Data Confirms That Tiger Moms Eat Their Young

A couple of years ago, during the uproar over Amy Chua's book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, the Wall Street Journal asked if a regimen of no play dates, TV or computer games, combined with endless hours of music practice, could create happy kids? The answer, not surprisingly, is no, according to study published in the March 2013 Asian American Journal of Psychology.

The study, which followed 444 Chinese-American families for eight years, found that parents who fit the “Tiger Mom” profile had kids with lower grade point averages and educational achievement than children raised by more easygoing parents. They also had a lower sense of family obligation and were more likely to feel depressed or alienated.  Furthermore, contrary to the stereotype, the study found that the majority of Chinese-American mothers do not even fit the tiger mom profile.

It is predictable that Chua’s form of parenting can lead to depression and alienation. After all, she sees no harm in calling children “fatty” or “trash,” even in front of friends, family and strangers (according to her piece in the Wall Street Journal), and believes that excoriating, punishing and shaming a child for “substandard” performance is an appropriate and effective way to achieve improvement. Yet many might be stunned by the evidence that it is associated with poorer academic achievement, rather than higher. However, when one looks at the characteristics prized by Chua, even the poorer academic achievement starts to make sense. For example, she says that Western moms are more likely to teach their children that learning is fun, whereas no Chinese mother would ever say such a thing: “nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work.”

If children embrace the idea that learning is not fun and just a lot of work, they may learn how to “play” the academic game (e.g., score well on tests) without developing the motivation to delve more deeply into concepts, think creatively and independently or how to ask critical questions. Consequently, they may learn how to get the right answers without understanding why, let alone how to apply their knowledge to unique or unexpected situations. Perhaps more troubling, however, is the possibility that the chronic stress and anxiety induced by Chua’s style of parenting could also be producing long-term physiological, cognitive and emotional damage through overexposure to the stress hormone cortisol, which can impair memory and cognitive function and increase the risk of developing hypertension, diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

Furthermore, the idea that children never want to work is ludicrous. My 5-year-old son can work with his Legos for hours at a time, constructing creatures, vehicles, robots and buildings, precisely because it is fun. He experiments with different parts, like gears, axels, hinges and levers, to solve numerous architectural and mechanical problems. He may not be learning the piano or expository writing from this play, but he is certainly honing his mathematical, scientific and creative skills, as well as his manual dexterity. More importantly, he sees this play as a learning experience and proudly proclaims that he is being a scientist because he understands that he is using his senses, logic and experimentation to solve novel problems. He also loves school (at least so far). Rather than being a chore he grudgingly fulfills to avoid punishment or disapproval, he is excited by the learning and this motivates him to persevere with challenges and to take chances that broaden his learning.

The assumption that children never want to work and that every minute of their lives must be organized and controlled by an all-knowing parent is not just grossly exaggerated and cynical. It can also lead to familial and social dysfunction and become a self-fulfilling prophecy for children. How does one develop self-confidence, intrinsic motivation or independence when she is assumed up front to be a lazy shirker, constantly in need of monitoring and scrutiny, and never given the chance to make her own choices and her own mistakes?

Is Bill Gates Data Mining Your Children?

Blooming Automatons? (Image from Flickr, by edenpictures)

Want your child to flower academically? That’s what inBloom Inc. says it will do by accessing your child’s social security number, test scores, hobbies, learning disabilities, attendance records, career goals, homework completion records, and other personal data, in order to develop “personalized” learning aids that it will sell back to you or your school district.

Private Education Companies are School Officials According to Fed

inBloom’s new $100 million database has been in operation for three months, the Business Insider reports. Funded by the Gates Foundation, with its infrastructure built by Amplify Education, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s New’s Corp, the database was designed to acquire and monitor student data from kindergarten through high school. It already contains files on millions of children, according to Reuters. While local school officials retain legal control over the information, federal law allows them to share these files with private companies that sell educational products and services. According to the U.S. Department of Education, parental consent is not required for school officials to share student records with other “school officials,” including private companies, which the department defines as “school officials” if they sell educational services or products.

Needless to say, the project has the corporate education vultures drooling copiously. Jeffrey Olen, from CompassLearning, called it a “huge win for us," according to Business Insider, while Jason Lange, chief executive of BloomBoard, said "It is a godsend for us [as it] allows us to collect more data faster, quicker and cheaper." Other software manufacturers, distance learning companies and distributers of digital textbooks and curriculum all stand to profit handsomely through direct marketing to students and their teachers and families. inBloom eventually plans to charge schools for their “service,” which will bring in additional profits.

Overall, technology startups directed at K-12 education brought in over $425 million in venture capital last year, according to the NewSchools Venture Fund. Meanwhile, twenty-one education technology companies have already started developing applications that will work with the inBloom database, according to the inBloom website.

9 States Already Drinking the Koolaid

For the time being, the “service” is free. Seven states (Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Massachusetts) have already agreed to voluntarily make some of their student data available to inBloom, while Louisiana and New York have committed to providing nearly all their student records.

Proponents claim the project will improve “personalized” learning, which is just another vapid reform that sounds wonderful, but means little. Everyone wants their child’s personal needs and interests to be directly and meticulously addressed, but this is not something that can be accomplished through data mining. Consider how much smarter and productive you have become as a result of the advertisements Google and Amazon have directed to you as a result of their data mining. Even when they hit the nail on the head, the consequence is that you might buy something you might not have otherwise considered buying, not any kind of significant leg up on your peers. Furthermore, that product may be of dubious quality because you lacked the time to research it or test it before purchasing it and it was so easy to just click the purchase button.

While it is certainly possible that some educationally sound products will appear as pop ups on parents’, teachers’ or children’s screens, the overwhelming majority will likely be garbage (like the majority of non-digital canned curriculum). Furthermore, all will come at a cost (e.g., subscription price, future commitment, more pop ups and advertisements encouraging children to whine and beg mommy to buy something else). Plus, with all the fundraisers and other things parents already have to purchase for their children’s free public education, why should they have to buy more? Just because Bill Gates or some other huckster says it’s good for you and they have the data to back it up, they do not have any credible data that their snake oil actually works. In fact, the only thing their data can show is that there may be a need or interest.

Trojan Horse for Union Busting and Lowering Labor Costs

Projects like this contribute to the deskilling of teachers, as they transfer many of the responsibilities best met by sentient professionals (e.g., assessing students’ academic and social skills, identifying their academic and personal needs, tailoring curriculum to meet these needs, communicating with parents, hosting clubs and extracurricular activities) to software designers who never have any face-to-face interactions with children. Like the obsessive reliance on testing (NCLB, RttT), which replaces instruction and pedagogy with test proctoring, online and distance learning make the trained, professional teacher superfluous.  Eventually, districts will move to substantially lower teachers’ salaries and hire greater numbers of untrained factotums to monitor the computer labs, proctor the tests, and cover the other, growing menial tasks that are replacing actual teaching.

One of these menial tasks is data entry. inBloom’s promoters claim that schools currently operate too many databases and these do not communicate well with each other, while they miss considerable data that is still contained on paper. However, regardless of the software, the paper data needs to be uploaded by humans, which requires more mindless toil, much of which will fall on teachers (e.g., administering and uploading data from tests, grades, attendance, student surveys, behavior), taking time from actual teaching. Even though it would be useful for teachers to know how many times a student has been tardy to each of his other classes, something databases can (and already do) readily handle, no database or software can meet face to face with that student’s teachers and counselor to discuss his personal circumstances and home life and how these may be affecting his attendance.

Another claim of proponents is that inBloom will be able to provide tailored professional development to teachers. Of course, inBloom will determine which skills teachers need help with based on their students’ test scores, which actually have very little to do with teacher skill and much more to do with students’ socioeconomic backgrounds. Thus, teachers will find their professional development time taken up with even more mindless test prep training and unproven reforms du jour mandated from above than is already the case. This will further alienate them from advancing their own profession through collaboration and developing a school-wide or subject-based consensus on what the school’s and students’ needs actually are.

Children’s Online Security

Parents probably do not want their children’s disciplinary records, special education status, or counselor’s notes, in the hands of strangers or entrepreneurs whose only goal is to exploit this information to make a buck. In the pre-digital days, this kind of information would have been considered protected by counselor/client privilege. Even today, school counselors do not tell teachers the details of a student’s personal problems at home, as this would violate the student’s privacy, yet this same information, once entered into the database, could be transferred to any number of private companies without the counselor’s, child’s or parent’s consent.

inBloom has promised to guard children’s personal data tightly. However, its own privacy policy states that it "cannot guarantee the security of the information stored ... or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted." These are reasonable and expectable statements from their legal team’s perspective, considering how often people’s personal data is stolen from large companies and how difficult it is to stay a step ahead of cyber crooks and hackers, but it is not very reassuring to parents who do not want random strangers or advertisers offering their children candy over the internet.

Profit, Not People

If there was ever any doubt about the role of public education in society, the inBloom database ought to dispel it. Schools exist to promote the interests of capital. Traditionally, they did this by providing as little education (at as little cost) as necessary to reproduce sufficiently trained workers to keep businesses running, who were sufficiently compliant and accepting of their lot to consume, obey and promote the status quo. There have always been a few businesses that got a little more from this tax subsidy (e.g., textbook and test publishers, cafeteria service providers), but over the last decade or so there has been a serious drive by capitalists to take full advantage of the millions of obligate consumers (i.e., students and parents) and the steady influx of capital (i.e., tax dollars).

In some ways, inBloom follows in the footsteps of Channel 1, which began marketing directly to teens through faux-educational news programs and advertisements broadcast in public schools starting in 1989. A study by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that children remembered the ads more than the news, indicating that Channel 1 was highly effective at its actual goal: marketing to children. It seems unlikely that inBloom will have any greater success than Channel 1 at educating children, but it will very likely result in much greater profits for its clients.