InBloom Inc.

InBloom Inc.
Name	InBloom Inc.
Type	Nonprofit
Industry	Educational technology
Founded	2012
Founder	Michael Chasen, William Stetson, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (initiators)
Defunct	2014 (operations wound down)
Headquarters	New York City
Key people	Michael Chasen, Maia Heymann, Jamie LaRue
Products	Student data repository, APIs

InBloom Inc. InBloom Inc. was a nonprofit educational data repository and technology initiative formed to aggregate student information for use by Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, New York State Education Department, and other state agencies. The project sought to provide interoperable services linking student records to Khan Academy, Pearson PLC, McGraw-Hill Education, Illuminate Education, and third-party edtech providers, intending to streamline data exchange among school districts, state education agencies, and software vendors. Backed by philanthropic funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and involving corporate partners like Wireless Generation and Microsoft Corporation, the effort engendered debate across United States political, technical, and privacy spheres.

History

InBloom emerged from earlier work by Wireless Generation and was announced after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation convened stakeholders including representatives from New York State Education Department, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Connecticut State Department of Education, and vendors such as McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson PLC, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Knewton, and Edmodo. Founders and executives with backgrounds at Blackboard Inc. and AOL guided organizational setup amid collaborations with developers from GitHub and standards groups like IMS Global Learning Consortium. InBloom formalized governance structures influenced by nonprofit models used by Common Core State Standards Initiative partners and consulted legal counsel with experience in matters involving Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act stakeholders. Public rollouts in pilot districts such as New York City Department of Education and Albuquerque Public Schools encountered opposition from activists and officials aligned with organizations like ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation, prompting some states to reassess participation. By 2014, following withdrawals by major participating states including New York, operations were wound down and assets redistributed to partners.

Technology and Platform

The platform was architected around a data model informed by standards promulgated by IMS Global Learning Consortium and sought to implement interoperable APIs compatible with protocols used by Google LLC Apps for Education, Apple Inc. iWork, Microsoft Corporation Azure services, and cloud infrastructure models advocated by Amazon Web Services. Developers employed languages and frameworks popular in the community such as projects hosted on GitHub and consulted specifications from Ed-Fi Alliance and SIF Association to map student information schemas. InBloom's stack emphasized RESTful APIs, JSON payloads, and service-oriented architecture patterns similar to platforms implemented by Salesforce, Oracle Corporation, and SAP SE. Security engineering practices referenced controls described by National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance and sought to implement access controls akin to those used by U.S. Department of Education contractors and commercial providers like PowerSchool and Infinite Campus.

Privacy and Data Security Concerns

Privacy debates invoked federal statutes and advocacy networks including Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and state attorneys general such as those from New York (state) and Louisiana. Critics cited cases and precedents involving Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance debates and drew parallels to controversies around Facebook data practices and breaches at companies like Equifax. Security researchers and academics from institutions like Harvard University, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of California, Berkeley raised questions about de-identification, re-identification risks, and governance models similar to analyses performed on datasets involving National Student Clearinghouse and large-scale administrative data initiatives. Concerns also referenced procurement disputes and surveillance critiques that had affected projects connected to Common Core State Standards Initiative adoption in certain states.

Business Model and Funding

Initial capital and operational support were provided by philanthropy from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and contributions from participating states, with anticipated sustainability plans involving fees from vendors and service providers analogous to models used by Ed-Fi Alliance and commercial platforms such as PowerSchool and Infinite Campus. Partnerships included contracts with vendors like McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson PLC, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and technology suppliers such as Microsoft Corporation and Amazon Web Services for hosting and integration. The organization’s nonprofit status drew comparisons with funding structures used by Common Core State Standards Initiative consortia and other public–private collaborations seen in initiatives supported by Carnegie Corporation of New York and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Controversy and Public Response

Public opposition coalesced through campaigns by civic groups including Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and local parent organizations in districts like Albuquerque, Shelby County Schools (Tennessee), and New York City Department of Education. Elected officials such as members of state legislatures in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas debated moratoria and legislation influencing data-sharing policies, echoing prior disputes involving FERPA interpretations and state-level student privacy bills. Media coverage by outlets including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Wired framed the dispute within broader narratives about Big data and public trust, while academic commentators from Teachers College, Columbia University and think tanks like Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute weighed in on governance and accountability. The controversy led to resignations, policy redesigns, and ultimately to several states withdrawing from the project.

Legacy and Impact on Education Data Systems

Although operations ceased, inBloom's technical artifacts, debates, and policy outcomes influenced successor initiatives and standards efforts including work by Ed-Fi Alliance, IMS Global Learning Consortium, State Educational Technology Directors Association, and district-scale vendors such as PowerSchool and Infinite Campus. Policy changes and legislative responses informed by the controversy contributed to strengthened state student data privacy statutes in jurisdictions like Massachusetts, New York (state), and Florida, and stimulated research by institutions such as Harvard University, Stanford University, and University of Michigan on data governance. The episode shaped procurement practices used by school districts and state agencies and led to more transparent stakeholder engagement models echoed in later partnerships with entities like Khan Academy, edX, and Coursera.

Category:Educational technology companies Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York City