Home > Identity Theft > Is Big Data Already Tracking Your Kindergartner?

Comments 0 Comments

You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees that America’s schools are in need of serious reform. And it’s an obvious leap to think technology is the fast lane to improvement.

“Ed-tech” is where some of America’s thorniest issues collide, however. Big Brother. Marketing to kids. Privacy. Boondoggles. Attention deficit disorder. Teacher accountability.

As a result, Ed-tech is where a lot of early tech ideas go to die. There have been celebrated failures. The Los Angeles Unified School District has suspended its $1 billion plan to get iPads to every child, and now the FBI is investigating. Bill Gates’ $100-million idea to encourage more data sharing, which led to the company InBloom, was shuttered earlier this year after parent uprisings around the country. There have been plenty of little failures, too, like when the small city of Hoboken, N.J., threw away all the laptop computers it had purchased for kids. Stories suggesting tech luminaries like Steve Jobs didn’t let their kids near gadgets don’t help.

Still, Ed-tech is an enormous industry, on a massive growth curve. In 2014, the Center for Digital Education says schools are expected to spend almost $10 billion on it, a $240 million increase from last year.

And its benefits are impossible to ignore. Software like ClassDoJo, recently the subject of a negative New York Times story, hold out the promise of automating drudgery tasks like attendance so teachers can spend more time teaching. Better yet, they promise to keep track of subtleties teachers might miss, such as sudden declines in classroom participation, which could provide early warnings to larger issues with kids.

“Teachers use ClassDojo to communicate success with parents, and to give students a chance to excel outside an increasingly narrow framework of academic assessment,” DoJo wrote in a rebuttal to the NYT piece.

Our Kids’ Big Data

As a society that has barely scratched the surface of a complex privacy rights debate in the lives of adults, it’s hard to imagine we are close to reaching consensus with kids and young adults. For now, that means we are stuck with a lot of familiar-sounding debates.

When the New York Times recently ran an opinion piece extolling the virtues of software that tracks college students, it argued that big data could help colleges spot students who were at risk of dropping out and wasting their investment in hefty student loans. It also described a product called “major matcher,” that would help kids pick studies that match their aptitude, based on the success of other similar students from the past.

It did not address a more obvious question: Why aren’t students getting better one-on-one advising, which could also spot problems and offer direction? And it offered only a token acknowledgment of the alarming possibilities raised by colleges that head far down the data mining trail.

“An ed-tech investor I know argues that colleges should be collecting even more data by mining Facebook,” writer Goldie Blumenstyk said. “For reasons of privacy, practicality and data-reliability, that vision may be a longer way off.”

Technology is often held up as a silver bullet to solve big social problems. It’s not just education. Remember all the money spent (and wasted) on facial recognition software for airports in the wake of 9/11? Tech is often set up to fail by expectations that are too high and an underlying agenda that has more to do with cost savings than investment. Last month, CNN aired a documentary named “Ivory Tower” that explored the issue of rising college costs and reduced government aid. It devoted an entire segment to an experiment at San Jose State University, which had contracted with a private firm to replace in-class courses with online offerings to save money. The school quickly suspended the experiment after dismal pass rates.

And a Clemson University study found, not surprisingly, that students learn more in person than they learn online. That certainly doesn’t mean tech can’t help, however.

Andre-Tascha Lamme is Director of Digital Engagement at an educational reform nonprofit called StudentsFirst, started by former Washington, D.C., superintendent Michelle Rhee. He’s concerned that every tech rollout failure, like the Los Angeles debacle, is a step backward for reform.

“(The) best of intentions ended up causing a situation with horrible optics and easy fodder for those who want to keep things status quo ante,” he said.

Not that it’s easy.

“It is really tough. On one hand, the tools …whether hardware like smartboards or infrastructure such as broadband connections… can provide tremendous vehicles for improving and augmenting instruction, especially in Title I schools or rural schools or other such with heavy challenges. The caveat is that [tech solutions] should be approached with a mind towards best practices and proper return on investment. Simply increasing budgetary spends do not improve education.”

Beware the Free Offering

And more technology really can do more harm than good. Parents, rightly, are often angered to find their kids end up in databases they don’t even know exist. There’s a saying that’s trite in Silicon Valley but might be new to parents — if you aren’t paying for the product, you are the product. When software firms come around offering inexpensive or free products to school districts, they always come with a catch. They have to. That catch is usually some kind of data collection, which will be used for marketing.

For its part, ClassDoJo has a clear privacy policy and promises it will delete data about students after one year. Other firms make no such promises. And as we’ve seen countless times, privacy policies can change.

“The overuse of tracking technologies in schools may have widespread consequences that we can’t fathom,” warned Washington, D.C., attorney and school privacy expert Brad Shear. “For example, the last three presidents have made some drug/alcohol usage admissions that if the entirety of their actions were publicly known before their presidential elections it may have denied them the presidency. What if one of these presidents regularly got drunk or smoked pot while writing papers on a computer and then looked at porn on Youtube or emailed a naked selfie to a fellow student and all of this data was data-mined and became part of a student’s digital profile?”

Lamme, from StudentsFirst, understands why tech firms as tech advocates have a long way to go to build the trust needed to make gadgets and networks welcome additions in classrooms.

“As a member of the education reform community, I heartily endorse the increase in technology utilization, he said. “If protections are put in place as to access and use of the data, I am good with this — enthusiastically so. But…we rarely do a good job at restricting data usage, so…” he said, and trailed off.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team