Before we build, we need to dismantle the surveillance ed-tech that already permeates our schools. And we need to dismantle the surveillance culture that it’s emerged from. I think this is one of our most important challenges in the months and years ahead. We must abolish “cop shit,” recognizing that almost all of ed-tech is precisely that.
Source: Building Anti-Surveillance Ed-Tech
Yes!
Via:
Related:
“Does It Make More Sense to Invest in School Security or SEL?” Edsurge asked in 2018. Those are the choices education technology now has for us apparently: surveillance or surveillance.
What if anything “good” about ed-tech this past decade was so overwhelmed by all the money funneled into the “bad” that the “good” didn’t matter one whit? What if all that “bad” meant any semblance of “good” was stifled, suffocated? What if, as David Kernohan has suggested, there wasn’t anything this past decade but technological disappointment? What if there wasn’t anything good about ed-tech?
I’m serious. Sit with that sentence a minute before you pipe up to defend your favorite app or social network or that cute robot your kids coded to move in a circle. What if there wasn’t anything good about ed-tech? What if ed-tech is totally inseparable from privatization, behavioral engineering, and surveillance? What if, by surrendering to the narrative that schools must be increasingly technological, we have neglected to support them in being be remotely human? What if we can never address the crises of our democracies, of our planet if we keep insisting on the benevolence of tech?
Source: HEWN, No. 337
Via:
When we develop and use educational technologies that monitor a studentâs every moment in school and online, we groom that student for a lifetime of surveillance
Source: Grooming Students for A Lifetime of Surveillance by Jessy Irwin | Model View Culture
“We should be thinking about how to have pedagogies of care, not of surveillance,” she said. “I’m not sure we can ask Google to be a part of that.”
A pedagogy controlled by algorithms can never be a pedagogy of care, integrity, or trust.
Teachers: stop uncritically adopting and promoting Google products, for crying out loud. It doesnât make you innovative or progressive. It makes you a shill for surveillance capitalism. Youâre not preparing your students for a better future simply by using the latest shiny tech. Youâre aiding a company â indeed a system â thatâs stealing their future.
Knowledge production has a new police force: digital technology.
Source: HEWN, No. 317
I maintain that behaviorism never really went away and, despite all the talk otherwise, it remains central to computing â particularly educational computing. And as Shoshana Zuboff argues, of course, behaviorism remains central to surveillance capitalism.
Source: HEWN, No. 314
Surveillance capitalism now claims private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral predictions that are bought and sold in a new kind of private marketplace.
Source: âSurveillance capitalismâ has gone rogue. We must curb its excesses.
Surveillance capitalism is in our schools. Itâs a feature of behaviorist ed-tech and âpersonalized learningâ. Students are being commodified.
Ed-tech relies on amnesia.
Ed-tech is a confidence game. Thatâs why itâs so full of marketers and grifters and thugs. (The same goes for âtechâ at large.)
Source: HEWN, No. 297
Despite scant evidence in support of the psychopedagogies of mindsets, mindfulness, wellness, and grit, the ed-tech industry (press) markets these as solutions to racial and gender inequality (among other things), as the psychotechnologies of personalization are now increasingly intertwined not just with surveillance and with behavioral data analytics, but with genomics as well. “Why Progressives Should Embrace the Genetics of Education,” a NYT op-ed piece argued in July, perhaps forgetting that education’s progressives (including Montessori) have been down this path before.
âDoes It Make More Sense to Invest in School Security or SEL?” Edsurge asked its readers this summer. Those are the choices – surveillance or surveillance.
What an utter failure of imagination.
Source: The Stories We Were Told about Education Technology (2018)
This is a personalized learning I can get behind. Not Class Dojo. Not surveillance and behaviorism.
Personalized learning requires equity literacy.
rnbn 