED initiative.

To be part of the initiative, companies had to commit to providing goods or services worth at least $100 million. Yet four months later, some of the companies that proudly made those pledges have yet to identify how schools or teachers can apply for the products and services. If schools don’t know when they can apply, they can’t incorporate these materials into significant instruction plans. That makes the donations “nice to have” -- but sadly limits the impact that they have on students and learning.

[Commentary] The uses and misuses of student data have become the focus of an increasingly bitter debate in the education community and the nation. Fears about misuses of student data feed into larger narratives about dangers to privacy and the security of data fueled by revelations about the NSA, Target, etc., and their fervor makes it impossible to dismiss them as ill-informed rants.

Related concerns about large, impersonal entities threatening the independence and integrity of our system of education -- inBloom being the most recent culprit -- are fraught with emotion because they resonate with fears about threats to local control of education.

First, we must recognize that what motivates many of our opponents is not only legitimate concerns about the potential for unintended negative consequences, such as data breaches and other threats to privacy and the security of student data, but also a profound mistrust of the intentions of companies in the education industry, decrying “data-mining vendors...eager to make money off of student information in the name of ‘big data’ and ‘personalized’ learning.”

Then, we must reframe the debate, broaden the conversation so that it is not focused chiefly on concerns about privacy and the security of student data. To do that, we must develop another narrative, one that explains why data have been and always will be central to the mission of public education.

[Commentary] What are educators’ priorities when it comes to education technology? And what should be included in an “Edtech Bill of Rights”?

• The best interests of students must always be first and foremost.
• Tools should fill a REAL need for teaching/learning (not solutions in search of a problem).
• Ask teachers and talk to administrators at every stage of the design process.
• Have open, balanced conversations among all stakeholders.
• The introduction of edtech should include ongoing targeted meaningful staff development that is preferably teacher led.
• Student data must be secure: edtech companies should be open and clear about their use of data and information.
• Education technology should continually be tested in classrooms.
• The larger community should be included in the selection and implementation of edtech.
• If solutions claim to be research-based, they need to be truly research based.
• We need to know more about what works based on real data.
• Access should be reasonable and appropriate for all stakeholders.
• Compensate teachers who are product developers for their works.
• Similarly, compensate educators for providing extensive feedback and help with product development.
• Structure the ways teachers can provide feedback and interact with new tools as forms for professional development.
• Research should include recommendations that address the socio-emotional implications of using technology products.
• Districts should provide thought leadership on their theory of learning to help drive appropriate product development that aligns with district priorities.
• Everything should revolve around the learner.

[Commentary] At present, the rules prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from showing preferential treatment to content providers of any kind, ensuring that the biggest and smallest of sites on the web are accessible.

But recently, new policies from the Federal Communications Commission could put an end to these protections. The FCC’s newly-unveiled rules will permit ISPs to charge “commercially reasonable” rates to content providers like Netflix for “fast lanes” for better access to their users.

For education, this presents a dangerous precedent where the content and tools that schools, teachers, students and learners (of all ages) use may be subject to corporate interests. Although many schools heavily filter web content to comply with federal e-rate regulations, the loss of network neutrality would immediately impact:

• Free and open source web tools for education that could be edged out by for-profit competitors who can afford to pay for better access to their customers.
• Open source textbook adoption initiatives that rely on volunteer work and donations to create content could suffer from lower-tier access in schools.
• Wikis and collaborative sites that allow for educators to share content could be edged out by larger resource-sharing sites that can afford to pay for faster access to schools.
• School and university libraries that serve as gateways for hard-to-access information, as lesser-used databases and niche research tools for academics would suffer from 3rd party interference from larger publishers.

[Irwin is a marketing and communications professional]

On April 21, inBloom CEO Iwan Streichenberger announced on the nonprofit’s homepage his “decision to wind down the organization over the coming months.”

Frustrations surfaced throughout the statement, as Streichenberger claimed his company was "the subject of mischaracterizations and a lightning rod for misdirected criticism." He repeated his discontent later at a panel at the ASU+GSV Education Innovation Summit, where he referred to the debate over inBloom as a “very contentious and, at times, a very irrational discussion."

But recognition of defeat also shown through, as Streichenberger referenced “lessons learned,” particularly in regards to engaging in data discussions with districts, schools, and parents. What lessons can be drawn from this announcement -- and where each of the players in this long, exhausting game now stand?

• Communicate consistently, especially with parent stakeholders
• Convey how the methods support the mission
• Address the data mining issue collectively

This is no fairy tale. The budding young programmer is one, Chris Alfano. The innovative school is Philadelphia's Science Leadership Academy and its school leader is Chris Lehmann.

The open-source school “mainframe 2.0” is Slate, supported by Chris’s local dev shop, Jarvus. And yes, innovation is live and kicking in Philadelphia. For schools that are dealing with long-term, restrictive software agreements or that lack the time and talent to rethink their technology implementation, this anecdote may sound as fanciful as calling on the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion for backup support. Even still, open-source infrastructure --platforms, portals, mainframes, whichever sounds least threatening -- carries some serious promise for education innovation that to-date has won most of its marketplace success by merely automating the status quo.

And then there’s data privacy and ownership. What education company explicitly advertises full data portability --that is, the option to download your school or student data, and then permanently wipe it from the product’s database? With open-source products, educators decide when, where, and how data gets moved, stored and shared.

[Commentary] The only thing surprising about the majority of massive open online course (MOOC) students already having a college degree is that anyone was surprised by this.

Taking a look at the numbers, there are clearly more people in the post-college age bracket of 23-100+ than there are 18-22 year olds. But just as younger MOOCers fall into multiple categories, so too older learners need to be thought of as more than just a bunch of pajama-clad grads taking advantage of free courses in Python or Pynchon.

For example, the vast majority of students taking HarvardX’s Improving Global Health course are not college-age kids but healthcare professionals working around the world to implement or improve programs that in one way or another save lives. And if someone returning to the workforce or changing careers late in life participates in one of Udacity re-skilling programs to find work or transition to a new career, this benefits not just the student but all of us who might otherwise have to underwrite his or her ongoing unemployment.

Even we lifelong learners not participating in MOOCs in a professional capacity look at massive open courses as offering more than just recreational learning. If MOOCs are ever going to generate the kind of revenue they need to survive, the people footing the bill are likely to come from the demographic making up the majority of current MOOC students. So rather than fret over some kind of zero-sum competition between younger and older learners, those thinking about the future of massive open education should instead try to figure out how to ask those of us who can afford to underwrite some or all of MOOC experiment to start doing so.