Learning is Earning...and our Bond Hearing

Tomorrow, Sept. 13, is a very busy day for education in our state and county: Competency-based Ed conference, Prosperity 2020, and Bond Hearing.

BOND HEARING
The Public Bond Hearing is @ 6pm @ the District Office in AF. Generic public comments are first, standard business stuff, and then the official Bond Hearing.  The bond will be on the ballot in November, for $387 Million, no tax increase, new buildings due to growth, rebuilding due to age.  I voted to put the bond on the ballot.  Our area will get 1% of the total amount of the bond.  Here's the agenda: http://board.alpineschools.org/2016/09/09/september-13-2016-board-meeting/  And here is information on the bond. http://alpineschools.org/bond2016/

On to the 'new visions' for education.  Lots of it has been in the works for a while, and some things are just rebrands of what has gone on before.  Full-disclosure, I'm not a fan of most everything that we are seeing proposed for 'ed reform': Competency-based ed, Workforce alignment, Digital Badges, GRIT, 21st Century Skills/Learning, etc.  I believe most everyone involved in these projects are well-intended and are proposing these visions and ideas with the goal to help our children.  But many who are involved in these reforms do focus primarily on workforce training, not education. 

Education is a much broader vision than simple workforce training.  Don't get me wrong, I want my kids to be gainfully employed, but I believe the well-educated individual will never be an anachronism in the workplace; they will be capable of seeing the consequences of actions due to a vast general knowledge and understanding.  The specific skills related to a job, with a few exceptions, can be learned 'on the job.'  And there's evidence that these supposed 'skill sets': collaboration, critical thinking, communication are directly related to the specific subject-matter at hand.  I may be good at thinking critically about a mathematical problem, but fail miserably when it comes to architecture, mostly because I lack the foundational knowledge allowing me to think accurately about a particular issue.  And collaboration works very well with experts from various fields; not so much with amateurs with similar backgrounds.  And sometimes, like in the case of Steve Wozniak inventing the Apple computer, collaboration is completely unneeded, unnecessary, and probably wouldn't have worked.  (Einstein: Theory of Relativity; Newton, Kepler, how much collaboration did they do?)

So, without further adieu....

JOINT LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE on COMPETENCY-BASED ED
At 8am, there will be a Joint Legislative Conference talking about Competency-based ed at UVU--essentially, kids with computers designed to streamline credentials for workforce.  The discussion is not and never has been: Should we do Competency-based (or mastery learning or whatever)?  The focus tomorrow is how to implement it and how to overcome the obstacles (including, I'm sure whe'll hear about those 'people who just don't like change.')  Some of the focus is very appealing: don't make kids who already understand something sit through a semester or a year to get credit for it.  The question comes down to WHO decides what the criteria are for determining competency?  Is it a national organization dedicated to global citizenship?  Is it the local community college or the local school district?  Is it American Institutes for Research, SAGE test designer and behavioral research organization extraordinaire?  A newly-established and funded comptency-based ed board?And therein lies the rub.  Who is in charge?  I can guarantee it won't be parents.  Granted, my kids are taking online learning courses--specifically for the mostly brain-dead courses the legislature requires in order to 'check a box' to say they've done it.  While I would love for them to be able to test out of a lot of this garbage, I think the real answer is for the legislature to not impose arbitrary courses on to the locals.  I know that requires a lot of faith in your local school board, teachers and administrators and, most importantly, parents and taxpayers.  But, WE are obligated to chart the course to determine what our kids need.  If Park City thinks their kids need something different, so be it.  Why should we care?  Unfortunately, we live in an age where 'the experts know best', and parents are seen as obstacles in providing a child with 'real' education.

Back to the conference, many of you remember Marc Tucker, famous for his School to Work ideas during the Clinton Administration and the Dear Hillary letter (cradle-to-grave workforce development system.)  Mr. Tucker was the keynote speaker at last year's joint legislative conference.  This is Part Deux (part two).  This is Mr. Tucker's vision, and all the focus on Workforce as the end goal of education was enhanced by Mr. Tucker and his National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE).  It's always fun to think of my children in terms of their 'economic potential', as 'human capital'.  And dare are I ask, what happens to those humans who can't be turned into capital? 
THE LEDGER: 'FUN' ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE
Here is a link to a video that ACT and others have put together to show what competency-based ed is projected to grow into.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zssd6eBVfwc

Learning is Earning 2026 - A partnership between ACT ... www.youtube.com Play the game, make the future. 9am March 8 - 9pm March 9 CST www.LearningIsEarning2026.org

And commentary from my favorite, liberal education blogger, Peter Greene (language warning).   http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-ledger-lab-rat-america.html

For those who don't want to read through Mr. Greene's blog, here are some excerpts:

Learning is earning.

Your Ledger account tracks everything you've ever learned in units called edublocks.
An edublock represents, supposedly, one hour of learning in any subject-- which brings us to our first mystery, which is exactly how one breaks down learning into hours.

...

Your profile displays all the blocks you've earned. Employers can use this information to offer you a job or a gig that matches your skills.

The Ledger will track the money you make from those gigs and use it to evaluate the edublock sources; ultimately every edublock source will carry a rating that shows which sources led to people earning the most money. Because in the world of the Ledger, money is the ultimate yardstick by which all value is measured. You can even market yourself as a commodity, bartering for free edublocks by offering a share of your future earnings in return. The video does not say anything about what happens if you do not provide a sufficient return on the investment, and I'd rather not imagine how that particular "collection" goes. [My note: See?  I'm not the only one who wonders.]

...

Does ACT have a plan for getting not one, but several governments to sign off and join up on the Ledger, so that the program can have access to everything, every last bit of data? Because this whole plan would seem to require that a corporation and governments join together to provide a more user-friendly computer-based surveillance state.
 

...

Who is going to create all the tasks that will measure and certify certain skills? It doesn't actually matter that much, because the bottom line is that all jobs and skill sets will be broken down to the simplest possible set of tasks, a simplification that guarantees that all nuance, complexity, and higher-order thinking will be kicked right out of the system.

Exactly what task will certify that you have acquired one hour's worth of critical thinking?

...

This is not education. This is training. This is operant conditioning for the servant class that also provides the upper class with tools that let them trickle even fewer benefits down to the working class.

In fact, I would say that this is just training rats to run a maze, but it's even worse than that, because ultimately even if we were to accept the premise that simply giving some job-ish training for the underclass is good enough, and even if I were to accept the racist, classist [b***sh**] that somehow ignores the immoral and unethical foundations of such a system, the fact remains that this would be a lousy training system. To reduce any job of any level of complexity to this kind of checklist-of-tasks training provides the worst possible type of training.

...

Do I think folks like ACT Foundation or Pearson (who also like a version of this model) can actually pull this off? It doesn't matter-- what matters is that this is their North Star, and even though you never get to the North Star, it still shapes the course you set. Worse, while I hope we never arrive in the world of the Ledger, these folks can do a huge amount of damage trying to navigate in that direction.

So, our legislators are being asked to start legislating competency-based ed stuff, so we can get on the Learning is Earning track without a public discussion as to why we're doing this and who will determine what is competency?  (And BTW, did you call your legislator to ask for this change?  I'm guessing you didn't.  Another 'brilliant idea' that comes down from some Think Tank somewhere that will be foisted on the public without any sort of pilot project, public demand, or scientific evaluation.  And then in 5 years, they'll say it wasn't properly implemented and come up with something else that's similar but somehow better that was presented with a nice PowerPoint at some conference somewhere.) 

PROSPERITY 2020
At 4pm at the District Office, Prosperity 2020 will be giving us a 15 minute presentation.  I'm not sure what they will be presenting, but they have a similar focus on the economic outcomes of education. 

Here is a quote from the Utah.gov website about Prosperity 2020.
"Great businesses are built with human capital—well-trained and educated workers."

Again, I think those involved are motivated by a desire to have well-educated kids, and they are seeing some deficits, I assume.  They want to 'bridge that gap.'  But I would argue, it's doing things the wrong way.  If there is a market for certain skills, the market, using supply and demand, will pay more for those skills.  People will jump through whatever hoops are necessary to gain those skills, in order to get a job that pays really well for those skills.  Public education should not be seen as a publicly-funded job-training program.  And your kids and mine should NOT be seen as human capital that can be used to promote the economic bottom-line of a corporation or the State of Utah. Central planning to match job skills with workers and 'training' (education) sounds so 1980's USSR to me.  So, I will try to keep an open mind (it will be hard) for the presentation.  But at the end of the day, my question will still come back to: Who decides?  In public education, it's supposed to be the parents and the taxpayers, not Marc Tucker or the Chamber of Commerce. 

More Possible State Laws: Parental Rights Under Attack

Update: Feb. 16, 2016: The House Ed Committee voted against passing HB164 out of committee and on to the rest of the House.  Please thank Reps Fawson, Coleman, Lifferth, Christensen, Noel, Gibson, and McCay for their Nay votes!  And thanks to all of you who wrote letters and to those who commented during the committee hearing!

Our parental rights are being challenged as our legislature is in the midst of its 45-day session.  What there is no dearth of is possible laws regarding education, and some of them directly impacting your responsibilities and rights as a parent.

It's important to remember that the role of government is to protect rights, to not to 'create common good' or to 'facilitate good outcomes and the best of intentions.'  Please remember what Road is paved with good intentions.  A quote usually misattributed to Voltaire reads, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'  In making laws, it is important to put yourself on the receiving end of the penalties of the law.  If you are supportive of SAGE testing, please imagine if the tests were changed and you were not supportive.  How does someone else not having their child take the test impact your ability to raise your child as you see fit?  It doesn't.  This is what freedom looks like.  It isn't all of us agreeing all the time on what is 'good' or 'right' or 'best.'  It is allowing others 'maximum latitude' to live their lives in such a way that you don't interfere with them and they don't interfere with you.

HB164: Opt Out of Testing is being limited
Please email and, if possible, attend the committee hearing, tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016 at 2 pm in House Building, Room 30.

This legislation does three things, all of them wrong.

1. Allows the end-of-year testing (aka SAGE summative) to be used for student grades and grade promotion (going from 3rd to 4th grade?  Not if you fail this test.)

2. Limits parents' ability to opt out of all software/testing packages purchased by the state, like everything on SAGE (summative, formative, and interim), as well as things like Utah Compose.  Anything where the state contracted directly with a vendor, then state is directly responsible for data privacy, terms of use, and so forth.  Since there are no state privacy directives, the current law allows parents the ability to just avoid any 'questionable' data-mining programs provided by the state.  HB164 will still allow you to opt out of end-of-year tests, but all the others will result in possible negative consequences for your child.

3. Allows the State Board to create incentives for students who take the test.  Imagine, for a moment, that you have decided to opt your child out of SAGE testing.  Your child's best friend takes the test and gets a reward.  Your child, of course, KNOWS that his/her friend got this reward for taking the test.  This creates a positive home environment that supports you as a parent in what way?  I'll just leave it at that.

Here's a link to the bill.  http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0164.html

(One note: underlined words are what the bill is adding.  Strike-out words are those being removed by the bill.  All the other words are what is currently in the law and will be left alone.)

Email addresses for the House Education Committee:
blast@le.utah.gov; vlsnow@le.utah.gov; lavarchristensen@le.utah.gov; kimcoleman@le.utah.gov;
brucecutler@le.utah.gov; seliason@le.utah.gov; justinfawson@le.utah.gov; fgibson@le.utah.gov;
ehutchings@le.utah.gov; dlifferth@le.utah.gov; dmccay@le.utah.gov; csmoss@le.utah.gov; mnoel@kanab.net; mariepoulson@le.utah.gov;

Please keep your remarks respectful and to the point.  My letter is listed below.

Additionally, Alpine's Board has asked our Assistant Superintendent, Rob Smith, to assist us at the legislature with bills that we all support or oppose unanimously, as well as, to articulate the principles upon which we have unanimity.  You can keep abreast of things that the Board supports, as a whole, at this link on our district's website.  http://alpineschools.org/legislature/  Since our board is quite diverse, I believe it is very important and impactful when we all agree on an issue.  We have, a few times in the past, weighed in on legislation, but are trying to do more.  Mr. Smith has an excellent rapport with our legislators, and I am pleased that he was willing to assist us in this manner.  It has been determined that Mr. Smith will discuss the board priorities and principles, but will not state that the board is supportive or opposed to any legislation in which we are not 100% agreed.  I believe this is an excellent position for us to take. 

SB38: Unanimous opposition by Alpine School Board
One of the bills that our board unanimously opposes is SB38, school funding amendments.  While many of us are supportive of charter schools, SB38 creates a scenario where the legislature decides charters need more money, and then takes it from the district schools.  As a result, the board will raise property taxes to compensate.  I expect to give a much broader description in the near future.  But, suffice it to say that I find it wrong for one entity to essentially delegate the consequences of their actions to another, e.g. make the local boards raise property taxes while the legislature washes its hands of it.  There are many more transparent options, if you find that charters need more money.  (On that, not everyone is agreed, including me.  From what I can tell, Alpine gets less money per student than the charters we would be giving our money to  Again, that's wrong.  While the charters in our area may get less money than the districts statewide, they will not be getting money from those districts, just Alpine.)


The following bills are ones I oppose that are generally not supported by the full board, but probably not as heavily opposed for their content as just for the idea of why should we have more programs with more strings instead of giving the money to the local districts and charters and letting us decide, based on your input.

SB67: More Family Replacement/Data Gathering Infrastructure
This bill creates an infrastructure for data gathering, and a three-way partnership for funding between private entities, the state, and the feds.  I'm sure there will be no problem with determining who is to blame for any failures when there is no real consistent overseer. (Sorry, for my sarcasm.)  I will go into more detail on this one, as well.  But the data collected, that includes physical and mental health information, can be shared with pretty much anyone who can claim to be part of an educational program.  Additionally, some of the 'pilot' schools and United Way are already asking parents to sign away their privacy rights under the Federal privacy act (from 1974) FERPA (which is mostly meaningless to begin with).  Health data is usually protected by a much broader law, called HIPAA.  At the very least, even if you believe that this program will be awesome (it sounds very nice and will help), student medical information should be protected at the higher HIPAA level.  The bill should be amended to require this level of protection. 

HB277: More technology grants
This bill 'allows' local districts and charters to apply for state grants for technology. More strings because the state can't trust us at the local level: board members, parents, and teachers, to do what they want.  So, they will call it locally-led, since we can propose what we want to be in the grant, but it does limit what we can do with it.  We have to apply for the grant (more paperwork and administrative overhead), administer it with the appropriate 'accountability' to the state, and next year, it might all go away, so it can't be anything very long term.  On the flip side, they could just take that money and put it on the WPU (Weighted Pupil Unit), which is how the state pays each school per student that they educate.  The money on the WPU, the more flexibility we have as a board to spend the way you would want.  The biggest issue in our district seems to be class sizes and building new schools for growing areas.  In short, it is possible that the best use of that money in Alpine would be for reducing class sizes, not giving everyone a Chromebook to be used in a class of 35.  But if HB277 passes, then the state has decided that there is no circumstance where this money should be used for anything other than what they think it should be used for.  The sad thing is that chances are we would use it the way they want, for the most part.  But it is NOT local control (despite what was said in the committee meeting).  It's the same as allowing you the ability to walk anywhere you choose...within the 9x9 confines of a prison cell.  And even if you never would want to walk outside those 81 sq.ft., there is no freedom in not being able to. 

Oh, and there is some evidence that this program nicely matches the technology initiative that is being pushed by the White House.  One parent's well-documented concerns to this affect were dismissed with a question about whether or not President Obama had helped write the bill.  You don't have to have the feds write something for your "plan" wherever it came from to 'fit' what they are proposing (good or bad).  A substitute motion to prohibit the use of federal funds or incentives in funding this program was rejected in the committee. 

Following legislation during this period is very important for maintaining our freedom and our liberties.  The best place to go is: www.le.utah.gov.  You can search bills by number, sponsor, or topic.  Every bill will go before a committee.  If passed out of the committee, it goes before the full body (either House or Senate, wherever the bill originated).  If it passes, then it goes to the other chamber's committee.  If it passes, then to the full body of that chamber.  If it passes, then on to the Governor for his signature.  So, there are many steps along the way in which we can weigh in, and help support or prevent legislation.  You voice can make a BIG DIFFERENCE with our legislators.  And be aware that so many other organizations have lobbying arms, including the Utah School Boards Association, Tech Firms, etc.  There is no lobbying organization for you.  So, be involved and make your voice heard.

And when it comes to your rights as parents, I leave you with the wise words of our Former Supreme Court Justice, Dallin H. Oaks, ruling in Re: JP in 1982.

The rights inherent in family relationships—husband-wife, parent-child, and sibling—are the most obvious examples of rights retained by the people. They are “natural,” “intrinsic,” or “prior” in the sense that our Constitutions presuppose them, as they presuppose the right to own and dispose of property....

The integrity of the family and the parents' inherent right and authority to rear their own children have been recognized as fundamental axioms of Anglo-American culture, presupposed by all our social, political, and legal institutions. “To protect the [individual] in his constitutionally guaranteed right to form and preserve the family is one of the basic principles for which organized government is established."... This parental right transcends all property and economic rights. It is rooted not in state or federal statutory or constitutional law, to which it is logically and chronologically prior, but in nature and human instinct....

We conclude that the right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of unfitness, abandonment, or substantial neglect is so fundamental to our society and so basic to our constitutional order that it ranks among those rights referred to in Article I, Section 25 of the Utah Constitution and the Ninth Amendment of the United State Constitution as being retained by the people... 

Family autonomy helps to assure the diversity characteristic of a free society. There is no surer way to preserve pluralism than to allow parents maximum latitude in rearing their own children. Much of the rich variety in American culture has been transmitted from generation to generation by determined parents who were acting against the best interest of their children, as defined by official dogma. Conversely, there is no surer way to threaten pluralism than to terminate the rights of parents who contradict officially approved values imposed by reformers empowered to determine what is in the “best interest” of someone else's child.

******************************************************
My letter to our House Reps on the Education Committee asking them to OPPOSE HB164.

Please vote no on HB164 for the following reasons.

 

1. It allows end-of-year state tests to be used for individual student grades or grade promotion with no proof that the tests are valid or reliable or should even be used in such a fashion. 

 

2. It creates possible incentives for test takers, so the child who is opted out can watch those who did take the test (like the state told them to) get rewarded.  Does this not create a situation where a child is to be shown how 'wrong' their parent's decision was?  Furthermore, the child becomes the pawn between the schools and the parents.  It's really 'blackmailing' parents to 'encourage' them to allow the testing, so their child doesn't think they are mean and won't let them have the reward for test taking.  Since state law says that parents are primary and the state is secondary and supportive, I fail to see how this is supportive of the parent's wishes. 

3. It limits parents' ability to opt their kids out of anything but the end-of-year tests.  There is not demonstrable protection for student privacy and any sort of understanding as to how student data may or may not be used, as per the contract with our testing vendor, American Institutes for Research (AIR).  Not allowing parents to opt out of all versions of this testing, does not resolved the original data privacy concerns that parents have.  Those still exist.

If you'd like more information, please see below, or feel free to contact me at your convenience.

 

Even if you think there is no concern with SAGE testing, we should allow parents who do have concerns to protect their children as they see fit.  To limit this ability is to limit parental rights and to place the wishes and 'needs' of the state above that of the parents, and the individual child.  This is wrong, even if done with the goal of improving education. 

Thank you so much for your service to our state.

Wendy Hart

Alpine School Board, ASD2: Highland, Alpine, Cedar Hills

More information:

1. SAGE testing has never been validated.  In 2014, I and two of my fellow board members, Brian Halladay and Paula Hill, requested information from then associate superintendent Dr. Judy Park regarding validation and privacy (see below) concerns, and received no response.  The state of Florida, which purchased its test questions from Utah, attempted to do an independent validity study on Florida's version of SAGE.  There is some question about the validating organization truly being independent, there is some interesting information that we should be aware of.  Florida currently requires passage of this test for graduation and certain grade-level promotions. However, one of the conclusions was that Florida's test was not valid for individual student grades or promotions. 

I appreciate that teachers are being evaluated based on test scores.  I believe it is wrong (even if the test was valid) to use this as part of the teach evaluation process for many reasons that I won't cite here.  But teachers are adults.  It is more wrong to penalize minor children who don't pass the test and potentially impact them for the rest of their lives. 

Also, setting the proficiency scores was a very subjective process that began, not with an analysis of the content of the questions, but with a straight list of which questions had more right answers.  (The analysis of some of the questions, came later.) The assumption was that those with the least right answers were the most difficult.  That may be true in most cases, but it could be equally true for confusing or invalid questions, as well as those with incorrect answers.  Then the test was 'normed' to make sure there was a 40 - 45% proficiency outcome to match the NAEP and ACT tests. So, we created a target where 60% of the kids would be considered failing, and then we hit it.  If we know that our goal is to have 60% of the students fail, and we set the bar that way, how is it fair to then allow those scores to be used in student grades?

2. This sets a very dangerous precedent where the state is allowing parents to be set up to play the 'bad guy'.  Creating a possible rift between parent and child, even in the short term, should never be something the state sanctions, let alone agrees to. 

3. The SAGE platform comprises three types of testing: a. summative (end-of-year), b.interim (same or similar questions to end-of-year, not seen by the teacher, but can be given multiple times a year for practice and benchmarking), and c. formative (a software system that includes a databank of questions that teachers can select and/or contribute to for chapter tests, daily assignments).  Of the three types, the formative tests are the most insidious for data collection.  The VP of AIR, Jon Cohen, told a member of the parent panel that every mouse click and latency measures (how long it takes for the child's actions), as well as the actual submitted answers are being collected on the formative platform.  There is a huge amount of data being collected on every child that logs on.  Our contract does not limit what can or cannot be done with that data outside of their not sharing it with a 3rd party without the USOE's (not a parent's) consent.  AIR has over 20 subsidiary organizations that are involved in policy-making recommendations and other functions at the national level.  There would be no limitation placed on any of them or their employees on how that data was used in their own internal research or analysis.

My main concerns with the SAGE tests are: 1) there is no validation to show that what we are told is being tested, actually is what is being tested. 2) no guarantee of data privacy. In 2012, the US Dept of Ed changed their privacy regulations, allowing any personal student data to be shared with a 3rd party without parental knowledge or consent, as long as it was for an 'educational program.'  It's important to note that the term 'educational program' is undefined.  As a database analyst, by trade, it is important to note that there is so much data being collected on our kids in education, as well as other areas, these days, that it makes data privacy almost a mythical creature.  If I, as a parent, choose to limit that data collection on SAGE, I should have that right. 

 

The summative tests are the only type of SAGE testing that is being retained for parents to opt out of without consequences.  I spoke with Sen. Osmond (the previous sponsor and author of the current language in state code) about these three types of SAGE testing, and it was his intent to allow parents the ability to opt out of all three versions of SAGE without naming it specifically.  At the end of the day, we are, again, assuming that the state knows best, and parents should not be allowed to protect their children as they see fit. 

SAGE: Florida tries to validate Utah's test

Florida has done what Utah has been afraid to do. They have performed a validity test on the SAGE test administered by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) on the assessments of grades 3-10 ELA, grades 3-8 math, Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Geometry.

 

 

 

The validity test, performed by Alpine Testing and EdCount, was performed to test whether or not the test scores were valid for a specific use. In other words, does the test work or not?

 

Once the validity test was completed, Alpine Testing and Edcounts reported their findings to the Florida Senate K-12 Committee on September 17, 2015. The full video can be seen here.

 

What significance does this have for Utah? As can be seen from the video (and in their report) the field testing wasn’t performed primarily on Florida’s test. They used Utah’s test (thank you, Florida, for paying for Utah’s validity test.)

 

What Alpine Testing said in their comments to Florida is astounding. We have outlined some key points from the video. 

• At 44:50- Many items found in the test didn’t align with the standard that was being tested.
• At 47:70: Test scores should only be used at an aggregate level.
• At 48:15 – They recommend AGAINST using test scores for individual student decisions.
• At 1:01:00 – They admit that “test scores should not be used as a sole determinant in decisions such as the prevention of advancement to the next grade, graduation eligibility, or placement in a remedial course.”
• At 1:20:00 – “There is data than can be looked at that shows that the use of these test scores would not be appropriate”

 

Alpine Testing was the only company that applied to perform the validity study for Florida. Once awarded the contract, they teamed with EdCount, the founder of which had previously worked for AIR. What's surprising is that, regardless of their being questionably independent, they STILL recommend against using the test scores.

 

So, what we have is a questionably independent group stating that this test should not be used for individual students, but it’s ok for the aggregate data to be used for schools and teacher evaluations. If this sounds absurd, it’s because it is. If it’s been shown that this test isn’t good for students, why would we be comfortable using it for the grading or funding of our schools and teachers? The sum of individual bad data can’t give us good data. Nor should we expect it to.

 

What more evidence do you need to determine that our students shouldn’t be taking the SAGE test? This test is a failure. How much longer will our children and our state (and numerous other states) spend countless time and resources in support of a failed test, or teaching to a failed test?

Utah's children deserve more.

 

Brian Halladay and Wendy Hart

Alpine School Board Members for districts A4 and A2

Data on my kid? Who Cares? How Will They Get It?

First, you are invited to attend a meeting with Utah State Office of Education employees on Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 4pm at the Alpine District Offices (575 E. 100 N, American Fork).  They will be presenting information on the new testing (really called 'assessment') system for the state, provided by the American Institutes for Research (AIR).  If you never attend another meeting about relating to the schools, PLEASE come to this one!

A couple of pieces of information, I will link to the research on AIR that my fellow board member, Brian Halladay has done below.  AIR is a behavioral research organization not an academic assessment company.  Additionally, the legislature, at some point, created a law that allows testing companies to use "student behavior indicators in assessing student performance."  So, since AIR's mission isn't academics and the state is allowing them to use behavior indicators, why is this a problem?

This goes back to our board discussion on Feb. 26, and a follow-up presentation in our March 12 Meeting... in a word, DATA, your child's personally identifiable information (PII).

Our board reviewed a speech given by US Sec. of Education, Arne Duncan in 2009 hailing the use of "robust data" and how that applies to the new Common Core standards and the ARRA 2009 Stimulus money.  One board member identified that at one point in the speech, Sec. Duncan talks about needing to close and reopen schools and assess teacher performance, as well as student performance, and at another point he says they don't want to use it to fire teachers or to shut down schools.  Incidentally, the No Child Left Behind waiver that Utah received has language about the state taking control of "failing schools".   In short, no local control, but I digress.  The overall tone of the discussion was that we, as the representatives, needed to be on guard in protecting and doing all in our power to make sure our students' data is safe.

We also addressed two other issues, briefly.

1) The change in privacy regulations on a Federal level, known as FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act).  These changes did not go through Congress, and they essentially allow any educational entity (schools, districts, state boards) to share personal student information with any other government entity or private organization that has an educational interest.  This is something that I would be very opposed to.

2) The 2009 Stimulus package also included grants for every state to develop a Statewide Longitudinal Database (SLDS) which means your child is tracked at the state level from Preschool (or as early as they have data) through age 20 or into Workforce Services.  As a condition of this grant, the database has to be able to share/include data from other state agencies, like Workforce Services or Dept of Health etc., and the database must be able to share data with other states' databases, as well.  Incidentally, in the Duncan speech, he praises Utah's database efforts as one of six states that had all the elements required by the Data Quality Campaign.  For more information on assessments, read my previous blog here.   

So, based on those items, the desire of the US Secretary of Education to have robust data collection, his change to the privacy regulations, and the State database that Utah has on all our publicly schooled children, the idea of what and how much can be collected and shared is an actual concern to the board. 

On March 12, our data services director, David Smith, presented on how Alpine uses data collection and what information is shared and with whom.  While I was very pleased to hear about a lot of the hoops that we use to make sure private information isn't shared, there is one weak link: the State.  Because of State Law, we are obligated to administer the state tests and to have that data analyzed and computed to both assess student performance and to grade our schools.  So, when a class, say Mrs. A's third grade, is supposed to take the state math test, then our district sends the state office a file of all the students in Mrs. A's third grade class.  This data includes the child's name, unique student id, birthdate, grade, Mrs. A's name, school, and some demographic info.  Then the child takes the tests, they are scored and compared with other students across the state and sent back to the school.  So, at a minimum, your child's name, id, birthdate, demographics and test scores are in the state database, ready to be shared with whomever they choose. 

So, go back to the link above about allowing behavioral indicators to be used in the tests.  So, aside from testing math and English, they can test behaviors. 

Having said all of this, I am concerned by this intrusion into my kids' personal information. 

I don't know if you will be allowed to ask questions at the April 11 meeting, but it makes a huge difference to show elected officials that you are concerned.    Please make sure you clear your calendar for 4pm on Thursday, April 11.  If you can't make it, there are other meetings being held around the state.  Click here for a schedule. 

****************************
Board Member Brian Halladay's research on AIR and the upcoming meeting

Next Thursday, April 11th, you are invited to participate in the SAGE assessment System presentation at 4pm at the Alpine School District Office Building.

SAGE is the acronym for the common core testing system that will be collecting data from our children.

I think it’s important for all of us to know before the meeting what SAGE is and it’s implications for our children, our privacy, and our school district.
...
Student Assessment for Growth and Excellence (“SAGE (http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System.aspx) ”) is being developed for Utah by the American Institutes for Research (AIR (http://www.air.org/about/) ). SAGE is Utah’s comprehensive adaptive assessment system, or the testing mechanism that will replace the CRTs. It is designed to replace and expand UTIPS, and provides the test delivery and administration of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.

So, who is AIR? AIR is not an academic assessment company - it is a behavioral research organization. AIR has been around for over 60 years. Their founder, John Flanagan, a psychologist, started AIR by developing the “critical incident technique (http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/cit-article.pdf) ” one of the most widely used behavioral methods that is even now used in assessment models today.

In 1960, AIR initiated “Project Talent (http://www.projecttalent.org/docs/Designing_the_Study_(1960).pdf) ,” a research project administered by John Flanagan and a group of other behavioral scientists involving 440,000 high school students, collecting information on “aptitudes, abilities, knowledge, interests, activities, and backgrounds” of each student. These questions included questions about “hobbies, organizational and club memberships, dating and work experiences. There were questions about students’ health and about their school and study habits. Students were asked about their fathers’ occupations, parents’ education, financial situations, etc.” One question asked was, “How many children do you expect to have after you marry?” and “How old were you when you first started dating?”

What is AIR doing today? AIR is currently working with multiple partners, including the Department of Education, United Nations (http://www.air.org/focus-area/international-development/) , the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Open Society Institute (George Soros), (http://www.air.org/about/?fa=viewContent&content_id=351) to “conduct and apply the best behavioral and social science research evaluation towards improving peoples’ lives, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged.” AIR prides itself on its "long history of contributing to evidence-based social change."

What does this mean for the Alpine School District, or even the State of Utah? In 2012 USOE developed the USOE Technology Standards 2012 (http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=169&name=DLFE-1560.pdf) . One of the standards is to have a network-enabled computing device capable of providing access to the school’s technology resources. A purpose of this is for the understanding “human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior.” I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that AIR will be heavily involved with this.

AIR will be developing these assessments, which will include behavioral questions. It’s what they do. One of their primary objectives is to use this data not only in collaboration with other states in relation to common core, but also in collaboration with the United Nations.

With the recent amendments to the FERPA laws, the question becomes what will we as parents do right now to protect the privacy of our children?

Come to the meeting next Thursday at 4pm at the Alpine School District Office Building and get informed!

Database: What Information is there on Your Child?

Database
On Tuesday, Feb. 26, our board professional development will be on the use of data and how that relates to Common Core.  At 4pm at Mountain View High School, I will be leading the discussion, based on the 2009 speech from Secretary Arne Duncan.  You can read it here. 

You need to understand that as part of the 2009 ARRA Stimulus money, the Federal Department of Education created grants for each and every state to set up a Statewide Longitudinal Database (SLDS).  Essentially, this database allows each individual child to be tracked from preschool through work and every stage in between (that's what longitudinal means).  Utah's database was praised in this speech by Sec. Duncan, as follows:

The Data Quality Campaign, DQC, lists 10 elements of a good data system. Six states, Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah, have all 10 elements. Other states are also making progress. For example, Arkansas has a data warehouse that integrates school fiscal information, teacher credentials, and student coursework, assessments, and even extracurricular activities.[emphasis mine]

As part of the these grants, "[t]he system must facilitate and enable the exchange of data among agencies and institutions within the State and between States so that data may be used to inform policy and practice." (pp.4)

A few more pieces of information for those who are interested:

Effective, Jan. 3, 2012, the US Dept of Education modified its regulations dealing with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, originally enacted by Congress in 1974). If you like, you may read the changes from the Federal Register here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-02/html/2011-30683.htm.  Arguably, these changes violate Utah's version of the FERPA law, as well.

An organization called EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) has filed a lawsuit against the US Government regarding these changes by the Dept of Ed. http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/default.html

The National Education Data Model has proposed the information contained at this site be included in any educational database: http://nces.sifinfo.org/datamodel/eiebrowser/techview.aspx?instance=studentPostsecondary Obviously, we can choose to populate the information or not, but it is important to know this is what is being suggested.

Finally, I just received a link from an out-of-state friend on this publication from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (wiche) of which Utah is a member.  It is entitled "Framework for a Multi-State Human Capital Development Data System".  (No, that Orwellian name really is the title of the paper.)  I am happy to know that our children are reduced to "the stock and flow of human capital".  The conclusion states, in part:

A multi-state data exchange – what we have chosen to call a human capital development data system – that enables policymakers to look comprehensively at the stock and flow of human capital has become essential for effective policymaking and planning in the globalized knowledge economy.

The security of our students' data and parental oversight in the sharing of this data is one of my highest priorities.  As those responsible for watching over our school district, it is our responsibility, as a board, to take great care to protect this information.  Since data protection was one of the issues from our board priority discussion that received high marks, I think it is appropriate for you to be aware of the concerns I have with this database.

Oak Canyon JH Boundary Changes
The only action item for the Board Meeting will be the proposed boundary changes to Oak Canyon Junior High in Pleasant Grove. 

Everyone is welcome to attend the study session at 4pm, as it is a public meeting.  No comments will be taken at this time.  Public comments are always welcome at the 6pm formal board meeting.