In Part 1 of this story, we shared how a little-known Gates Foundation
grant pumped over $3 million into the Tennessee Department of Education to
create a classroom video collection and sharing project, with video data and
notes stored on a server owned by the camera company, thereNow.net.
From
talking with the camera project director, Courtney Seiler, the TDOE never had a
plan for how children’s images would be protected. In fact, the TDOE left data security to each
system to manage on its own, with varying results.
For
instance, Putnam County officials indicated that letters were sent home for
parents to sign in order for permission to be granted for their children’s data
to be captured, stored, and shared. In
Washington County, however, no one knew the cameras existed until late December
2013, when building level educators learned that video data collection would be
used during teacher evaluation observations.
According to the Director for Secondary Education/Career and Technical
Education, Bill Flanary, no action was
required by the local school board, and no parental permission was sought prior
to implementation of the video data collection project.
On January 14, during a monthly Washington County
Education Association meeting, many teachers heard for the first time that
cameras, furnished through the thereNow Project, would be used in their
classrooms to collect video as part of their observations for teacher
evaluation.
Teachers had many questions: Who will see these
digital images? What if we don’t want to be videotaped? Why weren’t
we told about this at the first of the year when we were informed about
evaluation procedures for the 2013-1014 school year? How did Washington
County get picked to do this? Will parents be notified that students will
be videotaped?
With teacher concerns numerous and pushback certain, Leisa
Lusk, the WCEA President put in a call Dr. Bill Flanary to get answers to their
questions. That week the halls of Washington County schools buzzed about
the coming snow and the mystery cameras.
On January 17, Lusk emailed WCEA teacher
representatives and stated, “Dr. Flanary is going to send out an email to
assure everyone that the only people that can look at their film without their
permission is their evaluator.”
Emails began to circulate among teachers with
information about the thereNow website, showing that thereNow is
already being used in research studies conducted by Harvard, the University of
Michigan, and the Gates Foundation.
Was the thereNow research connected to
the Gates’ Foundation MET Study? The MET study used videos in researching
teacher evaluation and has been critiqued by leading researchers in educational
assessment at NEPC (http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-MET-final-2013).
One Washington County teacher logged-in at the MET
research site and asked this
question, “Are Washington County Schools in TN part of this study. I am a
teacher for Washington County and have heard we have just received cameras from
the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for videotaping our teacher observations.
I would like to know if this is part of the MET study/program.”
The teacher received a reply from a researcher at the
University of Michigan:
Teachers from Tennessee
are included in the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project but only
teachers from the Memphis school district, which Wikipedia tells me is in Shelby
County not Washington County. Also, the video collection period for both the
MET project and a later extension of the project have both been completed. Your
district may very well be getting video equipment to record evaluations from
the Gates Foundation, but if so, I know of no plan to add that video to this
collection. However, I am not an employee of the Gates Foundation. I work for
the University of Michigan as part of a research institute that specializes in
publishing and archiving research data. I have no knowledge of Gates Foundation
workings outside of publishing and archiving the MET project.
Unsatisfied, teachers began to compile
questions reflecting their concerns:
1. How did the video component of the Gates’ evaluation plan come to
Washington County? The second Annual Report on Teacher Evaluation (www.tn.gov/education/doc/yr_2_tchr_eval_rpt.pdf) says “Sixty wide-angle video cameras were
deployed to 55 schools during the 2012–13 school year and nearly 100 more will
be deployed during the 2013–14 school year,” but it does not say where they
would be deployed.
2. Why did we find out about the cameras in Washington County from WCEA
instead of our individual building administrators or central administration?
3. What information will be shared with teachers about the videotaping process
and the data collected?
4. How much input will teachers have into this process?
5. Who will see these videos? Teachers only? Teachers and principals only?
Teachers, principals, and central office staff? Gates’ staff of video
reviewers?
6. Did state and local governmental bodies approve the collection, storage,
and transfer of video and audio data from classroom interactions? If so,
which ones?
7. Will there be consent forms for teachers to sign that explain the full
extent of the purposes for and uses of the videotapes?
8. How will parents be informed that their children may be videotaped for
transfer and storage by third parties for research purposes? Will they
sign consent forms? What if they do not wish their children to be
videotaped?
9. What protocols will be established and followed to guarantee responsible
conduct of research, per requirements of U. S. Government Statutes, Regulations
and Policies, as well as State of Tennessee statutes and pending legislative
initiatives?
10. Does the use of these videos violate any
privacy, confidentiality or other policies that protect teachers and
students? Will we receive assurances about this in writing?
11. Will these videotapes be part of this year’s evaluation process? If
not this year, then when?
12. Will these cameras be used at other
times besides the designated evaluation times?
13. Can these videotapes be subpoenaed for
legal purposes?
Teachers’ growing confusion became compounded
by two bills in particular that were introduced by Delores Gresham and Bill
Dunn, respectively, to the current Tennessee legislative session. The first bill, SB1469 (referred to the
Senate Education Committee on Jan 15, 2014), “prohibits collection or reporting
of certain student individual data without parental consent or consent of the
student, if the student is 18 years of age or older. - Amends TCA Title 49.” (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billsearch/BillSearch.aspx)
The second legislative bill that
concerned teachers was HB1549, introduced by Bill Dunn of Knoxville. This
bill “establishes requirements for the adoption of educational standards;
prohibits use of student data for purposes other than tracking academic
progress and educational needs of students.” (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billsearch/BillSearch.aspx)
Teachers wanted to know how Washington County’s new
cameras and video data collection program fit within this new statutory
framework that is being introduced? Teachers wanted to know, too, where
their own professional rights and responsibilities fit within this new program.
One teacher stated that she did not want
Bill Gates “to have any ownership of her image.”
On Sunday, January 26, principals and
WCEA building representatives received word from Dr. Flanary via the WCEA
President concerning some of the questions teachers had about videotaping in
their classrooms. Flanary’s email stated that the county’s tech personnel were having some technical issues with uploading
the video at school, due to the size of the files. Therefore, administrative evaluators would
have to upload the videos at home until the school districts’ tech staff could
resolve those technical issues with the help of thereNow’s staff.
His email further stated that to
maintain the trust of the staff the videos could only be seen by the observed
teacher and the principal and no one else without the observed teacher’s
permission. If principals chose to give teachers copies of the video, they were
to be reminded that the videos were for their professional use only, that “they contain student images and cannot be viewed publicly as
a whole or in part without parental consent.”
There was
still no word about a waiver that teachers would sign giving their permission
to be videotaped and how parents would know this was happening.
Principals began meeting in mid-January with
their faculties to discuss cameras in the classroom. Teachers in these meetings asked questions about privacy issues for
themselves and their students, questions that teachers had been asking each
other and their principals, individually. Lots of “what if” questions on
legalities, logistics of using these cameras during the unannounced
observations, and rights as to an individual’s image were among the most
emotionally-laden questions.
Teachers reported that very few of the questions were answered but teachers
were assured by administration that if they wrote down their concerns and
questions and gave them to the administration, they would get the answers.
Teachers were also told the cameras would not replay video, so videos would
be uploaded to an “account” to which only principals would have access.
Principals assured teachers that videos would only be seen by the administrator
and the observed teacher.
In answer to the question concerning why the videos had to be uploaded to
the thereNow site and not a local site, the reply was that the files were too
large for uploading on local sites and the thereNow site would make accessing
the files easier for administrators and teachers to view. There was no mention
that the contract with there.Now required the data to be uploaded to company
servers in order for it to be reviewed.
Before many of these questions had answers, Washington County, as well as
other counties across the state, are presently engaged in active videotaping of
teachers and their students without the parental knowledge or permission and
without any waivers given to the teachers.
Stay tuned for Part 3.
