Ever since Regulation 225 hit the Delaware Registrar of Regulations, I’ve been scratching my head over it. I’ve gone back and forth on it a few dozen times. To be crystal clear, I support any anti-discrimination measure for ANY student. No questions asked. Some of the Facebook comments I’ve seen from some who oppose the bill are filled with hate and misunderstanding. I’ve wondered what the purpose behind all this was, and today I may have received an answer. Continue reading “Is Regulation 225 A Union-Busting Measure? Know When You Are Being Used!”
It’s been a while. At least for me.
I haven’t been blogging as much. Like I’ve said before, sometimes you have to take a break and recharge your batteries. But it doesn’t mean things aren’t happening offline or in sidebar conversations. These are just some of the things I’ve seen and heard the past few weeks: Continue reading “Catching Up On Delaware Education And Politics”
In the near future, Sony and IBM plan on putting all education eggs in one basket: the Blockchain Ledger. This is very, very bad. Especially when Sony wants artificial intelligence to analyze the information for the classroom.
Beyond making it easier to share information, Sony said also that the stored data sets could potentially be analyzed using AI to provide feedback and improvement ideas for educational institutions and their curriculums and management.
According to Techcrunch, this wouldn’t roll out until next year and it is in the experimental stages now. The idea is to use some school districts as a model. What would be in this digital portfolio? Test scores, diplomas, education records which I can only assume will include social-emotional measurements, discipline records, and health records. While the system touts itself as being the most secure on the planet, that also means all that data would follow a student from cradle to grave. In the article, they talk about how it can be helpful for future employment. My fear is children will be judged based on test scores and potential behavior issues they might have exhibited when they were a teenager. To me, this is a huge mistake.
I wrote about Blockchain and its capabilities in education a year ago. Delaware passed it into law for banking purposes earlier this summer. Both Delaware Governor Carney and former Governor Jack Markell wanted those laws to pass. While much of that was for the financial viability of the state in getting Delaware in on the ground floor, the impact on public education was sure to be a discussion point during these decisions. Governor Markell has always touted himself as the “education Governor” and pimps many corporate education reform companies in Delaware and across the country.
The future I’ve been dreading is coming to pass, right before my eyes. Artificial Intelligence should never replace human decision-making capabilities but our education leaders seem to welcome this corporate invasion of public education. I have no doubt I will be writing more about this in the future. While we can all agree public education needs some changes, this is not the way to go. Our children’s future depends on human interaction, not algorithm, data sets and artificial intelligence. This was why all the states had to create longitudinal data systems during Race To The Top all those years ago. It wasn’t setting up Common Core. It was setting this up. Are we machines or are we human?
The National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado issued a very damning report on the commercialization of America’s public schools as digital technology and “personalized learning” continue taking over our schools. The report, issued today, shows how private companies have invaded the classroom and children’s private information is in jeopardy like never before. Here in Delaware, we have seen a very large push for this from the Rodel Foundation. If you haven’t been paying attention, you really need to start now. And don’t buy their Social-Emotional Learning push either. Just another way for private companies to profit from student data. From the press release:
BOULDER, CO (August 15, 2017) – Digital technologies used in schools are increasingly being harnessed to amplify corporate marketing and profit-making and extend the reach of commercializing activities into every aspect of students’ school lives. In addition to the long-standing goal of providing brand exposure, marketing through education technology now routinely engages students in activities that facilitate the collection of valuable personal data and that socialize students to accept relentless monitoring and surveillance as normal, according to a new report released by the National Education Policy Center.
In Asleep at the Switch: Schoolhouse Commercialism, Student Privacy, and the Failure of Policymaking, the NEPC’s 19th annual report on schoolhouse commercialism trends, University of Colorado Boulder researchers Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar and Kevin Murray examine how technological advances, the lure of “personalization,” and lax regulation foster the collection of personal data and have overwhelmed efforts to protect children’s privacy. They find that for-profit entities are driving an escalation of reliance on education technology with the goal of transforming public education into an ever-larger profit center—by selling technology hardware, software, and services to schools; by turning student data into a marketable product; and by creating brand-loyal customers.
Boninger points out that “policymaking to protect children’s privacy or to evaluate the quality of the educational technology they use currently ranges from inadequate to nonexistent.”
“Schools and districts are paying huge sums of money to private vendors and creating systems to transfer vast amounts of children’s personal information to education technology companies,” explains Molnar. “Education applications, especially applications that ‘personalize’ student learning, are powered by proprietary algorithms, without anyone monitoring how student data are being collected or used.”
Asleep at the Switch documents the inadequacy of industry self-regulation and argues that to protect children’s privacy and the quality of their education, legislators and policymakers need to craft clear policies backed by strong, enforceable sanctions. Such policies should:
- Prohibit schools from collecting student personal data unless rigorous, easily understood safeguards for the appropriate use, protection, and final disposition of those data are in place.
- Hold schools, districts, and companies with access to student data accountable for violations of student privacy.
- Require algorithms powering education software to be openly available for examination by educators and researchers.
- Prohibit adoption of educational software applications that rely on algorithms unless a disinterested third party has examined the algorithms for bias and error, and unless research has shown that the algorithms produce intended results.
- Require independent third-party assessments of the validity and utility of technologies, and the potential threats they pose to students’ well-being, to be conducted and addressed prior to adoption.
Additionally, the report authors encourage parents, teachers, and administrators to publicize the threats that unregulated educational technologies pose to children and the importance of allowing disinterested monitors access to the algorithms powering educational software.
Find Asleep at the Switch: Schoolhouse Commercialism, Student Privacy, and the Failure of Policymaking, by Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Kevin Murray, on the web at:
Stealth testing. A state assessment, given 3 to 4 times a year to all students in Delaware public schools from 3rd to 10th grade. On top of the end of year state Science assessment given to students in 5th, 8th, and 10th grade. Wasn’t the goal to have students receive less assessments? Or is the goal to have outside companies create the tests teachers used to create based on their college training and years in the classroom? This is stealth testing.
These tests will be online. They will be “embedded”. The following describes Delaware’s science assessment goals. When I say Delaware, I am not speaking for ALL of Delaware. I would like to know how these decisions were vetted with the General Assembly and the public for consumption and digestion. From the request for proposal:
Delaware envisions a comprehensive science assessment system in grades 3 to 10, consisting of three distinct types of assessment. Under this system, throughout the academic year students will take teacher developed, Embedded Classroom Assessments to provide information on learning in real time. Primarily for instructional use, these Embedded Classroom Assessments will be numerous, short, and administered at the discretion of each teacher. Students will also take End-of-Unit Assessments shortly after the completion of each instructional unit. In each grade, the academic school year is divided into three to four units, each of which is aligned to a specific disciplinary content domain1 (see Appendix B for more detail). Each End-of-Unit assessment is meant to provide information on student learning of the NGSS content in each unit for the purposes of instruction (e.g., determining if additional instruction on previously instructed topics is needed, to be used in place of a classroom assessment for grading purposes) and evaluation (e.g., informing curriculum adoption, adaptation, and modification) at classroom, school, district and state levels. Finally, students in grade 5, grade 8, and high school biology will also take an Integrative Transfer Assessment (whereas the Embedded Classroom Assessments and End-of-Unit Assessments are taken by students in every grade, 3 to 10). These Integrative Transfer Assessments are meant to capture students’ learning of the content instructed during the entire year, in greater depth than on the End-of-Unit Assessments. That is, the Integrative Transfer Assessments are meant to capture the ways that students integrate, transfer and apply science knowledge and skills learned during the year. The integrative transfer assessments will be used to meet federal requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act.
So the only thing I see here, which is required by Federal law, is the end of year assessment given in 5th, 8th, and 10th grade. To be clear, end-of-unit assessment is the same as stealth assessments. Don’t kid yourself on this! Why are we hiring a company for, what will surely be a very expensive project costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to create assessments that go beyond the scope of what is required? In the below RFP, the Delaware DOE talks about this science coalition that represents 25% of Delaware science teachers that have agreed to this. Did local school boards and charter school boards approve this complete change to the way students are tested in THEIR schools? Did the General Assembly pass laws to allow the Delaware DOE to completely change methods of assessment? Why does the Delaware DOE need End-of-Unit Assessment information? Isn’t the End-of-Year Assessment given to students in certain grades good enough for you anymore? Why do you need all this data? You don’t. Stop testing our kids incessantly. Parents, opt out of these end-of-unit assessments as well!
I’ve been warning about these stealth tests for well over a year and a half. Here they are. This IS competency-based education in a personalized learning environment. It is a simple formula- testing = data = speculative investment. They need to test to get the data so our students become investments. Those that do well. Those that don’t, keep testing them until they either get it or don’t. The Delaware DOE will NEVER tell you this, but that is what these companies want. The workforce of tomorrow! What a grand plan! Except, they forgot a few things. This flies in the face of everything legislators have been wanting: less testing. How much do teacher created tests cost compared to these “end-of-unit” assessments? When did we stop trusting our teachers to create tests? This is a big reason why Delaware has a huge budget deficit. We have allowed the Delaware DOE to do whatever they want with very little oversight. And we ALL pay the price, one way or another. This is what the folks at Rodel want, not what Delaware wants. At least be honest about that Delaware DOE!
Pathways to Prosperity is the greatest invention Delaware ever had! If you believe that one, you stand to profit from what amounts to a cheap labor program designed to beef up corporate profit while using students to do so.
The Pathways Steering Committee recently recommended a Request for Proposal to make the Pathways To Prosperity initiative really shine. They want a huge marketing push on this. After all, this committee does include Del Tech, Rodel, and The Delaware Business Roundtable. What corporate CEO doesn’t want cheap labor? The best part is you don’t have to farm jobs out to foreign countries. You can do it right here in your own state. All you need are a bunch of students in high school or college and you can call them “paid internships”. Once students complete these internships, they can earn a secondary diploma or a “certificate”. How awesome! NOT!
To be clear, I am ALL IN for students to continue education. I am ALL IN for disengaged students becoming engaged. What I am NOT all in for is companies taking advantage of school instruction for their own advantage. This RFP from the Delaware Dept. of Education is a fascinating read. RFPs always have some key information about what an initiative is REALLY about. They have to sell it to a prospective vendor.
Delaware Pathways is an education and workforce partnership that creates a career pathways system for all youth.
Notice the word “all”. Does all mean all? Eventually. Wait until Blockchain really gets going in public education…
This effort is guided by the Delaware Pathways Steering Committee, which represents a cross-sector group of policy makers, educators, employers, and community leaders who developed the Delaware Pathways Strategic Plan.
No parents. No students. No parents. No students. Shall I go on?
Registered Apprenticeship is a proven method of training which involves on-the-job work experience coupled with related instruction, typically offered in a classroom setting.
Please show me the statistics showing this “proven method”. I am not against apprenticeships. I am against taking advantage of apprenticeships for cheap labor.
Registered apprentices work for their employer or sponsor and are paid while they learn their respective trade. Registered Apprenticeship, in simple terms, is a program of “learning while earning.”
Are they paid at the same levels regular employees are who would perform the same job function? Yeah, I didn’t think so. And how much goes toward other entities while students are “paid”? Who else gets a cut of this pay? “Learning while earning” is definitely earning. The companies earn a lot toward their bottom line. Disgusting…
Registered Apprenticeships are offered in a variety of occupations. The majority of Registered Apprenticeships are four years in length or 8000 hours of on-the-job training. For each year of training, a minimum of 144 hours of related instruction is required.
8,000 hours is a whole heck of a lot of hours. That is a lot of pay at a reduced scale that could be helping the average Delawarean. Companies don’t want to train regular employees. They LOVE this initiative. And they will use taxpayer dollars to provide that training. It is a win-win for companies. This is exactly WHY they care about education so much. I kind of thought education was about kids getting a well-rounded education in ALL subjects. But this will radically transform that so kids only get instruction in certain subjects on the way to their “career path”. Dumb them down, make sure kids don’t question authority, and then you own them for life. Big Brother is here, owned by Education Inc. Did you really think it was “for the kids”? Please…
Upon completion of the required on-the-job training and related instruction, the apprentice is eligible for Journey papers. A journeyperson is nationally recognized as having a well-rounded ability in all phases of their trade.
Note the words “required” and “nationally recognized”. Say goodbye to the days of applying for a job, getting hired, and then going through an orientation-training class. This is the new hiring process for companies. If you don’t get in on THEIR agenda, you are screwed. And if you are an older person, looking to change careers, you are doubly screwed.
The intersection of Delaware Pathways and Registered Apprenticeship programs is a result of Delaware’s career pathways system, which begins in the public education system (K-12) through Career and Technical Education (CTE) pathways offered in charter, comprehensive, and technical school districts.
What a well-timed intersection. Like it wasn’t planned for decades. This is what happens when you let a “non-profit” like the Rodel Foundation dictate education policy. This is what happens when you let corporations in education. They plant the seeds and take over.
These pathways continue through adult education, occupational training programs, as well as Registered Apprenticeship and postsecondary programs that are administered by partnering state agencies, institutions of higher education, and other service providers.
Thus, we have Governor Carney’s “public-private partnerships” in full swing. All hail the Chief!
As a result, Delaware’s career pathways system aligns secondary and postsecondary education and concurrently pairs rigorous academics and workforce education within the context of a specific occupation or occupational cluster.
“Rigorous academics” means the Common Core State Standards. Which was, ironically enough, a Department of Defense initiative designed to change the human mind. It was adopted by the Department of Education to actually change young minds to a digital technology environment. But those standards have to be tested, thus crap like the Smarter Balanced Assessment and PARCC. Make them once a year, get teachers and parents in a tizzy over them, and then institute a competency-based education environment. Then comes the “stealth tests”- same tests as before, but broken up into chunks, to be given at the end of each unit in each class. Impossible to opt out of those. This takes it a step further, tying in the education and corporate worlds into a marriage of game-changing high stakes.
Participants who complete a career pathway attain a secondary school diploma or its equivalent, earn an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or license that holds value in the labor market, and have the opportunity to complete an Associate or Bachelor’s degree program at a Delaware college or university.
Don’t kid yourself. This will be how it is done for ALL students in the future. Call it what you want, but this will be a “digital badge” created specifically for your personal share on the Blockchain ledger. The cradle to grave data tracking job creating machine is here!
A University of Delaware class called Documentary Production produced a video called “The Deed: Fixing Education In The First State”. The cinematography of the video was good, but I feel it should have been renamed “Fixing Education In Wilmington” because that was pretty much what the video was about.
It gave a good history of segregation before 1954, but after that it focused solely on Wilmington. But I found the stereotypes to be a bit too much. The video primarily focuses on two Caucasian mothers. One is in what appears to be a classroom, and the other is out in the suburbs in a very nice home. When they do show African-Americans (aside from Tony Allen), it is primarily urban Wilmington. As if there are no African-Americans in the suburbs.
The TedX Wilmington videos shown in this are from Tony Allen, the Chair of the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission, and Dr. Paul Herdman, the CEO of the Rodel Foundation. Other folks shown in the video are Dan Rich from the University of Delaware and one of the main WEIC players, Atnre Alleyne from DelawareCAN and TeenSHARP, and Brandywine Superintendent Dr. Mark Holodick. There are cameos from Delaware Teacher of the Year Wendy Turner and the not-even sworn in yet Christina Board Member Meredith Griffin Jr.
Here is a newsflash. There are 19 school districts in Delaware. Up and down the state. I love Wilmington, but if you are going to make a video called Fixing Education In The First State, you have to focus on the whole state. This was one of the biggest mistakes WEIC made, focusing on Wilmington and expecting the rest of state to pick up the tab to fix Wilmington issues. Yes, Wilmington is the biggest city, but many issues with poverty and low-income exist all over Delaware.
Like most discussions about “fixing” education in Delaware, we go through the history and the present situation. Add some current events like the upcoming Colonial Referendum to make it current. Show some shots from a WEIC meeting a few months ago when Governor John Carney and Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Susan Bunting attended for some extra oomph and importance.
I recognize segregation in Wilmington schools and what school choice has done to Northern New Castle County as major problems in Delaware. But there are other equally important issues, only one of which was briefly touched on in the video- education funding. We also have special education with a rapidly growing population of students with disabilities, standardized testing, a growing population of English Language Learners, a General Assembly that generally makes some very bad choices for our schools, bullying in our schools,the continued fall-out from the Race To The Top accountability era, a State Auditor who doesn’t audit school districts every year even though that office has to by state law, referenda, a new Governor that is putting a ton of cuts towards school districts (but not charters), the Rodel Foundation’s stranglehold on decisions made in education, data mining of personal student information, and the upcoming and very real threats of competency-based education, personalized learning, an eventual replacement of real teachers with glorified moderators instead in a digital technology wonderland, and the upcoming Blockchain technology which will institute a full-blown “digital badge” scenario, tracking children from cradle to grave and predetermined careers and what their societal worth will be. And yes, even Social-Emotional Learning is in the process of getting hijacked by the corporate education reformers (more on that soon).
Many of these things aren’t on the radar as much as they should be. We are still bickering over how to “fix” education but we are stumbling with talking about what is right in education. We are in a constant state of flux, in a state of constant improvement. This obsessive need for improvement is actually what is fracturing education the most in Delaware. The problem comes when we try to measure all these changes by one standardized test.
For an eleven minute video, it would be impossible to catch all the issues in Delaware education. But showing very old videos of Tony Allen and Paul Herdman don’t do much for me. Most Delawareans really don’t know who the two of them are. Just because they have a TedX stage doesn’t give them more importance than a teacher giving a lecture to a class or a parent giving public comment at a school board meeting. Those are actually the voices we need to hear more of in Delaware education, the everyday citizen. Not a CEO of a “non-profit” making over $344,000 a year or a well-meaning Bank of America executive. Don’t get me wrong, I think Tony Allen is a great guy, but it has become more than obvious that WEIC isn’t heading towards the destination it dreamed of and it is time to move on. As for Dr. Paul “Rodel” Herdman, I have never been shy about my dislike of his “visions” for Delaware schools that have its roots in corporate profit.
We need to focus on what is going right in Delaware education and build from that. It begins at the grass-roots level, in the classroom. For that, the student and teacher voice are the most important. And then the parent. We go from one reform or initiative to the next, and the cycle goes on and on.
The Parent Coalition for Student Privacy and the Coalition for a Commercial-Free Childhood released their Parent Toolkit for Student Privacy on May 16th. Full disclaimer, I actively participate and sometimes contribute to discussion surround student data privacy with the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy.
As our schools dive into more and more digital technology in classrooms, many parents have seen things that disturb them. Is our children’s data protected? Not as much as you think it might be. The laws surrounding student data privacy are filled with loopholes and confusing wording. It is more imperative than ever that parents wake up to this new reality facing their children.
To that end, I highly praise this report and believe every single school, state agency involving education, and any organization around education should give this to every single parent. Opting out is NOT just about standardized tests, it is also about unwelcome intrusions into things about our children that, frankly, are nobody’s business.
The upcoming Delaware State Education Association President, Mike Matthews, just wrote an excellent post on Facebook about the rise of digital technology and personalized learning in the classroom. His post was in response to the recent announcements by various Delaware school districts of Reduction in Workforce notices going out to schools based on Governor John Carney’s proposed budget for FY2018.
For the past several years, personalized and blended learning have been strong dialogue points in education circles. The thinking behind personalized and blending learning is that it offers different environments to meet students’ needs for learning. One of those environments is digital, where some of the learning is done on devices as opposed to direct teacher instruction or small-group instruction.
There is a belief out there by some that many education reformers and corporatists are supporting personalized and blended learning because, ultimately, it could reduce personnel costs by getting rid of large numbers of teachers. Me? I’m a fan of “personalized learning” in a very basic sense: that all learning, in effect, should be personalized to meet student needs. However, I am beginning to have some concerns with the personalized and blended learning information I’m seeing as well as the propagation of 1:1 devices in classrooms across the state.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Technology is a must in today’s digital environment and students MUST be exposed to its responsible use. However, eight years ago, then-Gov. Jack Markell made a series of devastating cuts to education. And we still haven’t recuperated from that.
Governor John Carney is proposing a series of devastating cuts to his education budget now. We never saw Gov. Markell’s cuts come back to education. Will we see Gov. Carney’s cuts come back if they’re passed by the legislature? Will these layoffs — these hundreds of human beings about to lose their jobs — be victims to technology because it’s cheaper to purchase a Chromebook than it is to pay a teacher’s salary?
Two years ago, I had a very open mind about personalized learning when I was president of the Red Clay Education Association and some fellow members introduced me to personalized learning. And, to an extent, I’m still VERY open to what personalized learning is and can be. I made sure to share with those teachers that at no time should personalized learning EVER be seen as a means to layoff and cut teachers in our schools and the they agreed with that. However, I’m concerned that these heartless and cruel layoffs coming could only grow worse as policymakers embrace the idea that technology can do cheaper or better what humans can for children.
I will never accept a world where computers take the place of living, breathing, caring human beings. We must fight like hell to bring these positions back to our school districts as quickly as possible. Anything less should be cause for direct, organized action by educators and the public that supports us across the state.
Amen Mike, Amen! With that being said, the reaction of the state and local education associations to this technology push in our classroom will be instrumental in making sure that future never comes to pass. DSEA will have to be at the front of the line opposing this future. When Mike said “some believe”, those numbers are growing fast and it isn’t just a belief. It is happening in districts across the country and it will happen here if we don’t get enough educators, parents, citizens, and students to fight it.
In Delaware, the Rodel Teacher Council has been pushing personalized learning a lot in the past couple months. They met with legislators and the State Board of Education. As I have said many times, I don’t believe these teachers are the bad guys. But I don’t trust Rodel at all. For the life of me, with everything I’ve written, I can’t understand why these teachers continue to listen to Rodel and do their bidding. These teachers spend a lot of time working for Rodel with little to no pay for their time and effort. At the end of the day, Rodel is a corporation. They may say they are a non-profit, but when their CEO Dr. Paul Herdman makes over $350,000 a year, that gives me considerable pause.
The personalized learning push goes beyond computers replacing teachers though. There is the matter of massive exposure to screen time and what kind of effects that has on students. There is the massive amount of data collection. There is the presumption by many that the algorithms in many of these apps and learning programs are being used to push students toward certain types of future careers. There is the competency-based education aspect of it all that has a severe danger of putting at-risk students even further behind than their peers. While I don’t expect many to get this yet, they soon will. Right now, I am John the Baptist, wandering around in the wilderness warning everyone. A madman? No. One who would rather prophet for students than profit from students? Yes.
Delaware Governor John Carney and Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Susan Bunting will talk to educators, parents, and citizens tonight about education funding and the state budget tonight at 7:45pm. To be included on the call, you had to sign up yesterday by 2pm. I signed up on Tuesday. I will be reporting live from the Town Hall. What concerns me the most is not what Carney is saying. It is what he isn’t talking about… Continue reading “Carney & Bunting Tackle Education Funding But The Red Herring Fooling Everyone Lurks Around The Corner”
The College Board is asking for a lot of information from students they don’t need. Such as social security number, family income, religion, and things like that. A commenter named MEMO just posted a brilliant comment on an article I put up a long time ago. Delaware is unique though compared to all the other states in that all students are required to take the SAT. So you may not be able to get out of providing the student identification number. But all the stuff listed below under “none of their business”? Don’t let your kid provide that info because it truly is none of their business.
Please remind parents that the in school SAT will be taken by 11th grade students across the state- PSAT for 9th and 10th graders also. The ONLY information that students need to supply is Name, Address, Gender, and Date of Birth. You do not have to enter your student id. The proctor will encourage student to complete the none of their business questions- parent education level, income, religion, GPA, coursework taken or planing to take, etc… etc… do not provide your cell no, ss#, personal email, twitter, Facebook, etc.. keep everything separated from College Board. Have your child ask specifically which information is optional!
You can protect the amount of data going out on your child. Get involved and make sure your child’s private information stays private! As well as your own!
To date, three Delaware educators have announced their intention to run for President of the Delaware State Education Association. All three have announced this on Facebook. I know two of them, but I haven’t met the other candidate. Two of the candidates are running on a ticket with a Vice-President candidate. Who are these brave souls? Continue reading “DSEA President Battle Heats Up As Three Vie For The Top Spot”
In 2011, the Obama Administration changed the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act so third parties would have access to personal student data. This has been a major point of contention on this blog for over a year now. Our children are guinea pigs for state departments of education, the feds, and more corporate education reform companies than you can shake a leg at. But we could have some relief if Bill Evers is selected as the United States Secretary of Education under President Donald Trump.
While I don’t like some of Evers’ thoughts on charter schools and school vouchers, I do immensely enjoy what he said in a hearing on Common Core in Ohio. This is what he said about student data privacy and the changes to FERPA in 2011. Thanks to Education Next for reporting this back in 2013!
Data about Ohio students will flow to the U.S. Department of Education through PARCC, the national test consortium to which Ohio belongs. In return for the money it received from the federal government, PARCC has to provide the U.S, Department of education with its student-level data. Ohio can do nothing about this as long as it is in a federally-funded national test consortium. It would have to leave PARCC to block this process of data transfer.
This issue is of personal concern to me. When I was U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, the student privacy office was part of my portfolio. Until December 2011, the U.S. Department of Education interpreted the student privacy protections in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) strictly, but reasonably.
But in 2011, the Obama administration turned those protections upside down. The Obama administration reinterpreted technical terms and provisions of the law to allow access to student personal data to non-education government agencies and to private vendors and contractors. It removed requirements that parents had to give consent if third-parties were given access to student personal data. The Obama administration made this change, in large measure, to facilitating workforce planning by government agencies.
We live in a time of concern about abuse of data collection and data management — by the NSA, the IRS, and other agencies. Ohio policymakers should be concerned about the privacy of student personal data and its possible misuse.
To facilitate workforce planning by government agencies… there we have it! And we thought Hillary Clinton would stop that? Hell no! Is Trump involved in this “workforce planning”? That is the whole point of all that we are seeing in education: Common Core, high-stakes standardized tests, Pathways to Prosperity, all the education technology, the very bad accountability standards, the smoke and mirrors with teachers which are causing more teachers to leave the profession, the educator quick prep programs like Teach For America and Relay Graduate School, personalized learning, competency-based education, and the plethora of companies that are profiting immensely while students do without. All of these were and are designed to create this workforce of tomorrow. A plan geared towards tracking and pushing students into certain career paths. They love to say it is for the greater good, but don’t be fooled! It is control, pure and simple. I don’t trust anything going on at the state or federal level. But I do know a lot of it hinges on the data. And if these companies are robbed of the opportunity to get private information about students, that is a major monkey wrench in their plans.
In 2015, former Delaware Secretary of Education Mark Murphy was fighting an opt out bill in the First State. He told the press something to the effect of “It’s the data. The data is important to us.” Don’t quote me on that, but it was all about the data. It was probably the truest thing the guy ever said. When will we reach the point when we can firmly put this corporate education reform era to bed? When can educators get the respect they need and our students can learn without being subjected to being nothing more than lab rats for government and corporate agendas? There is no better time like the present!
There is a petition already out on Change.org to send to President Trump to have Evers appointed as the next United States Secretary of Education. Please sign the petition NOW!
Leonie Haimson, the co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, allowed me to share a press release issued by today by the following groups: Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, American Civil Liberties Union, Network for Public Education and NPE Action, Parents Across America, Badass Teachers Association, and New York State Allies for Public Education.
This morning a letter was sent to the federal Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking from parent groups, education advocates, and privacy experts, urging them against proposing that the ban on a centralized federal database of student personal data be overturned.
Recently, several DC-based groups testified before the Commission, urging that this ban be lifted, which was established by Congress as part of the Higher Education Act in 2008. The Gates Foundation has also announced that the creation of a centralized federal database to track students from preK through college, the workforce and beyond is one of their top advocacy priorities for 2017.
In the letter, parent, privacy and education organizations warned that eliminating this ban would risk that highly sensitive information would breached, as has occurred with sensitive data held by many federal agencies in recent years. A hack into the Office of Personal Management released personnel records of about 22.1 million individuals. More recently, an audit of the US Department of Education found serious security flaws in their data systems, and a government security scorecard awarded the agency an overall grade of D.
Moreover, K-12 student data currently collected by states that would potentially be incorporated in the federal database often include upwards of 700 specific personal data elements, including students’ immigrant status, disabilities, disciplinary records, and homelessness. Data collected ostensibly for the sole purpose of research would likely be merged with other federal agency data and could include information from their census, military service, tax returns, criminal and health records.
Said Leonie Haimson, co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, whose members led the fight against inBloom, designed to capture and share the personal student data of nine states and districts, “A centralized federal database containing the personal data of every public-school student would pose an even greater risk to individual privacy than inBloom. It would allow the government to create dossiers on nearly every United States resident over time, and if breached or abused would cause immeasurable damage.”
As privacy advocates in England recently discovered, the personal information in a similar national student database that the government promised would be used only for research purposes has been secretly requested by the police and by the Home Office, in part to identify and locate undocumented children and their families.
“Our disastrous data privacy situation here in England should serve to warn Americans of the grave dangers of this sort of comprehensive student surveillance and database. The personal confidential information in our National Pupil Database was supposed to be used only for research, but we found out recently that data on thousands of students and their families has been secretly requested by the police and for the purposes of immigration control in just the last 15 months. It would be unwise and irresponsible for the United States to create a similar database, which can so easily be used for political purposes which are not in all children’s best interests,” said Jen Persson, coordinator of defenddigitalme, a privacy and digital rights group in the UK.
Chad Marlow, Advocacy& Policy Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: “Improving educational opportunities for children and protecting student privacy are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, it is our responsibility as parents, educators, and Americans to doggedly pursue both objectives. Creating any type of centralized database for personally identifiable student data would pose real and significant risks to the privacy of America’s students, and that is why such databases have consistently been rejected in the past. With education policy, as with privacy, ‘do no harm’ is a reasonable place to start, and here, doing no harm clearly requires rejecting any attempts to establish a universal database that compiles and tracks students’ most sensitive information.”
Diane Ravitch, President of the Network for Public Education and NPE Action pointed out, “Whether Democrat or Republican, the one thing parents agree on is the importance of their child’s privacy. To allow the federal government to collect personal and sensitive data on every public-school student in the nation risks that this information would be misused by the government and corporations. “
“Parents Across America opposes any effort to establish a national student record system. Ever since the federal government weakened protections for student privacy, parents have been in a crisis mode. Our children are exposed every school day to a growing mish-mash of screen devices and online programs that capture mountains of their data. We know that the threat to privacy will only get worse if there’s a national record system; education profiteers will line up to tap into an even more convenient source of private student information. But we are determined not to let that happen to our children’s data,” said Julie Woestehoff, Interim Executive Director of Parents Across America.
Lisa Rudley, Executive Director of the NY State Allies for Public Education, observed, “Data collection and sharing of our children’s personally identifiable information should require a parent’s informed consent. Just because the technology of data mining is here, it doesn’t mean children’s privacy rights should be sacrificed.”
“Our children and their families deserve protection of their data. More importantly, we must understand that protecting our children relies upon protecting their personal information from breach or abuse,” concluded Marla Kilfoyle, Executive Director of the Badass Teachers Association.
The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking is accepting public comment on this matter until December 14, 2016. For more information, visit the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy website here: http://www.studentprivacymatters.org/federaldatasystem/
I certainly hope the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association add similar public comments to this massive plan of Bill Gates…
…the transition to openly licensed educational resources has enabled school districts to reallocate funds typically spent on traditional instructional materials back into teachers curating and creating, as well as supporting a full digital transition.
The beginning of the end. Today, the Delaware Dept. of Education announced Red Clay Consolidated and Colonial School District have joined 27 other states for the “Go Open” initiative. the full-scale ed-tech invasion of public education will begin in two New Castle County school districts. No doubt they announced this the same day as the unveiling of the first draft of the state Every Student Succeeds Act plan. Trick or treat indeed…
Delaware launches open resource initiative
The Delaware Department of Education today announced the launch of a new statewide #GoOpen initiative, joining a cohort of states recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for their commitment to support school districts and educators transitioning to the use of high-quality, openly licensed educational resources in their schools.
“States are powerful collaborators in supporting and scaling innovation. They can connect forward-thinking educators, share effective ideas and approaches widely, amplify successes, and can support districts in leveraging limited resources,” says Joseph South, director of the Office of Educational Technology at the U.S. Department of Education. “With the launch of statewide #GoOpen initiatives, states are helping districts thoughtfully transition to a new model of learning by facilitating the creation of an open ecosystem of digital resources that can increase equity and empower teachers.”
Delaware was recognized for its commitment to implement a statewide technology strategy that includes the use of openly licensed resources as a central component, developing and maintaining a statewide repository solution for openly licensed resources, and participating in a community of practice with other #GoOpen states and districts to share learning and professional development resources. More information on Delaware’s #GoOpen commitment can be found here.
“Openly licensed educational resources will help increase equitable access to high-quality educational opportunities across our state and the country,” Secretary of Education Steve Godowsky said. “We are proud to be part of this work.”
Since the launch of #GoOpen, school districts from more than 27 states have worked with #GoOpen Ambassador districts and innovators from educational technology companies and nonprofit organizations who have committed to create new tools and provide professional learning opportunities to help districts in their transition to using high quality, openly licensed educational resources in their schools.
In Delaware, the Colonial and Red Clay Consolidated school districts have joined.
“It helps empower our teachers to make instructional decisions focused on standards and student needs using current and dynamic resources,” Colonial Director of Schools Pete Leida said. “As #GoOpen continues to grow, educators will have access to increased amounts of resources rather than be confined to static resources presented by a single publisher. It fosters collaboration, sharing, a sense of ownership and allows for personalization of instruction.”
Kristina Peters, K-12 Open Education Fellow at the U.S. Department of Education, said the transition to openly licensed educational resources has enabled school districts to reallocate funds typically spent on traditional instructional materials back into teachers curating and creating, as well as supporting a full digital transition.
“We are excited that Delaware is committed to supporting its districts in using openly licensed educational resources,” she said.
For more details on #GoOpen commitments made by states, school districts, and technology companies, visit http://tech.ed.gov/open.
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.
At a League of Women Voter’s candidate forum tonight at Delaware State University, Delaware candidates for Congress and Insurance Commissioner debated about many topics. Delaware State Senator Colin Bonini was unable to make it, so John Carney didn’t come, even though the Green candidate for Governor showed up. La Mar Gunn wasn’t able to make it, to Bethany Hall-Long left shortly after the debate began.
But Lisa Blunt Rochester… she still can’t say the words: “I support a parent’s right to opt out.” A question came up about abolishing Common Core and the Smarter Balanced Assessment (and it, surprisingly, didn’t come from me). I will be (no pun intended) blunt and admit my question was “Yes or No, do you support a parent’s right to opt out of standardized testing.” But the Common Core/SBAC one had Republican candidate Hans Reigle and Libertarian candidate Scott Gesty both openly admit their loathing of Common Core and Smarter Balanced and that they support a parent’s right to opt out. She snuck in towards the end that she supports parental rights, but it’s not the same thing and she knows it.
I have no doubt the Insurance Commissioner candidates, Republican Jeff Cragg and Democrat Trinidad Navarro thought to themselves, “I’m an insurance guy, I’m not answering that political hot potato.” Can’t say I blame them, but Blunt-Rochester knows it is a big topic in Delaware. And she either insults parents who do opt their kids out or just ignores it. But I don’t think she understands what Markell and the Delaware DOE have done to students in this state.
“For me, as I look at the whole issue of testing, I don’t think we should be teaching to a test. We should be looking at measuring growth for that additional child so that teachers are empowered to really help that child…one of the issues in terms of tests and opting out is the fact that what we would hope is our education system would be equal and equitable and high quality so that no one would want to opt out.”
So in the meantime, we keep the crappy test that will lead to stealth tests in a personalized learning/competency-based education arena. And this growth she wants us to measure? What does she think the feds and the Delaware DOE measure that growth by? The standardized test. Hello! And equal and equitable aren’t the same thing. High quality based on what? Common Core and SBAC? Or do you have a better idea that we haven’t heard. The other candidates recommended bringing this back to the local level. I didn’t hear that from you tonight.
They did ask one of my questions about restoring FERPA to pre-2008 levels. In 2008 and 2011, the US DOE had FERPA changed which allowed student data to go out to third-party companies, sometimes without any parental consent for the data collecting procedures to begin with. Once again, Gesty and Reigle nailed it and said they would support those changes. Blunt-Rochester (if she even knows what FERPA is), talked about HIPAA and cell phone tracking apps. Her response to changing FERPA?
“I would want to know more about why that exchange happens.”
Uhm, it happens so private student information can go out to companies and massive troves of data are collected on our kids. That was the whole point of the question. Gesty and Reigle got it. Not sure why you can’t. Blunt-Rochester talked about her time as the Delaware Secretary of Labor and constituents complained about filling out multiple forms to different state agencies. She did say privacy is a concern, but she missed the point of the question. There is a BIG difference.
She is well aware I blasted her in August for calling opt out a “leisure for some parents” at a Congressional debate in Wilmington. Afterwards, I asked her point blank on her Facebook page if she supports a parent’s right to opt their child out of the state assessment. She said nothing. Didn’t respond. And I’ve seen her a few times since (along with John Carney), and they treat me as if I were a ghost. You can think it is okay to be completely rude and not respond if I smile at you or say hi, but don’t think for one minute that I’m not hip to the Rodel influence on both of you. I have no doubt I will be writing more about both of them the next four years, and it won’t be pleasant at this rate. My take when this happens: you are drinking someone else’s Kool-Aid and really don’t know enough about the issue. You are told what to say and what not to say. And I’m sure one of the cardinal rules is don’t engage with the blogger. Which just makes me jump all over you. Funny how that works out. Some may say I attack first and ask questions later. I will own that. But as most who bother to take the time to actually talk to me know, I am willing to listen. I may not agree, but if you treat me like a leper, you reap what you sow. I’m not in it this for politicians or administrators or for whatever state association you have. I’m in this for the kids. For my own son. And for this entire generation of students who have been subjected to pure and utter crap from adults who should REALLY know better than to think it is okay to profit off kids.
I will say I endorsed Scott Gesty for Congress last month. Ideologically, we agree on many issues. With that being said, if he wasn’t in the race, I would support Hans Reigle. Blunt-Rochester is just spend, spend, spend, and economy this and economy that with the same script we’ve read for the past eight years under Governor Rodel, er, uhm, Markell. And Carney is the same thing. Enough. I can say Blunt-Rochester will not be getting a vote from my household as my wife supports Hans. We are a divided household, what can I say. I am a firm believer you get what you vote for. And the way this state votes “blue or die”, we will get the same. And all those who preach doom and gloom every single political season, those of the same party who can’t stand each other but will support their peer because of a political label, they will be the first ones complaining over the next four years and public education will continue to go down a dark path as we try to spend our way to prosperity. Many see me as a Democrat, while others see me as a Republican or Libertarian. I’m just a dad. Concerned about my son’s future as a citizen of Delaware and America. I see between the lines of all the crap being slung at us. The lies, the manipulation, the fraud. It is not red or blue or any other party. It’s greed, pure and simple. People who are so used to hanging out with people who are, at heart, glorified salespeople, who promise great things as they spin their shit into gold.
I can’t support Hillary or Donald either for those same reasons. Hillary is the godmother of corporate education reform. Trump is just Trump, all bark and no bite. But when he gets impeached (which I can easily see happening), we will be left with Mike Pence who is a big corporate education reform kind of guy. So either way we are screwed. I think Hillary’s plans are exactly what we see happening in education. Don’t be fooled by her. She will stab all students, teachers, and parents in the back. And her minions in each state, including Delaware, will make damn sure it happens at the state level. The wheels are already in motion. We call this the Every Student Succeeds Act. Don’t think for one minute she isn’t banking on winning and has been planning accordingly. And just in case, we have Mike Pence waiting in the wings. And Delaware will automatically cave if we keep the current power structure and say “Yes, we have to do this.” And the cycle goes on and on and on…
As for Lisa Blunt-Rochester and her need to have us find “common ground” as she put it tonight, we will never find that common ground until some candidates and existing legislators don’t return to the ground. I don’t vote on smiles. I vote on words. And the words I was looking for tonight did come out. Just not from you.
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.
Rayburn House Office
Building, Room B-318
October 21, 2016
Katharine G. Abraham, CEP Chair
Ron Haskins, CEP Co-Chair
George Grob, American Evaluation Association
Clyde Tucker, American Statistical Association
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
Rachel Fishman, New America
Tiffany Jones, The Education Trust
Christine Keller, Association of Public & Land-grant Universities
Tom Allison, Young Invincibles
Erin Knowles, United States Parents Involved in Education
Emmett McGroarty, American Principles Project
Daniel Crowley, National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives
RK Paleru, Booz Allen Hamilton
Quentin Wilson, Public Performance Improvement Researcher
David Medina, Results for America
Kelleen Kaye, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy
Sara Dube, Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative
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.
Last night at the Delaware Every Student Succeeds Act Governor’s Advisory Committee meeting, audience members were given a chance to give public comment. I gave the following public comment, with the exception of a couple of sentences because that was covered during the meeting. I will put an asterisk between those sentences.
Good evening members of the ESSA Advisory Committee. My name is Kevin Ohlandt. Congratulations on your selection for this very important group. This is a mammoth undertaking, this new federal law. I will be completely frank: I do not trust this law. I do not trust our Delaware Dept. of Education. I believe ESSA is an unholy matrimony between education and corporations. You can consider me the friend of the bride, education, warning about the potential husband who will not be good for her. I have seen and heard far too much to suggest otherwise. I believe this matrimony will eventually result in a messy divorce. The custody battle for the students will be huge, and I fear the groom, the companies, will eventually win custody of the kids.
I urge this committee to give an immediate recommendation of postponing Delaware’s submission of their state plan to the US DOE. There are far too many moving parts. *States were given two dates to submit their final plan: March 31st or July 31st. Our Dept. of Education chose March 31st without any true consultation with the citizens of our state.* We were not given a choice as a state or allowed to be part of that decision-making process. Certain parties were given a much greater weight in consultation with the DOE before any public gathering took place.
As a member of the Student and School Supports discussion group, I see far too many members of that group who would financially benefit from the Every Student Succeeds Act. When that happens, I don’t see them as a stakeholder, but a benefactor. That is not what the term stakeholder means. I believe some good can come out of this law. I have seen many great ideas come forth in the meetings. But until we can weed out what is good or bad for students, we need to “slow our roll”. There are far too many conflicts of interest involved with this plan.
With that being said, the issues facing education in Delaware are at a crisis point. Whether it is mold in schools that is making people sick, or drugs and gangs reaching into elementary schools, or a teenager murdered in a bathroom stall, or the very fast implementation of educational technology in our classrooms with no research on the long-term psychological effects on children, or student’s personal data being given to parties that truly do not need that information, or lawsuits concerning school funding or segregation of minority students, or FOIA complaints against the DOE for continually failing to make certain public body meetings transparent and available to the public, we need to slow down.
Education should always be about the kids. Some in this world have already determined what their future should be and I find that to be an immoral and grave injustice.
A parent of an Appo student sent me this. This is the parental consent form for free and reduced lunch. It’s like the ESEA Flexibility Waivers… “I’ll give you this, but in return I need this and this and this and this…” Parents, watch what you are signing and do research on how much personal data you are allowing to go out about your child. Because even if you trust the district, they are putting that information on grant applications, which go out to other agencies. At that point, the federal law that is meant to “protect” student data, allows that information to go out to other education “research” companies. Nothing in this world is free.