The inBloom legacy
There is a running joke in the privacy ed-tech world that every time someone mentions inBloom we all have a drink. Even though inBloom’s doors shut down two years ago, it seems we just can’t stop talking about it. It’s like a bad car accident — it’s hard to look at, but you just can’t turn away. What is it about inBloom that continues to provoke conversation? What is inBloom’s legacy and what did we learn are some of the questions that the latest report produced by Data & Society addresses.
As the paper points out, the rise and demise of inBloom did not happen in a vacuum, rather it became the epicenter of a perfect storm with many events happening in the education and technology world for which inBloom got dragged into and associated with. My foray into the inBloom debate came late in the game when the firestorm surrounding it was going wild. I learned of this project when I was a member of my children’s school leadership team. I was given flyers talking about the “dangers” of this project, I was told how the “cloud” was something to be afraid of and how our children’s future in education was at stake. Data & Society digs deep in their study on the rise and fall of inBloom. It carefully dissects the inBloom story and pragmatically walks us through the timeline of events.
However, my reaction to inBloom was different than most concerned parents. Having worked in data and compliance for almost 15 years, most of it made sense. What did not make sense was the public’s anxiety about the project. So I decided to investigate. I was fortunate enough to be able to connect directly with the inBloom staff at the time, they patiently answered my questions and explained, to the best of their abilities, the project and its goals. The report points out, rightly so, that inBloom had a perception problem. But good PR wasn’t their only problem. The top down implementation and relationship building that inBloom structured was flawed for the education world, a world in which building trust with parents and teachers is essential. Without district level trust most, if not all, initiatives will fail. inBloom made itself available to me when I asked questions, but I should not have had to find a way to get in touch with them. They should have begun their work on the ground and built that trust that is so essential for parents.
The concluding arguments in the report summarize what inBloom did achieve. Most importantly, it put a spotlight on areas in education that needed to be addressed, specifically gaps in student achievement. inBloom also forced companies to look at privacy and build dialogue around best practices in data collection, privacy and data security. It created accountability for companies in the ed-tech sector, and that mattered.
What the report misses to discuss though, is what we lost in inBloom’s demise. The controversy surrounding inBloom exposed a deeper issue in our school system. There was, and continues to be a tremendous technology gap. For example, Pleasantville’s Mary Fox Alter once dismissed the need for a system like inBloom in her district. She stated she already had a data collection system her district was paying for. But not all school districts are as well funded as others. Wealthier schools already had technology solutions that could serve their students, teachers and parents. At the time, I was a parent in the NYC public school system. A system with over 1 million students and all we had available was a system that had information I had provided to it. I did not have the ability to connect to other data reporting systems, and I had no real time insight into my children’s academic progress. inBloom was going to be able to provide underserved schools with the same technology, bridging a technology and equity gap that continues to grow between well funded districts and those with fewer resources in poor urban and rural districts.
As we continue the discussions on inBloom and the events surrounding it, we should examine the student populations most affected by the lack of an affordable infrastructure that inBloom would have provided. Underserved school districts are comprised of a majority of children of color, English language learners and I suspect a large number of students with learning disabilities. All issues that an affordable technology infrastructure could have helped identify and address in these communities.
While we can learn a lot from inBloom’s story, the awareness it brought and the conversations it sparked, we cannot dismiss what opportunities were lost by not having a platform like inBloom.
I’m hoping that soon, schools in underserved communities, schools with tight budgets and limited technology resources will have access to the technology capacity and student data of those with more financial resources. inBloom’s legacy is important, it’s worth reading about and digging deep as Data & Society new report did. We still need to discuss not only what we gained but what we lost and the ramifications that resulted. Maybe going forward, every time someone mentions inBloom, an angel will get its wings.
Points: This piece is part of a series of responses and reflections on the new report, The Legacy of inBloom, which draws on interviews and research to trace the closure of inBloom, and analyzes the factors that contributed to its demise. See also:
- inBloom’s collapse undermined personalized learning and data standards efforts by danah boyd
- inBloom: Analyzing the Past to Navigate the Future by Brenda K Leong and Amelia Vance
- inBloom — Data, Privacy, and the Conversations We Could Have Had by Bill Fitzgerald
- Rationalizing Those “Irrational” Fears of inBloom by Audrey Watters
