Archives for category: Data and Data Mining
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Tom Scarice: When Big Data Are Meaningless: LINK ADDED

By dianeravitch
August 6, 2015 //
10

Tom Scarice is the superintendent of schools in Madison, Connecticut. He is no fan of the corporate reform movement. He understands that what matters most in life can’t be measured.

Here he describes one of the most important moments in the life of his 8-year-old son: he hit a grand-slam homer, over the fence.

He writes:

I can still feel the slap of his small leather batting glove in the palm of my hand as he rounded first base. By the time he reached home plate, occasionally touching the ground in route, my 8-year-old son, Owen, and I shared a moment that cannot truly be captured by words, and by no means, captured by numbers.

Owen hit a grand slam …over the fence… in a baseball tournament watched by a generous crowd of his closest friends and teammates. A volcanic eruption of joy. An eternal moment between a father and son. The slap of our hands in mid-flight, a celebration marked by a selfless love that can only be felt by a parent.

There is a beautiful photo of Owen rounding first base, flying through the air, as his Dad slaps his palm.

The moment reminds Scarice of what matters most. Not data, but the story:

In a sense, this moment can be dehumanized with numbers and symbols replacing the faces and stories, with callous disregard for the humanity that makes us whole. For it is the stories themselves that give life and meaning to numbers.

He writes:

Nevertheless, that which is easiest to count, may very well be the least meaningful or important to count. For you can count how many times I tell my children I love them, but you cannot quantify how much I love them, nor, without context, does the number you count represent the depth of sacrifice and denial of self that characterizes a parent’s primal love for their child. In these circumstances, the very act of counting, without regard for the story or context, has the chilling effect of dehumanizing.

Sadly, too many teachers have been trapped in mindless data exercises that irresponsibly neglect the story behind the numbers, turning children into faceless numbers… hence dehumanizing the sacred process of fostering the growth and development of our children.

Perhaps it is true that no profound, complex problem in human history has been solved without data, quantitative or qualitative. Yet, decades ago, eminent scholar and “father of quality,” Dr. W. Edwards Deming identified “management by use only of visible figures, with little or no consideration of figures that are unknown or unknowable” as one of his seven “deadly diseases” of management.

This reveals a very critical consideration when looking at data, you must understand the system, and perhaps more importantly, the context or story, that generated the data. This poses yet another warning from Dr. Deming, namely, that “Statistical calculations based on warped figures lead to confusion, frustration and wrong decisions.”

These wise words are most timely as the educational community awaits the next batch of big data to be delivered, the results of the latest test promising to revolutionize schooling, the SBAC. A hollow promise, based on warped figures, that will certainly deliver hollow results.

What will the SBAC data mean? Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. Numbers in isolation, lacking story and context.

I once had an exchange with Arne Duncan’s Assistant Secretary for Communications, Peter Cunningham, who has since moved on to become editor of the blog Education Post. We were talking about testing, and I contended that it played too large a role in assessment of children. Peter responded, “We measure what we treasure.” I disagreed. I said that “What we treasure, we cannot measure.”

What Tom Scarice has written proves my point. His son will have a batting average and runs batted in average; both will go up. But no data can capture Owen’s joy or Tom’s pride. Those are human qualities, and they evade metrics.

Categories Data and Data Mining

Utah: This is What Happens When the State Superintendent is not an Educator

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2015 //
27

Kim Irvine, English teacher in Ogden, Utah, knows the new state superintendent quite well. Brad Smith, a lawyer with no education experience, was superintendent in Ogden, where he implemented a series of failed “reform” policies. So, it being Utah, he was elevated to state superintendent.

Kim Smith here describes the havoc and disruption he imposed on Ogden. Watch out, Utah parents and teachers! Know what to expect and push back hard. As hard as you can.

This is the canary in the coalmine…

Few people in this state realize that many Utah teachers are holding their collective breath waiting for the state superintendant to unveil his educational plan. There are concerns because his previously unsuccessful reforms as a district superintendent are often pointed to as an exemplar. Not many people across the state know what these reforms could look like, but the teachers, parents, and students from Ogden, do.

Based on that perspective, there are a few points that should be considered, especially for the parents whose students will be educated under this new plan. Recently, an article addressed ten signs of a failing district. [i] Please refer back to the article because the descriptions of these ten sign are both illuminating and powerful. Here are the ten signs:

  1. The large majority of teachers have fewer than 5 years experience.
  2. Teachers are overwhelmed with requests for data.
  3. Teachers receive no support from administrators on discipline issues.
  4. Professional development is limited to indoctrination and data.
  5. The message is tightly controlled, eliminating constructive criticism.
  6. School Board members serve as rubber stamps.
  7. The community is not involved in its schools.
  8. The district is top heavy with administrators.
  9. An overemphasis has been placed on technology.
  10. Not enough emphasis is being place on civics and citizenship.

Watch how closely this mirrors the events that happened in Ogden as Mr. Smith implemented his reforms.

Librarians

One of the first actions as newly appointed superintendent that really caught the ire of the community was to fire all of the librarians in the district including many reading specialists, citing potential increases in the cost of benefits under the Affordable Care Act. [ii] Smith also went on to explain that Ogden School District is the only remaining district on the Wasatch Front to employ licensed teachers as media specialists in their libraries. [iii]This turned out to be false, but deaf to the public outcry by parents, teachers, and students, the librarians did, indeed, lose their jobs. Many had been in the district for decades. After all was said and done, a handful of librarians remained. [iv]

Scripted Teaching

The next concern arose because of mandated training and implementation of scripted curriculum. Although many requests were made to the district about the expense of this program, the district would never release exact numbers. It has been reported the cost of this scripted program is upwards of $800,000 a year for the English instruction alone. This is horrifying to anyone, but especially someone who understands that these supplies are “consumables”. They are basically a bunch of worksheets bound together that the students write in and are thrown away each year and replaced. This is a very expensive and not a very effective way to teach as many research studies show. “One program cannot meet the needs of all children. Teachers need to be trained and empowered to make decisions about how best to teach their students.”[v]

Teacher Attrition

Many teachers began to leave Ogden District for several reasons including heavy-handed discipline, scripted programs, and a huge increase in data gathering and analysis paperwork. Other teachers were simply non-renewed. The local paper reported, “District teacher turnover 57% from 2006 to 2013.” Actual numbers appear that the trend is not only not slowing, but also increasing. According to the district’s records just about the same number of teachers left again the next year which would bring the cumulative to 72% turn over in teachers. Smith said. “Reforms were implemented, and they are choosing to go elsewhere to work.”[vi]

Teacher, Jennifer Claesgens, whose resume includes a Ph.D. in science and mathematics education, experience teaching high school, and four years as an assistant professor at Northern Arizona University’s Center for Science Teaching and Learning, responded to having her teaching contract not renewed by speaking out. According to the Standard Examiner, “She wonders if the real reason she was let go was that she questioned some school policies. ‘I didn’t understand why we didn’t have finals at a high school, if we want students to be prepared for college. I didn’t understand why kids were allowed to play sports if they weren’t even in school that day, or were flunking classes…I questioned those things because I really feel that you need to have expectations of students.”’[vii]

Confiscation of Teachers’ salaries

Another large reason that teachers are fleeing the Ogden District are the ways, under the reforms, teacher discipline is handled. Currently, when a teacher is placed on what the district calls, “Tier Two Remediation,” they lose the state money. This represents several thousand dollars that is “confiscated” by the district. This practice has become rather commonplace in the Ogden School District, yet I haven’t heard of this happening to other teachers across the state. A concern here is that this seems to be a conflict of interest. The district is fiscally motivated to place teachers on discipline. Personally, I know several teachers who have had this happen to them. It is a stressful, demeaning, and hurtful punishment that pushes the boundaries of appropriateness, especially when Utah teachers struggle with low wages and shrinking benefits as it is.

Mr. Smith’s Superintendent Bonuses and OSD Board’s “Rubber Stamp of Approval for Renewed Contract

In the midst of all of this, the Ogden School District Board unanimously renewed Brad Smith’s contract for another two years. What surprised the community was to hear of Mr. Smith’s incentive pay and bonus plan, which seemed highly inappropriate due to the financial woes claimed by the district. The Standard Examiner covered the story, “…but his potential performance pay goes up. Before, Smith was assessed three times a year and got a $10,000 bonus each time he met the criteria. Now, Smith will be assessed four times yearly, and get $9,000 each time he meets criteria…” Board President Shane Story.[viii]

Even though many were present at this board meeting in protest of the many controversial policies, The Ogden School Board voted unanimously to renew Superintendent Brad Smith’s contract for two more years.[ix] This was particularly disturbing considering there was no formal offering of the job to other job applicants despite the public outcry. Here is a video of some of these concerns voiced at that meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GscEIJ5lgdk

 

Data Shenanigans

But most importantly, it is vital to examine the data proffered by Mr. Smith as proof that his non-traditional methods actually work. Initially, the data showed that there were increases in student scoring at a few schools at the elementary levels, but those successes were short lived. There was minimal, consistent improvement at the secondary level. In 2014, as the state testing data came in, it became apparent that the reforms left a lot to be desired. The Deseret News reported shocking figures of proficiency rates in both the junior highs and high schools in Ogden District. Some of the most dismal were the math scores:

Ogden High= 4% proficient in math

Ben Lomond High= 5.9% proficient in math

Mound Fort Jr= 6.9% proficient in math

Highland Jr= 12.0% proficient in math

Mount Ogden Jr= 26.3% proficient in math

In 2014, two years after Mr. Smith started his sweeping reforms, the Deseret News reported the following:

“…Ogden, where English language arts scores fell by almost 77 percent — about 30 percent beyond the average drop experienced by Utah’s elementary schools. In the last four years, Dee and other Ogden schools have been hailed as having turned the tide in academic performance, fighting their way out of the bottom ranks through administrative overhauls and data-driven teaching initiatives. Between 2010 and 2013, Dee had gone from being among the worst-performing schools in the state to more than doubling its proficiency scores in language arts.”[x]

The paper even created a graph to illustrate how quickly the scores fell after being used as proof that Mr. Smith’s reform efforts were a smashing success. [xi]

Something else that is troubling about these numbers is that the math simply doesn’t add up to reflect authentic student growth and success. For instance, the graduation rates reported from Ogden District that same year were 71%. [xii]

Doesn’t that graduation figure become suspect when one considers that almost 90 percent of secondary students in Ogden District were not proficient in math? This means that almost 90% of the junior high and high school students in the district were not at grade level.

More and more testing…and now kindergarteners?

Lastly, many experienced educators are alarmed to hear the superintendent recommend standardized testing for our kindergarteners even though this flies in the face of a large body of educational research. [xiii] The Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) has found that, “standardized testing in the early years causes stress, does not provide useful information, leads to harmful tracking and labeling of children, causes teaching to the test, and fails to set conditions for cooperative learning and problem-solving.” [xiv]

 

The Business Model in Education

So now that we await the new educational plan that the state superintendent plans to roll out in August, it is important to keep in mind that the business model does not work in education. Diane Ravitch, a national expert on education, historian of education and Research Professor of Education at New York University, and a former Assistant Secretary of Education under George W. Bush, describes Mr. Smith as follows: “Clearly, Ogden has decided to utilize a business plan. The superintendent has no education background. Class size doesn’t matter. Librarians don’t matter. The voices of concerned parents are ignored. As long as those test scores go up, the school board will declare success. After all, trained seals can perform no matter how many are in the pool.”[xv]

Concerns about Smith’s Reforms from the Community and Media

Alliance for a Better Utah describes Mr. Smith, “Between his credentials and behavior, educators in the state have plenty with which to be alarmed. Utah’s legislators historically have butted heads with educators, so a superintendent playing for the other team could have toxic consequences. The situation ought to be watched closely as Utah’s children will ultimately pay the price.”[xvi]

Recently, Paul Rolley, of the Salt Lake Tribune, pointed out some startling concerns in an article dated May 15th 2015 where he pointed out that Smith is a creation of the right wing:

“But Stephenson (Utah Senator) now has the education leader he always wanted. Smith, who immediately confronted the teachers union when he became superintendent of the Ogden School District and infamously slashed programs and people, seems to share Stephenson’s distrust of public school teachers and malevolence toward administrators bound philosophically to traditional education policies.”

Rolly went on further to express some concern over actions of state school board members as Smith’s reforms are adopted and the naysayers are eliminated:

“The few board members who met on their own and championed Smith have driven out other top professionals of the State Office of Education through their micro-managing and constant meddling, according to past and present education employees who have observed the recent carnage.”[xvii]

Conclusion

We, the Utah State Democratic Education Caucus is made up of parents, community leaders, students, teachers, administrators, and community members who are extremely concerned about the superintendent’s new 5 year educational plan especially since no one seems to be looking closely to the devastation he left behind in Ogden. Please, please heed our pleas. Be careful of glossy promises and slick brochures. Demand research backed programs that are authentic and peer reviewed, not just propaganda from vendors. We are your constituency and we are worried. At the beginning of this document we explained that this is the canary in the coalmine. The metaphoric canary is the remains of the Ogden School District. If you would like to speak to teachers, parents, or counselors who have seen this tragedy, we can arrange it. Please contact me and we will put you together.

Sincerely,

Kim Irvine

Chair: Utah Democratic Education Caucus

[i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-turner/ten-signs-your-child-is-i_b_7698514.html

[ii] http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56222830-78/district-ogden-employees-positions.html.csp

[iii] Coverage from the local paper regarding firing the librarians and reading specialists: http://www.standard.net/Local/2013/04/27/Ogden-School-District-notifies-librarians-of-job-terminations.html

~A few of the many letters to the editor from outraged parents fighting to keep the librarians

  1. http://www.standard.net/Opinion/2013/04/30/Ogden-district-s-agendas-lack-info-on-firing-librarians.html
  2. http://www.standard.net/Opinion/2013/04/30/librarians-teach-students-to-evaluate-web-sources.html
  3. http://www.standard.net/Opinion/2013/04/29/Passionate-librarians-integral-part-of-education.html

[iv] https://dianeravitch.net/2013/10/05/ogden-utah-decides-to-let-non-educators-try-their-hand/

[v] Elaine Garan’s In Defense of Our Children: When Politics, Profit and Education Collide is a little book packed with insight and research.

http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=11835

[vi] Great information from local paper including stats and graphs on teacher attrition http://www.standard.net/Local/2013/11/02/Ogden-School-District-teacher-departures-at-7-year-high

[vii] Poignant story and video from the perspective of a talented, non-renewed teacher as Ogden fires 17 teachers http://www.standard.net/Education/2014/05/12/10-Non-renewed-teachers

[viii] Great video interviews and coverage of Mr. Smith’s bonuses and other compelling issues: http://www.standard.net/Lifestyle/2013/09/20/Ogden-School-Board-renews-superintendent-s-contract-for-two-years.html

[ix] Regardless of the public outcry, OSD Board unanimously renews Smith contract for two years. http://e.standard.net/stories/2013/09/19/ogden-school-board-renews-superintendents-contract-two-years

[x] After reporting sweeping successes, the Deseret News points out several flaws http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865614569/What-Ogden-reveals-about-the-SAGE-test-teaching-and-how-students-learn.html

[xi] Deseret News graphic illustrating problems with previously successes in Ogden School District http://img.deseretnews.com/images/article/graphicSidebar/1433848/1433848.jpg

[xii] Graduation data: http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Superintendents-Annual-Report/2014/GraduationReport.aspx

[xiii] Please go to 1:46:38 to hear Mr. Smith’s ideas on standardized testing for Utah kindergarteners. http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=19036&meta_id=559117

[xiv] http://www.education.com/magazine/article/testing-kindergarten-realities-dangers/

[xv] National Education blog describes Smith: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/10/05/ogden-utah-decides-to-let-non-educators-try-their-hand/

[xvi] Alliance for a Better Utah describes Smith: http://betterutah.org/2015/03/27/superintendent-smith-not-quite-ready-for-primetime/

[xvii] Rolly article in Trib: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2513070-155/rolly-schools-superintendent-is-a-careful

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Data and Data Mining, Standardized Testing, Utah

Nevada Spends on Kids’ Data, Not on Kids

By dianeravitch
August 1, 2015 //
5

Angie Sullivan, elementary teacher in Nevada, reports that the state finally put new money into the schools. But not for children or instruction. For Big Data.

Nevada is systematically destroying its public schools. It has authorized charters, some of the lowest performing in the nation. It has adopted a universal voucher program, whose only requirement is that the student previously attended public school for 100 days. It is already one of the worst-funded public school systems in the nation.

Angie writes:

“We spent money.

“And it’s another computer database.

“And it doesn’t work yet.

And we are supposed to believe it is for our safety?

“And this will be necessary and important to who since it is not supposed to have any identifiable information? People outside the state who do not care about our kids?

“http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/education/states-debut-new-super-data-system-hurt-bad-information

“These are my questions:

“1. Does this database include charters which use tax payer money?

“2. Does this database include voucher recipients (homeschoolers and private schoolers) who use tax payer money?

“3. Does this database include for-profit and non-profit higher education – especially if students at those institutions have students benefitting from government loans?

“It would be difficult to be transparent and accountable unless every group using tax payer money was included.

“Especially if the purpose is to make every child participate in a longitudinal invasive study from preschool to career – possibly death.

“Sometimes I really worry. And this is one of those times.

“The privacy invasion and labeling is not helpful or necessary for me as a teacher or to my students.

“Statistical sampling has been used on purpose for good reason – routinely documenting everything and paying large amounts to store it or compare kids all over the nation at very young ages is weird and scary.

“For ten years we have over tested and over documented and it has helped ZERO kids. We are doing worse than we did before testing and becoming data driven. Across the nation, these number based reforms are failing.

“We are doing worse – money is being spent on the wrong remedies using assumptions based on numbers and return on investment formulas.

“My students are more than a score.

“I need supplies and support more than I need another database. And teachers need to be using best practice and spend almost all the instructional day on instruction -not preparing for a test or a report for a politician who does not know their name.

“These numbers have not helped me or my students get things we actually need and we have waited 15 years.

“God help us all – creating a record that follows babies into adulthood. What for?

“I’m so worried.

“Angie”

Categories Data and Data Mining, Nevada

Jeannie Kaplan: A New -ism for Reformers

By dianeravitch
July 27, 2015 //
49

Jeannie Kaplan decides it is time to rename “reform.” She thinks it should be called “Dataism,” as in a religious faith or political ideology connected to the worship of Data. She lives in Denver, where she served on the school board for two terse. She has seen corporate reform up close, and it was not pretty. It smelled of Data-ism.

She writes:

We all know education reform is all about DATA. Data is used to fire employees, data is used to rank and rate schools, data is used to close schools, data is used to open charter schools and other non-union schools, data is used to make budgetary decisions, data is used to produce chaos and churn, data is used to outsource and privatize. Data is everywhere. Education reform is all about DATA. DATA is the driving force of education “reform.” It has become the be-all and end-all of public education, the king and queen, prince and princess of public education. DATA and education “reform” are often synonymous but only when the actual DATA can be Ignored, Spun, Manipulated if it doesn’t show “reform” success (which is most of the time). DATAISM: where data is IGNORED, SPUN, or MANIPULATED to give false results to the public. DATAISM. What do you think?

Open the post to see which terms are highlighted or linked.

Categories Data and Data Mining, Education Reform

Not Everyone in Rhode Island is Thrilled with New State Superintendent

By dianeravitch
July 22, 2015 //
12

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo is a former venture capital entrepreneur. As state treasurer, she redirected the state’s pension funds. Her husband Andy Moffitt is a co-founder of the Global Education Practice at McKinsey. He is active with the anti-union, anti-teacher Stand for Children. He was a member of Teach for America. Moffitt co-wrote (with Paul Kihn and Michael Barber) “Deliverology 101: A Field Guide for Educational Leaders.”

The blog site “RIFuture” wrote of McKinsey:

“In terms of corporate education reform, one prominent McKinsey-watcher and follow-the-money researcher puts the firm in a class by itself:

“They have been the leaders in crafting the dominant narrative of an education crisis for decades, and now deeply entrenched in education reform policies, they are reaping the financial and political benefits of marketing solutions to the problems they manufactured in the first place.”

Governor Raimondo recently selected Deputy Commissioner of Education Ken Wagner as the new State Superintendent in Rhode Island. In Néw York, he was known as a strong supporter of high-stakes testing, VAM, and corporate reforms.

Sheila Resseger, a teacher in Rhode Island for many years, was unhappy with Raimondo’s choice. She wrote, in response to a post about Néw York’s Common Core curriculum called EngageNY:

“Here was my comment to the post that Diane referenced. I am going to make it my mission to inform Rhode Islanders about the total disdain that Ken Wagner has for authentic teaching and learning. According to the RI Dept of Ed and Gov. Raimondo, he “developed” EngageNY. By his own admission he is opposed to Opt Out and for data collection. These are the trifecta of evil in my book: Common Core/Pear$on testing/data mining.

“I find this so profoundly disturbing that I can hardly see straight to type this comment. I live in RI. As you may know, our Governor, Gina Raimondo, recently nominated NY State Deputy Commissioner of Ed Dr. Ken Wagner to be our new Commissioner of Education (replacing Broad-trained Deborah Gist). This past Monday night the RI Board of Education and Council on Elementary and Secondary Education met to decide whether or not to confirm Dr. Wagner. I was the only one to speak against his confirmation. Dr. Wagner was credited with developing EngageNY, and seemed to be delighted that it has been downloaded for free 20 million times. He also declared that the Common Core does not script lessons, but actually frees up teachers to teach creatively. Another egregious comment of his was that we don’t have to be concerned with Piaget’s developmental stages–that theory is passé. Now we know that children can do so much more than we had expected of them before. Yes, every first grader is delighted to learn about the Code of Hammurabi.

“Here is my post in RIFuture.org, published before the meeting. http://www.rifuture.org/will-ken-wagners-past-in-new-york-shape-his-future-in-rhode-island.html”

Categories Data and Data Mining, New York, Rhode Island, Standardized Testing, Teacher Evaluations, VAM (value-added modeling)

Beware of Stack Ranking Employees

By dianeravitch
July 18, 2015 //
38

Big data has captured the imagination of many corporate executives, but it has its limitations. When evaluations are turned into numbers and used to rank employees from best to worst, it crushes motivation. This was W. Edwards Deming’s advice many years ago, but then Bill Gates of Microsoft and Jack Welch of GE emerged as gurus of stack ranking.

But, lo! New studies confirm that stack ranking has negative consequences.

An article in the business section of the Néw York Times reports that stack ranking hurts morale.

“Big Data has made it possible to measure employee performance more thoroughly than ever. But two recent studies offer a warning: Be careful about how you deploy that data.

“Many managers assume that distributing a ranking of their employees’ performance is an effective motivational tool, said Iwan Barankay, an associate professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. The idea is that lower-ranking employees will strive to improve, while higher-ranking ones will work to maintain their edge.

“Professor Barankay sought to test this assumption in a study of 1,500 furniture sales workers that he conducted over three years in North America. One group of sales workers was shown how their sales ranked compared with their colleagues. Another group was not shown a comparison, but only their individual results.

“Professor Barankay found that the sales representatives who did not know how they ranked achieved higher subsequent sales than those who were aware of their comparative ranking. The results of the workers who had received high rankings neither improved nor worsened.

“Human nature combined with simple math caused the lower-ranking workers to falter, according to Professor Barankay. Most people optimistically assume that they are above average in their performance, he said. But real life is not Lake Wobegon, and most people, when measured against one another, will inevitably rank as average or below average. For these people, seeing their rank is demoralizing, causing their performance to wilt.”

Now it is time to read Deming. I recommend chapter 9 of Andrea Gabor’s book about Deming titled “The Man Who Discovered Quality.” Deming was adamantly opposed to perfoance pay or anything that undermined employees’ morale and collaboration. His message was to choose your employees well and give them the support to succeed. Most failures are system failures. Don’t blame the frontline workers for problems caused by the system.

Categories Corporate Reform, Data and Data Mining

Who Cares About Privacy? Not the US DOE. Not Bill Gates.

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2015 //
9

Laura Chapman read this post about proposed legislation to allow massive collection of college student data, and she did some research. This is what she found:

The proposed law to monetize the worth of a degree certainly reflects the values of Bill Gates and his “Data Quality Campaign,” and his desire to stack rank almost anything he can, preferably with publication in U.S. News and World report. I recall vividly that he once said he wanted kids to “get a college degree that is worth something,” meaning worth money.

In prior posts I have noted that, beginning in 2005, Gates funded the Data Quality Campaign” (Orwellian name), as if in tandem and designed to complement USDE funds for the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) program.

The Teacher-Student Data Link system (TSDL) system envisioned by Gates is in place as the records system for local to state reporting to USDE. In Ohio that system actually structures the categories for teacher evaluation. So, InBloom may be gone but the Gates vision has prevailed and, from the get go, his campaign was intended to “keep current and longitudinal data on the performance of teachers and individual students, as well as schools, districts, states, and educators ranging from principals to higher education faculty.

Moreover, as articulated in the Data Quality Campaign, one of the main purposes of the data gathering was to determine the “best value” investments to make in education and to monitor improvements in outcomes, taking into account as many demographic factors as possible, including health records for preschoolers. Access to such records has been made easier by USDE’s poking holes in the FERPA law that offered a bit of protection for the use of student data.

Now this proposed legislation is about higher education. Suppose it passes. Whether the oversight is done by a special agency or USDE is not clear. But if USDE has oversight of the law and the program, then all of the data management and cost/benefit on programs and degrees are likely to be outsourced to a private company, just as USDE’s data management is outsourced now. I discovered this by snooping around at the USDE website. In the process I discovered that USDE has two key people as privacy officers. One is Kathleen Styles, USDE’s first “Chief Privacy Officer”—Email: kathleen.styles@ed.gov. The second is Michael Hawes, who is her advisor and the person who oversees USDE’s extremely important “Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC).” Email: michael.hawes@ed.gov

Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) is supposed to be a “one-stop” resource for learning about “data privacy, confidentiality, and security practices related to student-level longitudinal data systems and other uses of student data.” PTAC provides timely information and updated guidance on privacy, confidentiality, and security practices through a variety of resources, including training materials and opportunities to receive direct assistance with privacy, security, and confidentiality of student data systems.” This technical assistance is targeted to meet the needs of state and local education agencies and…… institutions of higher education.

PTAC is really at the center of everything–The contractor for PTAC is responsible for working under “the guidance of the Chief Privacy Officer and in close collaboration with the FERPA Working Group,” which consists of representatives of the Office of Management, the Family Policy Compliance Office, and the Office of General Counsel. PTAC also “regularly consults” with the USDE’s Privacy Advisory Committee, whose members include Chief Statistician of National Center of Education Statistics, the program officer of the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS), and representatives from the office of Federal Student Aid, the Office of Civil Rights, and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (among others).

The for-profit company managing and warehousing USDE data and at the center of all of the work of all of these agencies is Applied Engineering Management Corporation (AEM). Since 2010, (AEM) appears to have been awarded about $12 million to set up the resources at PTAC.

AEM also has contracts with OTHER federal, state, and local governments and agencies.. Their work for USDE includes management of data gathering required to support the “No Child Left Behind” legislation, including the 180 data descriptions for EdFacts. EdFacts is the destination for all of those disaggregated test scores, and other data that law requires. AEM can do heavy-duty data warehousing.

AEM has also operated the National Student Loan Data System receiving data from every college, university, and agency that participates in Title IV loan guarantees and related programs. That work gives AEM a leg up as a possible contractor for more work under the proposed legislation.

AEM’s website also says it helps “educators in developing high quality longitudinal P-20 data warehouses and business intelligence solutions that stand the test of time and enable data-driven decision making.”

AEM–-the go-to corporation for USDE’s data management and privacy–-has managed to suppress its identity as the conduit for USDE’s “big data” projects and USDE’s (pitiful) guidance to state and local agencies on privacy. Use this phrase to get to the PTAC resources “Privacy Technical Assistance Center.”

Categories Data and Data Mining, Democracy, Privacy and Privacy Rights, U.S. Department of Education

1984 Arrives Thirty Years Late: Say Goodby to Privacy Forever if This Bill Passes

By dianeravitch
June 22, 2015 //
26

Legislation called “The Student Right to Know Before You Go Act” has been introduced in both houses of Congress. Nice name, no? Don’t you think you should have “the right to know before you go” to a college or university?

 

What it really means is that the federal government will:

 

authorize the creation of a federal database of all college students, complete with their personally identifiable information, tracking them through college and into the workforce, including their earnings, Social Security numbers, and more. The ostensible purpose of the bill? To provide better consumer information to parents and students so they can make “smart higher education investments.”

 

Big Data, the answer to all problems. All you need do is surrender your privacy and become someone’s data point, perhaps the point of sales.

 

Barmak Nassirian, writing on the blog of Studentprivacymatters, warns about the dangers this legislation poses. He wrote originally in response to an article endorsing the legislation by researchers at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who viewed the invasion of personal privacy as less significant than the need for consumer information about one’s choice of a college or university:

 

First, let’s be clear that the data in question would be personally identifiable information of every student (regardless of whether they seek or obtain any benefits from the government), that these data would be collected without the individual’s consent or knowledge, that each individual’s educational data would be linked to income data collected for unrelated purposes, and that the highly personal information residing for the first time in the same data-system would be tracked and updated over time.

 

Second, the open-ended justification for the collection and maintenance of the data (“better consumer information”) strongly suggests that the data systems in question would have very long, if not permanent, record-retention policies. They, in other words, would effectively become life-long dossiers on individuals.

 

Third, the amorphous rationale for matching collegiate and employment data would predictably spread and justify the concatenation of other “related” data into individuals’ longitudinal records. The giant sucking sound we would hear could be the sound of personally identifiable data from individuals’ K12, juvenile justice, military service, incarceration, and health records being pulled into their national dossiers.

 

Fourth, the lack of explicit intentionality as to the compelling governmental interest that would justify such a surveillance system is an open invitation for mission creep. The availability of a dataset as rich as even the most basic version of the system in question would quickly turn it into the go-to data mart for other federal and state agencies, and result in currently unthinkable uses that would never have been authorized if proposed as allowable disclosures in the first place.

 

This is a bill that conservatives and liberals should be fighting against. Imagine if such a data-set existed; how long would it be before the data were hacked, for fun and profit, exposing personally identifiable information about students who had never given their consent? Didn’t the government recently become aware of a massive hack of its personnel records?

 

 

According to the New York Times:

 

For more than five years, American intelligence agencies followed several groups of Chinese hackers who were systematically draining information from defense contractors, energy firms and electronics makers, their targets shifting to fit Beijing’s latest economic priorities.

 

But last summer, officials lost the trail as some of the hackers changed focus again, burrowing deep into United States government computer systems that contain vast troves of personnel data, according to American officials briefed on a federal investigation into the attack and private security experts.

 

Undetected for nearly a year, the Chinese intruders executed a sophisticated attack that gave them “administrator privileges” into the computer networks at the Office of Personnel Management, mimicking the credentials of people who run the agency’s systems, two senior administration officials said. The hackers began siphoning out a rush of data after constructing what amounted to an electronic pipeline that led back to China, investigators told Congress last week in classified briefings.

 

How long will a treasure trove of personally identifiable student data remain confidential?

 

If this bill passes, farewell to privacy.

 

 

Categories Data and Data Mining, Higher Education, Privacy and Privacy Rights

Why Is D.C. Hiding VAM Data?

By dianeravitch
June 19, 2015 //
14

Audrey Beardsley reveals the answer to the intriguing question: Why is D.C. hiding VAM data? The answer was earlier leaked to blogger and retired math teacher G.F. Brandenburg. Beardsley cites him in this post.

The VAM data show that VAM is junk science. Keep it a secret. D.C. school officials are trying to.

“In Brandenburg’s words: “Value-Added scores for any given teacher jumped around like crazy from year to year. For all practical purposes, there is no reliability or consistency to VAM whatsoever. Not even for elementary teachers who teach both English and math to the same group of children and are ‘awarded’ a VAM score in both subjects. Nor for teachers who taught, say, both 7th and 8th grade students in, say, math, and were ‘awarded’ VAM scores for both grade levels: it’s as if someone was to throw darts at a large chart, blindfolded, and wherever the dart lands, that’s your score.”

Categories Data and Data Mining, District of Columbia, VAM (value-added modeling)

A Reason Not to Take the SAT

By dianeravitch
June 15, 2015 //
44

The College Board, which sponsors the SAT, is data mining students and selling their data.

This is unbelievable. Students think they are taking a college admissions test, nothing more. Are they asked to grant permission to sell their data?

Categories Data and Data Mining, Standardized Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »