The State Core Model

Another document that exposes Big Data’s push is: “The State Core Model: A common technical reference model for states implementing P20 state longitudinal data systems”

The State Core Model is:

“… a common technical reference model for states implementing state longitudinal data systems (SLDS). It was developed by CCSSO as part of the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) adoption work with funding from the Gates Foundation. The Model includes early childhood (EC), elementary and secondary (K12), post-secondary (PS), and workforce (WF) elements, known collectively as “P20,” and establishes comparability between sectors and between states. The State Core Model will do for State Longitudinal Data Systems what the Common Core is doing for Curriculum Frameworks and the two assessment consortia.”

This document discusses the challenge of collecting data in view of the federal education privacy law (FERPA). The FERPA regulation:

“… allows education agencies and institutions to disclose personally identifiable information to other school officials within the education agency or institution whom the education agency or institution has determined to have legitimate education interests in the information. This allows disclosure to individuals within the education agency or institution, such as teachers, who need the information in order to perform their duties for the education agency or institution. The education agency or institution is responsible for determining which individuals have legitimate education interests in personally identifiable student information contained in education records. This exception does not authorize sharing student information with non-education agencies that may have legitimate educational interests.”

So as long as an entity claims to have an educational purpose, the state can decide to allow them access to education data. Then under ‘Disclosure to Its Authorized Representative’ the regulations state:

“The SEA [State Education Agency] may disclose student information without prior consent to an authorized representative of the SEA to perform activities on behalf of the SEA. An “authorized representative” of an SEA must be under the direct control of the SEA as an Employee or a contractor.”

So, can the state just declare an organization as a “contractor” to make then an “authorized representative” to get around the parental requirement? Sounds like that’s how it works.

Collecting data in itself is not necessarily a problem, but who can access it (beyond the classroom teacher and school principal) and the manner in which it’s used is of a great concern, especially when there are so many entities who seem determined to gain access to it.

Next: Data & Technology in the Driver’s Seat

Empty Promises of Privacy Protection

PA House Resolution 338 touted by Seth Grove, et al states:

“The Secretary of Education and the State Board of Education be urged to ensure that Pennsylvania academic standards do not result in intrusion into student and family privacy or in the collection or reporting of additional data to the Federal Government.”

A group called the Data Quality Campaign published a document titled Next Generation State Data System: What is Needed to Support the Next Generation Assessment and Accountability Systems which is found on Achieve, Inc.’s website provides some insight into the Big Data movement. On Page 6 of this document, Student IDs are discussed:

“Most states have implemented a statewide unique student identifier (ID) within the past three years … This student ID allows states to track students as they move across schools and districts within the state and track students as they move from one grade to another. Typically, these IDs are generated by the state and may be shared with the district. Ohio, however, has a state law that says that the SEA cannot maintain students’ identifiable information (i.e., names, dates of birth). The SEA does have access to the student ID, but without other personally identifiable information it is difficult for them to share data with other entities.”

The article goes on to discuss Assessment Data:

“SEA [State Education Agency] systems typically collect data on the statewide assessment system …  As states are building more robust student-level data systems, though, SEA’s are beginning to collect student-level scores, and in some cases even item-level responses, from the testing contractors. States enter into contracts with testing vendors and specify in the contracts what types of reports are to be sent directly to the districts versus to the SEA. …”

In conclusion, the document discusses the “cultural, political, and financial” obstacles to data collection [emphasis mine]:

“…Culturally, educators and administrators need to learn to embrace the use of data, instead of fear it. Politically, policymakers need to make the sharing of student-level data — while protecting student confidentiality — not only acceptable, but mandatory across educational institutions. State laws, such as those in OH, that prevent the SEA from maintaining identifiable student information create a burden to the state, both from a financial and a data perspective. Interpretations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) that prevent P-12 and post-secondary systems from sharing student-level data hinder the ability to improve student achievement. … The next generation data system will likely come to fruition when we have both local educators and state policymakers calling for access to more data in easy to use formats on a more frequent basis. The convergence of demands from the ‘bottom up’ and the ‘top down’ will create the perfect storm to create a new breed of data system, but that demand can only be filled if financial commitments are made to ensure that the systems are built and sustained.”

So what they seem to be saying is, in order to the get the data they need, it must be personally identifiable and they find it quite annoying that state’s like Ohio have created such a burden by not allowing this to happen. And I don’t think anyone “fears” the use of data, but the misuse and abuse that happens when private records are “accidentally” exposed or hacked.  Although this document is not specifically applicable to PA, as I’ve said before, it shows the mindset and the intentions of the folks behind Big Data. They are just biding their time until the right folks get into office to lift the restrictions on getting them the data they want and they are constantly pushing the ball down the court. This is why our elections matter.

The National School Board Association’s website published information on how the federal education privacy law intersects and in many cases overrides the health care information privacy law:

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) have issued a joint guidance on the application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to student health records… …the new guidance notes that the HIPAA Privacy Rule generally does not apply to elementary or secondary schools … ”

If your child has a medical or psychological condition and the child’s medical records becomes part of the education record it sounds like federal education privacy rules trumps healthcare privacy rules. And remember, this was done under the radar through regulatory changes, not a Congressional vote.

As we have all seen more and more in recent years, promises of anonymity and privacy with these “secure” ID’s are empty and meaningless when it’s your data that has been unwittingly exposed.  As Paul Ohm published in 2009 ‘Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization at the University of Colorado School of Law, we know security breaches occur on a regular basis, therefore, there is no way to guarantee the privacy of our children’s information, especially on-line or in these “clouds.” Anyone who has ever had his credit card information or identity stolen knows that “encryption” can be unencrypted and unlinked data can be linked.  As parents, we were never even given a privacy agreement to review and sign with respect to this data system.

Besides the obvious fraud and identity theft (especially if Social Security Numbers are used) this can lead to if data is not secured properly, what impact might this have on our children once a historical database by name is compiled on them beginning in infancy? And what of trying to correct misinformation that might be recorded on our child? Remember, this is massive bureaucratic administrative state that does not readily or easily respond to those it serves.

Next: Big Data & the State “Core” Model

Using Data to Drive Education

In a document titled “The State Core Model: A common technical reference model for states implementing P20 state longitudinal data systems” the author discusses the vision of individualized education models where children navigate their own path, while they are monitored via a sort of GPS navigation system:

“Like a car navigation system, the learning management systems of the future will know the current location of each learner and be able to plot multiple, individualized paths to the Common Core and other academic goals. Students will be able to select preferences of modality of instruction, language, and time. And, like a car navigation system, even if they decide to take a detour, the system will always know where they are, where they want to go, and multiple paths to get there.”

And who decides what the destination is? Will I even know where my child is headed? And what if I don’t agree with the destination to which my child is being guided? Unlike textbooks, computer programs and content can be edited on the fly, so even if you reviewed it one day, the next it could change.

And what is the “State Core Model?”

“The State Core Model is a common technical reference model for states implementing state longitudinal data systems (SLDS). It was developed by CCSSO as part of the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) adoption work with funding from the Gates Foundation.”

Ah, yes, the beloved benefactor of all things education these days .. The Gates Foundation. And the CCSSO … hmm, what other “Common” project was that organization involved in? Oh yes, something called Common Core State Standards. But move along, nothing to see here. Nope, Common Core has NOTHING to do with data collection. Even though, the State Core “addresses student-teacher link, common assessment data model, and comes pre-loaded with Common Core learning standards.”  Remember the money for these database systems emanated from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to the PA Information Management Systems (PIMS), as well as the Department of Labor & Industry, not to the PA Department of Education as part of Race to the Top.

This “State Core” document reflects the mindset of the people behind movements like Common Core and data-driven education. And there is a big push to go all-digital in the classroom (see Pearson).  Teachers become mere facilitators and students tap away on their taxpayer funded iPads. (Anyone who has ever seen the condition of “new” textbooks at the end of first year of year of use, can only imagine what these iPads will look like.)

In the name of “cost effectiveness” and streamlining, and individualized learning, we can gradually increase the role of computers and decrease that of teachers. Human beings are just so darn expensive. And computers don’t have opinions nor do they talk back. The truth is artificial intelligence can never replace human intelligence and discernment, imperfect as it we may be. But not to worry, fellow clueless parent, our beloved State as created a system, beginning in early childhood (which apparently begins in “the womb”) to “Guide Parents Smoothly” into the 21st Century of learning and parenting. Quite frankly, I think I liked what came out of the 18th-19th century better.

Sadly, as I’ve said, we’ve gone down the rabbit hole where nothing is as they seems. Learning now means training to attain skills and shaping behavior, not attaining knowledge in the traditional sense. Individualized means the “system” will decide the path for your child and “lead” him or her in the “right” direction to their assigned track in life.

Teaching means facilitating a classroom of students who stare at computer screens awaiting their next destination on the Common Core superhighway.

Social-emotional learning (for which PA now has standards) really means behavior modification strategies to mold, shape, and alter values, attitudes and beliefs, but whose values, attitudes and beliefs? And what if they conflict or contradict those instilled by the parents?  And if you have social emotional learning standards, you can guarantee there will be a tool to “assess” them. And where does this data captured from our children’s social-emotional learning assessments go?

In the name of diversity and tolerance, our children are being lead to think the same way and to have the same worldview, under the guise that doing so will make everyone get along, which completely ignores human nature.

Our children are being led to believe they are  “global citizens” who just happen to live in America, without any understanding of why the history and tradition of America makes them any different from children born elsewhere.  Our education system is being directed by policies and goals developed by the United Nations, which is the origin of  this 21^st Century Learning and globalization efforts.

And if you do not share the worldview and values being promoted and promulgated, then it’s “too bad, so sad” for you.  The progressive education reform brigade tolerates everyone except those who disagree with them.

Technology has its place, but when over-used or misused it becomes cumbersome and ineffective and creates more problems than it solve. It can never replace the human interaction of teacher and student. Sadly, it seems like teaching is slowly becoming a lost art. And schools are becoming a tool for social engineering rather than properly educating based on truth and facts, not opinions and consensus.

Next: On Whose Authority?

Origins of federal data collection

The push from the federal government for access to your child’s private information all started long before the stimulus and Common Core,  but it is all connected in the same tangled web.

The Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, (yes, that would be George Bush)  created the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The IES distributes federal taxpayer dollars in the form of grants for the creation of State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS, or what I call ‘Birth and Beyond.’)  Even before that, the America Competes Act 2000 mandated 12 elements of data collection that states must implement. These elements are:

1. An unique identifier for every student that does not permit a student to be individually identified (except as permitted by federal and state law) [Interesting to note that federal privacy law was recently changed to ease up the restrictions];

2. The school enrollment history, demographic characteristics, and program participation record of every student;

3. Information on when a student enrolls, transfers, drops out, or graduates from a school;

4. Students scores on tests required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act;

5. Information on students who are not tested, by grade and subject

6. Students scores on tests measuring whether they’re ready for college;

7. A way to identify teachers and to match teachers to their students;

8. Information from students’ transcripts, specifically courses taken and grades earned;

9. Data on students’ success in college, including whether they enrolled in remedial courses;

10. Data on whether K-12 students are prepared to succeed in college;

11. A system of auditing data for quality, validity, and reliability; and

12. The ability to share data from preschool through postsecondary education data systems.

The grant money flowing into PA to create this data system came from a variety of sources,  including the federal stimulus, called American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and its subsidiary Race To The Top (RTTT) as well as the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) which gave $24+ million directly to PA’s Information Management department (called PIMS) and to the Department of Labor and Industry to expand the State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS).

Each new distribution of grant money was predicated on fulfilling the requirements of the previous grant application. The Data Quality Campaign tracks states’ compliance with the data system requirements.

‘Birth and Beyond’ Data Collection

The PK-20 ‘Birth and Beyond’ data program has been developed to capture and store data on our children. What I have discovered is that the “Core” of “the Common Core” initiative is data and assessments. Assessing not only the students, but the education staff as well.  You can get rid of the “standards,” but what is really at the heart of everything is Big DATA. These so-called “college-and-career-ready” standards and the stimulus and federal grant money are just the mechanism for ushering it all in. There is nothing wrong with using data as information, but these “reforms” puts data in the driver’s seat.

When I researched the grant applications for the ‘Birth and Beyond’ data system, I found they were actually submitted and processed through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) whose purpose, per the website, is to:

“fulfill a Congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report complete statistics on the condition of American education; conduct and publish reports; and review and report on education activities internationally.”

The NCES site also contains a link to something called Common Core of Data … there’s that phrase again.

“The Common Core of Data (CCD) is a program of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics that annually collects fiscal and non-fiscal data about all public schools, public school districts and state education agencies in the United States. The data are supplied by state education agency officials and include information that describes schools and school districts, including name, address, and phone number; descriptive information about students and staff, including demographics; and fiscal data, including revenues and current expenditures.”

Further research found the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) project, which is

“a national collaborative effort to develop voluntary, common data standards for a key set of education data elements to streamline the exchange, comparison, and understanding of data within and across P-20W institutions and sectors.”

Under the website’s Frequently Asked Questions section:

“How is CEDS different from the Common Core State Standards?

“…The Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) is a set of commonly agreed upon names, definitions, option sets, and technical specifications for a given selection of data elements. CEDS focuses on the meaning of data stored in longitudinal data systems, and is being developed by a stakeholder group facilitated by NCES. CEDS will support systemic education reform efforts by making it possible for states to collect the data they need to fully understand their progress on successfully adopting the Common Core State Standards or any other standards.”

In order for data collection and reporting to work across state lines and across entities, they must have the same data sets, labeled the same way. But as we all know, not every person “fits” into one particular data label (also called tags). These “tags” that are used to label each data field must match perfectly in order for the data to be useable. But not everyone fits into a particular “tag.”  I experience this all the time when I’m filling out forms – sometimes my answer just doesn’t match any of the options on the form. So you either end up with a check mark next to the box that says “other” with a free form fill in space that throws a wrench in the works for the data collector, or you must force everyone to choose from a pre-defined consistent set of acceptable responses or else that data is meaningless and useless. We are people, not points of data.  We are not easily categorized and sorted into neat little reports.

Unique Student & Teacher IDs

In the second round of Race to the Top grant applications, PA lauds all it has accomplished by telling the US Dept of Education (and this was in 2009) that  it has “assigned 1.8 million unique student IDs as well as staff IDs.”

The grant applications also state that the database “Must link student data with teachers.” This includes teachers and teacher’s aides. So, if you must link student data with teachers how can they possibly say the unique identifier will not identify individual children and individual teachers?

In the 2009 grant application, there is a section titled ‘Lead Collaborative Effort to Establish National Unique ID for Students’ which states:

“Pennsylvania shares a common approach and software product with 8 other states and the US Department of Education …”

Then, later on in the document, under a section titled ‘Outcomes’ the application states:

“PDE electronic records exchange will increase the efficiency of our PK-20 organization by: … Connect[ing] to National Clearinghouse data.”

A search for National Clearinghouse led me to yet another “non-profit” organization website called “College Ready” which is funded by, guess who, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and says “Together we will ensure all students graduate prepared to succeed in college, careers, and community.”  It touts the National Student Clearinghouse as a method of tracking students long after they graduate high school into their college and career, across state lines.

A September 18, 2008 letter from Gerald Zahorchak, then Secretary of Education, to Honorable Sandi Vito, Acting Secretary Department of Labor and Industry was included in the Race to the Top grant application, in which Secretary Zahorchak identified “two obstacles to implementation of the early childhood through a workforce longitudinal data systems” the first being cost, and the second:

“the fact that the PIMS system does not currently collect Social Security Numbers (SSN) of students while the Wage Record dataset is dependent on individual SSNs.”

He goes on to say there is a “critical need for the PDE (PA Dept of Ed) to collect the last five digits of a student’s SSN to enable this system to merge, and we are working on resolving this.”

Did they do it?

Well, Dave Ream, PA’s Data Quality Manager, responded to the 2013 Data Quality Campaign’s Data for Action survey on behalf of the Office of Governor Tom Corbett  that:

“The Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry was awarded a $1 million Workforce Data Quality Initiative grant in June 2012. PA-WDQI’s mission is to link data from the Departments of Public Welfare, Labor and Industry and Education to gauge the outcomes of taxpayer supported programs.”

This survey also mentions that Pennsylvania is part of  the Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL) project:

The Teacher/Student Data Link (TSDL) Project, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is being conducted by the Center for Educational Leadership and Technology (CELT) with guidance and dissemination support from the Data Quality Campaign (DQC). This project is a cross-state, collaborative effort focused on developing a best practice framework for a “Teacher of Record” (TOR) definition and business processes for collecting and validating linked teacher and student data.”

Data in itself is not a problem, but who can access it (beyond the classroom teacher and principal) and the manner in which it’s used is of a great concern, especially when there are so many entities who seem determined to gain access to it.

Next: Big Data & Early Learning