Archives for category: Students

Merryl Tisch is the Chancellor of the New York Board of Regents. She has been a Regent for 20 years. She is a strong supporter of high-stakes testing. In this article, she criticizes those who opt out and who encourage others to opt out. She says they are hurting the kids who need help the most. She thinks the schools would neglect the neediest children if they were not tested every year. Since no high-performing nation tests every child every year, they must be overlooking their neediest children.

 

She writes:

 

“It used to be easy to ignore the most vulnerable students. Without assessments, it was easy to ignore the achievement gap for African-American and Latino students. Without an objective measure of their progress, it was easy to deny special education students and English Language Learners the extra resources they need. Obviously we still need to do more for those students, but now is not the time to put blinders back on.

 

“Without a comparable measure of student achievement, we risk losing track of the progress of all of our students in all of our schools. This risk applies not only to students of color, urban and rural students, and students with special learning needs. Many students from affluent districts do not make the year-to-year progress necessary in today’s world and need early support to get back on track. It’s far better to find that out while they’re still in the classroom than wait until they’re out of school and faced with real world challenges in college or the work place without the skills they need to overcome those challenges.”

 

One would think after a dozen years of high-stakes testing that there might be evidence that the children she names have benefitted, that poverty has decreased, but she fails to mention any evidence of the benefits of high-stakes testing.

 

Celia Oyler, a faculty member at Teachers College, Columbia University, read Chancellor Tisch’s letter and drew different conclusions. She wrote the following comment to The Hechinger Report, where Tisch’s article appeared:

 

Professor Celia Oyler wrote:

 

“Very few parents would be refusing the New York State Pearson tests if they were decent measures of learning. And if they were decent measures of learning from year to year there would be no Teachers of Conscience movement of teachers who are refusing to administer the high stakes tests. There are so many flaws with what Chancellor Tisch and Commissioner King have done:

 

“(1) These tests are not measures of what an individual student has learned from year to year: they are not vertically aligned. State Ed has created what they call growth scores, but calling something by a name does not make it real. In fact, these scores do not measure growth from year to year, but measure the score on the test one year and the score on a different test the next year.

 

“(2) The NYS tests are too blunt to measure learning of the students Chancellor Tisch proclaims to care most about: the children who do not do well on standardized measures (whether due to horrible stresses that often accompany poverty and affect learning, or from a print or language or intellectual disability, or because they are learning English as an additional language). And we also know from numerous adequately designed studies that a teacher accounts for only about 10-15% of test score variance on any child: to hold one teacher 50% responsible for a single test score is scientifically unjustifiable. And doing so damages the chances for such children to receive the education they need. Children who struggle with school tasks do not need more test prep curriculum (which is what they are mostly getting — get out to schools more, Chancellor Tisch!), they need more rich, integrated, experiential, three-dimensional learning that is organized around meaning and not memorization. Punishing children, their schools, and their teachers for poor scores on poor tests is not the way to promote the rich learning environments they desperately need.

 

“(3) The misuse of so called Value Added Models or Measures takes lousy tests and then puts them through a formula not even designed to measure one teacher’s influence on the score from year to year: VAMs have greatest reliability when used on groups of teachers across multiple years. To make matters worse, most all researchers continually agree that a teacher accounts for about 10-15% of any standardized score variance. So teachers in NYS are punished by giving them a score that was not even designed to measure what Chancellor Tisch has made it measure. Study after study after study demonstrates that VAM has confidence intervals of as much as 60%! This is utterly insane and has enraged educators who understand what is being done to them.

 

“(4) Chancellor Tisch has just announced that some districts and schools should be exempt from this high stakes bad math folly that she and her cronies have wrought upon the children and teachers of New York State. This is an abomination. We have decades of research demonstrating the link between wealth and standardized test scores. Yes, there are exceptions: we have schools where children from low-income schools have learned to do well on a high stakes test. We need to learn more from these anomalies. But even within the anomalies researchers continually find that doing well on one high stakes test does not transfer to other high stakes tests. This means that students can be taught how to do well on a high stakes test. It does not mean they are learning content, concepts, and skills of value, that transfer. This raises the question: Do we want learning, or do we want achievement test scores?

 

“It is apparent to many parents who are refusing the tests, and to many teachers who are taking up activism against these brutal educational “reforms,” that Chancellor Tisch and her ilk care way more about a reductive number on a spreadsheet than they care about real learning and about actually improving the possibilities for the most marginalized children in our society. New York State teachers and children deserve support and assistance, particularly in economically distressed communities. Tisch and her millionaire friends can do much better than punish us all with their willful ignorance.”

 


Celia Oyler, PhD
Box 31 Teachers College
525 W. 120th Street, NY, NY, 10027
office phone: 212.678.3696
office location: 312 Zankel Hall

This is a video of a spoken word poem by student Ryan Lotocki. It is genius. In fact, the poem is titled “This Is Genius,” and it shows all the different ways that students excel. Not just on a standardized test, but in living good lives that engage their interests and passions.

 

Can we show this to a joint meeting of Congress, or at least to the committees now rewriting No Child Left Behind? Or how about our state legislatures, who assume the power to decide that teachers by the test scores of their students?

 

Students have power. They are the primary victims of the disruption and distorted values that NCLB and Race to the Top and uninformed politicians have made of our education system.

A group of high school students in Lake Oswego, Oregon, has launched a campaign to persuade their classmates to refuse the Smarter Balanced tests, which will be given in April and May.

 

I have always believed that students are the best advocates for change, because they are the victims of the adult obsession with measuring their brains with bubble tests, and they have an additional advantage: they can’t be fired.

 

Here is the story:

 

Last week, they mailed letters to the parents of more than 300 LOHS juniors, urging them to opt out and including a link to an opt-out form they’d created.

 

“It’s not that we want to cause trouble for the school district or the parents or anything,” said Shaheen Safari, a junior and Student Union member. “It’s just what we personally believe in. We’re exercising our democratic right to speak our voice.”

 

The Student Union evolved from a series of stories on the front page of the March 13 issue of Lake Views, the LOHS student newspaper. The coverage included an opinion piece by all six editors headlined “Everyone, opt out now,” a news story about opt-out efforts across the country and a local story that quoted faculty, administrators and teacher union president Laura Paxson Kluthe…..

 

“Opting out is a private action, allowing status- and appearance-focused Oswegans to resist in an environment that contemporarily antagonizes political action,” said Daniel Vogel, an LOHS junior and co-editor-in-chief of Lake Views.

 

Students in grades three through eight and high school juniors are scheduled to take the SBAC tests this spring. The tests involve more in-depth problem solving than previous assessments, and about 30-40 percent of Oregon students are not expected to meet the new standards, according to state Department of Education spokeswoman Crystal Greene…..

 

A school’s performance rating is linked to its implementation of SBAC, and one of the criteria for a top score is student participation of 94.5 percent. On the five-point rating scale, enough LOHS students have opted out to drop the school from a five to a four. A lower rating affects a school’s image, Greene said, because some people use the rankings when deciding whether they will move to a particular neighborhood.

 

For LOHS junior Farah Alkayed, that’s not a good enough reason to take the new tests.

 

“We think it’s more important to create change in our education and educate people about (SBAC) than to be concerned with our school’s ranking,” Alkayed said….

 

“Opting out is a lot easier than holding rallies or encouraging students to walk out of the tests, and students/parents cannot be punished for opting out,” he said. “That’s not to say we’ve ruled out the possibility of walkouts or rallies. Opting out allows us to gauge support for further actions.”

This just in from teachers in Everett, WA:

A RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL OF THE SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENT

WHEREAS, the motto of Mariner High School is to “provide an excellent education to every student;” and

WHEREAS, the Smarter Balanced Assessment is not required for graduation; and

WHEREAS, this computer based assessment will take approximately eight hours for each 11th grader to complete and its confusing format is unlike anything students will experience outside the testing environment; and

WHEREAS, there are not enough computers to test the students in a reasonable amount of time and it is unacceptable for computers to be unavailable to non-testing students for such a long period of time; and

WHEREAS, the failure rate of the assessment is going to be extraordinarily high (possibly 60%) for the general population and even higher for students of color, ELL students, and students on individualized education plans; and

WHEREAS, student performance on this test will in no way be indicative of their learning and instead this test must be given to meet arbitrary, antiquated and poorly considered state/federal mandates; and

WHEREAS, graduation and standardized testing requirements in Washington State are in constant shift, confusing, and poorly communicated; and

WHEREAS, the sheer number of state mandated standardized tests is unacceptable; in addition to other assessments during the last seven weeks of school we must administer two weeks of AP testing, many weeks of 11th grade SBA testing, the 10th grade ELA exit exam, the Biology EOC exam, the Geometry EOC exam, and the Algebra 1 EOC exam; many of these exams are required for graduation or could possibly earn students college credit; moreover, during this time we are also required to teach our students and administer year end finals and projects; and

WHEREAS, the detrimental impact on the school schedule and more importantly student learning cannot be justified simply to meet a superfluous bureaucratic requirement; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, the members of the Mukilteo Education Association at Mariner High School object to the administration of the 11th grade Smarter Balanced Assessment for spring 2015 as an unacceptable obstruction to providing an excellent education to every student.

Passed Unanimously 3/6/2015

Student privacy activists are outraged by the legislation that’s being rushed through Congress that would legalize industry’s right to confidential data about children without parental consent.

 

This is from Leonie Haimson and Rachel Strickland of Student Privacy Matters:

 

Rep. Luke Messer (IN) and Rep. Jared Polis (CO) are introducing a bill in the House that would allow vendors of online programs used in schools to collect, share and commercialize the personal information of students. Rep. Polis has said that they intend to rush this bill through the House, without amendment or debate. Parents and privacy advocates CANNOT let this happen.

We need your help. Please visit our action page to send a letter and then make a quick call to your US Representatives.

For more information, see articles in POLITICO and The New York Times, and read the comments of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy available here.

Thanks,

Rachael Stickland and Leonie Haimson

Co-chairs, Parent Coalition for Student Privacy

http://www.studentprivacymatters.org

 

 

Here is today’s story in politico.com by Stephanie Simon:

 

 

“STUDENT PRIVACY BILL UNDER FIRE: A bipartisan student privacy bill to be introduced in the House today aims to reassure parents that their children’s data is safe. But the bill lets companies continue to collect huge amounts of intimate information on students, compile it into profiles of their aptitudes and attitudes – and then mine that data for commercial gain. It also permits the companies to sell personal information about students to colleges and potential employers, according to a near-final draft reviewed by Morning Education. Microsoft has already endorsed the bill. And the chief sponsors, Republican Rep. Luke Messer and Democratic Rep. Jared Polis, say they’re confident it will quickly earn bipartisan support in both chambers. It will likely get a push as well from the White House, which worked closely with Messer and Polis on the language. But privacy advocates and parent activists see the bill as deeply flawed. It’s riddled with “huge loopholes” and “escape clauses,” said Khaliah Barnes, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s student privacy project.

 

– Consider a provision barring companies from selling personal information about students. That seems rock-solid. Yet there’s an exception: A company can sell data if a student or parent requests it be shared “in furtherance of post-secondary education or employment opportunities.” An online textbook, tutorial service or gaming app could likely fulfill this requirement by asking kids to check a box if they want to hear from colleges or employers interested in students just like them. I have more here: http://politico.pro/1CPMUf3

 

– Industry has opposed any federal privacy law, out of concern that it would stifle innovation. Hoping to showcase the benefits of that innovation, the Software Information and Industry Association and the trade association TechAmerica have launched the “Smarter Schools Project,” which highlights classrooms using technology wisely. More: http://bit.ly/1CHTPXw

 

– Some ed-tech start-ups, meanwhile, are moving aggressively to showcase their own commitment to protecting privacy. The company Kickboard is sharing privacy protection advice with other start ups. Clever posted its privacy policy on GitHub, which lets readers track any changes. And when parent activists took to Twitter to question how a startup called LearnSprout was using student data, the company responded by asking them for help making sure the data was protected. Months of dialog followed. LearnSprout unveils its new approach today: The company promises that it will never sell or rent personally identifiable information about students and will never use that information to improve or market its own products. Read more about the dialog from LearnSprout Marketing Director Paul Smith: http://bit.ly/1GCQUNw and from Rachael Stickland and Leonie Haimson of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy: http://bit.ly/1CGVgnz.”

Parent advocates say that the tech industry desperately wants to protect student privacy from being invaded, except when the tech industry finds it useful and necessary.  The tech industry wants to limit data mining, except under certain circumstances that permit data mining. The bill would make it unnecessary to obtain parental consent for invasions of student privacy.

 

Contact: Rachael Stickland, 303-204-1272, info@studentprivacymatters.org
Leonie Haimson, 917-435-9329, leoniehaimson@gmail.com
http://www.studentprivacymatters.org

 

Messer/Polis Student Privacy Bill Protects Commercial Interests of Vendors not Kids

 

 

The bill just introduced by Representatives Messer and Polis addresses few if any of the concerns that parents have concerning the way their children’s privacy and safety have been put at risk by the widespread disclosure of their personal data by schools, districts and vendors.
Leonie Haimson, co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy said, “The bill doesn’t require any parental notification or consent before schools share personal data with third parties, or address any of the current weaknesses in FERPA. It wouldn’t stop the surveillance of students by Pearson or other companies, or the collection and sharing of huge amounts of highly sensitive student information, as inBloom was designed to do.”
“All the bill does is ban online services utilized by schools from targeting ads to kids – or selling their personal information, though companies could still advertise to kids through their services and or sell their products to parents, as long as this did not result from the personal information gathered through their services. Even that narrow prohibition is incomplete, as vendors would still be allowed to target ads to students as long as the ads were selected based on information gathered via student’s single online session or visit – with the information not retained over time.”
Rachael Stickland, Colorado co-chair of the Parent Coalition: “The bill doesn’t bar many uses of personal information that parents are most concerned about, including vendor redisclosures to other third parties, or data-mining to improve their products or create profiles that could severely limit student’s success by stereotyping them and limiting their opportunities.”
Other critical weaknesses of the bill:
Parents would not be able to delete any of the personal information obtained by a vendor from their children, even upon request, unless the data resulted from an “optional” feature of the service chosen by the parent and not the district or school.
The bill creates a huge loophole that actually could weaken existing privacy law by allowing vendors to collect, use or disclose personal student information in a manner contrary to their own privacy policy or their contract with the school or district, as long as the company obtains consent from the school or district. It is not clear in what form that consent could be given, whether in an email or phone call, but even if a parent was able to obtain the school’s contract or see the vendor’s privacy policy, it could provide false reassurance if it turns out the school or district had secretly given permission to the company to ignore it.
Vendors would be able to redisclose students’ personal information to an unlimited number of additional third parties, as long as these disclosures were made for undefined “K12 purposes.”
Vendors would be able to redisclose individual student’s de-identified or aggregate information for any reason or to anyone, without restrictions or safeguards to ensure that the child’s information could not be easily re-identified through widely available methods.
Rachael Stickland concludes: “This bill reads as though it was written to suit the purposes of for-profit vendors, and not in the interests of children. It should be rejected by anyone committed to the goal of protecting student privacy from commercial gain and exploitation.”
### 

In response to the public outrage over Pearson monitoring of students’ social media, PARCC released a statement describing its fairness and security policy.

Mercedes Schneider discusses it here. Read her suggestion about the best way to protect test security.

David Gamberg, superintendent of schools in Greenport and Southold, two neighboring towns on the North Fork of Long Island in Néw York, sent a letter home to parents, outlining the procedure they should follow if they don’t want their child to take the Common Core tests.

He assured parents that students will not be compelled to “sit and stare,” a punitive approach in some districts.

An enlightened educator, Gamberg is a strong supporter of the arts in schools. The elementary school in Southold has its own orchestra and a vegetable garden where children raise food for the cafeteria.

Reader Chiara shares the following:

Politico has a good piece about the contractor(s) doing the monitoring.

“Chris Frydrych, the CEO of Geo Listening, says his service routinely alerts school principals to students whose posts indicate they’re feeling particularly stressed or angry. He also points administrators to students who share too much personal information online, leaving them vulnerable to cyber predators.

Boasts about cheating. Dares to act recklessly. Taunts. Threats. Trash talk about teachers. For $7,500 per school per year, his service will scoop it all up and report it all to administrators.

“Our philosophy is, if someone in China can type in your child’s user name and see what they’re posting publicly on social media, shouldn’t the people who are the trusted in adults in a child’s life see that information?” Frydrych said.

He responds to critics who worry about privacy violations by quoting a student tweet he spotted while monitoring a school: “Twitter is not your diary. Get over it.”

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/cyber-snoops-track-students-116276.html#ixzz3V24EuBKl

Someone should inform this guy that he works for, and is paid by, the students and parents he’s sneering at. The arrogance is just incredible. The contractors we’re all paying seem to be running the show.

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/cyber-snoops-track-students-116276.html#ixzz3V23ajlPV

The ubiquity of online communications in the schools opens up new possibilities for entrepreneurs to collect and mine confidential, personally identifiable data about children. Under the terms of a bill to protect student privacy, corporations will not need parental consent to access this data.

As reported by politico.com:

“DATA PRIVACY BILL ON THE WAY: The long-awaited student data privacy bill is expected to drop on Monday. Reps. Luke Messer and Jared Polis have been working together to draft it, following principles that President Barack Obama laid out in January [http://politico.pro/1O71PUT]. An aide to Polis said the bill’s language would draw heavily on a voluntary, industry-backed Student Privacy Pledge [http://bit.ly/1zhrSlR ] that has been signed by 124 ed tech companies of all sizes, from startups to giants such as Apple and Google. A bill echoing the pledge would please the ed tech world. But it would likely raise red flags for privacy advocates, who have expressed concerns that the pledge contains too many loopholes to be useful. Among their objections: The pledge doesn’t require companies to get parental consent – or even to give parents advance notice – before collecting intimate information on their children’s academic progress and learning styles. It also explicitly allows companies to build personal profiles of children to help them develop or improve ed-tech products. They can’t sell those profiles, but some parents are uncomfortable with any use of student data for commercial gain. A refresher on the pledge: http://politico.pro/192EYsW”