I had not put together that John White worked for Joel Klein, godfather of inBloom before. The ties and inbreeding among these companies that seek to profit from capitalizing our children and their data never ceases to amaze and disturb me. I worked with Natasha Singer on her article for the Times, and was a bit chagrined by the too balanced coverage in my opinion. I’m hoping the next article, if it ever gets published, covers more of the concerns and remedies I discussed with Natasha. If that article does not come out in the next week or so I will publish the points I made that I think should have been brought out in the NYT story.
Last Sunday’s New York Times ran a fascinating story on the controversy surrounding inBloom, which promises to serve as a one-stop warehouse-in-the-cloud for student data, but which many educators and parents worry might compromise the privacy of kids in grades K-12. Like a number of major education-reform ventures, this one was launched by a group of funders led by the .
Now that most states have signed onto the Common Core State Standards, which will use computerized assessments, the allure of creating a central repository of student data is more compelling than ever. The NYT lays out the potential benefits of the inBloom system, including the ability to store large amounts of student information and provide tools for analyzing the data–information that will be available not only to educators, but also to education-technology developers who can tailor products to student and school needs. The…
View original post 1,756 more words