Didacta Association on pupil data: "We see the danger of stigmatization"

On May 20 of this year, the Didacta Association elected a new president: Hans Joachim Prinz. His term of office begins only shortly after the new federal government took office, which announced in the coalition agreement, among other things, greater use and consolidation of data in the education sector. Heise online had the opportunity to ask Prinz about his appointment in a written interview form: about his personal priorities, but also about the Didacta Association's stance on digitalization projects in the education system and current debates, such as private cell phone use in schools and social media bans for children.

Changes at the top always raise the question of how terms of office are structured and what priorities are set: What are your plans for your term of office? I gathered from your words when you took office that educational equality is important to you. What other issues are you particularly concerned about?

I am concerned about the interlinking of the individual areas of education, which should ensure smoother transitions for people into the "next" system and ultimately for their appropriate qualifications. How can daycare centers, schools, vocational schools and training companies work better together? What role do extracurricular learning venues play in education? How can employees find the right training for them? We need to answer these questions.

At the same time, it is important to me to emphasize the importance of companies in the education sector for the economy as a whole. Our members represent a huge economic force that is part of our education system. I would like to see greater awareness of this aspect, including in politics.

It should be noted that we are currently seeing a growing importance of all areas of education in Germany. Early education is finally gaining the recognition it deserves, and vocational training and adult education are key in times of economic and social upheaval. It's all about lifelong learning, and the Didacta Association is the only association that reflects this with its members.

Now there is also a new federal government that also wants to set its own priorities and has already formulated a few goals in the coalition agreement. What do you think of what the government wants to implement in the education sector? Are the statements and promises tangible enough for you?

The coalition agreement contains important points that provide positive impetus, and the special fund will, of course, make things easier. It will now be crucial to put these approaches into practice. From the perspective of the education industry, it is necessary that the announced measures do not stand side by side as individual projects, but instead result in a coherent reform architecture that makes impact and efficiency measurable.

Our education system must enable people to find their way in a hybrid, constantly changing world at all stages of their lives and to play an active role in shaping it. This requires a pedagogy that considers both analog and virtual living and learning environments – in which people interact not only with real people but also with digital learning environments. Educational processes must be designed to be cooperative, hybrid and context-sensitive.

Modern management of the education system requires clear targets, regular education monitoring and evidence-based further development of education plans. It is important to make targeted adjustments and, above all, to remain in contact with the relevant stakeholders. What can school, administration, science, civil society and the education industry do as partners? Only through dialog will we be able to develop suitable and sustainable solutions.

Your predecessor, Theodor Niehaus, pointed out that a lot of data that has been collected in the education system remains unused. The new federal government also wants to collect more data on pupils to feed an "educational pathway register", among other things. What do we still know too little about in our education system?

We know too little about the breaks in transitions, for example when moving from school to tertiary education. For many young people, compulsory schooling does not end with the start of an apprenticeship, but with intermediate solutions. Vocational preparation years, internships, part-time jobs – these are often transitional solutions that are not aimed at starting an apprenticeship. As a result, some of these young people are delayed in finding a training place and have less choice of occupation. These young people are more likely to drop out than their peers who succeed in making a direct transition. The planned pupil-ID could help here.

The fact that findings on education have sometimes been available in Germany for a very long time, but that this does not necessarily lead to comprehensive or rapid political reactions, can be seen in the topic of "origin and educational success", among others. The "Ampel government" recently tried to address this with the "Startchancen" program. However, the first PISA study in 2001 had already cast a spotlight on this.

This is correct, and the desired change in the education system is taking far too long. In our view, the "Startchancen" program is initially a suitable instrument that tackles relevant issues – even if it currently only reaches a small proportion of the school population.

Nevertheless, the impression remains that education has no political relevance. An election period only lasts four years. However, education is a long-term investment, and meanwhile, changes are needed that will take much longer. For a sustainable society, educational equity must therefore be at the top of the agenda.

Educational equity should also be achieved through a more precise, data-supported analysis of the education system and educational biographies. But large data collections always harbor the risk of creating a transparent citizen. Children and young people in particular go through many, sometimes overwhelming, developmental phases. How can we prevent adolescents from being prematurely labeled or stigmatized in the long term through comprehensive data collection?

It is not yet known exactly what data will be collected for the educational pathway register on the one hand and for the individual pupil-ID on the other. However, according to the coalition agreement, data from schools, youth welfare and integration assistance are to be merged across legal districts.

For us, important questions remain unanswered here. If potentially extremely sensitive data of children and young people is linked and stored pseudonymously, the highest technical, legal and procedural measures are required to safeguard it. It also needs to be clarified: How are the deletion periods regulated? What about transparency and control of the stored data by the data subjects? In other words, can those affected have access?

Above all, however, we do indeed see the danger of stigmatizing children and young people. The data collected on a young person only ever represents a snapshot. If this is compared with average educational trajectories, certain patterns are potentially codified and, in the worst case, the individual potential of the young person is not sufficiently recognized and adequately exploited over the course of time. This is where teachers, as reference people, have a decisive role to play in sensitively incorporating knowledge of statistical trends into the best possible individual support, in addition to personal assessments. We will therefore closely and critically monitor the further process of development.

There are currently numerous debates about bans in the educational context. Among other things, there is a lot of discussion about private cell phone use during lessons. What is the Didacta Association's position on this?

The use of private cell phones by pupils at school undoubtedly creates problems. Children and young people can be distracted by cell phones during lessons, and school becomes less important as a place for personal encounters. Everyone involved is also experiencing that conflicts and concerns from the digital world are increasingly being brought into school. More and more schools are therefore banning private cell phones or are considering doing so.

However, we in the association do not consider a politically imposed ban on private cell phones to be expedient. Instead, schools should continue to decide autonomously how they regulate the use of cell phones in class and on school grounds and involve all those involved in the process. Cyberbullying, media addiction and fake news cannot be kept out of schools by banning cell phones. Instead, the teaching of digital skills and media education should become part of the curriculum. We have written a statement on this.

Early familiarization with devices such as smartphones and tablets, early access to digital games and the use of social media from an early age are also repeatedly considered disruptive factors for education. Here, too, the question is: What is the Didacta Association's stance on this?

We aim to make children and young people fit for an increasingly digital world. The focus here is on age-appropriate support and teaching. What is important here is that education can only work in a social context. Education that does not incorporate the reality of life and the experiences of children and young people from the everyday world, in this case excluding the digital and virtual, is not successful. Children and young people in particular need a connection to reality when learning – as well as a good relationship with the teacher.

Which digital offerings would you like to see more of in educational institutions? Which ones do you perhaps even consider indispensable?

The market is producing a wide range of innovative, high-quality and data protection-compliant digital tools and content. However, schools should decide as autonomously as possible which tools and content they use. Schools and school authorities should therefore be empowered to choose the platforms and content that are right for them and receive the appropriate budgets for this.

An important goal in the 21st century is certainly the teaching of digital skills for the future, in particular the understanding and use of artificial intelligence. This still requires great efforts in the training and further education of teachers, and schools urgently need to be given adequate budgets for data protection-compliant AI tools that can be used by pupils.

In your opinion, which digital tools could help to achieve greater educational equality?

I think tools that create individual learning materials for children and young people make a lot of sense. This enables teachers to do better justice to the heterogeneity of classes. AI applications that make corrections easier and provide individual feedback take the pressure off the teacher, leaving more time for relationship work, which is essential for successful learning.

(kbe)