Tepid recommendations from the Regents taskforce on the Common Core & Ken Wagner admits little or no change in the offing

Commissioner King and Ken Wagner of NYSED

UPDATE: Even the slight suggestion that teachers might be able to appeal their "ineffective" ratings in their APPR evaluations based upon the flawed roll-out of the Common Core curriculum and modules was too much for the full Regents -- given the Governor's criticism -- so they eliminated that proposal today when the full Board voted.  More on this at the Times Union, and a video of a rather pained-looking Merryl Tisch explaining how these changes show how they really "listened" to parents is below.

The most accurate story about the recommendations of the Regents task force on the Common Core was reported by WNYC/Schoolbook, which called them "tepid" and "tweaks.” 

Nevertheless they enraged Gov. Cuomo who called them “too little too late,” even though his own Commission on the Common Core has not yet met.   

It seems Cuomo objects to the proposal that teachers can bring up their district’s inadequate implementation of the standards if they are threatened with being fired as a result of an “ineffective” rating they may receive from the junk science, value-added teacher evaluation system that he pushed into law. 

Yet these proposals will NOT satisfy the concerns of parents whose children’s education is being wrecked by developmentally inappropriate and rigid standards, overly prescriptive curricula and excessive testing; see the NYSAPE press release  . Neither do they appear to assuage the concerns of teachers; see the NYSUT release here.  Excerpt:

Instead of listening to parents and educators who are grappling with the fallout from the State Education Department's disastrous implementation, the task force dismissed their concerns with a report that, in the end, adds up to a 'we know best' collection of minor adjustments," said NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi, who noted - contrary to a comment by the governor - that the Regents did not pause or delay anything that is not already in law…. On teacher evaluations, what the Regents put on the table - allowing teachers to point out failures in their district's implementation of the Common Core - is nothing new. It is a provision that already exists in state law and which we planned on pursuing with or without 'permission' from the State Education Department," Iannuzzi said.

As further evidence this is what Ken Wagner of NYSED wrote today to his “data” working group:

 From: Ken Wagner <KWAGNER@mail.nysed.gov>
Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM

Yes, as you will see if you read through the Regents materials, the Common Core standards remain in place for both grades 3-8 and high school.

The only things that would change for State assessments based on these proposals is the availability of an assessment overlap in Geometry next year (similar to the ELA and Algebra overlap this year) and the lower cut score (partial proficiency, similar to the existing 65) for graduation purposes prior to the class of 2022.  We are preparing a short field memo to clarify these issues. 

EXCEPT as Carol Burris points out, they had NEVER proposed raising the cut score to graduate above 65.

As further evidence, the most independent and savvy Regents, Kathy Cashin of Brooklyn and Betty Rosa of the Bronx, voted against these proposals, for making insufficient reforms to the current regime.

See below, head Regent honcho Merryl Tisch, trying to explain her way out of the mess they are in, having satisfied neither parents, the unions or the Governor with their proposals.

King's claim that parents are being "manipulated" by special interests; does he deserve to stay in office?

Commissioner King announced he was pulling out of already-scheduled PTA forums, after parents and teachers had freely vented their frustrations with the Common Core and testing during town hall meetings in Whitesboro and Poughkeepsie last week.  More on the blog about these events from yesterday’s blog here.

In the statement released to reporters yesterday, King claimed he was cancelling his participation in future PTA forums because parents were being dominated and manipulated by “special interests.” Though Dennis Tompkins, NYSED spokesman, refused to identify to reporters who was meant by this term, King was clearly referring to the teachers union. 

Here and below is the full video of the Poughkeepsie forum, revealing that parents became increasingly frustrated at having to wait one hour and 23 minutes before being allowed to speak, and were angered when the 30 minutes they had been promised were continually interrupted by King; and in the end, their time was cut short at 20 minutes. 

The video also includes revealing responses from King, showing how he answered questions read from cards about his insistence on sharing personal student data with inBloom (the first question that met with applause from the audience, at 41 minutes in) and why he won’t allow students to opt out of the state exams (at 1 hour 4 minutes in).

Here are stories from the Buffalo News (read the comments especially); and Poughkeepsie Journal, which quotes parents:

“I believe that Commissioner King is running away. He doesn’t want to be challenged by the parents or anybody else,” said Lisa DiStefano, 38, a mother of three from Pleasant Valley, who attended the meeting Thursday.

DiStefano said if parents no longer have a say in their children’s education, that the state Education Department is “acting as an authoritarian, telling us we don’t want to listen because you no longer have any rights.”

Anna Shah, 41, a parent in the Spackenkill district, said the PTA’s flier for the event advertised it as an opportunity to gather information, ask questions and share concerns with King and other education department representatives.

“Those of us who were at the meeting saw firsthand that Dr. King must have missed the memo,” she said via email. “The meeting ended abruptly after five speakers presented, leaving at least 75 who were denied the chance to speak.”

The Newsday article includes comments from a Long Island school board member:

Port Jefferson resident Ali Gordon, 41, a trustee on the Comsewogue Board of Education, criticized King, saying he was ducking a town hall she and "many, many others" planned to attend. 

"It's very disappointing to see the leader of our state Education Department essentially hide from parents and teachers who are so directly affected by the decisions that he makes and the rushed implementation of the Common Core in New York State," she said.

Here is the full statement from Commissioner John B. King, Jr.:

"I was looking forward to engaging in a dialogue with parents across the state.  I was eagerly anticipating answering questions from parents about the Common Core and other reforms we're moving ahead with in New York State.  Unfortunately, the forums sponsored by the New York State PTA have been co-opted by special interests whose stated goal is to "dominate" the questions and manipulate the forum.

"The disruptions caused by the special interests have deprived parents of the opportunity to listen, ask questions and offer comments.  Essentially, dialogue has been denied.

"In light of the clear intention of these special interest groups to continue to manipulate the forum, the PTA-sponsored events scheduled have been suspended.  My office will continue to work with PTA to find the appropriate opportunities to engage in a real, productive dialogue with parents about our students and their education.

"Parents don't deserve to be dominated and manipulated."

King’s insistence that parents are pawns of the union is not only utterly false – it is denigrates their intelligence and autonomy. 

The reality is that parents, researchers, early childhood experts, school board members, district administrators and principals have all criticized the Common Core standards, the way they have been implemented in New York state, the curriculum and modules NYSED has offered, the poor quality and the invalid scoring of the state exams, the huge expense and amount of time taking up in standardized testing, test prep and scoring, the stress this puts on students, the unreliable and damaging teacher evaluation system tied to test scores, and King’s determination to share the most private student data with vendors without parental consent – all issues that go far beyond the critique put forward by the teacher’s union, which has so far only argued for a moratorium on the consequences of these exams.  Indeed, it is he who is refusing to engage in a real dialogue on these issues.

What do you think?  Does King deserve to head the NY State Education Department, unless he acknowledges and addresses the legitimate concerns expressed by parents and community members from throughout the state?

NY parents react in fury to Common Core and testing; Commissioner John King disengages. Watch the OTHER video to see why.

So the fury of parents and teachers with the state's botched implementation of the Common Core, testing and data collection was vented full blast on Thursday night, at a Town Hall meeting in Poughkeepsie, in which parents practically booed Commissioner King off the stage.  That much-watched video is here, with more than 8500 views as of Saturday afternoon.

One point to help explain the vocal anger expressed: parents had been required to sit quietly for almost two hours and listen quietly to a lengthy presentation by John King about how the Common Core is absolutely necessary for their kids to be college and career ready.  They had be given only 20 minutes at the end of a two hour meeting to express their views, which helps to explain their frustration when he kept interrupting their minimal speaking time.

Moreover, these Westchester [and Dutchess County] parents  have elected school boards, and are used to having their voices heard.  Their schools are generally well-resourced and run, and more than 90% of their students graduate from high school in four years, go on to college and do quite well there.

Now they feel their children's lives and education being severely disrupted  by all the stressful and constricting testing, test prep and scripted modules coming down from the state, and they deeply resent how their children's personal information is being shared with vendors without their consent.

At the same time, their schools have suffered increased class sizes and loss of valuable programs, due to Cuomo's budget cuts and tax cap. To add insult to injury, Commissioner King justifies that all these expensive and time-consuming mandates are necessary to ensure that students will be college- and career-ready, as his one-size-fits-all rationale, when they know that their children were doing just fine before all these policies were imposed from above.

After Thursday night's explosive meeting in Westchester, sponsored by the NYS PTA, the Commissioner cancelled the four remaining PTA meetings around the state, including next Tuesday's town hall that was to take place at  Garden City HS on Long Island. The State PTA explained, "While our goal was to provide an opportunity to learn and share, based on review of the initial October 10 meeting, the Commissioner concluded the outcome was not constructive for those taking the time to attend."

These cancellations have  provoked even more  anger and resentment, with parents saying that while King won't allow their schools or children to opt out of the Common Core, standardized testing or data sharing with vendors, he is opting out of an important dialogue with parents.  As of Saturday afternoon, however, there is still a town hall meeting with King scheduled for Oyster Bay HS on Long Island, at 3 PM on Tuesday afternoon, October 15; co-sponsored by Senator Marcellino.  More information here.

Thursday's Town Hall followed yet an earlier one that occurred Wednesday night, co-sponsored by Senator Griffo in Oneida County, which also featured an appearance by Commissioner King.  This town hall allowed more time for parents, teachers and students to express their views. Without all the yelling and interruptions, this meeting included even more eloquent explanations from these essential stakeholders, explaining how the state's Common Core testing and instructional mandates were wrecking their schools.  Take a look.

The good news and mostly bad news about inBloom & private data sharing from NYSED at the NYC Council hearings

Ken Wagner and Nicholas Storelli-Castro of NYSED

On Monday, the City Council hearings on inBloom and the state’s plan to share personal student data with vendors without parental consent opened with Ken Wagner, NY State Education Deputy Commissioner, along with his sidekick, Nicolas Storelli Castro, head of NYSED governmental relations, being sworn in.  In his presentation, Wagner was careful never to mention the words inBloom, but instead gave a long power point,   including information on the high remediation rate of NY high school graduates. 
He argued that data systems like the “Engage NY portals” or the data dashboards that the state is requiring NYC and most districts sign up populated by data from the inBloom cloud will help students become “college and career ready.”

The good news is that, in response to questions, Wagner said that the personal data of NYS students has not yet been uploaded to the inBloom cloud, but only de-identified data so far. 

But there was a lot of bad news, too.  The worst was Wagner’s statement that even in 2015, when districts have to pay or choose to cancel their contracts with the dashboard companies, they still will be unable to take student data out of inBloom.  The data for every public school student in the state will remain with inBloom in perpetuity, as long as NYS chooses; and will be destroyed if and only if the State Education Department decides to terminate its contract with inBloom.

So what is the possible purpose of inBloom to collect and store all this highly sensitive information, if it is not to be shared with other vendors or used to populate the data dashboards?

Wagner argued that there were two reasons NYSED is determined to keep student data in inBloom past 2015:

1-      So school districts can compare their achievement results across school and districts; yet he neglected to explain why this couldn’t be done without the participation of inBloom or any other vendor, or indeed, without any personalized student data attached.

2- To facilitate the electronic transfer of information when students move from one district to another.   Of course, schools and districts already transfer this information all the time, and there is no need to share any personal data with vendors to accomplish this.  Even when students move to a new district, their disability data is held very closely and is NOT sent to their new school without the explicit permission of  parents – and yet inBloom and vendors are getting full access to this very sensitive information anyway.

Some of Wagner’s other claims were also very weak– either because he is confused or willfully deceptive.  He claimed that 700 districts now share private student data with for–profit vendors all the time, without parental consent, and that they couldn’t operate otherwise. 

Yet I have now spoken to school administrators and data specialists in and outside NYC and they insist that this is simply untrue.  Even those districts that have contracts for the very same dashboards produced by the very same companies say that they don’t share any personal student information with these companies, but instead just buy the software from them. 

Just as one might buy MS Office and fill in your personal financial data on an Excel spreadsheet, but don’t give it to Microsoft, schools populate the data themselves, and the vendors never get access to it.  The only time, I am told, that a vendor might obtain an opportunity to even see the data is if there were a technical glitch or a virus; and then they would be given a temporary password by the district to go into the system and fix the problem, and would have to get out right away.  The company would certainly never be awarded the sort of unfettered access that this plan allows.  All this makes one wonder what the real purpose of inBloom is, if not to encourage student data-mining, which the state denies.

Wagner also insists that the security protections for cloud storage in inBloom are stronger than what currently exists in schools and districts, but didn’t explain why inBloom then refuses to take any responsibility for data breaches, or why the inBloom cloud wouldn’t be a far more attractive target for hackers, given how it will contain aggregated and highly valuable data for millions of students.   

He also claimed that the student data cannot and will not be sold, though inBloom has already admitted publicly that it is considering charging vendors for access to the data. 
He said that the federal government already requires the reporting of students in various categories like immigrant, homeless etc,. but the reality is that unlike what the state is doing with inBloom, NO personally identifying information is included.

Robert Jackson, the Chair of the Education committee, asked:  if this is such a good program, why have five out of nine states withdrawn and others have cut back on it?  Wagner responded that the Phase II states of Delaware, Kentucky and Georgia never planned to share data in the first place, but were just “sitting at the table”.  He also said that Louisiana, which had a “change of leadership” (i.e. former DOE educrat John White who was appointed the state superintendent) had gotten “ahead of itself” and has now merely pulled back to Phase II. 

If this is true, then why did inBloom misinform the public repeatedly, and suggest that the data sharing would involve nine states, as in this article from April? 

“The company is currently developing and testing its educational database in selected districts in nine states, including New York..”   [inBloom spokesperson] Ms. Roo said.”

Wagner did admit that Massachusetts, a Phase I state, no longer plans on sharing any student with inBloom, though he said that he knew nothing about the recent announcement that parents in Colorado’s one “pilot” district, Jefferson County would be allowed to opt out.

Wagner also refuted that that any data involving immigrant status, single parent, or student pregnancy would ever be shared with inBloom, though these data elements are included in NYSED’s data dictionary  (p.13) as “optional” or recommended for districts to upload to the inBloom cloud. 

UPDATE:  A school board member from Westchester has alerted me to the fact that while this line says optional, there is another line for student characteristics that says mandatory. Click on this to see the area highlighted:

Apparently some district administrators are interpreting the confusing mixture of optional and required elements to mean that this highly sensitive information is going to be shared with inBloom and vendors -- and that the only part of the category that is optional is the associated time period.
Wagner went on to insist that disability and suspension data was absolutely necessary to be shared with inBloom and the dashboard vendors, though this information has been considered very sensitive and has been very closely held in the past by schools in New York and elsewhere. The Jefferson County Superintendent, for example, has announced that they will not share any disciplinary information with inBloom, even for those students whose parents have not opted out.

When asked about the bills the Legislature has proposed to allow parental consent or opt out, Nicolas Storelli Castro said this would be “devastating to some of work we are doing.” 

CM Gale Brewer asked if they had held any hearings to hear from parents on the subject; and they admitted not.  They claimed to not know if the teachers union had a position on this; though NYSUT has been quite vocal in its opposition. Brewer also expressed concern as to who would monitor inBloom and the use of this data; and they had no answer.

CM Daniel Dromm, chair of the immigration committee, returned to the issue of data concerning immigrant status. Again, Wagner claimed that this data would not be shared with inBloom – though it is listed in their data dictionary as potentially uploaded to the cloud.

CM Margaret Chin asked about the expected costs to the taxpayer.  Wagner said that districts would have to pay $2-$5 per student to inBloom for their “services” starting in 2015, and extra for the dashboards, but that if they decided to contract with additional vendors for three or more “tools” they could break even.

Comptroller John Liu then took to the stand, and gave tremendous testimony.  He said that a growing number of New Yorkers are deeply concerned about the inBloom and as a parent and comptroller, he shared these concerns  Because there was no fee for service in NYSED’s initial contract with inBloom, it  had bypassed city and state comptroller review and registration.  Now, he has great concerns about the long term costs and lack of security in this arrangement, with the state and the city holding near total liability for breaches.  He also pointed out that in 2007, New Yorkers were told by DOE that ARIS, its $80 million data system, would revolutionize education, yet his audit has shown that it is rarely if ever used. 

He also pointed out that News Corporation, the parent company of Wireless, the major subcontractor to inBloom, has been targeted in several criminal investigations in the UK and seems likely to undergo US Senate investigations for breach of privacy.  Why should we trust its integrity? 

After Liu was finished, Wagner and his colleague returned to the stand.  They said that NYSED has not and will not hold hearings itself on this issue.  When asked if it was true that hundreds of parents had asked to opt out, they said they had received an “email campaign.”  Storelli Castro added, “We’re not blind to the concerns, and we’re here to allay unnecessary fears.”

Wagner also claimed that “school districts have been part of process from beginning” and yet not a single school board member or even Superintendent I have spoken to across the state even knew about inBloom until we made it public.

After they left the stand, I gave a brief power point which is below; and refuted several of the points they had made. My full testimony is here.  Others who spoke against the invasion of privacy this plan represents included Karen Sprowal, a NYC parent of a special needs student, who pointed out how this plan will make parents less likely to fill out Title I and Medicaid forms, knowing the information could be shared with inBloom and other vendors, which could cost school districts across the city and state hundreds of millions of dollars.   

Lisa Shaw, another parent of special needs children, spoke eloquently about how she doesn’t want her children’s diagnoses to follow them throughout their educational career, as the data dashboards are designed to do, and how she is considering transferring to a private school or moving out of state because of this.  Catherine McVay Hughes, chair of Community Board 1 in lower Manhattan, Santos Crespo, head of Local 372, Gloria Corsino, President of Community Education Council District 75, Michelle Lipkin of Chancellor's Parent Advisory Committee (CPAC), Ray Wilson of District 10 President's Council, and several others testified in favor of the Council resolutions to support state legislation to bar the transmission of children’s personal data to vendors without parental consent or opt out.  As Santos said,

...frankly our state and local governments do not have the best track record concerning its contracts with third-party vendors. From the City Time fiasco to Sodexho siphoning cash from kids ...tax payers continue to be victim to unscrupulous private contractors. We simply can’t take a chance and believe that this time is different and that the outside vendors that the NYSED is seeking to share this information with will not exploit and safeguard it from hackers and other unscrupulous people. The information that NYSED is seeking to provide to third-parties is much too sensitive to take any chances.

InBloom Presentation Updated 9.30.13