Archives for category: Privacy and Privacy Rights

Colorado has severed its ties with inBloom, the data storage project financed by the Gates and Carnegie Corporation, which intended to aggregate 400 data points on every student, including confidential information, and store it on a “cloud” managed by amazon.com. Parents are fearful that the data cloud may be hacked and that the ultimate purpose of the data warehouse is to use their children’s information for marketing purposes.

A reader sent this message:

“I was fortunate to be with a large group of parents united against inBloom and Common Core yesterday, when the CDE announced to us that they have severed ties with inBloom statewide! Please spread the word that Colorado will “Bloom no more”! Cheri Kiesecker CoreConcerns.weebly.com”

Here is further confirmation.

A dozen parents in New York City have sued to stop the State Education Department from releasing confidential information about their children to data storage companies, such as the Gates-Murdoch group called inBloom.

One of the parents explained:

Karen Sprowal, a petitioner whose son is in fifth grade in a New York City public school, said in a statement that she’s been “unable to rest easy” since learning about the state’s plans to share information with inBloom.

She’s worried that information about her son, who has special needs, might get into the wrong hands and hinder his ability to get into college or succeed in a job in the future.

“Up to now, his confidential records have been protected by his principal, the school’s nurse and psychologist, but now the state intends to provide this highly private information to vendors, without consulting me or asking for my permission,” she said. “Commissioner King has shown a dismissive attitude towards the concerns of parents and indifference to the dangers facing my son and more than three million other children enrolled in the state’s public schools.”

Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters,an advocacy group who has spearheaded the opposition to the state’s sharing of students data, urged Gov. Andrew Cuomo to call on King to “halt … this unethical and dangerous plan.”

Cuomo’s office did not immediately offer a comment. The governor does not have direct authority over the Education Department, which is controlled by the Board of Regents.

“Commissioner King has ignored the protests of thousands of parents who have urged him to drop this plan and begged him to protect their children’s highly sensitive information,” Haimson said. “They have been joined by a growing chorus of school board members and superintendents throughout the state who say that his data-sharing plan is not only unnecessary, it poses huge and unprecedented risks.”

At the recommendation of its superintendent, Dr. William M. Donohue, the board of education of the Byram Hills School District in New York unanimously passed a resolution to withdraw from the state’s Race to the Top. Dr. Donohue demonstrated his willingness to think independently, to express his candid views without fear, and to act in the best interest of the students who are in his care. He deserves to be recognized for his integrity and clear thinking. I am happy to add Dr. William M. Donohue to our list of champions of public education.

Here is Dr. Donohue’s recommendation to his board:

Superintendent’s Recommendation Re: Race To The Top (RTTT)

Board of Education Meeting of November 5, 2013

 

 

Race To The Top has been much in the news lately, and the frustrations with how it is being implemented by the Commissioner, Chancellor, and State Education Department are surfacing from the public, much as they already have with school boards and superintendents. The Commissioner’s last two public meetings reflected general dissatisfaction with his initiatives, as was widely reported in the press. 

At the current time, districts in RTTT are required to select a Data Dashboard, which has brought to light concerns about security, especially with regard to what kind of student information is being stored, by whom, and how it is to be used and released to third parties. I attended a meeting on October 24 with the state’s data experts and RTTT administrators that was demanded by 36 of our region’s superintendents. The state officials could not, or would not, answer most of our questions; asking to get back to us. I found they were surprised by the strong stance of superintendents, who view protecting student data as a primary responsibility, and they were somewhat incredulous that security of data is a concern. When they got back to us, the answers were direct and provided helpful information. They also acknowledged that their answers were edited by SED counsel. The bottom line seems to be that student data will go to InBloom, a private data storage company, regardless of participation in RTTT. However, the next phase of RTTT data collection involves providing even more sensitive information, including student discipline records. This is a major concern, and it is not clear if all districts will be required to participate in that phase. It is clear that either the district or the state can unilaterally authorize the data to be released to third parties for various reasons. State officials have privately acknowledged that contracts already exist with commercial enterprises, including Amazon.com.

 

There are other outstanding issues of concern with RTTT, of course, including: excessive testing of students; the rush to implement Common Core and high stakes Common Core based Regents Exams for high school students; the validity of using test scores for teacher evaluations; the micro-management of districts’ teacher and principal evaluation systems; the exclusion of school boards and superintendents from any planning or input; the apparent commercialization of public education at taxpayer’s expense; and the ever-increasing costs of implementation, including computer based testing for every student. It really should be no surprise that by reducing local control, RTTT threatens to make Byram Hills less able to achieve academic excellence, less able to meet our students’ individual needs, less able to select appropriate programs for our students and community, more costly to operate, and ultimately less attractive to home buyers.

 

Given all of the above, I recommend that the Board vote to “opt-out” of our RTTT agreement with the State. I base my recommendation on my immediate practical concern about the upcoming demands for more sensitive information about student data, and the fact that we will have, at best, limited control over how the data is released, mined, and used by others who have no relationship to our students or the school district. Although it is not clear that opting out of RTTT will actually affect our participation, it will send notice to the state that we, like many others, are not satisfied with their security plan. Beyond practical matters, I think it is appropriate that we opt-out of RTTT because we can no longer, in good conscience, be part of such a misguided and poorly executed plan. The recommendation is not without costs, as we will not be eligible for our final payment of about $3,500 from New York’s share of the Race To The Top federal grant. About half of that amount will be made up by expenses we will forgo by not having to implement the data dashboard. Nevertheless, I think it behooves us to assert that we have no confidence in the way the state is implementing Race To The Top, that we view it as counterproductive to our goal of achieving excellence, and that we can no longer be party to it. Let me add that since the superintendents meeting with the state officials, more than twenty districts in our region have reported that they intend to pull out. At least eight others have already pulled out, or never joined. It seems likely that districts on Long Island will soon follow suit. And so, I think our message will be heard, if only for the strength of numbers and for the threat it poses to the state’s plan to apply for a follow-up grant extending its commitment to RTTT. 

 

 

 

Bill Gates has plans for your child. He wants to know everything he can about your child so he can customize and personalize the deliverables.

A teacher in California told me that his principal enthusiastically signed up for the Gates plan. Here is the survey that every teacher was asked to complete. Where do you think this is going? Is this utopia or dystopia?

**********************HERE IS THE CONTENTS WHEN CLICKING THE LINK:

ORIGINAL Survey Option E: Teacher Survey

We believe in the promise of personalization to dramatically improve student learning. In the future, each student’s learning experience – what she learns, and how, when, and where she learns it – will be tailored to her individual developmental needs, skills, and interests. This is a fundamental shift from the way that students learn today, and as such, we believe that for personalization to truly transform student learning, schools will likely look dramatically different than they do today. Our current efforts support districts and partner organizations in building system-level capacity to design, launch and scale school models that embrace this bold vision of personalized learning.

The purpose of this survey is to understand the teacher perspective on the personalized learning activities happening in schools, including current instructional practices, PD, supports, etc. Further, this survey aims to gauge the level of interest for teachers to implement personalized learning in their classrooms. For this survey, personalized learning is defined as follows: Learning experiences for all students are tailored to their individual developmental needs, skills and interest. Personalized learning can, and should, include the following supporting elements: learner profiles, personal learning paths, individual mastery, and flexible learning environment. These attributes can be further defined as follows:

• Learner profiles: Captures individual skills, gaps, strengths, weaknesses, interests & aspirations of each student

• Personal learning paths: Each student has learning goals & objectives. Learning experiences are diverse and matched to the individual needs of students

• Individual mastery: Continually assesses student progress against clearly defined standards & goals. Students advance based on demonstrated mastery

• Flexible learning environments: Multiple instructional delivery approaches that continuously optimize available resources in support of student learning

While we believe that true personalized learning requires much more than the mere adoption and use of new technologies, we are optimistic about blended instruction – instructional design and delivery that incorporates the use of new technologies alongside traditional instruction – as a means of personalizing learning. As such, we are interested in hearing about your use of technology as part of your personalized learning efforts and implementation.

***************HERE IS THE FIRST PART OF THE SURVEY************

1. What is the name of your school?

*

2. What level is your school? Elementary School

Middle School

Grades K-8

Grades 6-12

High School

Other (please specify)

*

3. What grade level(s) do you teach?
K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Other (please specify)

David Gamberg, the enlightened and thoughtful superintendent of the Southold school district in Long Island, New York, wrote a letter to the president of inBloom and asked that the corporation remove any data pertaining to the students of his district.

For his willingness to say “no, not with our students,” David Gamberg is hereby added to the honor roll as a champion of American education. He has done the honorable thing. He has defended his students against commercial exploitation and defended their right to privacy and their right to be left alone by a government and a private sector that believes that privacy is dead. Not in Southold!

New York is one of the few states in the nation that has agreed to hand over all personal, confidential student information to inBloom.

inBloom is the corporation funded by the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation ($100 million from Gates) to collect personal, identifiable student data. The software was created by Wireless Generation, part of Joel Klein’s Amplify, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The data will be stored on a “cloud” managed by amazon.com.

Gamberg does not want the personal data of the students in his district on that cloud. Good for him!

What’s is in the data set? 400 data points about every student. Personal, confidential, identifiable.

How is this legally possible? In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations for the federal privacy act, known as FERPA. As a result, this data may now be released to third parties without parental consent.

Why was all that data collected? In some cases it was necessary for the schools and the districts, but the sudden creation of huge data warehouses was mandated for those states that received funds from Race to the Top or waivers from NCLB.

In other words, friends, the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education worked together to assure that every piece of data about the children of America would be assembled in one place. inBloom makes no guarantees that the data cloud cannot be hacked.

Please read Superintendent Gamberg’s letter to the president of inBlooom, Mr. Iwan Streichenberger. It is attached to the link above. Ever superintendent and school board should use this letter as a model to protect the privacy of their students and families.

Parents and school districts are beginning to understand that student information will no longer be private.

The Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation created something called the Shared Learning Collsborative, now called inBloom. They have a contract to Wireless Generation, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, to create the software to collect massive amounts of data. InBloom will collect confidential data about students. It will be stored on a “cloud” managed by Amazon. There is no guarantee that the data cannot be hacked.

All if this became possible when the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations governing privacy rights in 2011. Thus, the data about students may now be stored on this cloud without parental permission. This is new and disturbing.

Who will have access to your child’s information?

Robert Shepherd” is concerned about where this is heading. He wrote:

“So, here’s a question: what is the purpose of inuring students to total surveillance–to having no privacy whatsoever, to being continually monitored, to having everything go into their permanent record, available to anyone with the money to pay for it?

What a great way to prepare people to be free citizens of a democratic state!

All this is about obedience training for the proles. The kids of the oligarchs will go to private schools where this sort of thing is not done.”

The superintendent of schools in Pleasantville, New York, announced that the district was returning its Race to the Top funding and withdrawing from Race to the Top.

The reason: the district wants to protect the privacy of its students. New York is one of the few states that has agreed to turn over all student data to inBloom, the Gates-funded data mining operation whose software was developed by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch . Since New York is not allowing parents to refuse permission to remove their names from this mammoth database in the “cloud,” the whole district has opted out of RTTT.

“Superintendent Mary Fox-Alter said the district will return grant funds in favor of protecting student privacy. Citing a desire to “protect student privacy,” Pleasantville Union Free School District Superintendent Mary Fox-Alter said she thinks it’s “a really big deal” that the Board of Education voted to withdraw from the federal Race to the Top program.

“The district’s Board voted on a resolution at Tuesday’s meeting to return the $6,000 in grant funds—distributed over the course of four years—that would require Pleasantville to “comply with a number of New York State requirements, including participation in an electronic data portal—a data dashboard,” according to a statement from the schools.”

Apparently, many other districts have also dropped out of Race to the Top:

“In an interview with Patch Friday, Fox-Alter said the “data dashboard” would remotely host student information that ranges from academic programs to immunization records, disciplinary records and attendance.

“This dashboard has the potential to collect over 400 data elements that have been identified in the State Education Department’s data template dictionary,” according to the statement.

“Many of the student-tracking data is already collected—and protected—by the district, according to Fox-Alter.

“Pleasantville already has a password-protected system that provides student information to parents and protects student privacy; the data dashboard required by the State Education Department is both redundant and, through inclusion of personally identifiable information such as discipline flags, immunization shots, attendance, and more, could violate students’ privacy rights,” the statement said.

“Fox-Alter added other area school districts have taken similar measures in the name of protecting student privacy, including Hastings-on-Hudson, Mount Pleasant, Pocantico Hills, Pelham, Rye Neck and Hyde Park.

“The potential for data mining is staggering,” Pleasantville’s Superintendent added. “It is frightening that corporations such as Pearson and EScholar are involved in this data cloud and are forecasting great profit in the K-12 public education market.”

I wonder if this means that the districts do not have to judge their teachers by student test scores or open charter schools?

Imagine: the Pleasantville district was wrapped up in federal mandates and massive invasion of student privacy for only $1500 a year. What a bad deal!

In this brilliant and frightening post, Andrea Gabor connects the dots that lead from your child’s personal, confidential information to a data cloud where marketers can hack into everything they want to know about your child.

Whose money is behind it? One guess.

Who is making money and providing the service? One guess. This is not a trick question, nor is it multiple-choice.

This is the future, folks. New York and Colorado and a handful of districts have agreed to turn over all the information about the children–your children–to inBloom.

Arne Duncan facilitated the release of private data to outsiders without the consent of parents by changing the regulations for FERPA, the federal law that forbids the release of your child’s personal data. Unless parents raise a ruckus, your district and state will give this information to inBloom without your permission, and without your knowledge. You knew there had to be a good reason that Race to the Top includes many millions for states to build data “warehouses.” Did you think those warehouses were for nothing?

What will bloom from this massive data gathering project?

Whatever it is, it won’t help your child. It will help some corporation that wants to sell something to your child or your district.

Politico’ Morning Education Blog reports a setback for inBloom. Notice the come-on: free now, not later:

INBLOOM OFF THE ROSE? — Another state has pulled out of using the Gates Foundation’s $100 million technology service project, inBloom. The withdrawal further shrinks the project after other states pulled out in part because of concern about protecting students’ privacy. Guilford County, N.C. told POLITICO on Wednesday that the state decided to stop using the service, which is designed to hold information about students including names, socioeconomic status, test scores, disabilities, discipline records and more in one place, and ideally, help in customizing students’ education.

Guilford schools’ departure doesn’t put the project in any kind of jeopardy, inBloom said, although Louisiana withdrew in April and other states once affiliated with the project no longer are. That leaves New York, two Illinois districts and one Colorado district as firm participants for now; Massachusetts is on the fence. At first inBloom will be free, but by 2015 states and districts using it will be charged $2 to $5 per student for the service.

In 2009 and again in 2011, the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), making it easier for third parties to gain access to private information about students.

The DOE is being sued by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on behalf of student privacy. Arguments will be presented on July 24 in federal district court.

“EPIC is challenging recent changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) that allow the release of student records for non-academic purposes and undercut parental consent provisions.”

At bottom, this is about Arne Duncan’s desire to clear the way for inBloom, the $100 million Gates-Carnegie-Murdoch project to collect personal student data and make it available to vendors for commercial uses.