Running head: EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION

Education Evolution: Tools, Privacy, and Responsibilities

Amy I. Keithley
Western Oregon University

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
Education is rapidly changing due to current technological advancements. Emerging
issues surrounding tools, privacy, and access to data are quickly redefining personal, economical,
and occupational spheres. Educators are on the forefront of this evolution. New tools are
available for differentiated instruction, student information is being aggregated and stored
digitally, and issues regarding data privacy are on the forefront of teachers minds. Due to their
unique position, the roles and relationships of each of these defining elements affect their world
in a deep and profound manner.
This new chapter in education is providing a myriad of exciting tools to help improve the
learning process for all students. In a recent study of K-12 students, 92% said mobile devices
will change the way [they] learn in the future and make learning more fun. A majority (69%)
would like to use mobile devices more in the classroom (Booker, 2013, para. 4). These
statistics reinforce global trends: students want more from their education. Cell phones are no
longer just a distraction; students can use mobile devices to discover information and provide
real-time feedback in class via polls and commentary. With textbook companies moving towards
eTextbooks, course content for multiple courses are at students fingertips these formats even
allow for highlighting portions of text and adding personal comments.
Mobile intelligence is just one example. Technological tools are opening the door for
innovation and creativity in the classroom. Instead of creating a poster, students can gain design
and presentation skills using Prezi, SlideShare, VoiceThread, or podcasts. Wikis and blogs
provide every student an outlet to voice their opinions and ideas. Educators can lead experiential
activities to teach about culture and globalization via virtual tours, GIS (Geographic Information
Systems), and Skyping with persons abroad. Online educational formats can employ
asynchronous web-forums and host video lectures. On the assessment front, big data now allows

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
teachers to aggregate, track, and analyze student information to potentially predict student
achievement (Mayer-Schonberger & Cukier, 2013). These examples barely scratch the surface
of the tools available for use now.
New technological tools are actively altering how students interact with material and
peers. Students are not only able to engage in active learning; they can interact with digital texts,
primary resources, and tailor their education experiences to their personal interests. Saylor
(2012) also noted an increase in collaboration among students, where they can meet peers in
web-based forums to create databases wiki image boards, and other resources (p. 176).
Collaboration fosters communication skills integral for academic and personal endeavors.
McFarland (2013) also noted that introverted students begin to feel more comfortable in a digital
environment. This would allow for a diversification of voices and ideas that might otherwise be
lost in the classroom setting. Outside the classroom, students can still achieve personal learning.
A vast amount of sources, such as Khan Academy, provide quality information on endless
educational topics. With these tools becoming widely available for a minimal cost, there is no
reason not to have a trial implementation in the classroom.
These tools are not only shaping the field of education here; their implications are
widespread. Predictions are being made of a world connected through mobile devices. If this
becomes the case, mobile intelligence would allow everyone to discover the modern
information stream (Mayer-Schonberger & Cukier, 2013, p. 187). A high-quality form of global
education will be produced that increases literacy, and people from all walks of life would be
given the opportunity to share news, innovations, and voice opinions in a more permanent and
globalized scale. Suddenly, students in the U.S. can be given a glimpse into the culture of
another student their age halfway across the globe.

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
Increases in technology also possess a special set of drawbacks. As our participation
online grows, the scope and breadth of surveillance and privacy change. Assange (2012) noted
that the Internet, once the greatest tool of emancipation, has changed into a threat to human
civilization (p. 1). He was describing the effects of a recent major shift. Within the last ten
years, the volume and forms of communication used have increased exponentially. These new
types of communication are now being mass intercepted by organizations and governments (p.
22). Increasing communications is allowing this surveillance to be featured more prominently.
Every time someone goes online, his or her information is being tracked, collected, and
used. This process is what powers the free Internet we know and love; users pay nothing or
next to nothing for services and give up pieces of personal information for advertisers in
exchange (Hirsh & Sorcher, 2013). Whether people are posting social media updates, shopping
online, or conducting Internet searches, they are volunteering information about themselves. The
catch is the outcome.
Each of these seemingly innocuous events continues to occur in the confines of the
Internet they do not always stay there; what is said or done cannot truly be erased. Cookies, or
code that remembers ones online presence, gather information to create a digital compilation.
General information within this digital footprint is usually easy to find using search engines.
Educators who blog about their classrooms need to be cognizant of removing potential
identifiers, while students who use online blogging platforms should be aware what they post is
lasting. On a more personal level, teachers who communicate via social media need to be careful
of what, and how, they post.
Hirsh and Sorcher (2013) discovered a startling facet of America culture, that about 63
percent [of Americans] say they care about their privacy, but there is no evidence to suggest

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
theyre going to do anything different to preserve it (p. 4). While this may be true for the
general populace, it is not entirely true for those working in the educational system. Not only do
teachers and administrators need to protect their own privacy, they are in charge of protecting
each of their students as well.
Educators have always been privy to a surplus of information in exchange for
maintaining an oath to privacy and confidentiality. One example is student records. In the state
of Oregon, a students permanent school record contains: full legal name, birth date and place,
name of guardians, date of entry into school, name of schools attended, course of studies, grades
received, progress towards achievement of state standards, Oregon State Assessment results,
attendance, date of withdrawal from school, and social security number (Frequently asked
questions, n.d.). Additionally, educators have access to intimate information such as family
dynamics, socioeconomic status, health records, and special services (e.g., SpEd, IEPs, 504s).
All of this data contributes to the ability of teachers to provide dynamic and differentiated
learning to each of their students.
Due to the inherent nature of this known information, educators responsibilities differ
from that of persons in other occupational fields. While the education system itself is slowly
evolving alongside technology, educators themselves have to shift as well. On the forefront of
this changing landscape are legal policies to protect those in educational communities. Many
policies have been created and implemented in the United States such as CIPA (Childrens
Internet Protection Act), COPPA (Childrens Online Privacy Protection), and PPRA (Protection
of Pupil Rights Amendment) that deal solely with privacy within the K-12 scope.
While CIPA and COPPA work in tandem to protect students in educational settings
against potential harm from online expeditions, PPRA focuses on the system itself. PPRA

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
ensures that guardians provide written consent before minor students are required to participate
in any Ed-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information about students
political beliefs, psychological issues, sexual behavior/attitudes, illegal/antisocial issues, selfincriminating/demeaning behavior, critical appraisals, legally privileged or analogous
relationships, or income (Protection of pupil, n.d., para. 3). These legislations are critical to
ensuring that student information is protected.
State mandates are equally valuable. As with other states, the Oregon Department of
Education (ODE) is required by law to collect and store student data. ODE has partnered with
EISC, or the Education Information Security Council. The goal of this partnership is to set the
vision, direction, and best practices regarding information security across all levels of pre-K-12
education institutions in Oregon (Charter state of Oregon, n.d., para. 1). This form of
governing board is combining its knowledge of the educational system and its infrastructure to
ensure sanctity of information. To date, the ODE systems have not had any data breaches on
student information.
Many school districts are now turning to a new storage location for the magnitude of
student data the cloud. The Center on Law Information Policy (CLIP) at Fordham Law School
noted in their 2013 executive summary Privacy and Cloud Computing in Public Schools that a
shocking 95% of districts rely on cloud services, however these cloud services are poorly
understood, non-transparent, and weakly governed (p. 2). Discussions surrounding these issues
of student data privacy via cloud storage erupted with the emergence of the non-profit company
inBloom.
inBloom was designed to help school districts and State Educational Agencies provide
educators, parents, elementary and secondary school students with learning data from many

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
sources and connect them to relevant instructional resources to support personalized education
programs (inBloom, n.d.). Originally it partnered with school districts in nine states. These
partnerships meant that school districts provided student data to inBloom, and in return inBloom
services provided aggregated data, learning maps, assessment tools, and open-source materials
(i.e., shared lesson plans) for teachers in a secure and organized online structure. However, to
date seven of those partnerships have been dismantled. While some school districts left the
partnership because they felt they could achieve the same outcomes with current resources,
others left because of security concerns.
While speakers on behalf of the company have promised information cannot be searched
through by outside employees and will not be sold, others have pointed out a larger concern the
aggregation of intimate student information in a centralized repository (Carr, 2013). Leonie
Haimson, opponent of inBloom, noted that if this information [fell] into the wrong hands,
hackers could release disciplinary records, disability information, or other pieces of data that
could severely damage a childs future forever (Kamisar, 2014). Suddenly this data
aggregation has created a grey area where a fine lines needs to be defined on what is necessary
information; so much more than basic educational data is now at stake. Regardless if one agrees
with their position, it is clear that inBloom has reopened the floor for debates on privacy issues
and technological infrastructures in place at the education system level.
Changes and next steps are needed in policy and practice to best meet the needs of
students and educators alike. Educational systems are in desperate need of tools, interventions,
and community support to help with already identified potential early warning indicators in
students (Strauss, 2014). In their report Student Privacy and Cloud Computing at the District
Level, Solow-Niederman, Plunkett, and Gasser (2014) described the necessity to create a toolkit

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
for students, parents, teachers, school administrators, district officials, technology providers,
regulators, and legislators in the K-12 context (p. 2). This toolkit would examine policies
surrounding the adoption and potential impacts of cloud technologies in K-12 environments.
This report illuminated a need to foster transparency and clarity around data collection and use
involving: 1) how student/school data is being collected, 2) how it is used, and 3) with whom it is
shared within each cloud service (p. 9).
Education is no longer going to function best in a static environment. Teachers need to
shift their mindset to fully envelop their new expanding roles and responsibilities. Technology is
creating the possibility for interactive, collaborative, and engaging learning in the classrooms K12 and beyond. These changes open the possibility for growth by educators and students, as well
as the possibility of privacy breaches and litigations. With future plans and tools, teaching and
learning can achieve its potential; this is just the beginning of educations inevitable evolution.

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
References
Assange, J. (2012). Cypherpunks. New York, NY: OR Books.
Brooker, E. (2013, May 6). Students want more mobile devices in the classrooms. Information
Week. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/students-want-moremobile-devices-inclassrooms/d/d-id/1109825?
Carr, D.F. (2013, August 8). Inbloom educational data warehouse wilts under scrutiny.
Information Week. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/inbloomeducational-data-warehouse-wilts-under-scrutiny/d/d-id/1111089
Charter state of Oregon Education Information Security Council [Report]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Oregon Department of Education website:
http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/ais/infosecprivacy/eisc_charter.pdf
Mayer-Schonberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company.
McFarland, M. (2013, December 17). How big data could transform classrooms. Retrieved from
Washington Post website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/12/17/how-big-data-couldtransform-classrooms/
Hirsh, M., & Sorcher, S. (2013, June 13). Edward Snowden is completely wrong. Retrieved from
National Journal website: http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/edward-snowden-iscompletely-wrong-20130613
inBloom. (n.d.). Retrieved from inBloom website: https://www.inbloom.org/about-inbloom
Kamisar, B. (2014, January 7). Inbloom sputters amid concerns about privacy of student data.
Retrieved from Education Week website:

EDUCATIONAL EVOLUTION
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/08/15inbloom_ep.h33.html
ODE information security and privacy program overview [Report]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Oregon Department of Education website:
http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/ais/infosecprivacy/ode-information-security-andprivacy-program-overview.pdf
Privacy and cloud computing in public schools [Executive Summary]. (2013, December 12).
Retrieved from Center of Law and Information Policy at Fordham Law School website:
http://law.fordham.edu/assets/CLIP/Privacy_and_Cloud_Computing__EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_-_FINAL(2).pdf
Protection of pupil rights amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved from US Department of Education
website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ppra/index.html?exp=4
Saylor, M. (2012). The mobile wave. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
Solow-Niederman, A., Plunkett, L., & Gasser, U. (2014, January 15). Student privacy and cloud
computing at the district level. Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research, 1-9.
Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378568
Strauss, V. (2014, January 3). Student privacy concerns grow over 'data in a cloud'. Retrieved
from Washington Post website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answersheet/wp/2014/01/03/student-privacy-concerns-grow-over-data-in-a-cloud/
Zaino, J. (2013, June 25). What big data means for k-12. Retrieved from EdTech website:
http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2013/06/what-big-data-means-k-12-0