New $6M Gates grant to Amplify, DOE and NYU MetroCenter; time to ask what personal data Amplify holds for your child!

Last month, the Gates Foundation awarded a $6 million grant to the DOE’s Fund for Public Schools, Amplify, and the NYU MetroCenter “to develop R&D tools and related instructional strategies.”

I wonder why Amplify is involved; are they supposed help develop these R&D tools? And how much money are each of these organizations receiving? The grant notice does not say.

It is amazing how many different Amplify products are being used in NYC schools that collect and use personal student data – with little information made available at about which student personally identifiable information (PII) is being collected, how that data is being shared and how it will be protected.  

New York Ed Law 2-D and its authorizing regulations require rigorous transparency and disclosure to parents about the protection and use of their children’s personal data, through a Parent Bills of Rights for each vendor agreement; and each of these PBORs are mandated to be posted on the district’s website.

There is no mention of either Amplify or NYU MetroCenter on the page disclosing agreements with researchers that have access to personal data. On the vendor page, the requisite Amplify Parent Bill of Rights agreement says this about which types of personally identifiable information (PII) the company  is provided access to "Type of PII that the Entity will  receive/access: Student PII."   

Which says nothing.

As to which of Amplify’s products and programs access student PII, it says the following: “Amplify Education Inc. (“Amplify”) provides core curriculum and supplemental programs and services in ELA, math, and science, and formative assessment products in early reading and math….”

The page goes on to list at least 15 different Amplify products in every subject but social studies.  

One of them is described this way: Amplify Math for grades 6–8 and Algebra 1 is a 100% blended core program based on Illustrative Mathematics IM K–12 Math. Chalkbeat recently reported that DOE intends to roll out a "standardized algebra curriculum from Illustrative Mathematics in at least 150 high schools" next year.

Instead of describing how the data will be secured, instead the webpage says the following: 

Describe the administrative technical and/or physical safeguards to ensure PII will be protected and how the Entity will mitigate data privacy and security risks.  [DOE comment: In its agreement, Amplify outlines in detail how it meets the COSO principles. Please contact studentprivacy@schools.nyc.gov if you would like a copy of this information.]

FYI, COSO stands for “Committee of Sponsoring Organizations” which is not fully congruent, as far as I understand it, with the process and procedures required by the law.

I urge parents to ask DOE exactly how Amplify is protecting your child's data, as well as what data elements they currently hold for your child, which is also your right under the law, as the webpage says:

“In accordance with N.Y. Education Law 2-d, parents, students, eligible students, teachers, or principals may seek copies of their PII, or seek to challenge the accuracy of PII in the custody or control of the Entity. Typically, they can do so by contacting the NYC DOE using the email address or mailing address below.”  [studentprivacy@schools.nyc.gov]

We drafted a sample email you can send to DOE, which is below. According to Ed Law 2-D, parents have  the right to receive this information within a “reasonable period, but not more than 45 calendar days.”  So please keep track.

Once you receive the data from DOE and/or Amplify,  you also have the right to challenge it if you think its inaccurate. In any event, you should also ask that all the data that Amplify holds for your child be deleted at the end of the school year.  The posted Amplify Parent Bill of Rights says that the data will be deleted under the following conditions:

• whenever requested by the DOE
• whenever the entity no longer needs the PII to provide services to the DOE
• whenever a DOE school or office ceases use of a product or service of the entity, for the PII that pertains to that school or office
• no later than upon termination of this Agreement

The agreement, however, doesn’t say when it terminates, contrary to the law and the regs which require that  “the contract’s expiration date” be disclosed. 

The Amplify PBOR adds the following:  “to the extent practicable, it will not retain PII for more than one school year after the school year in which the data was received” without explaining what would make deletion practicable or not.

A little history regarding Gates Foundation’s decade-long involvement with Amplify, for those who may be interested:

Founded as Wireless Generation, Amplify was acquired by Rupert Murdoch for News Corporation for $360 million in cash in 2010.  At  the same time, he appointed former DOE Chancellor Joel Klein as  its CEO.  Murdoch invested $1 billion in the company, and in 2011, it was revealed that Wireless/Amplify was supposed to build the NY State student data system through a $27 million no-bid contract awarded by then- NYSED Commissioner John King. As part of its supposed qualifications to create this system,  NYSED wrote the NY State Comptroller that Wireless had created the $80 million NYC student data system called ARIS, which is rather funny because by that point, ARIS was widely acknowledged to have been an useless if expensive boondoggle.

When advocates like CSM, along with NYSUT and many others,  protested this agreement because of privacy concerns, amplified by reports of News Corp involvement in the UK phone hacking scandal, NYS Comptroller DiNapoli announced he was cancelling the contract on August 27, 2011.

A few weeks earlier,  Vicki Phillips, then director of education for the Gates Foundation, had announced on the Gates website the creation of an "amazing" new software program that resembled a "huge app store … with the Netflix and Facebook capabilities we love the most."  She revealed that Wireless Generation was the vendor chosen for this Gates project, which at the time was called the Shared Learning Collaborative.  She wrote that Wireless  would “build the open software that will allow states to access a shared, performance-driven marketplace of free and premium tools and content.”

Shortly after this, I wrote the first blog post criticizing this venture, pointing out the controversy then raging concerning the proposed Wireless contract  to build NY student data system.

In the months that followed, the Gates Foundation invested $100 million in the massive data project, called the Shared Learning Collaborative (SLC), and boasted that nine states and districts had agreed to share their personal student data with them, including NY State and NYC, with more to come.  

 In February 2013, the SLC was spun off into a separate corporation called InBloom Inc., with Amplify as its prime contractor, which would collect, sort and systematize a massive amount of personally identifiable student data, so that inBloom could deliver it in an easily digestible form to companies, to help them build their tools  around the data and accelerate the expansion and development of the ed tech market.  

Yet within a year, nearly every state and district that had planned to share data with Gates and inBloom had pulled out, after parents rebelled against the whole notion of a private company holding so much of their children's personal data.  Their anger was especially provoked by the provision in the Gates-drafted agreements that neither the Gates Foundation nor inBloom would have any legal responsibility if the data was breached either in storage or transmission. 

 NY State was the last state to pull out of inBloom, and it took an act of the State Legislature to do so, which finally happened as part of the state budget agreement in March 2014.  At the same time,  the Legislature passed the comprehensive student privacy bill, Education Law 2-d.  As NY State was its last customer, inBloom shut its doors in April 2014. A more detailed timeline of these events is here.

As to Amplify, the company kept losing money. In 2013, I had an amusing interchange with Murdoch on Twitter when it was reported that the company had already lost $80 million.  I pointed this fact out to him and said it was certain to lose more, to which he responded, saying  “@amplify not losing money. Not even in business yet.”   

Yet in 2015, it was revealed that Amplify lost an additional $371M.  That year, Murdoch sold it at a huge loss to a “team of 11 Amplify executives” that included Joel Klein.  This group later sold the business to Laurene Powell Jobs at an undisclosed price, though “the company’s top management...picked up a minority position in the Brooklyn-based company as part of the deal.” So, it’s possible that Klein still owns a piece of the business.

How much Amplify was counting on inBloom to keep it solvent one can only guess, but it suffered other disasters over this period as well. With great fanfare, the company produced an educational tablet to be used in schools, preloaded with various curriculum and programs that were supposed to revolutionize education.  Instead, the tablets’ screens easily cracked and their chargers overheated and melted.

Here is a sample letter to you can send to DOE, asking what data Amplify holds for your child, and how it is being protected.  Please let me know if you do, and if you get a response by emailing me at info@studentprivacymatters.org thanks!  Leonie .

________________________

To: studentprivacy@schools.nyc.gov

To whom it may concern,

My name is [name], and I am the parent of [name] who attends [x grade] in [what school], at this address [address].

As stated on the DOE webpage concerning the agreement with Amplify, and in accordance with Ed Law 2-D, I am requesting information on which “administrative, technical and/or physical safeguards to ensure PII will be protected” are being employed by the company for each of its products, and how Amplify will “mitigate data privacy and security risks.”

I also demand that you provide me with copies of all of the personal information that Amplify holds for my child through the use of any of its products, as is also my right under Ed Law 2-D and its regulations. According to §121.12 (e),  “Educational agencies shall comply with a request for access to records within a reasonable period, but not more than 45 calendar days after receipt of a request.”

Thank you,

Your name, address, phone no., and email.

Problems with DOE Contracts including lack of information on vendors or those with problematic records and unanswered questions re E-rate consent decreee and Amplify

Leonie Haimson and Patrick Sullivan of the Citizens Contracts Oversight Committee provided the following comments to the members of the Panel for Educational Policy on the proposed DOE contracts to be voted on May 18, 2016. 

If you would like to join our oversight committee, please email us at NYCschoolcontractwatch@gmail.com. Those interested in sending the PEP their own comments can do so by May 17, 2016 at 6:00 PM. Their email addresses are here;

panel@schools.nyc.gov, fbaptiste@schools.nyc.gov, ecleveland@schools.nyc.gov, vleung@schools.nyc.gov, lpodvesker@schools.nyc.gov, lzingmond@schools.nyc.gov, ICarmignani@schools.nyc.gov, ddillingham@schools.nyc.gov, kpaynehanks@schools.nyc.gov, mzorrillaaristy@schools.nyc.gov, bshuldiner@schools.nyc.gov, GLinnen@schools.nyc.gov

Comments on DOE Contracts due to be voted on May 18, 2016

5/15/16

Submitted by Leonie Haimson and Patrick Sullivan on behalf of the Citizens Contract Oversight Committee  

Contact: NYCschoolcontractwatch@gmail.com

As you can see from our comments below, we continue to find problems with the many non-transparent proposed contracts, with no vendor names or amounts listed, with several preK and special education contracts to be awarded vendors with spotty backgrounds, and the proliferation of professional development contracts with unclear value. 

We also have unresolved questions about DOE’s compliance with the E-rate consent decree as well as with the proposed contract with Amplify for Core Knowledge.

Continued lack of transparency with PreK contracts

Items #2, 3, 4, 14, 19, 22 (pp.6-8, 62, 76, 83): There are serious issues with the practice of withholding full information about the preK contracts, which appears to violate the promise made by DOE to CM Rosenthal and others, after it was determined the inflated contract with Computer Consultant Specialists contract would be rejected by City Hall, after the PEP had approved it. 

At that time, the DOE promised that full information would be provided to the public about every proposed contract at least a month before the PEP vote. See the Juan Gonzalez column about the Lanham scandal, dated December 23, 2015:

“Tweed will even post information on all bids on its website 30 days before the scheduled vote by the panel, and has committed to do the same with other contracts.”

This lack of transparency could also serve to obscure that some of these vendors may have engaged in problematic activities.  In addition, no information is made available on Item #22, including its cost: “Amend contracts to provide Pre-K for All certified lead teacher incentives” and about Item #14: “Addendum to UPK Contracts (Close outs).”  For what reason are these amounts unavailable?

See also Item #4 – to provide funds for preK in charter schools. These charter schools should be identified in advance -- especially as some have been shown to engage in abusive disciplinary and push-out practices.

Problems with Special Education provider contracts

Item #5 (p. 9): These contracts are for services for students with special needs. They're retroactive but no justification is offered for why they're being approved after the services have begun. The DOE notes there is a "very competitive market" to provide these services, which make it even more confusing why they seek to contract with so many vendors who have problematic backgrounds.

This is especially true of Yeled v'Yalda Early Childhood Services for counseling, physical therapy and occupational therapy in English and Yiddish across all boroughs. This firm had serious negative audit findings in a report released by the State Comptroller just a few months ago, including submission of fraudulent expenses. See the NY Post article here and the full audit here.

Moreover the RA omits any information about the audit -- despite claiming otherwise:

"Comprehensive background checks were completed for all vendors whose contracts have estimated amounts exceeding $1 million over three years. While the background checks have not been completed for all vendors, no contract will be submitted to the Comptroller for registration until the background check is complete. Should noteworthy information become known to the DOE after the Panel meeting, it will be reported to the Panel."

But what difference does it make to let the Panel know after they have approved the contract already?  Then there is the following statement, which seems to contradict the one above, unless they  mean "more than $1 million" instead of less:

"For the background checks completed for vendors awarded contracts less than $1 million, Mayor’s Office of Contract Services’ advice of Caution database, DOE files and Vendex submissions were reviewed for the remainder. No significant adverse information has been revealed to date except as noted below."

Contracts for Professional Development services of questionable value 

Items #7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 24: There are many Professional Development contracts aligned to the Common Core of uncertain value, especially as the state has said the standards are in the process of being revised.

# 17 describes a retroactive contract for over $1M to provide training for Renewal schools, in the form of “Math Solutions”, a program owned by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. HMH is suspected of involvement in a kickback scheme in Detroit and  possibly Chicago; see Chicago Sun Times, NPR and Detroit Free Press. Excerpt from the link above: 

“FBI agent Joseph Jensen wrote that there was "probable cause" to believe that Byrd-Bennett committed fraud, theft and conspiracy while she worked for DPS. He said emails showed Byrd-Bennett had conversations — many using her personal email account — that referenced the contract eventually awarded to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt weeks before the district even began seeking requests for proposals. Jensen also noted that the book company deposited $26,530.26 in Byrd-Bennett's money market account on July 20, 2009.

'This is an unusual financial transaction that occurred approximately three weeks before the (request for a proposal) was issued,' Jensen wrote.

Other emails showed that Byrd-Bennett had an active relationship with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt while she was employed with the district.

The documents also show authorities suspected two longtime Byrd-Bennett aides and an executive at the book publisher of helping her 'fraudulently steer' the nearly $40 million contract to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt."

Especially when so many Renewal schools feature huge class sizes, it is difficult to rationalize expensive PD contracts with companies suspected of fraud.

See also item #24: Advanced Placement training to cost more than $1M per year for two years, without specifying how many students/teachers this will reach. Much of the services provided will be online at minimal cost to the provider. Half of the cost is for a two week summer program for students -- how many will enroll? Can the DOE provide estimates?

Contracts for E-Rate Monitors and Audits 

Items #15 and 16: Contracts to pay for E-rate compliance audits and independent compliance monitors, totally nearly $1 million per year, for two years, extendable for two more years. The federal e-rate consent decree with the DOE issued Dec. 23, 2015 requires strict oversight mechanisms, as a result of the Lanham scandal, in which millions were fraudulently charged to DOE and thus to the federal government for internet wiring. 

Among other things, it says that the feds will require "Certification by NYC DOE that no person or entity with any affiliation with Lanham is currently serving, or will serve, as E-rate Program Personnel and by NYC DOE’s vendors, consultants, contractors and service providers that no employee or contractor has any affiliation with Lanham."

And: "For purposes of Subparagraph 3(c) an “affiliation” means a situation in which a person, organization, or other entity is associated with Lanham or Lanham Enterprises as an employee, employer, subordinate, subsidiary, consultant, contractor, subcontractor, member, agent, supplier, or partner, or in any comparable capacity, or has been so associated at any time since five years prior to the Effective Date, except that no E-rate Program Personnel has an affiliation with Lanham or Lanham Enterprises merely as a result of Lanham’s prior status as a consultant to NYC DOE."

It was recently revealed that the DOE still has several ongoing contracts with CCS- Custom Computer Specialists, many of them awarded after the Special Investigator's report was released in 2011, linking that company with Lanham in defrauding the city.

As the Special Investigator's report also disclosed, Lanham was involved in a real-estate company with the CEO of CCS – Gregory Galdi, who is still CEO of the company: " Lanham and the Owner of CCS engaged in a real estate venture together called “G & R Scuttlehole,” located in Bridgehampton, New York.  As Juan Gonzalez later reported:

Lanham had especially close ties to Custom Computer’s chief executive Gregory Galdi. In June 2008, six months before Lanham was fired from his DOE consulting job, he and Galdi registered a new limited-liability company, G&R Scuttlehole Road LLC, with the New York secretary of state. They listed their firm’s location at the same address as Custom Computer’s headquarters in Long Island.  It’s not clear what kind of business the firm conducted, and Galdi did not return calls. State records show it was dissolved in 2011, a few months after federal agents arrested Lanham.

Unanswered questions re Amplify contract

#24: DOE proposes a contract for $650K per year for seven years with Amplify to provide the Core Knowledge curriculum. The RA states the following: “Amplify has previously provided these materials to multiple DOE sites without a contract.  The estimated contract amount is based on previous non-contracted expenditures and FY 2016 estimates…”

How were these curricular materials supplied without a contract previously, and what cost? What are the “previous non-contracted expenditures and FY 2016 estimates?  According to the NY Times, $2.4 million was spent by the Fund for Public Schools starting in 2008-9 to provide the Core Knowledge materials in ten public schools. 

Yet a blog post from 2013 quotes E.D. Hirsch, the author of the Core Knowledge, who insists that all the curricular materials for grades K-3 are now available for free on the CK website for grades K-3. He added that “The only way Amplify can make money from CK Pre-K-through 3 is if a school or district doesn’t want to bother with printing, and therefore orders from them. But this also means that Amplify would need to offer the materials at an attractive price."

In fact, the NY State Education Department paid Core Knowledge to make the program available throughout the state for preK- 2^nd grades for free, as part of their $36.6 million Race to the Top grant. The Core Knowledge website now provides comprehensive materials on its website for grades preK-5 for free. As the website explains:

The comprehensive CKLA program for P–3 is now available for free download. Two units for grades 4–5 are now available and additional units will be added during the 2014–15 school year.

Currently, the complete program is available for P–3. Although grades 4 and 5 are still in development, two units in each grade are currently available. Four to six additional grades 4–5 units will be added to the Download Manager by the summer of 2015.

Although materials are downloadable for free, there are costs associated with printing the materials. The volume of program materials may exceed the capability of home or school printers. It is recommended that a school or district work with a professional print shop for printing. Printers may discount pricing based on volume, so schools and districts should thoughtfully consider how they might consolidate their needs to leverage the best pricing available. 

For schools that prefer to purchase printed, packaged materials, CKLA Preschool kits (including trade books) and student activity books are available from the Foundation. Visit our bookstore for details. Printed, packaged kits for K–5 are being produced by Amplify Education, Inc. through a licensing agreement with the Core Knowledge Foundation. For more information about pricing and availability, visit Amplify’s website.

How many NYC schools will be supplied with this curriculum now, at what cost per student, compared to downloading these materials for free?  

Answers to these questions are especially important as Joel Klein was previously the NYC Chancellor before becoming the CEO of Amplify. Though the DOE states that Amplify has now informed them that Joel Klein is no longer an employee, an investor or a Board member, “he may serve as an advisor” and thus may still reap financial benefits from this contract.

Contract with the UFT to provide Common Core training

#26: A separate PD contract with the UFT Foundation for $1.55 million per year to provide training on the Common Core learning standards through the UFT Teacher Centers, apparently funded by the state, is also retroactive from July 2015, for reasons hard to understand: 

“This contract is retroactive because the UFT received an additional grant (SIG6) which was allocated December 2015 to fund three staff members who had to remain under the Teacher Center grant funding until the SIG 6 funds were received.  Consequently the UFT could not finalize the FY16 scope of work until the final available amount that could be used toward the contract for FY 16 was determined.”

This explanation is confusing; why couldn’t the scope of work under the original grant be determined before the additional federal SIG funds were received?

Also confusing is that nearly $975K of the grant is going to OTPS, including furniture, computers, rental, travel, expenses, printing, advertising, consultants, and other general office expenses – compared to $575K for compensation and salaries for Teacher Center personnel, who would be expected to be doing much of the training. It would be helpful to see a more detailed breakdown of expenses. Why would the purchase of furniture be needed to train teachers in the Common Core?

CCOC Comments on Contracts Voted on May 18, 2016 by Leonie Haimson