Parents Need to Know About Student Data Privacy

Trusting Parents

When enrolling or filling out forms during the school year, parents give schools personal information about themselves and their child. A school employee enters the information into the school office computer. No thought is given to this since computers are a good way to store, organize, and manage data. Most parents don’t realize the data doesn’t stay In the school office computer. The computer is networked and shares data with other computers. This information or data once it is entered becomes a part of a district or multi-district database that is uploaded to a state longitudinal data system at least once a month.

Are parents informed this is happening with personal information they provide? Are parents asked permission, or consent, for their information to become part of a database beyond the confines and use of the brick and mortar school? Should parents be made aware of this practice? Should they be required to give consent?

State Longitudinal Data Systems, Purposes, and Prohibition

The state longitudinal data systems are for preschool through grade 12 education and post secondary education or P-16. Basically, states are collecting data on all preschool through grade 16 individuals. It is interesting to note for the purposes of data collection, the “P” for preschool means birth to school. They want to collect data from the time of birth through an individual’s career.

Federal legislation calls for the collection of data to include:

· gender,

· ethnic or racial groups,

· limited English proficiency status,

· migrant students,

· disabilities,

· economically disadvantaged,

· assessment results,

· demographics,

· student-level enrollment,

· program participation,

· courses completed,

· student transcript information,

· transfers, teachers,

· family income.

Will state longitudinal data systems collect data beyond what is called for in legislation? What is the purpose of the data collection? How will it be used? What will be next? Collecting prenatal data? The pre-conception gleam in the eye data? In addition to the state longitudinal data systems containing far more information on students, parents, and teachers than necessary for educational purposes, I believe the system will eventually include information on all taxpayers with or without kids (twowks) so they may be held adequately accountable for how others spend their hard earned tax dollars.

There has been a push for state longitudinal data systems for many years. As early as 1965, the initial Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) mentions providing support for collecting and storing data and using automated data systems. Federal legislation and programs encourage or require data collection systems and the development of state longitudinal data systems. These include:

• Goals 2000
• Educate America Act
• Improving America’s Schools Act
• No Child Left Behind
• America Competes Act
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• Race to the Top. (see sidebar)

Each state has a State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) and names their SLDS a little differently to suit their own creativity. As an example, Oregon has Project ALDER: Advancing Longitudinal Data for Educational Reform and Washington has CEDARS: Comprehensive Education Data and Research System.

The early stated purposes for data collection was to determine things like graduation rates, job placement rates, and program effectiveness. The Race to the Top created mandates for data systems to be used to inform decisions and improve instruction. While this is laudable, it is questionable as the driving need for data collection. An abundance of available data and research findings has been ignored in the reform education decision-making process. Many reform measures being pushed from the federal level on down have no evidence of effectiveness--some have evidence of negative effectiveness -- yet continue to be foisted upon the states and local districts to implement. Are our decision makers Confusing Evidence and Politics? Do they really have our students’ academic interest as a top priority? Does anyone know how to make effective decisions based on this information? Will the information be so overwhelming as to be useless except for cherry picking to support pet programs? Who will benefit most? Our students? Private corporations? Non-profit corporations? Individuals and groups in positions of power and authority?

Our society’s moral and ethical values may have slipped to the point that individuals and groups in positions of power and authority feel it is appropriate to publicly release information that most people feel is confidential. Recently, state officials in Oklahoma posted private educational records of several students online. This information may not have come from their state longitudinal data system but think of the control and power such information provides, especially if one is able to personally identify individuals. When big brother has the informational goods on the public, are people likely to speak up or will they maintain a cautious place in line?

There is a prohibition on the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information (PII). The Act that created No Child Left Behind says:

PROHIBITION ON NATIONWIDE DATABASE.

‘‘Nothing in this Act (other than section 1308(b)) shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this Act. 20 USC 7911.

Does that mean it is okay to develop a nationwide database provided no personally identifiable information is used? It appears the federal government is dancing around the issue of developing a nationwide database. While the federal government is not developing it, they are supporting, promoting, encouraging, and funding with tax dollars the development of state longitudinal data systems. An effort, the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) is well underway, with federal encouragement, to have the state longitudinal data systems compatible for data sharing between and among states. This effort will result in a defacto nationwide database.

The Data Quality Campaign’s report Data for Action 2011 Empower with Data indicates no states having all 10 Essential Elements of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems in place in 2005. In 2011 every state had at least 7 of the 10 Elements in place and thirty-six states had all 10 Elements in place.

The Data Quality Campaign lists the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) among its Partners. The NGA and the CCSSO joined efforts in an initiative to develop the Common Core State Standards and shares some of the same partners. Both the Data Quality Campaign and Common Core State Standards Initiative have been supported with grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (see 1, 2, 3). The Common Core State Standards has provided investors and entrepreneurs with a lucrative market place. Besides the technology industry and service industry, who stands to financially gain from the Data Quality Campaign and the state longitudinal data systems?

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) are working to Promote the Voluntary Adoption of a Model of Common Data Standards and say:

The U.S. Department of Education will facilitate the leveraging, and where needed, the development of model common data standards for a core set of student-level variables to increase comparability of data, interoperability and portability of data, and reduce collection burden.

Funding for State Longitudinal Data Systems

Leveraging Federal Funding for Longitudinal Data Systems - A Roadmap for States shows some federal programs encouraging states to use funds for longitudinal data systems. These programs include Statewide Longitudinal Data System Grants Program, Race to the Top, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C, Carl D. Perkins and Technical Education Act of 2006, Title I, Teacher Incentive Fund, Striving Readers Program, Child Care and Development Block Grant, Workforce Data Quality Initiative, Workforce Innovation Fund, and the Workforce Investment Act.

It is difficult to determine how much taxpayer money states have spent on longitudinal data systems. As indicated above, there are numerous sources of funds available. The Statewide Longitudinal Data System Grants Program does show how much grant money has been awarded to each state from their program. Since 2006 over $612 million has been awarded with $254 million of that in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus) funds. Information from this program’s website has been compiled into a table showing amounts each state has been awarded.

Personally Identifiable Information, Data Mining and Matching, and Security Breaches

State longitudinal data systems are not to permit students to be individually identified by users of the system. What about abusers of the system? Data from state longitudinal data systems can be matched with data from other databases enabling the identification of individuals no matter how much effort is put into keeping personally identifiable information (PII) out of the state longitudinal data systems. Records can be matched by identifying overlapping data.

With the ability to match data enabling the identification of individuals it is reasonable to think this data may find its way into the hands of data brokers and database marketers like Acxiom Corporation who may mine, analyze, refine, and sell the data. While we may laugh at the Ordering Pizza in 2015 video, it hits real close to reality.

Eventually, whether for sport, competition, or profit, hackers will compromise the state longitudinal data systems. Perhaps they already have been exploiting these systems and the public and parents are never informed it is taking place. Below is a notice that I have written and which I believe should be provided to parents and all of the media. For obvious reasons it never will.

We have discovered that our state longitudinal data system servers were attacked, resulting in a security breach. The hackers were able to access information on all students, parents and teachers in the state. Our team has worked to secure the state longitudinal data system against this type of attack from recurring.

Please understand that we are under no obligation to inform you that sensitive data about the students, parents, and teachers in the state has been accessed and copied by unauthorized and unknown individuals. Since our data system contains no personally identifiable information you should comfortably know we assume no liability for any damages resulting from the hacker’s ability to personally identify individuals by matching overlapping information with other database information for which we have no control.

We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. Should you find the consequences of this security breach to be devastating to your life, we suggest you consider assuming another identity and start a new life. Should you wish to exercise this option, for a fee we can assist you in this effort. We take the security of our data seriously and can assure you we are taking measures to protect the system from this kind of breach until it happens again, at which time we will simply send you another message similar to this one reassuring you there is nothing to be concerned about.

J.R. Wilson is a parent and an education advocate with 25+ years experience in public education as an elementary teacher, curriculum consultant, staff development coordinator, and principal.

This article was originally published August 27, 2012 on EducationNews.com at

http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/jr-wilson-parents-need-to-know-about-student-data-privacy/ and is republished here with permission from the author.

References

A Blueprint for Reform The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, United States Department of Education, March 2010

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

A Statement of Common Purpose: Chief State School Officers and State Higher Education Executives Promote the Voluntary Adoption of a Model of Common Data Standards

http://www.pesc.org/library/docs/Common%20Data%20Standards/1-CDS-StatementofPurpose.pdf

“America COMPETES Act’’ or the ‘‘America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act” of 2007

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110s761es/pdf/BILLS-110s761es.pdf

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/pdf/PLAW-111publ5.pdf

CEDARS: Comprehensive Education Data and Research System

http://www.k12.wa.us/CEDARS/default.aspx

Confusing Evidence and Politics, Jay P. Greene’s Blog

http://jaypgreene.com/2012/08/13/confusing-evidence-and-politics/

Data for Action 2011 Empower with Data, Data Quality Campaign

http://dataqualitycampaign.org/files/DFA2011%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Data Cleaning: Problems and Current Approaches

http://wwwiti.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/iti_db/lehre/dw/paper/data_cleaning.pdf

Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (P.L. 89-10)

Page 49 of Public Law 89-10 April 11, 1965

http://www.nctic1p.org/files/40646763.pdf

Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) MAR. 31, 1994

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1804enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr1804enr.pdf

Improving America's Schools Act of 1994

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr6enr.pdf

Leveraging Federal Funding for Longitudinal Data Systems - A Roadmap for States

http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/resources/fedfunding/

Project ALDER: Advancing Longitudinal Data for Educational Reform

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3414

PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002, An Act To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/pdf/PLAW-107publ110.pdf

Race to the Top

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top

You for Sale: Mapping, and Sharing, the Consumer Genome

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-of-consumer-database-marketing.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp

Sidebar Stuff

First Sidebar

Select Legislative and Program Encouragement and Requirements for State Longitudinal Data Systems

There has been a push for these longitudinal data systems for many years. The 1965 Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (P.L. 89-10) in Section 503 (a) on page 49 says:

(2) providing support or services for the comprehensive and compatible recording, collecting, processing, analyzing, interpreting, storing, retrieving, and reporting of State and local educational data, including the use of automated data systems;

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994 says:

(d) DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM.—In the development and design of a system to provide data on graduation or completion rates, job placement rates from occupationally specific programs, licensing rates, and awards of high school graduate equivalency diplomas (GED), each State board for higher education shall develop a data collection system the results of which can be integrated into the occupational information system developed under this section.

Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, which was a reauthorization of ESEA, says:

(v) provides for the collection of data on the achievement and assessment results of students disaggregated by gender, major ethnic or racial groups, limited English proficiency status, migrant students, and by children with disabilities as compared to other students, and by economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged;

and

(1) INGENERAL.—The Secretary may collect such data, as necessary, at the State, local, and school levels and conduct studies and evaluations, including national studies and evaluations, to assess on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of programs under this title and to report on such effectiveness on a periodic basis.

PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002, An Act To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind says:

B) USE OF ASSESSMENTS.—Each State educational agency may incorporate the data from the assessments under this paragraph into a State-developed longitudinal data system that links student test scores, length of enrollment, and graduation records over time.

‘‘(D) DATA.—A local educational agency or school shall only include in its annual local educational agency report card data that are sufficient to yield statistically reliable information, as determined by the State, and that do not reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.

SEC. 9531. PROHIBITION ON NATIONWIDE DATABASE.

‘‘Nothing in this Act (other than section 1308(b)) shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this Act. 20 USC 7911.

“America COMPETES Act’’ or the ‘‘America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act” of 2007

(2) GRANTS FOR STATE WIDE P–16 EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS.—

(A) ESTABLISHMENT OF SYSTEM.—Each State that receives a grant under subsection (c)(2) shall establish a statewide P–16 education longitudinal data system that— (i) provides each student, upon enrollment in a public elementary school or secondary school in the State, with a unique identifier, such as a bar code, that— (I) does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the system; and (II) is retained throughout the student’s enrollment in P–16 education in the State; and (ii) meets the requirements of sub-paragraphs (B) through (E).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(3) IMPROVING COLLECTION AND USE OF DATA.—The State will establish a longitudinal data system that includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871).

(D) REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A STATE- WIDE P–16 EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM.—The State shall ensure that the statewide P–16 education data system includes the following elements: (i) PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12 EDUCATION AND POST SECONDARY EDUCATION.—With respect to preschool through grade 12 education and postsecondary education— (I) a unique statewide student identifier that does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the system; (II) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information; (III) student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P–16 education programs; (IV) the capacity to communicate with higher education data systems; and (V) a State data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability. (ii) PRESCHOOLTHROUGHGRADE12 EDUCATION.—With respect to preschool through grade 12 education— (I) yearly test records of individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (II) information on students not tested by grade and subject; (III) a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students; (IV) student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned; and (V) student-level college readiness test scores.

The Race to the Top emphasized:

Supporting data systems that inform decisions and improve instruction, by fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system, assessing and using data to drive instruction, and making data more accessible to key stakeholders.

A Blueprint for Reform The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, United States Department of Education, March 2010

To foster public accountability for results and help focus improvement and support efforts, states must have data systems in place to gather information that is critical to determining how schools and districts are progressing in preparing students to graduate from high school college- and career-ready. States and districts will collect and make public data relating to student academic achievement and growth in English language arts and mathematics, student academic achievement in science, and if states choose, student academic achievement and growth in other subjects, such as history. At the high school level, this data will also include graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and rates of college enrollment without need for remediation. All of these data must be disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity, disability status, English Learner status, and family income. States and districts also will collect other key information about teaching and learning conditions, including information on school climate such as student, teacher and school leader attendance; disciplinary incidents; or student, parent, or school staff surveys about their school experience.

State-level data systems that link information on teacher and principal preparation programs to the job placement, student growth, and retention outcomes of their graduates.

Second Sidebar

Data Quality Campaign

10 Essential Elements of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems

· A unique statewide student identifier that connects student data across key databases across years

· Student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information

· The ability to match individual students’ test records from year to year to measure academic growth

· Information on untested students and the reasons they were not tested

· A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students

· Student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned

· Student-level college readiness test scores

· Student-level graduation and dropout data

· The ability to match student records between the preK-12 and higher education systems

· A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity and reliability

10 State Actions to Ensure Effective Data Use

· Link state K-12 educational data systems with early learning, postsecondary education, workforce, social services and other critical agencies

· Create stable, sustained support for robust state longitudinal data systems

· Develop governance structures to guide data collection, sharing, and use

· Build state data repositories (e.g., data warehouses) that integrate student, staff, financial, and facility data

· Implement systems to provide all stakeholders with timely access to the information they need while protecting student privacy

· Create progress reports with individual student data that provide information educators, parents, and students can use to improve student performance

· Create reports that include longitudinal statistics on school systems and groups of students to guide school-, district-, and state-level improvement efforts

· Develop a purposeful research agenda and collaborate with universities, researchers, and intermediary groups to explore the data for useful information

· Implement policies and promote practices, including professional development and credentialing, to ensure educators know how to access, analyze, and use data appropriately

· Promote strategies to raise awareness of available data and ensure that all key stakeholders, including state policymakers, know how to access, analyze, and use the information

Data for Action 2011 Empower with Data, Data Quality Campaign

http://dataqualitycampaign.org/files/DFA2011%20Annual%20Report.pdf

States make gains in building data systems

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2011/02/21/states-make-gains-in-building-data-systems/

A 'YES' ON I-1240 WOULD HARM PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Public schools are failing, however charter schools offer no solution to restore the academic foundations, but rather lock in the failures. This is done by removing the elected boards, replacing them with appointees. Our Washington Constitution provides for a recall of elected school officials, but not appointees.

1240 provides two ways to become a state authorizer of charter schools. (1) by appointment of the Governor, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate. (2) by appointment by the State Board of Education. Either way, the authorizers (1) may delegate its responsibilities to employees or contractors (2) must be held free from any liability (3) must follow the chartering policies and practices of the principles and standards of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers who are funded by the Gates Foundation.

Changing the State Constitution requires a citizen vote on its specific language. 1240 deceptively inserts “including charter schools” into Article 9 language, even though Article 9 uses the language, “a general and uniform system.” “A” and “system” are singular terms. Charter schools operate under appointed corporate boards, and are exempt regulations required in traditional schools. Worse, charter schools still require the mandates of the onerous expensive State Essential Academic Learning Systems and assessments, and federal mandates.

1240 attempts to deceive voters into believing the use of a petition signed by either a majority of teachers or parents of students in the district is legal to convert an existing public school into a charter school. A petition is not an election held by all voters of the district. It is taxation without representation. Additionally, both teachers and parents of school students may not even reside there.

A study of charter schools by Stanford showed some charter schools scored 17% higher than traditional schools, 37% lower, the rest about the same. Some “model” KIPP Charter Schools fall below traditional schools and are not renewed, even though students attend 67% longer, and receive about double the funding, courtesy additional Gates grants.

Across the nation there are 130 Gulen Muslim Schools, taught by Turkish Muslims, funded in part by Gates, 100 Confucius Institute Schools , and now GLBT charter schools. How will these students understand our American Republic ?

Numerous charter schools are operated by the very people responsible for destroying the traditional schools. They now benefit economically from managing charter schools. Vote no and work to restore true education in our existing public schools or forever lose that opportunity.

Cris Shardelman

Three Education Acts

Three Education Acts

I have read the summaries of three federal education acts. I have included the URL so you can download a copy of the summary if you want. I am providing my recommendation to support or not support each act. For some acts I make mention of some, but not all, of what the act allows or provides for. This is not exhaustive by any means and only includes those things of most importance and interest to me. You may have a different opinion.

H.R. 2218 Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act

The Student Success Act

Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act

H.R. 2218 Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act

http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_2218_Bill_Summary.pdf

Currently, under ESEA, competitive grants have been awarded states or charter school developers to provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and support the financing of charter school facilities. H.R.2218 will streamline and modernize the Charter School Program to support the start-up, replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools; streamline program funding and administration at the federal and state levels; and promote choice, innovation, and excellence in education.

Recommendation: Do not support. The federal government should not be promoting, supporting, or funding charter schools in any manner. This should be left entirely up to the states without influence of any kind from the federal government.

The Student Success Act

http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/The_Student_Success_Act_Summary.pdf

This act supports the protection of state and local autonomy and limits the authority of the Secretary of Education. This act would end the school improvement grants (SIG) that created and funded four unproven and ineffective turnaround models. This act does away with AYP and repeals federal requirements for highly qualified teacher designation.

Secretary’s Authority: The bill protects state and local autonomy over decisions in the classroom and limits the authority of the Secretary of Education. The legislation: (1) prevents the Secretary from creating additional burdens on states and districts through the regulatory process, particularly in the areas of standards, assessments, and state accountability plans; (2) prohibits the Secretary from supporting efforts around state standards and influencing and coercing states into entering partnerships with other states; and (3) outlines procedures the Secretary must follow when conducting a peer review process for grant applications that will bring greater transparency.

Recommendation: Support. This could be better but it is a move in the right direction.

Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act

http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/The_Encouraging_Innovation_and_Effective_Teachers_Act_Summary.pdf

The majority of the issues addressed in this act are ones the federal government should not be involved in. Many of these issues should be left to the states to address as they see fit. This act calls for making student achievement data a significant part of teacher evaluations. I do not support the use of student achievement data to evaluate teachers. While it sounds great, this is not a reliable way to evaluate teachers. Various reports and questionable research may recommend this but the solid research related to this issue does not recommend this practice. I am okay with this data being used to evaluate schools and districts. This act also calls for performance-based pay. I have been aware of a push for this for more than 25 years and have yet to see a plan or a plan in place that will work in the education arena, especially with teachers.

Recommendation: Do Not Support. Some of the issues in this act should not even be proposed or addressed. Many issues addressed in this act should be left entirely to the states without influence of any kind from the federal government.

Washington’s Charter School Value: Who Benefits?

Washington’s Charter School Value: Who Benefits?

Washington State voters have turned down charter schools three times in the past. Voters twice rejected charter school initiatives and repealed a charter school law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. The charter school issue is back like a persistent kid, not satisfied with an initial rejection of a request for something, who keeps asking until the parents wear down and give in.

The charter school issue is back in the form of HB 2428 and companion SB 6202: Establishing alternative forms of governance for certain public schools. What value is there to having charter schools in Washington State? Will the targeted educationally disadvantaged students across the state benefit from charter schools or will benefits lie elsewhere?

Section 115 of both bills addresses the number of charter schools allowed in the state should this legislation pass.

Sec. 115. NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS. (1) A maximum of fifty charter schools may be established statewide under this chapter. No more than ten charter schools may be established each calendar year. These annual allocations are cumulative so that if the maximum number of allowable new charters is not reached in any given year the maximums are increased accordingly for the successive years, but in no case may the total number exceed fifty without further legislative authorization.

What might these numbers mean in terms of serving the educationally disadvantaged students across the state and the benefits of having charter schools? Consider looking at this in three ways: 1) the number of schools, 2) the enrollment, and 3) the dollars per student.

There are about 1,900 schools in Washington state with an enrollment greater than 100. If 50 of those schools were charter schools, only 2.6% of the schools in the state would be charter schools established with the purpose of meeting the needs of the educationally disadvantaged students across the state.

Consider enrollment in terms of average school enrollment and well above average enrollment. The average enrollment of the nearly 1900 schools in WA is about 540. If each of 50 charter schools had an average enrollment they would serve 27,000 students, or 2.6% of the statewide enrollment of 1,024,711. A school enrollment of 1,500 is well above average with 74 schools in the state, or 4%, of Washington state schools having an enrollment this larger or larger. If each of 50 charter schools had an above average enrollment of 1,500 students, 7,500 students, or 7.3% of Washington students would be served. The estimate of 7.3% is on the high end. 2.6% is more realistic even though it could also be high. Will having charter schools serving a possible 2.6% of the state’s schools or students really address the needs of the educationally disadvantaged students in the state?

(Data in the OSPI Washington State Report Card 2011 Data Files Demographic Information by District was used for the calculations presented above. Schools with enrollment of less than 100 and their student enrollment figures were not used in the above calculations.)

If an approximate amount of $10,000 per student per year of taxpayer’s money is used, the estimated 27,000 students that may be served by charter schools will generate $270,000,000. Who will benefit?

(Washington State School Districts Per Pupil All Expenditure—Four-Year Average by County shows a per FTE expenditure of $9,982.69 for the school 2004-2005 fiscal year. An approximate $10,000 per student per year is used for the calculations presented above.)

President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have called for states with charter schools to lift their caps on the number of charter schools allowed and not limit their growth. Will the pressure, and possible coercion, from the federal level result in a legislature that acquiesces in the future to these demands?

Are parents, voters, taxpayers, and local community members willing to have the state create more layers of bureaucracy without any opportunity for elected representation in the governance of charter schools that likely will serve 2.6% of our schools or students? The current legislation calls for the creation of a commission as a state agency. Commission members will be appointed. Charter schools will have their own appointed or selected board of directors. There is no provision in the legislation for the public to have elected representation in the governance of charter schools. School choice? It is possible that parents of 2.6% of the students in the state will have charter schools as a choice for their child. They will not have, even as a taxpayer and voter, a choice in the governance of a charter school in their local community.

What is the value of charter schools in Washington State? Is it the opportunity that may be provided to the state’s educationally disadvantaged students? Is it the opportunity for nonprofits to capitalize on a possible $10,000 per student? Is it the opportunity provided to for profit corporations? Charter schools’ appointed school boards are allowed to contract with for profit corporations to provide instructional services and manage and operate the schools. Who benefits? Or should the question be who benefits most?

HB 2428 - 2011-12 Establishing alternative forms of governance for certain public schools.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2012&bill=2428

SB 6202 - 2011-12 Establishing alternative forms of governance for certain public schools.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6202&year=2012

Charter school feud to raise its head again in state

http://heraldnet.com/article/20120115/NEWS01/701159917/-1/NEWS02

Designing Smart Charter School Caps

http://www.educationsector.org/publications/designing-smart-charter-school-caps

OSPI Washington State Report Card 2011 Data Files Demographic Information by District

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/DataDownload.aspx

Washington State School Districts Per Pupil All Expenditure—Four-Year Average by County

http://k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/FIN/0405/0405%20pdf%20reports/SDAllFndc.pdf

Click here to download a pdf of this article.

Originally posted at Seattle Education News and Commentary.

CBEO - Chronic Bad Educational Outcomes

CBEO - Chronic Bad Educational Outcomes

by

Charlie Hoff

Does our school district offer “Informed Consent?”

Recently there has been some passionate discussion about “Academic Acceleration” at Federal Way School Board meetings. All of this “Passion” seems to be coming from Jefferson parents which might suggest that parents of the other three high schools are not that involved in their children’s education or this process isn’t happening at these schools.

There are certainly good intentions in what the District is trying to do, but I think they have missed an important step. I would like to use a medical analogy to explain my point.

Suppose your child was not feeling well, so you decided to take him/her to the doctor. The doctor would perform tests which he felt might pin point the problem. Schools do this also.

Suppose that some of the tests the doctor performed suggested that surgery was the best solution. In this case the doctor would likely provide you, the parent, with a list of the options, risks and probable results; then ask you to sign a release form if you elected to have surgery performed.

This in the medical field is called, “Informed Consent.” Unfortunately this isn’t what the school district has done. They have given the tests and then started surgery without the parents’ consent! If a doctor were to do this he would probably face loss of license to practice medicine and a lawsuit!

Now, let’s take this one step further. Suppose you agreed with the doctor and signed the Informed Consent form and the surgery was performed. When you then visited your child in the recovery room you found that not only the surgery had been performed, but the child now has a tattoo of “Sponge Bob” on his forehead!

You ask, “Why?” The surgeon explains that when your child was recovering he/she asked them if they would like this and they said “Kool!” and so they complied. You might get just a little upset and seek a lawyer as you would feel that there was no “Informed Consent.”

Your child now has a ‘Chronic” disfigurement that is likely to have lifelong implications. The lawsuit shouldn’t take long.

Something similar to this is taking place in schools, not just in Federal Way, but in most schools.

1. Your child is tested and then a “Plan” (like a surgery) is undertaken. Informed Consent? Probably not! Possible long term (chronic) implications? Certainly!

2. If your child believes that this “Plan” isn’t right for them can they change it to make it more “fun,” or make it “easier,” or to get in the right lunch period, or avoid a “hard teacher. The school will probably be willing to do this. Implications that may be “chronic” could result but this isn’t a consideration. “Informed Consent?” I don’t think so.

Lawsuit in the making? Probably, but you wouldn’t want to try! Herein lies one of the greatest weaknesses of our education system. We aren’t looking at what goes on in schools with the same level of seriousness that we look for in a doctor’s office, yet the implications can be as serious to our children as medical neglect.

“Chronic bad educational outcomes” (CBEO) is a “disease that is in epidemic proportions in America!

The solution here in Federal Way is to INSIST ON INFORMED CONSENT! There are school districts in America that have done this and the results are spectacular.

Let us remember that our children entering high school are minors and therefore are not legally allowed to make major decisions. Decisions made by them, without vested adult consultation, can lead to “chronically” bad outcomes. (CBEO)

Let’s stamp out CBEO in Federal Way by insisting that all parents have full “Informed Consent!”

Published with permission of the author, Charlie Hoff.

What Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Should Know

What Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Should Know About

The Common Core $tate $tandards

…that perhaps they aren’t being told

What are the Common Core State Standards?

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of learning standards in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. These standards, if adopted by a state, will replace existing state standards in these subject areas.

Who developed the Common Core State Standards? When?

The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) together formed the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) to develop a set of academic standards to be used in common across all states.

In Spring 2009, governors and chief state school officers (state superintendents) of all but two states signed a Common Core Standards Memorandum of Agreement. This committed their states to voluntary participation in a process leading to the development and adoption of the CCSS. In July 2009 the initiative released some names of people involved in developing the standards. Work on the standards did not involve the public, and some interested organizations were shut out of the process. In September, a draft of the College and Career Readiness Standards was released. The first and only public draft of the K-12 Common Core State Standards for ELA and math was released in March 2010. The final K-12 CCSS was released in June 2010.

With support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, private corporations--including assessment and publishing companies--funded the development of the standards. Do you suppose publishers have anything to gain?

The Common Core State Standards:

• · May not align with state adopted or recommended textbooks. $$$
• · May not align with textbooks already adopted, purchased, and in use by local school districts. $$$
• · Will require extensive expensive professional development. In most states, these costs will be borne by local school districts. $$$
• · Are not internationally benchmarked.
• · Have embedded pedagogy or “how to teach” information. That embedded pedagogy coupled with yet to be developed assessments will determine what and how teachers should teach.

The CCSS Mathematics Standards:

• · Delay development of some key concepts and skills.
• · Include significant mathematical sophistication written at a level beyond understanding of most parents, students, administrators, decision makers and many teachers.
• · Lack coherence and clarity to be consistently interpreted by students, parents, teachers, administrators, curriculum developers, textbook developers/publishers, and assessment developers. Will this lead to consistent expectations and equity?
• · Have standards inappropriately placed, including delayed requirement for standard algorithms, which will hinder student success and waste valuable instructional time.
• · Treat important topics unevenly. This will result in inefficient use of instructional and practice time.
• · Are not well organized at the high school level. Some important topics are insufficiently covered. The standards are not divided into defined courses.
• · Place emphasis on Standards for Mathematical Practice which supports a constructivist approach. This approach is typical of “reform” math programs to which many parents across the country object.
• · Publishers of reform programs are aligning them with the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice. The CCSS will not necessarily improve the math programs being used in many schools.

The Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (ELA):

• · Use confusing language in some standards.
• · Are not always clear or measureable on expected student outcomes.
• · Are not always organized in a logical way and are difficult to follow.
• · Treat literary elements inconsistently.
• · Have some writing standards that are general and do not specify what a student should be able to know or do.
• · Focus on skills over content in reading.
• · Do not address or require cursive writing.

Will the Adoption of the CCSS be Beneficial or Detrimental for Students, Parents, Taxpayers, and Local School Districts?

Adopting the CCSS takes control of educational content and standards away from parents, taxpayers, local school districts, and states. The CCSS were produced by a closed group and conditionally approved by many states without public review. The NGA and CCSSO, both non-government groups, own the copyright protected CCSS. Control over changes to the CCSS will lie in the hands of so called “experts” outside local school district, state, and the federal government jurisdiction.

Public education is a state responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the federal government. States should not turn over their rights or responsibilities to the direction and influence of non-government organizations or the federal government.

States have had state standards under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for several years now. There is no evidence from this experience that this allowed students to move from one district to another with minimal interruption of their instructional program. Even with common standards, there will remain wide variances between classrooms, schools, districts, and states. Common standards within states under NCLB did not result in consistency and collaboration among districts within states. Why should we believe the CCSS would bring this about across district and state lines?

Adoption of the CCSS will result in greater turmoil and confusion for teachers and students. It will result in a loss of learning time and have a negative effect on test results. There will be a delay in students meeting new standards resulting in the possible need for a delay in graduation requirements.

The CCSS represents a massive unevaluated experiment with our students for which they and their parents have been ill informed and have had no opportunity for input. The CCSS are untested and unevaluated in the classroom. The proposed CCSS should undergo rigorous testing in a limited number of districts before adoption and implementation statewide or nationwide.

Some Validation Committee members would not sign off on the CCSS. Don’t you wonder why, especially when these standards have been promoted as being so wonderful?

Will the CCSS be Assessed?

The U.S. Department of Education (USED) has provided over $350 million in grant funds to two consortia for assessment development. The consortia are the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). States adopting the CCSS may belong to and use the assessment from one consortium.

Both consortia appear poised to develop subjective assessments rather than objective tests. SBAC plans to assess deep disciplinary understanding and higher-order thinking skills. Will either PARCC or SBAC test student content knowledge and skill?

The assessments will be computer based. The consortia claim this will reduce costs for states. While it may reduce state costs, it will increase costs for local school districts, as they will need to have adequate computer equipment and network capacity throughout the year for students to have frequent access and experience with the computer assessment interface.

Computer assessments may not have the same validity and reliability as paper and pencil tests. It will be several years before results will reflect what the assessment intends, rather than student ability to use the assessment technology.

High achieving students benefit more from computer assessments in terms of performance than low achieving students. This does not sound like it will help close the achievement gap.

Implementation Schedule for CCSS and Assessments

Some states may begin implementing the CCSS as early as the 2011-12 school year. Other states may have a multi-year process to phase in the implementation of the CCSS. In most cases, the CCSS will be implemented by the 2013-2014 school year.

The full administration of the assessments will take place in the 2014-15 school year. Some assessment field tests will begin in the 2012-2013 school year.

Check with your state education agency for your state’s implementation timeline.

The Common Core $tate $tandards Adoption and Implementation Costs

Local school districts and states must provide the funds to adopt and implement the CCSS. The federal government is not providing the necessary funds since states voluntarily make the decision as to whether they adopt or not. States receiving Race to the Top (RTTT) funds may use some of those funds to implement the CCSS.

Estimated implementation costs have been exorbitant. The estimated costs for California exceeded the amount the state would have received in RTTT funds. California was not awarded any RTTT funds.

Estimated implementation costs have ranged from $183 million in Washington State for approximately 1 million students to $1.6 billion in California for more than 6 million students.

Many states adopting the CCSS are only funding a small portion of the costs at the state level. Local school districts in Washington State will be responsible for 90.6% of the estimated statewide implementation costs.

Many local school districts and state governments are dealing with severe budget shortfalls. How can they justify making an ongoing costly commitment?

Local school districts will be responsible for the technology equipment, related personnel, and network capacity upgrade costs required for the CCSS assessments.

Is your state making a major commitment on behalf of local school boards without showing or ascertaining that funds are available to meet the fiscal obligation?

Is it fiscally responsible for states to make major financial commitments without first determining if they, and the local school districts, can meet the obligation? Can your state identify dedicated revenues equal to or greater than estimated adoption and implementation expenses?

It is your taxpayer dollar paying the implementation costs whether local, state, or federal money is used. Taxpayers need to guard their wallets and bank accounts. The local school districts and states may find it necessary to raise taxes.

What Can Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Do?

• · Inform yourself and make your voice heard at the local, state, and national level.
• · Talk to your local teachers about the CCSS. See when they became aware of the initiative and if they feel they had clear opportunities for input as the standards were developed.
• · Talk to community members. If they are not aware of the CCSS, inform them.
• · Show others the current state standards and the CCSS side by side for a given grade level. Have them compare and see which they prefer.
• · Campaign against and vote no on school bond and levy issues.
• · Attend and speak at school board meetings.
• · Establish websites and blogs to inform others.
• · Write opinion pieces and letters to the editor.
• · Opt your child out of state testing.
• · Opt your child out of any testing done on the computer. Request that tests/assessments for your child be paper and pencil.
• · Conduct community forums and town hall meetings.
• · Call in to radio talk shows. Host one if possible.
• · Request local school board and the state education agency to post check registers online so all can easily see and examine expenditures.
• · Find out how many school administrators, school board members, legislators, and elected officials send their children to private or charter schools.
• · Keep your child home from school on head count day if your state has such a day that determines funding based on attendance.
• · Question the constitutionality of RTTT/CCSS and other federal education reform measures at every opportunity.
• · Ask your school board to refuse to implement the CCSS and refuse to submit to the related assessments.
• · Ask local school board and state officials to show how they expect to pay the estimated cost of implementing the CCSS.

Act at the Local, State, and National Level

• · Contact state legislators and request legislation to revoke or delay the adoption and implementation of the CCSS.
• · Contact state legislators and request legislation banning your state from further participation in either assessment consortia.
• · Ask your state education officials to improve existing state standards if necessary, write new standards, or adopt excellent proven standards with corresponding assessments from Massachusetts, California, or Indiana.
• · Ask your State Attorney General to examine the legality of the government’s position.
• · Ask your U.S. Congressmen to stop funding Race to the Top and any other federal funding that may support the implementation of the CCSS,
• · Ask your U.S. Congressmen to not support the reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB.
• · Act legally and take action you are comfortable with to get your local, state, and national officials to stop the adoption and implementation of the CCSS.

Stop the CCSS Bus

Halt the push for federal and corporate control of our children’s public school classrooms.

Citizens United for Responsible Education of Washington State, Missouri Education Watchdog, Mathematically Sound Foundations, The Underground Parent, and the U.S. Coalition for World Class Math independently object to the adoption and implementation of the CCSS.

Download this as a colorful pdf by clicking here.