Hacker News Reader

Comment by robbick | Hacker News Reader

I can see how forcing kids onto FB is a major issue, but the article seemed to imply the same was true for other Big Tech EDU platforms (AFAIK the main ones being Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams for Education)

Do the same issues exist in these platforms?

View on HN

If a kid starts using a chromebook in elementary school (sometimes as young as kindergarten), they are more inclined to use google’s products later. They don’t even get the opportunity to make a conscious choice in their default tech platform, and google might not be the best choice for them. A kindergartener shouldn’t have to think about the privacy implications of their tech choices in my opinion, so maybe the default choice should be a platform with a better track record.

>maybe the default choice should be a platform with a better track record.

Although I agree it should be, how does one engineer things such that an ethical but less profitable software provider has the leverage to beat less ethical but more profitable providers at selling their products/services?

In many cases, the alternative is no tech at all (or very limited tech), especially for schools located in lower socio-economic areas. This notion of tech companies essentially giving away their products to schools in order to influence future adopters has been going on for 30 years or more. With that said, educators should be made aware of this reality and should be upfront with their students that tech alternatives exist.

how about subsidies and open development for these sorts of software?

seems to be doing ok in the raspberry pi arena, etc...

I think the challenge is that it’s hard to compete with the large vendors on a full stack, turn key solution. It’s one thing for a STEAM focused specialist to pull together a disparate set of open source apps into a workable model but your typical teacher doesn’t have the time to do that and still focus on their day job. Most teachers need technical solutions that are integrated, work 99% of the time, and have a very simple learning curve (not denigrating teachers’ technical abilities, this is more of a time thing - they need to be up and running quickly)

I totally agree! My partner is a 7th grade science teacher. She is more competent from a technical perspective than most of the other teachers at her school and she utilizes Chromebooks, and Google Classroom to its fullest. She is really pleased with them as tools, because the alternatives are of such poor quality. Maybe I should go in and give a mini lesson on the privacy implications of using Google/monopolies in tech.

7th grade is completely reasonable to start opening their eyes to how the real world works - i.e. pretty much every person/company/entity you encounter is trying to manipulate you according to their own agenda. I wonder how we can balance the sense of wonder and optimism of youth with the hard lessons they need to know as they sally forth in the world.

A very good point you make - it's hard to walk the line with regards to keeping it real but not crushing students. For example, teaching climate change can be challenging.

I used mac's as a kid in school in the 80's. I still don't use a mac.

I'm an educator in a 'Google' school board. We use google products for all documentation, and it's given me pause to think that Google's ML algorithms will be combing through allegedly confidential documents. Is it appropriate for a 3rd grader's bathroom accidents to be documented 'in the cloud', subject to Google's massive profile-making engine? Google Apps for Education (or whatever the title) makes assurances against targeted advertising for students, but it's anyone's guess as to what happens with student account data after it's exported to a 'grownup' account at graduation.

It's unclear to me whether confidential communication respecting students using Google products meets our legal obligations, given that I'm in Canada and (as far as I know) Google doesn't have any data centers physically located in Canada...

Their algorithmic crawlers go over everything you upload to your Drive, however their promise is that data does not flow to advertisers or people who do not have access to the document.

You can choose to believe that or not, but that's the rub.

If its unclear, people need to speak up and promote alternative platforms

So, if your child goes to a school which has "gone Google", personal information about your student is sent to Google without your consent, and their sole path to success depends on interacting with and sending more data to Google. Students are often required to purchase[1], carry, and use Google-controlled hardware daily as part of their routine.

The student has no choice (and no chance at privacy), because the decision was made for them by a school administrator who was excited about getting $100 laptops in bulk.

It's hard to imagine a more exciting situation to be in if you're Google or Microsoft: You have guaranteed customers who literally are required to buy their products. They're forced to buy in, year after year. And the further the buy-in, the further a school system has invested into Google or Microsoft's education platform, the less ability they have to pivot, since the devices they bought are locked to those platforms, the software they're using is running on those platforms' cloud servers, their curriculum is tied to those platforms, etc.

I think the pox here we need to deal with is vertical integration. We need to put an end to the concept of a single company selling you hardware, providing the software, and locking you in on services.

A fun similar racket is body cams: Taser will give a police department free body cams for every officer, so, you know, nobody has an excuse not to have body cams, as far as the public sees. But those body cams only work with their cloud service (which isn't free), and thanks to the handy fact that evidence has to be retained for many years, Taser can effectively make it impossible to stop subscribing once a department signs up.

[1]The school may or may not purchase it for your student, but you paid for it in your taxes anyways.

>[1]The school may or may not purchase it for your student, but you paid for it in your taxes anyways.

Unless your community has explicitly passed bonds earmarked for school district tech purchases, you’re not paying extra taxes for this. The district is making the decision to use existing funds for tech purchases rather than spending that money on something else. If you don’t agree with this allocation of funds, you are more than welcome to attend a school board meeting to voice your opinion.

There are absolutely accommodations that can be made for parents who don't want certain aspects of the students data to enter the G Suite system. But you have to participate and engage with your district, and not just let the wheels of bureaucracy turn for new student enrollment.

I'd be very curious what you mean here. I can definitely understand the possibility of being entered in under another name or the like, to try and avoid traditional PII, but students are supposed to complete and submit work through Google Classroom as well. Particularly in light of Google's AI work, things like an essay a student submitted is, at the very least, personal data, but very possibly, personally identifiable information. There is no realistic anonymity from just hiding someone's name.

I have significant doubts the school district is going to be particularly tolerant of "grade all students on Google Classrom, but this student needs to be graded by hand and recorded on paper" requests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com