This is from Leonie Haimson, who has been the national leader in the fight to derail the collection of confidential student data via inBloom, the Gates and Carnegie-funded program.
Read this:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2013/11/nyseds-new-scary-data-dic
tionary-with.html
They are not collecting blood type, voter status, and religious affiliation
(of course.)
They are collecting:
Students’ name, addresses, unique ID;
Their parents’ telephone number, email, and nature of their relationship
(i.e. whether mother, father, stepfather, foster mother, guardian etc.)
The date the student was born and if not born here, when entered the US;
Their family’s economic situation, including whether they participate in
public assistance programs and whether they get free lunch;
Their race, their ethnicity, their home languages, and whether they are
limited English proficient;
Their disabilities, and what services they receive (including special
education services, counseling, etc.)
What their 504 status is, which can include a wealth of medical and health
conditions;
When any of these conditions was first identified and when it was removed;
Every day the student was absent, and whether this was due to an
out-of-school, or an in school suspension, an unexcused or excused absence,
and the reason why;
Every course they took in every year, how many credits they accumulated,
and what grades they received;
Any and all assessments they were given, including achievement tests,
“attitudinal tests” and “cognitive and perceptual skills tests”;
The results of any and all those tests, including their scores and
performance levels;
Any subtests or assessments that relate to specific learning objectives
(or SLOs), and the assessment “response” (ie “a student’s response to a
stimulus on a test”, whatever that means)
The learning standards tested, the content standards and the grade levels
for which the learning objective is targeted.

Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
LikeLike
Is inBloom or something like it active in every state with the Common Core?
LikeLike
inBloom really has nothing to do with Common Core, but everything to do with Race to the Top requirements. In order for states to win RttT money, they had to develop plans, and document this in their applications, for new large scale data systems, referred to as statewide longitudinal systems. Some states have scrapped plans or revised them drastically (NC is one of them I think) since being awarded money. NY has not and is moving full-on with the inBloom plans. I have no idea what non-RttT states are doing to collect, store, and share student and educator data. Anyone have a nice list of this handy?
LikeLike
Only 12 states won RTTT money using a point sysytem based on these criteria:
Criteria for Funding[edit]State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the criteria were:[1]
Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points)
Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)
State Success Factors (125 total points)
Articulating State’s education reform agenda and LEAs’ participation in it (65 points)
Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points)
Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points)
Standards and Assessments (70 total points)
Developing and adopting common standards (from the Common Core State Standards Initiative) (40 points)
Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points)
Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)
General Selection Criteria (55 total points)
Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points)
Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 total points)
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points)
Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 total points)
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
Accessing and using State data (5 points)
In addition to the 485 possible points from the criteria above, the prioritization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.[1]
LikeLike
These states actuall scored enough points to win money:
states, by population, (California, Texas, Florida, and New York) were eligible for this highest bracket.
Race to the Top Results[13][14] State Round 1 Score (Place) Round 1 Result Round 2 Score (Place) Round 2 Result
Alabama 291.2 (37th) – 212.0 (36th) –
Arizona 240.2 (40th) – 435.4 (12th) Finalist
Arkansas 394.4 (17th) – 389.2 (21st) –
California 336.8 (27th) – 423.6 (16th) Finalist
Colorado 409.6 (14th) Finalist 420.2 (17th) Finalist
Connecticut 344.6 (25th) – 379.0 (25th) –
Delaware 454.6 (1st) Awarded $100 million – –
District of Columbia 402.4 (16th) Finalist 450.0 (6th) Awarded $75 million
Florida 431.4 (4th) Finalist 452.4 (4th) Awarded $700 million
Georgia 433.6 (3rd) Finalist 446.4 (8th) Awarded $400 million
Hawaii 364.6 (22nd) – 462.4 (3rd) Awarded $75 million
Idaho 331.0 (28th) – Did Not Submit –
Illinois 423.8 (5th) Finalist 426.6 (15th) Finalist
Indiana 355.6 (23rd) – Did Not Submit –
Iowa 346.0 (24th) – 382.8 (22nd) –
Kansas 329.6 (29th) – Did Not Submit –
Kentucky 418.8 (9th) Finalist 412.4 (19th) Finalist
Louisiana 418.2 (11th) Finalist 434.0 (13th) Finalist
Maine Did Not Submit – 283.4 (33rd) –
Maryland Did Not Submit – 450.0 (6th) Awarded $250 million
Massachusetts 411.4 (13th) Finalist 471.0 (1st) Awarded $250 million
Michigan 366.2 (21st) – 381.6 (23rd) –
Minnesota 375.0 (20th) – Did Not Submit –
Mississippi Did Not Submit – 263.4 (34th) –
Missouri 301.4 (33rd) – 316.4 (30th) –
Montana Did Not Submit – 238.4 (35th) –
Nebraska 247.4 (39th) – 295.8 (31st) –
Nevada Did Not Submit – 381.2 (24th) –
New Hampshire 271.2 (38th) – 335.2 (29th) –
New Jersey 387.0 (18th) – 437.8 (11th) Finalist
New Mexico 325.2 (30th) – 366.2 (28th) –
New York 408.6 (15th) Finalist 464.8 (2nd) Awarded $700 million
North Carolina 414.0 (12th) Finalist 441.6 (9th) Awarded $400 million
Ohio 418.6 (10th) Finalist 440.8 (10th) Awarded $400 million
Oklahoma 294.6 (34th) – 391.8 (20th) –
Oregon 292.6 (35th) – Did Not Submit –
Pennsylvania 420.0 (7th) Finalist 417.6 (18th) Finalist
Rhode Island 419.0 (8th) Finalist 451.2 (5th) Awarded $75 million
South Carolina 423.2 (6th) Finalist 431.0 (14th) Finalist
South Dakota 135.8 (41st) – Did Not Submit –
Tennessee 444.2 (2nd) Awarded $500 million – –
Utah 379.4 (19th) – 379.0 (25th) –
Virginia 324.8 (31st) – Did Not Submit –
Washington Did Not Submit – 290.6 (32nd) –
West Virginia 292.4 (36th) – Did Not Submit –
Wisconsin 341.2 (26th) – 368.4 (27th) –
Wyoming 318.6 (32nd) – Did Not Submit –
Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont did not submit Race to the Top applications for either round.
After both rounds, the Department of Education released the complete scoring of each application, with the intention of making the scoring process more transparent and helping states revise their applications to be more competitive
LikeLike
States that did not win RTTT $ were offered a federal waiver against NCLB Title 1 AYP requirements for 100% proficiency in math and ELA. I BELEIVE THAT THE REQUIREMENT DATA COLLECTION WAS INCLUDED IN THIS EXTORTION SCHEME.
LikeLike
New developments related to Murdoch’s News Corp –
Murdoch sale led to ruin of MySpace, says its co-founder
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/10455975/Murdoch-sale-led-to-ruin-of-MySpace-says-its-co-founder.html
inBloom will fail like MySpace failed but for different reasons. Parents will sue and file class action suits to keep Rupert Murdoch out of their children’s lives and to protect the privacy rights of their families. The US needs an investigation into how and why FERPA laws were changed. What was Duncan’s role in the scheme to compromise privacy rights as a federal employee?
LikeLike
I wonder if this information will eventually be given to (or surreptitiously taken by) the NSA.
LikeLike
Like it already hasn’t taken any and all information???
LikeLike
How much you want to bet this info will be handed to judges in juvenile court?
LikeLike
Do you have readily available the exact statutory language that was changed in FERPA that allows this? Now that the information is being transferred to third parties from Inbloom, why doesn’t HIPAA come into play? Inbloom is not a school, right?
LikeLike
Contact this organization–EPIC–which tracks FERPA changes.
LikeLike
These are the sections of FERPA that ALLOW PII, personally identifiable information, to be released to third party contractors:
99.31 Under what conditions is prior consent not required to disclose information?
(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record of a student without the consent required by § 99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the following conditions:
(1)(i)(A) The disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests.
(B) A contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions may be considered a school official under this paragraph provided that the outside party–
(1) Performs an institutional service or function for which the agency or institution would otherwise use employees;
(2) Is under the direct control of the agency or institution with respect to the use and maintenance of education records; and
(3) Is subject to the requirements of
§ 99.33(a) governing the use and redisclosure of personally identifiable information from education records.
(ii) An educational agency or institution must use reasonable methods to ensure that school officials obtain access to only those education records in which they have legitimate educational interests.
An educational agency or institution that does not use physical or technological access controls must ensure that its administrative policy for controlling access to education records is effective and that it remains in compliance with the legitimate educational interest requirement in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of this section.
(2) The disclosure is, subject to the requirements of § 99.34, to officials of another school, school system, or institution of postsecondary education where the student seeks or intends to enroll, or where the student is already enrolled so long as the disclosure is for purposes related to the student’s enrollment or transfer.
And….
(6)(i) The disclosure is to organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to:
(A) Develop, validate, or administer predictive tests;
(B) Administer student aid programs; or (C) Improve instruction.
LikeLike
NOTE: FERPA changed the definition of “school official” in the regulations:
(B) A contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions may be considered a school official under this paragraph provided that the outside party–
This means your child’s data is flowing to outside vendors, FOR FREE, to use your child as a commodity to sell their wares back to the schools after they do their research.
LikeLike
Anita,
Thank you for posting this information. I am saving and sharing all of it.
LikeLike
Isn’t this a violation of FERPA (Family Educational Righs and Privacy Act?
LikeLike
EPIC filed suit but a judge dismissed the case saying they did not have standing to file. I believe an individual or class action would have standing. Can anyone verify this?
LikeLike
Yes. They didn’t have standing. That is why the case in NY, Leonie has been working on is so important. The parents have standing. Their children’s data was given to a third party contractor. InBloom.
LikeLike
Ontario, in addition to having largely recovered from a neo-conservative assault on our teachers and schools in the late 90s to become one of the world’s 20 most improved systems, is pioneering *human rights* focused data collection. In Ontario the Human Rights Code has primacy over other laws. The Human Rights Commission has a toolkit for collecting demographic data without violating rights and privacy — Count Me In. Additionally, our government, unions, private sector and faculties of education are all cooperating to get it right for students, parents and schools—not corporate exploiters as has been the case in the USA. Our experience might help spotlight just how disingenuous and money-driven the lobbyist-ruled cabinet and congress dismantling America’s 300 year commitment to “Publick” education really are. One example is The Knowledge Network of Applied Education Research (KNAER) at OISE.
Ontario’s Institute for Studies in Education “focuses on building, advancing and applying robust evidence of effective practices,” not customer lists.
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/knaer/
Count Me In: it’s okay to collect data!
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/count-me-collecting-human-rights-based-data-summary-fact-sheet
LikeLike
Leonie,
We are sending your lawsuit across the United States. You and your group are setting the precedent that we need to demand a federal investigation against FERPA regulations allowing PII to be given to third party vendors. We believe each of the testing consortiums, PARCC, Smarter Balanced, ACT are also allowing data to flow to digital software & curriculum developers for individual modules to comply to Common Core. Please let us know if you need any documentation. Our national network of researchers have been following this education agenda for many years. This data trafficking must be stopped in every state.
This lawsuit should be sent to every Congressman in the United States. This is proof that
FERPA has allowed data to flow to third party vendors. Parents should be screaming about this insidious violation of privacy and use of data without informed parental consent. FERPA was changed without the authority of Congress. Obama ” unlocked” data through an executive order. Regulations were changed. A ” school official” can be any corporation, non-profit, vendor, business, etc, that would evaluate programs or testing through a written agreement.
We must push for a federal investigation. FERPA allowed this to happen!!!
Click to access inBloom-lawsuit-memo-of-law-11_13_13.pdf
Whitehouse Unlocks Data
Click to access ed_data_commitments_1-19-12.pdf
Write letters for an investigation
http://newswithviews.com/Hoge/anita100.htm
LikeLike
Thank you for this update; I signed her petition to Mayor DiBlasio (my niece lives in Albany so I felt I could have an interest in NY and my dad was born there.) I am concerned that they are already collecting data in Massachusetts on preschoolers and their families. The SEA gave permission and they have done an “end run” around the parents; e.g., “the parent signs electronically to permit the child to use the mobile device/apps so that means the parent gives permission to gather any and all data on the child” tests, health information, etc… corporations are using this for marketing purposes and it is like the “data mining” of pharmaceutical information to pressure doctors to prescribe more pills. I would like to send anyone the specs they used in MA so you will be aware of how they state the parents electronic signature on the mobile device/app gives the permission to do this; furthermore, they have started this in the inner-city , low income areas of Greater Boston whereas I think the parents in the affluent suburbs would catch on right away to these gimmicks. jeanhaverhill@aol.com (I will send you the specs on the state RFP that was responded to at preschool level to get these devices into the homes. They offer “free” ebooks and the parent signs up to get the games)
LikeLike
I’ve said this in other threads but it bears repeating. This is human subjects research and it would not pass an IRB (Institutional Review Board) evaluation. A few items to note
-the research involves children (a vulnerable class)
-the subjects are not asked for their individual consent after being notified of the possible harms and benefits of participating in the research – thus no informed consent
-the research subjects are identifiable (i.e., not anonymized)
-it is unclear how secure the data will be (especially with respect to the separation of unique identifiers and other information)
-people with access to the data will not have human subjects research ethics training
Collecting data on school children is not inherently bad. However, this is nothing short of a massive research study involving human subjects and it should be treated accordingly. There are simply not enough confidentiality and informed consent protections to secure the rights of the research subjects (who just happen to be children who are unable to provide consent themselves.)
LikeLike
The definition of biometric record in FERPA includes DNA:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5))
“Biometric record,” as used in the definition of “personally identifiable information,” means a record of one or more measurable biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual. Examples include fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting.
Whether the government is collecting this right now, I’m not sure. Can they? Yes, under these new definitions.
LikeLike
I bet the teachers would be gathering that information and filling out online forms all year long. You know there would always be updates and new kids. That is a ridiculous amount of private Information. Why would they want to know so much about the parents??
>
LikeLike
Diane, have you looked at some of Anita Hoge’s links from November 16th? Extremely concerning stuff…I found the Council of Chief State School officers particularly interesting.
LikeLike
Can you provide the links? I am trying to come up with alternative legal ways to enjoin the state from uploading and sharing data. I am thinking that if Inbloom is a different corporate entity than the school district then HIPAA would be able to come back into play, protecting students medical information at the very least. As it stands now, HIPAA doesn’t control schools but does control corporations. InBloom is a corporation and therefore is bound by HIPAA laws. Yes? In order for another NYS agency or outside corporation to get IEP or 504 data points on a child, which would be medical, it would be in violation of HIPAA. Any lawyers out there who know these statutes well?
LikeLike
Diane, you can find any and all links for inBloom by going to this link: http://www.classsizematters.org/inbloom_student_data_privacy/
LikeLike
Just about every school collects the same data.
LikeLike
Yes and no. Collecting attendance is not new. Reporting it to the state is. Collecting overall daily attendance is not new. Indicting every time a student is in a seat for a math or ELA lesson is new. Collecting parent email address is not new. Sending it to the state is. As the data admin in my local district recently informed me: “The volume of data the state is now requesting and requiring is breath-taking.” What is also new is digitizing all of it in a common format so ALL can share, develop new products, connect to the state DMV, DOL, Tax and Finance databases, etc. That’s all part of the plans for the new NYS P-20 Longitudinal Data System. The state has already spelled it out for us. Check the post on my blog if you’d like to read about it.
LikeLike
Here is the NYSED Data Dictionary in case you care to peruse at your leisure. The state has said they are only collecting two new pieces of info this year: disciplinary info and parent contact info. You will note, however, all the Y* found in the first column of the dictionary. Those are all new this year and/or next. I counted 67 new data points in that list.
Click to access engageny-portal-data-dictionary.pdf
LikeLike
The narrow coumn width above made the table hard to read. Hope this is better.
states, by population, (California, Texas, Florida, and New York) were eligible for this highest bracket.
Race to the Top Results[13][14] State Round 1 Score (Place) Round 1 Result Round 2 Score (Place) Round 2 Result
Alabama 291.2 (37th) – 212.0 (36th) –
Arizona 240.2 (40th) – 435.4 (12th) Finalist
Arkansas 394.4 (17th) – 389.2 (21st) –
California 336.8 (27th) – 423.6 (16th) Finalist
Colorado 409.6 (14th) Finalist 420.2 (17th) Finalist
Connecticut 344.6 (25th) – 379.0 (25th) –
Delaware 454.6 (1st) Awarded $100 million – –
District of Columbia 402.4 (16th) Finalist 450.0 (6th) Awarded $75 million
Florida 431.4 (4th) Finalist 452.4 (4th) Awarded $700 million
Georgia 433.6 (3rd) Finalist 446.4 (8th) Awarded $400 million
Hawaii 364.6 (22nd) – 462.4 (3rd) Awarded $75 million
Idaho 331.0 (28th) – Did Not Submit –
Illinois 423.8 (5th) Finalist 426.6 (15th) Finalist
Indiana 355.6 (23rd) – Did Not Submit –
Iowa 346.0 (24th) – 382.8 (22nd) –
Kansas 329.6 (29th) – Did Not Submit –
Kentucky 418.8 (9th) Finalist 412.4 (19th) Finalist
Louisiana 418.2 (11th) Finalist 434.0 (13th) Finalist
Maine Did Not Submit – 283.4 (33rd) –
Maryland Did Not Submit – 450.0 (6th) Awarded $250 million
Massachusetts 411.4 (13th) Finalist 471.0 (1st) Awarded $250 million
Michigan 366.2 (21st) – 381.6 (23rd) –
Minnesota 375.0 (20th) – Did Not Submit –
Mississippi Did Not Submit – 263.4 (34th) –
Missouri 301.4 (33rd) – 316.4 (30th) –
Montana Did Not Submit – 238.4 (35th) –
Nebraska 247.4 (39th) – 295.8 (31st) –
Nevada Did Not Submit – 381.2 (24th) –
New Hampshire 271.2 (38th) – 335.2 (29th) –
New Jersey 387.0 (18th) – 437.8 (11th) Finalist
New Mexico 325.2 (30th) – 366.2 (28th) –
New York 408.6 (15th) Finalist 464.8 (2nd) Awarded $700 million
North Carolina 414.0 (12th) Finalist 441.6 (9th) Awarded $400 million
Ohio 418.6 (10th) Finalist 440.8 (10th) Awarded $400 million
Oklahoma 294.6 (34th) – 391.8 (20th) –
Oregon 292.6 (35th) – Did Not Submit –
Pennsylvania 420.0 (7th) Finalist 417.6 (18th) Finalist
Rhode Island 419.0 (8th) Finalist 451.2 (5th) Awarded $75 million
South Carolina 423.2 (6th) Finalist 431.0 (14th) Finalist
South Dakota 135.8 (41st) – Did Not Submit –
Tennessee 444.2 (2nd) Awarded $500 million – –
Utah 379.4 (19th) – 379.0 (25th) –
Virginia 324.8 (31st) – Did Not Submit –
Washington Did Not Submit – 290.6 (32nd) –
West Virginia 292.4 (36th) – Did Not Submit –
Wisconsin 341.2 (26th) – 368.4 (27th) –
Wyoming 318.6 (32nd) – Did Not Submit –
Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont did not submit Race to the Top applications for either round.
After both rounds, the Department of Education released the complete scoring of each application, with the intention of making the scoring process more transparent and helping states revise their applications to be more competitive
LikeLike
Didn’t Gates pay people to help states write their RTT applications? I remember reading that on an Anthony Cody piece? Gates is always behind the curtain with his bags of cash.
LikeLike
I don’t know about the RTT applications but I do know that it took Alabama three tries to get a waiver from NCLB. On the third try, people from the DOE came to Alabama and helped the State DOE write the application.
LikeLike
Thank you Diane for the information. If engageny is not collecting blood type, voter status religious affiliation . Is there a potential loophole in the future where they can 1. Either request it in the future . 2. Use a Ferfa loophole or 3. At some point merge engageny records with New HIPA laws “cloud ” which states medical records can be shared for public health and greater good,” or rumor that DMV would like access to InBloom ? So my question is can all sources be imported and merged in future?Or are there laws to prevent that? Something new to me is the TPP I am beginning to believe privacy has become a thing of the past. I fear trust and transparency will also end up on the scrap heap of history. So engageny says no blood type, religious affiliation etc. In bloom says they want it, how will they get what they want? I hope you are taking care of your health , thank you for taking time out of your healing to help ” A suburban Mom.”
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike
So this is a state only database? Not a national database? Ie.. EngageNy . Why is it referred to as a “National database? Sorry on these issues I am truly remedial. But I have to understand in order to advocate with out repeating any misinformation . Ps Diane I appreciate the time you give, with no thought to your own health . I will keep you in my prayers. Ps ordering your book today.
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike
All data will be aggregated into a national database, but some states have said no.
LikeLike
Diane, I have the coding and data elements for the national data base. All data are collected as PII personally identifiable information. The Common Core, RTTT and America Competes Act sets each state up to identify and standardize the system in all 50 states, [state longitudinal data system, slds] to have the exact same data elements and have the data collected as an integrated cross referenced system. Individual students, individual teachers, individual principals, individual schools, individual districts, individual states. Testing becomes the key for accountability. This is a business decision-making model that can identify who in the system is not in compliance. This is why teachers are being pinpointed. Individuals are being identified in this system.
PII is collected by the state and is being cyphoned off by third party vendors to develop tests, curriculum, and digital software through written agreements now ALLOWED by FERPA without the knowledge of parents and legislators. This is the data mining that is happening with inBloom. Leonie’s work and lawsuit is in a position to blow the lid off of the data trafficking on student data.
We need a federal investigation into FERPA.
LikeLike
THis is about workforce development courtesy Marc Tucker & his gang. It will track the student to either college or a career. The STATE gets to figure out where they go. They need the data to track the student. This benefits the STATE it does not benefit the illiterate student who is denied academic knowledge when that job the STATE chose for him/her, becomes obsolete or is shipped to Mexico.
LikeLike
If anyone is interested, the following links are from the DOE on how to write these written agreements with third party vendors who have access to your child’s data:
Click to access data-sharing-agreement-checklist.pdf
Click to access reasonablemtd_agreement.pdf
Click to access webinar-data-sharing-011112_final.pdf
Training Videos on FERPA
http://ptac.ed.gov/
Click to access data-sharing-webinar-transcript.pdf
Data Privacy ToolKit
http://ptac.ed.gov/toolkit
LikeLike