Say NO! to a massive corporate giveaway in the budget bill, and a video of Middletown HS students on this outrage

Dear parents:   PLEASE call your legislators in Albany today and urge them to vote NO on the state budget bill!  

On Monday, the Legislature will be voting on a budget that favors charter schools over public schools, provides them considerably more funds per student , bans charging charters rent or facility fees, and will guarantee any new or expanding charter free space in NYC  public school buildings – or the city has to build or rent them facilities out of taxpayer funds. NYC will be the ONLY place in the country where the district will be obligated to provide free space for ANY new or expanded charter in the future.   

The bill also contains very weak provisions on protecting student privacy, and it is not even clear if it would stop inBloom.  For more on the bill's inept and deceptive privacy provisions see our blog here. 

It is rather amazing that while Cuomo has deliberately refused to provide our schools with equitable funding or the ability to reduce class size -- which the state's highest court deemed necessary for students to receive their constitutional right to a sound, basic education -- he is instead allowing hedge funders and corporate interests to hijack the space in our schools and our children's personal data.

Please contact your legislators today in Albany today, and ask them to tell their leaders that this massive giveaway to corporate interests should not go forward -- or they should vote no on the budget.

Your Assemblymember's contact info is here; your Senator is here.  Meanwhile, the students of Middletown HS in NY say it better than I do.  See their video below.

What does the state budget bill do in regards inBloom and student privacy? Not much.

The  budget bill, due to be voted on Monday, deals  with student privacy in an inept and confusing way; the privacy provisions read as though they were written by a 3^rd year law student at 1 AM in the morning, who understands nothing about the issue.   We saw the language late last week, and provided lots of suggested improvements, none of which were taken.

Though it seems to ban inBloom, by preventing the state from sharing personal data with any “Shared Learning infrastructure service provider” or “SLISP” –that is, a company which is storing the information for the purpose of providing it to a data dashboard provider, inBloom is not described as such in the state’s service agreement.  The state’s plan to share data with inBloom could presumably survive as long as it purports to be a storage facility for as yet unstated purposes, or to provide data for other specified uses, such as personalized learning tools.  (The full language of the bill is here: just search “"SHARED LEARNING INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE PROVIDER” to find the privacy section.) The best part is around the strong encryption standards, which are taken straight from the O'Donnell/Robach bill, and are the same as required by HIPAA in handling health care data.

On the other hand, as opposed to that bill, full indemnification for breaches is not required, and instead, the penalties are absurdly weak – for example, the maximum fine for failing to report breaches is $5000, which is pocket money for most vendors, including inBloom, built with $100 million of Gates money.

In addition, much of the language appears to be taken from the ALEC bill on privacy, including a privacy officer who would be appointed by yes, the Commissioner.   

This privacy officer would write a “parent bill of rights” under the direction of the Commissioner, who as far as we can tell does not believe that parents have any rights at all.  

It includes lots of silly language designed to assuage fears in a very deceptive way, for example, prohibiting the release of disability status or student suspension data unless allowed under FERPA – when, of course, if this was prohibited by FERPA it would already be illegal to disclose this information.

The only mention of parental opt out or consent is for redisclosures from vendors to other vendors, and even that is hedged because it says redisclosures without consent can occur if the vendors call the other vendors their “authorized representatives”  for the purpose of carrying out the contract.  Thus a child’s personal information could be handed off from one vendor to another, without consent, notification, or restriction. 

A very bad bill and one that gives parents too little rights to protect their children and too much discretion to NYSED with no oversight.  In short, we shall have to fight even harder in the future to protect student privacy, either by law or by regulations, as SED develops regs moving forward.  

Below are the comments of our brilliant pro-bono privacy consultant, Barmak Nassirian, reprinted here with his consent.  Barmak is somewhat more optimistic than I am that these provisions represent progress.  Then again, he doesn’t know the devious ways of the State Education Department as I do, or their preference for complying with the priorities of their for-profit “partners” over the public school parents and children, whose interests they were appointed to serve.

From: Barmak Nassirian:  Leonie asked me for edits to strengthen and clarify the language, none of which seem to have been taken.

The language is unnecessarily wordy, meandering, sloppy and confused. Part K very narrowly targets inBloom-type arrangements, but seems oblivious to the possibility that the same kind of data sharing, if simply described differently and justified on other (equally as dubious) grounds, would not be caught by this language. ("Authorized representative" would be the most obvious way to evade this language.)

… I think the Chief Privacy Officer language and the parents' bill of rights will prove pretty useless and create nothing but evasive essays on how good a job the Department is doing. In creating exemptions for disclosures that comply with FERPA, the bill essentially reverts back to status quo, and really doesn't add any privacy protections beyond what federal law already provides. It actually muddies the waters significantly by referring to third-party "assignees" and to contractors' "authorized representatives," which implicitly (and probably unknowingly) suggests that cascading re-disclosures (from one contractor to sub-contractors) would be acceptable. 

For all of its faults, the bill's Subsection (5)(F) does take all of our proposed contractor-qualification language and seems to apply it to all third-parties. .... Our language only mandated these requirements on contractors obtaining non-consensual disclosures.

Despite all of its numerous imperfections I would still see this as a step in the right direction. Obviously, it would be great if we could clean it up, but I assume that is no longer in the cards. This language, as is, will throw a monkey wrench in SED's plans and give parents numerous new arguments to throw sand in the machinery of Big Data.

The MOST onerous charter law in the nation: State Budget Set to Divert NYC Public School Funds for Charter School Rent

The proposed budget bill was posted online overnight.  The bill will require the NYC public schools to either allow space for new or expanding charter schools in our buildings or pay for market-rate rent out of our budget.  Parents should contact their Assembly member and insist they vote against this bill.  The loss of funds diverted to charters will come directly from our classrooms.  

[note from LH:  also call your Senators and tell them to vote NO.  This is the most onerous charter school law in the nation.  As far as I know, NYC is the ONLY place in the country where the district will be obligated to provide free space for ANY new or expanded charter that wants it.  The Legislature in their wisdom gave Michael Bloomberg maximal mayoral control when we had a mayor who wanted to maximize public space for private corporations; and took it away when a mayor was overwhelmingly elected who ran against charter co-locations -- recognizing their divisive nature and the fact that our schools are already hugely overcrowded.  Nevertheless, according to sources, the mayor and his people were nowhere to be found when the deal was made, and put up no resistance to this devastating law, cooked up by the Governor and his billionaire contributors. 

I expect nearly all new schools in NYC to be built or leased with public funds in the future will be charters -- as we have 52 more coming until we reach the cap; and parents will have no choice but to apply to them.  The NYC School Construction Authority should be renamed the NYC Charter School Construction Authority.)

Added comment from Patrick:

There's an alliance of wealthy NYC financiers, suburban Republicans, the governor and many Democrats that says urban children should be educated by publicly funded schools controlled by private boards.   They've given charter schools higher per capita funding, free rent and unlimited private donations.   There will be two school systems serving very different populations.  In many ways we are returning to the school system as it existing before the creation of the public schools in the 19th century when Governor Seward took control from private boards and gave it to the elected Board of Education.

Response from Diane Ravitch: Patrick, the private boards in the 19th century educated the poorest and street urchins. I would say we are reverting to pre-Brown v Board--a dual school system. One chooses its students, the other must accept all. 

Links to the bill can be found on the Assembly web site here.

Language on rent can be found on page 71:

  21    S 5. Subdivision 3 of section 2853 of the education law is amended  by
   22  adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
   23    (E)  IN  A  CITY  SCHOOL DISTRICT IN A CITY HAVING A POPULATION OF ONE
   24  MILLION  OR  MORE  INHABITANTS,  CHARTER  SCHOOLS  THAT  FIRST  COMMENCE
   25  INSTRUCTION  OR  THAT  REQUIRE  ADDITIONAL  SPACE DUE TO AN EXPANSION OF
   26  GRADE LEVEL, PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, APPROVED BY THEIR CHARTER  ENTITY
   27  FOR THE TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN--TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN SCHOOL YEAR OR THER-
   28  EAFTER  AND  REQUEST  CO-LOCATION  IN  A PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDING SHALL BE
   29  PROVIDED ACCESS TO FACILITIES PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH FOR SUCH  CHAR-
   30  TER  SCHOOLS  THAT FIRST COMMENCE INSTRUCTION OR THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
   31  SPACE DUE TO AN EXPANSION OF GRADE  LEVEL,  PURSUANT  TO  THIS  ARTICLE,
   32  APPROVED BY THEIR CHARTER ENTITY FOR THOSE GRADES NEWLY PROVIDED.
   33    (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, WITHIN
   34  THE  LATER  OF  (I) FIVE MONTHS AFTER A CHARTER SCHOOL'S WRITTEN REQUEST
   35  FOR CO-LOCATION AND (II) THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CHARTER SCHOOL'S  CHARTER
   36  IS  APPROVED  BY  ITS  CHARTER  ENTITY,  THE  CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL
   37  EITHER: (A) OFFER AT NO COST TO THE CHARTER SCHOOL A CO-LOCATION SITE IN
   38  A PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDING APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AS  PROVIDED
   39  BY  LAW,  OR  (B) OFFER THE CHARTER SCHOOL SPACE IN A PRIVATELY OWNED OR
   40  OTHER PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
   41  AND AT NO COST TO THE CHARTER SCHOOL.  THE  SPACE  MUST  BE  REASONABLE,
   42  APPROPRIATE  AND  COMPARABLE  AND IN THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BE
   43  SERVED BY THE CHARTER SCHOOL AND OTHERWISE IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY.

Please say no to this budget deal; Call the Speaker & your Assemblymember NOW!

According to today’s NY Post, the legislature is about to make the worst possible deal imaginable: considerably more per pupil funding for charters, including more than $1100 per student over three years, and free space or rent paid for by NYC  for any new or expanding  NYC charter going forward – just in NYC, by the way, where we have the most overcrowded schools in the state, with more than half our students sitting in extremely overcrowded schools by the DOE’s own metrics, which we know are an underestimate.

Thousands of kids on waiting lists for Kindergarten each spring, thousands more sitting in trailers, and the capital plan provides less than one third of the seats needed to eliminate current overcrowding and address future enrollment growth.  But charters will be guaranteed the space to expand – paid for by city taxpayers, while our public school students  are crushed into larger and larger classes with less space to learn.

Call the Speaker’s office now:  tell him to say NO to the deal forcing the city to pay for facilities forever for new or expanded charters, while public school students will sit in increasingly overcrowded buildings.

Speaker Silver: (518) 455-3791

Then call your Assemblymember and urge them to say NO to this deal as well; find their contact info here:

If this deal goes forward, this will truly create a two tier system in which the charter schools will  be the only ones in uncrowded facilities, with the rent paid for by NYC taxpayers, and all parents will be forced to apply to charter schools whether they want to or not,  just to guarantee a seat for their child in a school that is not hugely overcrowded.

Please call the Speaker's office and your Assemblymember now.

New video: Why NYC parents are refusing the test! Deny them the data!

See the great new video below made by filmmaker Michael Elliot, explaining why so many NYC parents are having their children refuse the state exams this year.

Today the DOE came out with a new fact sheet about the consequences for those students opting out of the exams, due to start next week.  It makes clear that there will be NO negative consequences for your child:"If, after consulting with the principal, the parents still want to opt their child out of the exams, the principal should respect the parents' decision and let them know that the school will work to the best of their ability to provide the child with an alternate educational activity (eg reading) during these times."

A sample opt out letter to send to your principal is here.   Along with all the other reasons these parents provide for protecting their children from all the stress and pressure, opting out will also deny inBloom and the other vendors the test score data and proficiency levels for your child that the state plans to disclose.   The test scores are the most valuable data to them, for their unreliable teacher evaluation systems, commercial data-mining schemes, and invalid measures of school success.

Have your child refuse the test, if you want to protest and add your voice against the dangerous trend of collecting, tracking and data-mining children without parental consent.

For other information about opting out, check out Change the Stakes and NYS Allies for Public Education.

Letter to Assembly about their proposed elimination of the Contracts for Excellence as well as any obligation to reduce class size

Today we sent a letter to Assembly leaders, strongly protesting their proposal to eliminate all traces of the Contracts for Excellence (C4E) from the state budget.  

Why they have done this I have no idea, especially as the C4E law is one of the few remaining traces of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) lawsuit.  The C4E provisions mandate that the city submit an annual plan on how they intend to spend these funds, meant to provide our children with their constitutional right to an adequate education, including a plan to reduce class size, and hold hearings at which parents are able to provide their comments on the city's plan. 

Eliminating the law would be incredibly damaging and hamper our efforts to get the city to live up to its legal and ethical commitments as regards class size reduction; it is also one of the few vehicles to provide parent input and transparency in the spending of these precious education dollars.

The letter is co-signed by CFE, now housed at the Education Law Center, and the Alliance for Quality Education, along with Class Size Matters.  Instead of eliminating C4E, the Legislature should strengthen it and fully fund it. 

The press release and letter are below.

ADVOCACY GROUPS CALL ON LEGISLATURE TO SAFEGUARD PARENTS' RIGHTS

Today, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Project of the Education Law Center, the Alliance for Quality Education, and Class Size Matters called on New York's legislative leaders to preserve and strengthen the Contract for Excellence (C4E) law.

The C4E law, passed alongside New York's landmark 2007 Foundation Aid funding formula, was designed to promote transparency, accountability and parent participation in decisions on how school aid is spent in the state's public schools. It also requires districts receiving additional aid to develop a spending plan, with public input, targeting funds to programs identified as essential to provide students with a constitutional sound basic education. These include small class size, preschool, full-day kindergarten, and interventions for at-risk students. The law also mandates district audits so the public can verify that the money has been spent effectively and efficiently on staff, programs and services addressing critical student needs.

The New York State Assembly has proposed completely eliminating the C4E law, while the Senate has proposed maintaining its provisions only for New York City.

"The C4E law is the only mechanism to ensure that parents have a say in how vital education dollars are spent in their children's schools, and the only way parents can hold school districts accountable for providing the resources that matter, " said Wendy Lecker, Senior Attorney for the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Project.

"It is truly unfortunate that the Assembly would consider eliminating the Contract for Excellence, given how it is the only law requiring parent input into the spending of precious education dollars to provide children a constitutional education," said Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters. "Instead of ditching the law, the Legislature and the Governor should strengthen its accountability provisions and fully fund it. Let's not take away one of the few avenues for parents to have a voice in their children's education."

Education Law Center Press Contact:

Sharon Krengel

Policy and Outreach Director

skrengel@edlawcenter.org

973-624-1815, x 24 

Letter to Legislative Leaders Re C4E Law