Education Reformers and Gates Foundation Want Free-Flow Of Private Student Data

Last Friday, the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking held a hearing for the handling of data in America’s future.  Make no mistake: this would allow student data to flow out of schools more than it already is.  FERPA would become more of a joke than it already is.  The written statements are now available.  And we see more of some of the names behind these foundations.  Folks like KIPP and the Gates Foundation are knee-deep in this.  We know Bill Gates doesn’t care about student data privacy.  And what company actually talks about how brick and mortar schools should no longer be used for a certain population?  The answers are in here.  This is a must-read.  I’m glad to see some of the data privacy groups were able to get public comment submitted for this.  But what in the heck is “Moneyball For Government”?  There are a lot of names involved with that one!

The Gates Foundation came out with a long report last month on student data.  They want the U.S. Government to lift the ban on a Federal database for student data.  How ironic that President Obama issued an Executive Order creating this commission that would allow for Bill Gates’ dream to come true.  Corporations run this country.  This is all just the set-up that will lead to Smart Cities and Blockchain takeovers of society.  When children lose their individual uniqueness and become a part of the hive.  I am all for transparency of government activity, but not things that should never see the light of day.  Personal information should be private.  If someone wants to make their business public, that is one thing.  But when that choice is taken away from you by what amounts to corporate profits, every single American needs to be concerned about this.  Students are no longer people.  They are the human capital for a return on investment.

How Safe Is Student Data? If This Commission Gets Their Way, Not Very Safe At All

Yesterday, the Commission on Evidence-Based Practices heard testimony from many organizations about how the federal government uses data to create policy. Many of these organizations were education companies, as seen in the below list. The Commission came out of Public Law #114-140. The hearing was put on Youtube. The video appears after the agenda which shows who testified. A few things to take note of while watching the video: this is a federal hearing, so they record recess time as well. The video doesn’t actually begin until the 17:00 mark. A gentleman from the American Principles Project gives his testimony at the 2:45:50 mark. His testimony is the only one from the side of those concerned with how student data can be used and disseminated. Note the participants behind him and their reactions to what he says.

There are many fighting for the protection of personally identifiable data.  But we aren’t enough.  As Emmett McGroarty explained in his testimony, those who fight to protect student data don’t have the corporate muscle behind it with tons of money to lobby legislators.  But we do our own research on what these companies are doing and what they want to do.  They want to lift the final legal barriers for the sharing of ALL data among government agencies.  And as FERPA law states, student data can be disseminated for educational purposes.  The companies that spoke at this hearing which give me reason for concern are American Institutes for Research, Education Trust, the Workforce Data Quality Campaign, New America, and the Institute for Higher Education Policy.  If you look at these agencies alone, they represent companies who would benefit from student data from pre-school to college and/or career readiness.

When I watch hearings like this, and I only see a few Commission members in attendance, it always leads me to a conclusion that this will become policy and all this is just for show.  The summary of the law appears below the video.  To read or submit public comments for this commission, please go here.

Public Hearing

Rayburn House Office

Building, Room B-318

October 21, 2016

9:00 AM

Opening Remarks

Katharine G. Abraham, CEP Chair

Ron Haskins, CEP Co-Chair

9:10 AM

Panel #1

George Grob, American Evaluation Association

Clyde Tucker, American Statistical Association

9:40AM

Panel #2

Amanda Janice Roberson, Institute for Higher Education Policy

Rachel Zinn, Workforce Data Quality Campaign

Carrie Wofford, Veterans Education Success

Mark Schneider, American Institutes for Research

10:20AM

Panel #3

Rachel Fishman, New America

Tiffany Jones, The Education Trust

Christine Keller, Association of Public & Land-grant Universities

Tom Allison, Young Invincibles

11:10AM

Break

11:20AM

Panel #4

Erin Knowles, United States Parents Involved in Education

Emmett McGroarty, American Principles Project

11:50 AM

Panel #5

Daniel Crowley, National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives

RK Paleru, Booz Allen Hamilton

Quentin Wilson, Public Performance Improvement Researcher

12:30PM

Panel #6

David Medina, Results for America

Kelleen Kaye, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

Sara Dube, Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative

1:10 PM

Adjourn

Public Law No: 114-140 (03/30/2016)

Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2016

(Sec. 2) This bill establishes in the executive branch a Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.

(Sec. 3) The bill provides for a 15 member Commission appointed by the President and congressional leaders with consideration given to individuals with expertise in economics, statistics, program evaluation, data security, confidentiality, or database management.

(Sec. 4) The Commission must conduct a comprehensive study of the data inventory, data infrastructure, database security, and statistical protocols related to federal policymaking and the agencies responsible for maintaining that data to:
•determine the optimal arrangement for which administrative data on federal programs and tax expenditures, survey data, and related statistical data series may be integrated and made available to facilitate program evaluation, continuous improvement, policy-relevant research, and cost-benefit analyses;
•make recommendations on how data infrastructure, database security, and statistical protocols should be modified to best fulfill those objectives; and
•make recommendations on how best to incorporate outcomes measurement, institutionalize randomized controlled trials, and rigorous impact analysis into program design.

The Commission shall consider whether a clearinghouse for program and survey data should be established and how to create such clearinghouse.

The Commission shall evaluate:
•what administrative data and survey data are relevant for program evaluation and federal policy-making and should be included in a clearinghouse;
•which survey data such administrative data may be linked to, in addition to linkages across administrative data series;
•what are the legal and administrative barriers to including or linking these data series;
•what data-sharing infrastructure should be used to facilitate data merging and access for research purposes;
•how a clearinghouse could be self-funded;
•which researchers, officials, and institutions should have access to data;
•what limitations should be placed on the use of data;
•how to protect information and ensure individual privacy and confidentiality;
•how data and results of research can be used to inform program administrators and policymakers to improve program design;
•what incentives may facilitate interagency sharing of information to improve programmatic effectiveness and enhance data accuracy and comprehensiveness; and
•how individuals whose data are used should be notified of its usages.

The Commission shall, upon the affirmative vote of at least three-quarters of its members, submit to the President and Congress a detailed statement of its findings and conclusions, together with its recommendations for appropriate legislation or administrative actions.

(Sec. 5) The following agencies shall advise and consult with the Commission on matters within their respective areas of responsibility:
•the Bureau of the Census;
•the Internal Revenue Service;
•the Social Security Administration;
•the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Justice;
•the Office of Management and Budget;
•the Bureau of Economic Analysis; and
•the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(Sec. 6) The agencies identified as Principal Statistical Agencies in the report entitled “Statistical Programs of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015,” published by the Office of Management and Budget, shall transfer up to $3 million to the Bureau of the Census, upon request, for carrying out the activities of the Commission.

The Bureau of the Census shall provide administrative support to the Commission.

No additional funds may be authorized to carry out this Act.

(Sec. 8) The Commission shall terminate not later than 18 months after enactment of this Act.

Why Won’t Matt Albright Call It “The Smarter Balanced Assessment”? Are These Toxic Words Now For Jack Markell?

I have to crack up when I read the News Journal these days.  In an article about school funding, Matthew Albright with the News Journal started talking about how city kids did on the Smarter Balanced Assessment.  But he doesn’t call it by name.  This is what he says:

On the state’s tough new standardized test…

Call it by name Matthew Albright! It’s called the Smarter Balanced Assessment!  Did Markell call you guys and tell you to call it that cause he doesn’t want people Googling “Smarter Balanced Assessment”?  Too bad Jack!  They can come here to read the actual words.  Own it News Journal!  Own it Jack!  Especially since Jack said it was “the best test Delaware ever made” last summer at New America.  I also see the words Common Core starting to fade in favor of “the state standards”.  Stop pussy-footing around and take ownership of the monster you created Jack!

Hey Jack, why no comment on the Delaware Met?  You certainly had a lot to say about the priority schools, but we have a school where a student had their hair put on fire and you go strangely mum.  Would that be because you don’t want people to see this as YOUR failure?  Along with the Smarter Balanced Assessment?

Hey Jack, how is it going?  Seriously.  We never talk.  What are your plans after you leave your Governor job?  Inquiring minds want to know.  I know you’ve been busy.  You know, working the rounds so to speak.  Making calls.  I get it.  You have your plans, and you will do anything to get them completed.  I get that.  Don’t agree with whatever you are planning I’m sure, but I understand.

By the way Jack, opt-out season is fast approaching so I may jump ahead on it this year.  I look forward to the new crazy ideas you come up with in 2016 to try to stop opt-out.  They will fail, and I will laugh, but I admire your attempts.  It reminds me of a phrase from “It’s A Wonderful Life”.  “Every time a bell rings, an angel gets it wings”.  Or something like that.  You can equate that with the opt-out movement any way you like.  Are your opt-out guard dogs ready?  They have a big season ahead and they will need to be at the top of their game.

I emailed you the Santa Claus opt-out proclamation, but I didn’t see a response.  Maybe you sent one to Santa.  Good luck trying to turn that guy over to your side!  He sees greed 22,000 miles away!  I don’t think Santa is going to opt out of liking opt-out Jack.

I posted some old videos you put up from your 2008 campaign for Governor.  Love how you talked about the horrible Delaware student test and how bad it was and teachers need to teach and not to the test.  You have come a long way since then Jack.  I’m not sure how this went from the News Journal to you Jack, but what the heck!  It’s a Saturday night (at the time of this writing), I’m tired, and I like free-writing sometimes.  No research, just letting it flow.  Alright, if I’m talking about writing, it’s time to bid adieu.