What privacy protections are there when states share data with the testing consortia or with the feds?

This year, the issue of student privacy and data sharing has become a huge issue throughout the nation, partly because of the uproar over inBloom Inc., but also as the US Department of Education has pushed states into adopting the Common Core standards and aligned exams, facilitated the widespread disclosure of children’s personal data to third parties without their parents’ consent through weakening FERPA, and required that states track kids from preK onwards via longitudinal data systems.

(Please check out this important story today – about questions surrounding NY state’s longitudinal data tracking system called P20.)

The danger that the federal government may be interested in collecting this data itself has aroused additional concern among parents and privacy advocates.  We noted in an earlier blog post how the agreement between the US Department of Education and the Common Core testing consortia, PARCC and Smarter Balanced, has the same exact clause: 

The Grantee [the testing consortium] must provide timely and complete access to any and all data collected at the State level to ED [the US Dept. of Ed] or its designated program monitors, technical assistance providers, or researcher partners, and to GAO, and the auditors conducting the audit required by 34 CFR section 60.26.

After Joy Pullman of the Heartland Institute and others drew attention to this clause, many parents became even more opposed to their state’s participation in the Common Core testing programs. In order to allay their fears, the Data Quality Campaign, which is funded primarily by the Gates Foundation, undertook a public campaign to convince parents that the feds have no intention of collecting personal student data. 

More recently, an EWA webinar featured Jim Shelton, among others, Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Education and formerly of the Gates Foundation, who appeared to pooh-pooh parent privacy concerns. In the article noted above about NY’s longitudinal student tracking system, Shelton re-affirmed how “valuable” this data is and implied that the risk to privacy is a “small price to pay for progress.” 

The PARCC consortium also produced a privacy policy for the first time, and last week, the education chiefs of 38 states wrote their own letter to Arne Duncan, pledging not to share personally identifiable student data with the feds.  (Why they would write to Duncan rather than their own stakeholders, can’t say.)

Why do I remain skeptical?  Many of these State Ed heads may be here today and gone tomorrow.  We’ve seen a lot of turnover in these jobs; in part because of their highly controversial policies, and many of them, including NY Commissioner John King, have little credibility with parents because of their refusal to disclose how they intend to use student data and their evident lack of respect for parental rights to have input into these decisions.

What the public should be demanding instead is strict controls in federal and state law and in their state’s agreements with these consortia to restrict the amount and type of personal data that they will collect, as well as controls on the access, disclosure and use of this data.

Instead, a careful look at the new PARCC privacy policy merely arouses more concerns than it allays. It appears to have contradictions in whether the organization will ever share its data with the feds. 

First it says: “PII will never be provided by PARCC to the federal government without written authority from a State, or unless legally required to do so by subpoena or court order.”

This seems to suggest that if the state so chooses, it may allow PARCC to provide personal student data to the feds. 

Yet in another section, it says: “These data shall not be used for commercial purposes, nor shall PARCC or PARCC contractors share personally identifiable information with the federal government, unless legally required to do so by subpoena or court order.

Which is it? The second statement leaves out the possibility of federal access of the data if the state permits. 

The mention of prohibiting “commercial purposes” also provides a convenient loophole.  Sharing personal student data for commercial purposes without consent already violates FERPA, but many districts and schools share this data with for-profit vendors, by simply claiming that this is for “instructional” purposes or for more efficient operation.  Clearly the definition of “commercial purposes” depends on the eye of the beholder.

At the same time that the PARCC policy says the data will not be used for commercial purposes, it does say that personal student data may be shared by states to PARCC and contractors for a variety of reasons, including “to validate, pilot and field test, and improve the assessments.” 

 We know that one of PARCC’s prime contractors is Pearson, which is of course a huge multi-national for-profit company; there are also many unnamed sub-contractors. Wireless Generation, a for-profit subsidiary of News Corporation and the prime subcontractor for inBloom, is one of the contractors of Smarter Balanced, the other testing consortium.

The PARCC privacy policy says personally identifiable information (PII) may be accessed and shared with them and their contractors for many other reasons: 

•   to report assessment results back to states and their local education agencies in a form that is useful to them; 

• to prepare reports on student performance for participating states, their LEAs and the public  (PII may not be included in public reports or in reports to states or local education agencies that were not the source of the PII): 

•  to analyze test results to assist member states and their local education agencies for purposes of accountability, including promotion and graduation decisions for individual students; teacher and school leader evaluations; school accountability determinations; determinations of principal and teacher professional development and support needs; and teaching, learning, and program improvement; and 

•  to carry out studies designed to improve instruction on behalf of participating states and their local education agencies, pursuant to separate agreements with the member states and/or their local education agencies. 

Only the last bullet point even seems to require a separate written agreement with states or districts, and none of them require parental notification or consent.  The clause highlighted is particularly open-ended and could lead to abuses in many ways.  Do we really want Pearson or other private corporations gaining access to personal student data to decide which students should be held back or denied graduation from high school; or to make assessments as to which teachers should be dismissed and which should keep their jobs? 

Smarter Balanced, the other testing consortium, does not even have a privacy policy as of yet, though it seems to have been working on a draft that its members could revise according to their individual preferences.

In short, none of this should provide much comfort to parents. In fact, these consortia may end up acting as surrogate inBloom’s, aggregating a huge amount of personal student data and handing it off to subcontractors and vendors for a variety of unregulated purposes, without notification to the public or parental consent. 

All parents should demand to see their state’s individual agreement with these testing organizations as soon as possible, to find out what additional personal student data is being provided to them and what are the restrictions concerning its further disclosure or use. If there is no agreement pertaining to these issues, there needs to be one before field testing begins this spring.

NYSAPE endorses new candidates for Board of Regents

The NYSAPE action alert for what legislators parents should contact and what they should say is posted here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  January 22, 2014

More information contact:

Eric Mihelbergel (716) 553-1123; nys.allies@gmail.com

Lisa Rudley (917) 414-9190; nys.allies@gmail.com

NYS Allies for Public Education www.nysape.org

NYS Allies for Public Education Endorses New Candidates for the Board of Regents

New York State Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE), a coalition of 45 organizations from around the state, is endorsing three candidates for the New York State Board of Regents: Helen “Regina” Rose, Audrey Marie Baker, and Michael Reilly.  The Board of Regents set education policy for the state and appoint the State Education Commissioner.   Four Regents will be selected by the State Legislature in March.

“At a time of unprecedented public opposition to the agenda pursued by Commissioner King, we are confident that these three candidates will thoughtfully respond to and address the concerns of parents and educators.  These highly qualified candidates will steer the state in a new direction -- to strengthen our schools, rather than undermine them,” said Jeanette Deutermann, Nassau County public school parent and founder of Long Island Opt-Out (of tests) group.

The candidates, if approved, would replace three of the four incumbents whose tenure expires this March- Regents Wade Norwood, James Jackson, James Cottrell, and Christine Cea. All four incumbents have been unresponsive to the concerns of parents and have expressed little or no opposition to the policies pursued by Commissioner King.

Helen “Regina” Rose is applying to represent District III Region (Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster Counties).  Ms. Rose is a former special education teacher with over twenty years of experience, and was a member of the Kinderhook school board for six years. She has a grandchild in the public schools and has been a strong and vocal advocate for all students, especially those with disabilities.  In response to the NYSAPE survey, Rose wrote, “I cannot understand how our entire public education system is being treated as an experiment – they are building the plane in the air.  We cannot allow a generation of children to be used as guinea pigs.”  Ms. Rose’s resume and survey responses can be viewed here http://www.nysape.org/regina-rose-survey-results-and-resume.html

Mike Reilly is applying to fill the District XII seat on Staten Island.  Mr. Reilly, a former police officer, has been a respected community leader for many years.  His three children attend the Staten Island public schools.  Since 2009, Reilly has served as a member of the district’s Community Education Council and sits on the Board of Managers of the Staten Island YMCA. He supports a moratorium on high-stakes, Common Core testing and opposes the disclosure of personal student data to inBloom Inc. or other vendors without parental consent. Presently, no member of the Board of Regents has a child in our public schools.  Mr. Reilly would bring a needed parent perspective. Mr. Reilly’s resume and survey responses can be viewed here http://www.nysape.org/michael-reilly-survey-results-and-resume.html

Audrey Marie Baker was a teacher, principal and administrator in the NYC public school system for over 35 years, with expertise in the area of special education.  Ms. Baker is applying for the other open at-large seats on the Regents.  She holds over 14 licenses and certifications in education. In response to our survey she wrote, “As a career educator, I hold myself accountable to the parents of NYS.” She pledges to survey parents to ascertain their concerns, and to meet regularly with key community stakeholders.  She supports a moratorium on high stakes Common Core exams, and an independent study of the standards by a panel of experts in education and developmental psychology. Ms. Baker’s resume and survey responses can be viewed here http://www.nysape.org/audrey-marie-baker-survey-results-and-resume.html

In a spirit of transparency, NYS Allies for Public Education sent its survey via certified mail and emailed to Regents Jackson, Cottrell, Cea and Norwood in early December 2013, asking them to clarify their positions on a variety of key education issues.   To date, not one of the incumbents completed the survey or responded in any way to this request.

Upon hearing about the current Regents failure to respond, Chris Tanis, a New Paltz parent said, “Clearly, the four incumbents do not understand that they have an obligation to be accountable to the public and to clearly express their views on the current policies that have aroused such opposition among parents and other community members. The fact that they refused to respond to the NYSAPE survey – and more importantly have ignored the public outrage over the policies pursued by the State Education Department -- makes a strong case for the need for new leadership.”

Although members of the Board of Regents are selected by the Legislature, they have traditionally kept their seats on the board until they choose to resign or retire. While the appointment process has escaped public scrutiny in the past, this year NYSAPE will be urging parents, educators and concerned constituents to call on their Assembly members and State Senators to nominate and vote for candidates who will work to reverse the current, disastrous reforms.

In February, the chairs of the Assembly Education and Higher Education Committees, Cathy Nolan and Deborah Glick, will conduct in-person interviews of the candidates.  In March, the full Legislature will vote on candidates pre-selected by its members, predominantly those in the Assembly.

According to Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters: “In recent months, there has been an unprecedented outpouring of concern and criticism directed at the agenda being implemented by Commissioner King – including the sharing of personal student data with inBloom Inc., without parental consent.  Eight states have pulled out of inBloom or put their data-sharing plans on hold because of parent protest and opposition --but not New York. We need new Regents who will be responsive to the need to protect student privacy.”

In a recent editorial in Newsday, principals Carol Burris and John Murphy noted “The time has come for the public to insist that the appointment of Regents be more than pro forma. The fate of a generation of students is at stake.”

###

Regent Cashin proposes New York withdraw from inBloom

This happened  at the Board of Regents meeting this morning in Albany.

Unfortunately, Merryl Tisch changed the subject and ignored Cashin's proposal to be responsive to the pleas of parents, school board members, educators and elected officials to protect the privacy and safety of the state's children and pull out of inBloom Inc.

My appearance on MSNBC and Daily News oped: Why de Blasio is right to charge rent to co-located charters:

A  shortened version of the oped below is published in today's Daily News; along with the StudentsFirst opposing view. Also below is my brief appearance Saturday on Melissa Harris-Perry Show  on MSNBC. 
--Leonie Haimson

During his campaign for mayor, Bill de Blasio promised to focus the city’s energy and resources on improving our public schools instead of encouraging the further growth of privately managed charter schools.

The city will spend over $1 billion on nearly 200 charter schools this year; up sharply from $32 million when Mayor Bloomberg took office. Rapid charter expansion has been encouraged by the fact that two thirds of them get free space inside public school buildings. This is highly unusual; only about one eighth of charters nationally receive free public space. Moreover, this appears to violate state law, which holds that if districts choose to offer charters facilities, this shall be “at cost.”

The city’s provision of space to charter schools inside public school buildings has caused much conflict, dissension and overcrowding. Schools have lost classrooms, art rooms, and libraries to charters, as well as dedicated space for students with disabilities to receive their mandated services. Most experts agree that the DOE formula used to assess space is flawed and underestimates the room necessary for a quality education. Even so, nearly half of all co-locations approved last October would push the building above 100% in the next few years, according to the DoE’s own formula.

Valuable rooms would be sacrificed that could be used to provide prekindergarten programs or reduce class size, even as class sizes in the early grades are at a fifteen year high.

Moreover, the Independent Budget Office calculates that charter schools in city buildings receive substantially more in per pupil funding than public schools when their free space and services are taken into account. In addition, many charters raise millions from private sources, and 16 charter school CEOs have salaries above the Chancellor, as much as $500,000 per year.

Co-located charters are provided with more than their fair share of public funds, despite the fact that they enroll fewer English language learners, students with disabilities and children in poverty than public schools in their communities. Many charters also feature abusive disciplinary and “push–out” practices to ensure high test scores. Our new mayor recognizes that it is time for these inequitable policies to cease; and that the city must turn its attention to maximizing opportunities for all children, rather than just a chosen few.

//////////

Good News! NY State Ed will postpone uploading student names to inBloom until at least April!

Here are some  news clips on the state’s decision to delay transferring any more data to inBloom until  at least April, including student names and family contact info:  LoHud News, EdWeek, and Capital NY. 

In case there’s any confusion about this, our efforts to permanently block the transfer of personally identifiable student data without parental consent to inBloom and other vendors will continue in the courts and legislatively.

I have good news on our lawsuit to stop the state from sharing any more personally identifiable student data with inBloom.  NYSED officials said in December that that they could not put off uploading student names, etc. to inBloom Inc. any later than Jan. 22, and our court date asking for an immediate injunction was set for state court this Friday.  Yet just yesterday, the Attorney General’s office informed our attorneys that the NYSED has moved back its date for the transfer of the student data to inBloom to no earlier than April 1, 2014. 

According to the AG office, NYSED claims the delay is because their “contractors” are behind schedule. However, it must be considered that the nearly unanimous opposition of NY parents, educators, school board members, and elected leaders of both parties to the sharing of this data with inBloom-- and most recently Speaker Silver calling for a moratorium -- may be the actual reason for this delay. In a tweet yesterday, the inBloom CTO, Sharren Bates said, “Our dev backlog is public & shows no current tech delays.”

In any case, this gives us more time to organize around legislative restrictions to data-sharing. Please also sign the anti-inBloom petition posted by two Long Island parent activists. 

When there is further court action scheduled we will let you know. Meanwhile, there are some very disturbing aspects of the State’s legal filings, revealing a plan to transfer all the state’s student data, including presumably personally identifiable information, to the state archives after six years following a student’s graduation; with restrictions on access unclear.  

Fred Smith's ode to the Pineapple, the EngageNY sex chat line, and the "sexy bitch" exam

Yesterday a parent, Anna Shah, found a link on the NYSED Resources page to a series of tests,  including one called the "Sexy Bitch" exam, and blogged about it here.    Here is a screen shot of the NYSED page as of yesterday:

The last line links to this page, where you can see a series of inappropriate "tests", including the "sexy bitch" exam. After much tweeting and public discussion last night, NYSED has taken down the entire Resources page.

It appears that NYSED has vetted its "resources" about as carefully as its exams and curriculum modules.  Anna will be on WNBC news tonight talking about this, yet another instance of SED's supreme carelessness.

Remember the Pineapple?  Remember when SED's EngageNY support number linked to a sex chat line?  Fred Smith, parodist extraordinaire, has written the following poem about these various "Believe it or not" manifestations of SED incompetence:

A Sonnet on SED’s Glorious Ineptitude

The Pineapple story was one big mess

About a sleeveless fruit that couldn’t race.

So bad it was deleted from the test;

A screw-up bringing Pearson much disgrace.

Last year Tom Dunn was called on to explain

Engage New York’s odd tech help innovation.

Seems folks were seeking log on help in vain,

But got engaged in sex line conversation.

And now we learn EngageNY was hacked

So Tisch will set up a web site task force

To prove ‘twas not security they lacked

Let crude tests pose as Common Core resources

But this is InBloom’s well-deserved death knell.

Thank you, Leonie. Ring the final bell.

May soccer moms from everywhere rejoice,

And special interests from Poughkeepsie smile,

And New York City raise its mighty voice.

What’s right still wins every once in a while.

~fred smith

NYC Parents and Elected Officials File Suit Seeking Injunction To Stop Bloomberg's 42 Co-locations

See also NY Post and DNA Info article here. 

For Immediate Release: December 29, 2013

Contacts:

Mona Davids, (646) 872-7149

Leonie Haimson, (917) 435-9329

Arthur Schwartz, Esq. (917) 923-8136

New York City Parents and Elected Officials File Suit Seeking Injunction

To Stop Bloomberg's 42 Recently Approved School Co-locations

New York City public school parents joined by Public Advocate-elect Letitia James and City Council members Melissa Mark-Viverito, Jumaane Williams, Margaret Chin and Ruben Wills filed a lawsuit on Friday, December 27, seeking to enjoin the New York City Department of Education ("DoE") from co-locating 42 public and charter schools as approved by the Panel for Educational Policy in October 2013.

The co-locations, slated to begin in September 2014, are the "last hurrah" from lame duck Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- a final push to impose his will on New York City public school parents and communities during the new Mayoral administration of Bill de Blasio.

Letitia James, Public Advocate-elect said, “As Public Advocate I intend to insure the role of parents and teachers, the people closest to the ground, in the educational process. Some of what we will need to do at the outset of the new administration is unravel the mess created by the outgoing Chancellor and a Panel on Educational Policy which simply did whatever the Mayor directed. These lawsuits are one step in that direction. They will allow us to quickly annul Mayor Bloomberg's effort to set educational policy for years to come, at least when it comes to the overcrowding caused by co-locations, and the favored treatment of charter schools. I look forward to settling these cases with the new Schools Chancellor.”

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters said: "This lawsuit is especially valuable as it is the first to point out how inadequate the educational impact statements developed by the DoE have been in completely omitting the likely impact on class size of these numerous co-locations and ignoring how the resulting overcrowding of schools will in many cases lead to building code violations. I would like to thank Advocates for Justice for their work in protecting the rights of NYC students not to have their education severely damaged by these irresponsible and politically motivated co-locations, devised by a lame duck Mayor in his last months in office."

Arthur Z. Schwartz, President of Advocates for Justice, the public interest law firm representing the Petitioners,expressed a "hope that the new Mayor will use these lawsuits as a means to review and reconsider the policy decisions which the Bloomberg Board of Education tried to foist on him." 

Schwartz continued: "It would be far preferable for the new Department of Education leadership to put all of the planned actions on hold, and engage in a careful review of co-locations put into place since 2012. It is time for contention between parents and the Department of Education to end and it is time to stop shoving aside the needs of the majority of the children in our schools so that the DOE can 'prove' that charter schools are a better alternative. It is time to figure out how to reduce class size instead of using $100 million per year to give free space to charter schools.”

Mona Davids, a public school parent and President of the NYC Parents Union said:  "For too long, parents have been ignored by Mayor Bloomberg and the Panel for Educational Policy. This lawsuit seeks to undo public and charter co-locations approved in October 2013.  It is unfortunate that the only way for parents to be heard is through the courts. We hope Mayor-elect de Blasio rescinds these co-locations and begins a real dialogue with parents and community members in determining what is best for our children."

Margaret Chin, City Council Member of district 1 in Manhattan stated, “Co-locations in my district have put a serious strain on school resources and space in my district for little benefit to the students in my community. I have witnessed them get approved through a rubber stamp process that leaves no room for genuine community input. It’s time to put a halt to colocations, including those recently approved at great speed and with little deliberation, until the DOE can demonstrate why the colocations are actually necessary and how they will practically fit with the schools currently in the building.”

Jumaane Williams, City Council Member of district 45 in Brooklyn said, "Forced co-locations throughout the New York public school system remains one of the most controversial policies carried out by the current administration. I hope that the filing of these two lawsuits with give the incoming de Blasio administration the room to reconsider forced co-locations altogether due to the potential negative impact that they have on students throughout this city, particularly students with special needs. We must not rush into forced co-locations, and the public must have the chance to fully vet the proposals and understand they impact that they'll have on student achievement."

Ruben Wills, New York City Council Member of district 28 in Queens and a plaintiff in the state and federal lawsuits expressed that “every child in the New York City Public School System has the right to a sound and equal educational experience regardless of their social or economic status. It is imperative that the new administration is aware of the 42 co-locations, which were rushed with little if any consideration of the negative effects it would have on our children or the concerns of parents. Too many of our children are in overcrowded classrooms. How can we expect them to surpass State Testing mandates without adequate learning materials or access to a proper learning environment? The new administration, therefore, must revise and address the inadequacies in the Department of Education to secure our children’s educational future and success.”

Click here to view the Verified Petition.

Click here to view the Notice of Petition.

###

James & NYC Parents Article78 Verified Petition by nycparentsunion