Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Eye Trackers, Wrist Bands, Postures Seats, Mood Meters and other ways to track your Child in School
 |
| Common Core Standards will bring new meaning to "Passing the Test" |
As part of the government’s initiative to institute Common Core standards for education, so comes a system that would mine information about students to establish best practices for effective teaching. But some think the technology that would conduct the mining crosses a line.
Who will be using this information and how will it be used?
In the draft “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century” report released in February by the Department of Education is a section detailing how to measure such qualities in a student through Behavioral Task Performance.
“Behavioral task performance measures are the broad set of methods used to capture behaviors consistent with perseverance or lack thereof—and in many cases, associated emotional experiences, physical movements or facial expressions, physiological responses, and thoughts— that students do in response to a particular challenge,” the report states.
It goes on to say that laboratory experiments have long been useful in gaining information about behavioral task performance, but “new technological opportunities offer potential for new methods and approaches.” This includes data collected about students using online learning systems but also “affective computing” methods, which is defined as “the study and development of systems and devices that can recognize, interpret, process, and simulate aspects of human affect.”
The report presents this figure showing a variety of sensors that could be used to determine the emotional state of a student while performing a certain task:
Figure from the draft “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance” report (Image: ed.gov)
“Sensors provide constant, parallel streams of data and are used with data mining techniques and self-report measures to examine frustration, motivation/flow, confidence, boredom and fatigue,” the report states.
It presents MIT’s Mood Meter — a device that captures facial expression through a camera on a laptop while software analyses the mood — as an example of technology that can conduct these measurements. The Mood Meter was deployed on MIT’s campus to get a sense of the general mood during the Festival of Art, Science and Technology in 2011. By tracking smiles as a metric of happiness, the Mood Meter would provide real-time information that could “help with answers to questions such as ‘Do midterms lower the mood?’, ‘Does warmer weather lead to happiness?’, and ‘Are people from one department happier than others?’”
Watch this video to see the Mood Meter in action:
You can see how such technology could be used to answer questions about a student’s behavior to certain situations or topics in the classroom.
“While this type of tool may not be necessary in a small class of students, it could be useful for examining emotional responses in informal learning environments for large groups, like museums,” the report says of the use of technology like the Mood Meter.
A study in 1999 published by MIT researchers delved into the use of a posture-sensing chair to evaluate a student. The experiment using a chair with pressure sensors on the seat and back evaluated student interest in order to better learn how to improve the experience for students in a computer-learning situation.
But a camera, chair, mouse and wristband equipped with sensors to track different metrics isn’t not all. The report also highlights the value of FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imagery), which would reveal different areas of activity in the brain through scans.
The report notes that use of such a machine is impractical in the school setting — equipment is large and expensive to use — but includes the following idea:
Ed Dieterle and Ash Vasudeva of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation point out that researchers such as Jon Gabrieli and Richard Davidson are beginning to use multiple methods to explore how specific brain activity is correlated with other cognitive and affective indicators that are practical to measure in school settings.
Some technology to track students in some ways is already being implemented in schools. A student in a Texas school has fought against the school’s requirement of an RFID (radio-frequency identification) tag in her student I.D. With the RFID enabled tags in the I.D.’s schools would be able to track where students were on campus — not off — but the student viewed it as an invasion of privacy and “the mark of the beast.”
The report goes on to acknowledge the drawbacks of using some data mining technologies, which includes being intrusive or simply impractical for use in a traditional classroom setting.
“[...] many of these types of measures are dependent on the use of highly constrained tasks in digital learning environments, which may be difficult to translate into use in the classroom or informal learning environment.”
And what of privacy (emphasis added)?
Of course, privacy is always a concern, especially when leveraging data available in the “cloud” that users may or may not be aware is being mined. However, another emergent concern is the consequences of using new types of personal data in new ways. 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. Measurement 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.
Our children are being used as an experimental test subjects without your consent.
This is a social engineer's bonanza. If it’s allowed to be in our schools in any form and become the common core of America’s next generation it will destroy our privacy, individual liberty and democratic rights.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
What is the "Bedroom Tax" ?
In England, affordable housing, known as "council housing", encourages people to move into smaller homes by charging fines for "under occupied" homes. This is the bedroom tax. One imagines such "market approaches" could be applied in the future to encourage seniors to move out of their "oversized" large homes. See related article HERE.
Monday, September 2, 2013
60 Second Adventures in Economics combined
Basic principles of economics so simple that anyone can understand.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funding research into bracelets that track mental, emotional responses
See Article in Natural News
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
In a controversial move that was only recently brought to light, the Gates Foundation allegedly forked over about half a million dollars to South Carolina's Clemson University late last fall, and another more than $600,000 to the National Center on Time and Learning (NCTL), a group dedicated to improving student achievement. Both grants were intended to fund test studies on the effectiveness of the "galvanic skin response" bracelets, which assess the physiological responses of students to learning material.
The idea is that when a student, for instance, is exposed to new lesson plans from his teacher, the bracelet will detect electrical changes on his skin and inside his body which can be used to assess how well he is learning the information. The bracelet may also detect various cognitive responses in that student's brain which indicate whether or not a particular teaching style is effectively engaging him according to his learning abilities and types.
Tracking bracelets could further dehumanize American education. On the surface, the bracelet concept may appear as though it could actually help improve the quality of education in America. After all, what bad could come of monitoring innate emotional and cognitive responses to external stimuli for the purpose of improving the methods by which teachers educate their students?
On the other hand, tracking students in this way could open the door for an even more dehumanized approach to education. Standardized testing, numbers-based teacher assessments, and various other outcome-based educational formats have already largely eroded the human element that used to play an integral role in American education.
The bracelets could also further thwart the educational environment to cater specifically to what students want rather than what they need. Using students' emotional responses to various learning material as a metric of how well a teacher is performing is a flawed approach that could send many quality, veteran educators packing their bags.
What is the real agenda behind tracking bracelets? When controversy about the tracking bracelets, and particularly the Gates Foundation's research funding, first began to arise, supporters of the technology denied that their use would affect the learning environment negatively. Deborah Veney Robinson, a Senior Communications Officer at the Gates Foundation, for instance, is quoted in a recent Forbes piece as saying that the bracelets would not be used to evaluate teacher performance, a claim made by the bracelets' opponents.
But if they are not intended to evaluate teacher performance, then what, exactly, are they for? This is a valid question that many educators and education researchers are now asking. Surely the Gates Foundation has some type of agenda with the program that it is not fully disclosing.
"Why do they want bracelets with wireless sensors for children and teachers that can gauge physiological reactions?" asked Diane Ravitch, an education expert and Research Professor of Education at New York University (NYU), who is skeptical of the Gates Foundation's intent with the research. "What's the purpose of this research? I don't understand what those bracelets are for. Still don't."
Based on the Gates Foundation's other agendas, it is not too far of a stretch to assume that tracking bracelets could one day be used to weed out students or teachers that do not buy into the vaccine agenda, for instance, or those that oppose phony environmental hoaxes such as global warming. By monitoring what is being taught and how students respond to it, Big Brother could theoretically read the human mind in real time, which has some fairly disturbing implications.
How long will it be before schools begin requiring that students link up to the system via tracking bracelets so that authorities can essentially monitor and control human thought? Will the bracelets one day be modified to deliver an electric zap to students that get out of line, or that diverge from the information being taught to them? There truly is a brave, new world before us, and the Gates Foundation is helping to pave the way directly to it.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.forbes.com
http://dianeravitch.net
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Pushing vaccines on the entire world is apparently not the only goal of the infamous Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is reportedly now funding research into human tracking bracelets capable of gauging both emotional and physical responses to various stimuli. According to The Washington Post (WP), the Gates Foundation has already quietly spent more than $1 million on research into the biometric bracelets, which could forever alter the way students learn and teachers teach.
In a controversial move that was only recently brought to light, the Gates Foundation allegedly forked over about half a million dollars to South Carolina's Clemson University late last fall, and another more than $600,000 to the National Center on Time and Learning (NCTL), a group dedicated to improving student achievement. Both grants were intended to fund test studies on the effectiveness of the "galvanic skin response" bracelets, which assess the physiological responses of students to learning material.
The idea is that when a student, for instance, is exposed to new lesson plans from his teacher, the bracelet will detect electrical changes on his skin and inside his body which can be used to assess how well he is learning the information. The bracelet may also detect various cognitive responses in that student's brain which indicate whether or not a particular teaching style is effectively engaging him according to his learning abilities and types.
Tracking bracelets could further dehumanize American education. On the surface, the bracelet concept may appear as though it could actually help improve the quality of education in America. After all, what bad could come of monitoring innate emotional and cognitive responses to external stimuli for the purpose of improving the methods by which teachers educate their students?
On the other hand, tracking students in this way could open the door for an even more dehumanized approach to education. Standardized testing, numbers-based teacher assessments, and various other outcome-based educational formats have already largely eroded the human element that used to play an integral role in American education.
The bracelets could also further thwart the educational environment to cater specifically to what students want rather than what they need. Using students' emotional responses to various learning material as a metric of how well a teacher is performing is a flawed approach that could send many quality, veteran educators packing their bags.
What is the real agenda behind tracking bracelets? When controversy about the tracking bracelets, and particularly the Gates Foundation's research funding, first began to arise, supporters of the technology denied that their use would affect the learning environment negatively. Deborah Veney Robinson, a Senior Communications Officer at the Gates Foundation, for instance, is quoted in a recent Forbes piece as saying that the bracelets would not be used to evaluate teacher performance, a claim made by the bracelets' opponents.
But if they are not intended to evaluate teacher performance, then what, exactly, are they for? This is a valid question that many educators and education researchers are now asking. Surely the Gates Foundation has some type of agenda with the program that it is not fully disclosing.
"Why do they want bracelets with wireless sensors for children and teachers that can gauge physiological reactions?" asked Diane Ravitch, an education expert and Research Professor of Education at New York University (NYU), who is skeptical of the Gates Foundation's intent with the research. "What's the purpose of this research? I don't understand what those bracelets are for. Still don't."
Based on the Gates Foundation's other agendas, it is not too far of a stretch to assume that tracking bracelets could one day be used to weed out students or teachers that do not buy into the vaccine agenda, for instance, or those that oppose phony environmental hoaxes such as global warming. By monitoring what is being taught and how students respond to it, Big Brother could theoretically read the human mind in real time, which has some fairly disturbing implications.
How long will it be before schools begin requiring that students link up to the system via tracking bracelets so that authorities can essentially monitor and control human thought? Will the bracelets one day be modified to deliver an electric zap to students that get out of line, or that diverge from the information being taught to them? There truly is a brave, new world before us, and the Gates Foundation is helping to pave the way directly to it.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.forbes.com
http://dianeravitch.net
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Worried about privacy? How about Common Core?
See article in the Catholic World Report Blog : Worried about privacy? How about Common Core?
July 22, 2013 01:28 EST
By Paul Kengor
There’s an intense debate right now over “Common Core,” a major effort to implement a set of federal education standards in public schools nationwide. The Common Core State Standards thus far have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.
Though it isn’t my area of expertise, I’ve received numerous impassioned emails on the subject. Among them, one person’s concerns particularly struck me.
This person is an expert in the field of education. She is thoughtful, serious, and no foe of public education. Her concerns especially hit home given current fears over privacy intrusions by the federal government. Those fears have swirled around the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, and the IRS. But they don’t end there. There are likewise potentially serious privacy problems involving Common Core, which likewise relate to data collection, dissemination, and use.
To that end, my friend is hoping to at least help kindle some public awareness.
“The portion [of Common Core] that I believe is most important for raising public awareness,” she writes, “is the changes to the FERPA regulations which have greatly expanded who has access to student data.” FERPA is the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. Changes have been made to FERPA that (some believe) will leave parents uninformed as to how their children’s records are shared. “Parents seem totally unaware of what data is being collected,” she adds. “In Pennsylvania it is collected under something called the PIMS system, but in other states it has different labels.”
There’s more. There’s also the problem of a rise in “outside vendors and providers to manage student data—again, without parental consent.”
How, specifically, would this happen?
For starters, the Common Core standards include a heavy testing component, which involves a great deal of data collection on students. Coupled with this heightened collection of student data is the prevalence of so-called “longitudinal state reporting systems.” According to my friend, as part of the “Race to the Top” initiative, a prior educational initiative, states were encouraged to create “robust data collection systems.” These systems were touted as a mechanism to provide school districts, state governments, and federal policymakers with more data to analyze trends in student achievement and improve educational efforts. While this might seem benign, notes my friend, we cannot ignore the sheer volume of data that will be collected and how that data might be misused. For instance, most parents have no idea that their child’s “personal information” includes not just test scores but social security numbers, attendance records, records of interaction with school counselors, identification of learning disabilities, and even disciplinary records.
All of this is being collected.
And yet, because such enhanced data collection exceeds the resources of many districts and states, schools will be forced to contract the service to corporations that collect, manage, and store such data—and possibly share it. In other words, outside data managers must be employed to maintain this personal data on your kids. Is there any level of oversight to ensure this data is protected?
My friend writes that “this trend of data collection relates to changes in the FERPA regulations by the Education Department in 2011. These changes, made without congressional approval, now allow third party access to student data without the consent of parents. For example, vendors, seeking to market particular products, can access this data.”
And there’s still more, relating specifically to private religious schools. My friend adds: “One particular concern that I think speaks to Catholic interests is the rush on the part of some dioceses (and other private schools) to adopt the Common Core and buy-in to the assessments connected with such systems (and as such the data collection).”
Indeed, the Catholic press is hot on this issue, realizing the distinct impact that Common Core can have on Catholic schools—the nation’s largest segment of private/religious schooling. Nationwide, groups of Catholics have sprung up in protest. The National Catholic Education Association hasn’t endorsed the standards, but is helping Catholic schools prepare for implementation.
Perhaps most troublesome, all of this derives from federal/national influences, even as Common Core is instituted at the state level. As my friend states: “the push for the adoption of the state longitudinal data systems and the Common Core assessment collection all stem from national influences. Certainly, the changes in FERPA were undertaken through the U.S. Department of Education.”
My friend sums up: “I find the level of data collection on individual students to be excessive, and the transparency … to be lacking.” Such data collection methods “put the federal government in a position to track student achievement in ways that have been previously unavailable due to the sheer size of data mining, and have been (until recently) safeguarded by privacy regulations. As an educator I care deeply about the ability for our nation’s school children to achieve high levels of learning, yet I believe the decisions for student learning are best accomplished at the classroom and school level, not the federal level.”
We’re facing, in essence, unchecked data collection as part of a significant and sweeping federal educational mandate. Are we ready for this, and all its repercussions?
My friend pleads for some “public awareness and dialogue in this area.” Who could object to that?
July 22, 2013 01:28 EST
By Paul Kengor
There’s an intense debate right now over “Common Core,” a major effort to implement a set of federal education standards in public schools nationwide. The Common Core State Standards thus far have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.
Though it isn’t my area of expertise, I’ve received numerous impassioned emails on the subject. Among them, one person’s concerns particularly struck me.
This person is an expert in the field of education. She is thoughtful, serious, and no foe of public education. Her concerns especially hit home given current fears over privacy intrusions by the federal government. Those fears have swirled around the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, and the IRS. But they don’t end there. There are likewise potentially serious privacy problems involving Common Core, which likewise relate to data collection, dissemination, and use.
To that end, my friend is hoping to at least help kindle some public awareness.
“The portion [of Common Core] that I believe is most important for raising public awareness,” she writes, “is the changes to the FERPA regulations which have greatly expanded who has access to student data.” FERPA is the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. Changes have been made to FERPA that (some believe) will leave parents uninformed as to how their children’s records are shared. “Parents seem totally unaware of what data is being collected,” she adds. “In Pennsylvania it is collected under something called the PIMS system, but in other states it has different labels.”
There’s more. There’s also the problem of a rise in “outside vendors and providers to manage student data—again, without parental consent.”
How, specifically, would this happen?
For starters, the Common Core standards include a heavy testing component, which involves a great deal of data collection on students. Coupled with this heightened collection of student data is the prevalence of so-called “longitudinal state reporting systems.” According to my friend, as part of the “Race to the Top” initiative, a prior educational initiative, states were encouraged to create “robust data collection systems.” These systems were touted as a mechanism to provide school districts, state governments, and federal policymakers with more data to analyze trends in student achievement and improve educational efforts. While this might seem benign, notes my friend, we cannot ignore the sheer volume of data that will be collected and how that data might be misused. For instance, most parents have no idea that their child’s “personal information” includes not just test scores but social security numbers, attendance records, records of interaction with school counselors, identification of learning disabilities, and even disciplinary records.
All of this is being collected.
And yet, because such enhanced data collection exceeds the resources of many districts and states, schools will be forced to contract the service to corporations that collect, manage, and store such data—and possibly share it. In other words, outside data managers must be employed to maintain this personal data on your kids. Is there any level of oversight to ensure this data is protected?
My friend writes that “this trend of data collection relates to changes in the FERPA regulations by the Education Department in 2011. These changes, made without congressional approval, now allow third party access to student data without the consent of parents. For example, vendors, seeking to market particular products, can access this data.”
And there’s still more, relating specifically to private religious schools. My friend adds: “One particular concern that I think speaks to Catholic interests is the rush on the part of some dioceses (and other private schools) to adopt the Common Core and buy-in to the assessments connected with such systems (and as such the data collection).”
Indeed, the Catholic press is hot on this issue, realizing the distinct impact that Common Core can have on Catholic schools—the nation’s largest segment of private/religious schooling. Nationwide, groups of Catholics have sprung up in protest. The National Catholic Education Association hasn’t endorsed the standards, but is helping Catholic schools prepare for implementation.
Perhaps most troublesome, all of this derives from federal/national influences, even as Common Core is instituted at the state level. As my friend states: “the push for the adoption of the state longitudinal data systems and the Common Core assessment collection all stem from national influences. Certainly, the changes in FERPA were undertaken through the U.S. Department of Education.”
My friend sums up: “I find the level of data collection on individual students to be excessive, and the transparency … to be lacking.” Such data collection methods “put the federal government in a position to track student achievement in ways that have been previously unavailable due to the sheer size of data mining, and have been (until recently) safeguarded by privacy regulations. As an educator I care deeply about the ability for our nation’s school children to achieve high levels of learning, yet I believe the decisions for student learning are best accomplished at the classroom and school level, not the federal level.”
We’re facing, in essence, unchecked data collection as part of a significant and sweeping federal educational mandate. Are we ready for this, and all its repercussions?
My friend pleads for some “public awareness and dialogue in this area.” Who could object to that?
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)