 |
| As a public education student, your child has little expectation of privacy and control of gathered personal data to federal agencies. Where's the PTA's outrage? |
JR Wilson has written an article for parents to read and understand what happens to their child's privacy when they cross the threshold of the school building. Your child's data now belongs to various state and federal agencies, as well as private researchers.
The PTA and PTO Boards in public schools should be alerting parents to the massive data gathering on public education students. Ask your organization or principal exactly what those documents you sign at the beginning of every year allow for data gathering on your child. The Maryland PTA in 2010 opposed data gathering for military recruiting use. Where's the outrage from the PTA about student personal data being released to federal agencies and private firms designated to receive this information by the Department of Education?
Don't hold your breath your PTA will alert you to the massive data grab. The organization received $1 Million from an early proponent of Common Core standards, Bill Gates. To gather the data the Common Core is necessary. The PTA probably won't come out against the data retrieval portion of Common Core. It's received money to support the implementation of the standards which includes tracking students.
If you are alarmed at the increased scrutiny of personal data and use of this data for financial purposes to organizations, you can use this opt out form from educationnewyork.com. We urge you to visit that website for more information on privacy issues for your child and family.
This article was originally published August 27, 2012 on
EducationNews.com at
http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/jr-wilson-parents-need-to-know-about-student-data-privacy/
and is republished here with permission from the author.
*********************************************************************************
Parents Need to Know About Student Data Privacy
Trusting Parents
When enrolling or
filling out forms during the school year, parents give schools personal
information about themselves and their child. A school employee enters the
information into the school office computer.
No thought is given to this since computers are a good way to store,
organize, and manage data. Most parents don’t realize the data doesn’t stay In
the school office computer. The computer
is networked and shares data with other computers. This information or data
once it is entered becomes a part of a district or multi-district database that
is uploaded to a state longitudinal data system at least once a month.
Are parents
informed this is happening with personal information they provide? Are parents asked permission, or consent, for
their information to become part of a database beyond the confines and use of
the brick and mortar school? Should
parents be made aware of this practice?
Should they be required to give consent?
State Longitudinal Data Systems,
Purposes, and Prohibition
The state longitudinal data systems are for preschool through grade 12
education and post secondary education or P-16.
Basically, states are collecting data on all preschool through grade 16
individuals. It is interesting to note
for the purposes of data collection, the “P” for preschool means birth to
school. They want to collect data from
the time of birth through an individual’s career.
Federal legislation calls for the collection of data to include:
·
gender,
·
ethnic
or racial groups,
·
limited
English proficiency status,
·
migrant
students,
·
disabilities,
·
economically
disadvantaged,
·
assessment
results,
·
demographics,
·
student-level
enrollment,
·
program
participation,
·
courses
completed,
·
student
transcript information,
·
transfers,
teachers,
·
family
income.
Will state longitudinal data systems collect data beyond what is called
for in legislation? What is the purpose
of the data collection? How will it be
used? What will be next? Collecting prenatal data? The pre-conception gleam in the eye
data? In addition to the state
longitudinal data systems containing far more information on students, parents,
and teachers than necessary for educational purposes, I believe the system will
eventually include information on all taxpayers with or without kids (twowks)
so they may be held adequately accountable for how others spend their hard
earned tax dollars.
There has been a push for state longitudinal data systems
for many years. As early as 1965, the initial Elementary & Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) mentions providing support for collecting and storing
data and using automated data systems.
Federal legislation and programs encourage or require data collection systems and the development of
state longitudinal data systems. These include:
- Goals 2000
- Educate America Act
- Improving America’s Schools Act
- No Child Left Behind
- America Competes Act
- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
- Race to the Top. (see sidebar)
Each state has a State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) and
names their SLDS a little differently to suit their own creativity. As an example, Oregon has Project ALDER: Advancing Longitudinal Data for Educational
Reform and Washington has CEDARS: Comprehensive Education Data
and Research System.
The early stated
purposes for data collection was to determine things like graduation rates, job
placement rates, and program effectiveness.
The Race to the Top created mandates for data systems to be used to
inform decisions and improve instruction.
While this is laudable, it is questionable as the driving need for data
collection. An abundance of available data and research findings has been
ignored in the reform education decision-making process. Many reform measures
being pushed from the federal level on down have no evidence of
effectiveness--some have evidence of negative effectiveness -- yet continue to
be foisted upon the states and local districts to implement. Are our decision makers Confusing
Evidence and Politics? Do they
really have our students’ academic interest as a top priority? Does anyone know how to make effective
decisions based on this information?
Will the information be so overwhelming as to be useless except for
cherry picking to support pet programs?
Who will benefit most? Our
students? Private corporations? Non-profit corporations? Individuals and groups in positions of power
and authority?
Our society’s moral
and ethical values may have slipped to the point that individuals and groups in
positions of power and authority feel it is appropriate to publicly release
information that most people feel is confidential. Recently, state officials
in Oklahoma posted private educational records of several students online. This information may not have come from their
state longitudinal data system but think of the control and power such
information provides, especially if one is able to personally identify
individuals. When big brother has the
informational goods on the public, are people likely to speak up or will they
maintain a cautious place in line?
There is a
prohibition on the development of a nationwide database of personally
identifiable information (PII). The Act
that created No Child Left Behind says:
PROHIBITION
ON NATIONWIDE DATABASE.
‘‘Nothing
in this Act (other than section 1308(b)) shall be construed to authorize the
development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on
individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this Act. 20
USC 7911.
Does that mean it is okay to develop a nationwide database provided no
personally identifiable information is used?
It appears the federal government is dancing around the issue of
developing a nationwide database. While
the federal government is not developing it, they are supporting, promoting,
encouraging, and funding with tax dollars the development of state longitudinal
data systems. An effort, the Data Quality Campaign (DQC)
is well underway, with federal encouragement, to have the state longitudinal
data systems compatible for data sharing between and among states. This effort will result in a defacto
nationwide database.
The Data Quality
Campaign’s report Data
for Action 2011 Empower with Data indicates no states having all 10 Essential
Elements of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems in place in 2005. In 2011 every state had at least 7 of the 10
Elements in place and thirty-six states had all 10 Elements in place.
The Data Quality Campaign lists
the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) among its Partners. The NGA and the CCSSO joined efforts in an
initiative to develop the Common Core
State Standards and shares some of the same partners. Both the Data Quality Campaign and Common
Core State Standards Initiative have been supported with grants from the Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation (see 1,
2,
3). The Common Core State Standards has provided
investors and entrepreneurs with a lucrative
market place. Besides the technology
industry and service industry, who stands to financially gain from the Data
Quality Campaign and the state longitudinal data systems?
The Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and State Higher Education Executive
Officers (SHEEO) are working to Promote
the Voluntary Adoption of a Model of Common Data Standards and say:
The
U.S. Department of Education will facilitate the leveraging, and where needed,
the development of model common data standards for a core set of student-level
variables to increase comparability of data, interoperability and portability
of data, and reduce collection burden.
Funding
for State Longitudinal Data Systems
Leveraging
Federal Funding for Longitudinal Data Systems - A Roadmap for States shows
some federal programs encouraging states to use funds for longitudinal data
systems. These programs include Statewide Longitudinal Data System
Grants Program, Race to
the Top, Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C, Carl D. Perkins
and Technical Education Act of 2006, Title I, Teacher
Incentive Fund, Striving Readers
Program, Child
Care and Development Block Grant, Workforce
Data Quality Initiative, Workforce
Innovation Fund, and the Workforce Investment Act.
It is difficult to determine how much taxpayer money
states have spent on longitudinal data systems.
As indicated above, there are numerous sources of funds available. The Statewide Longitudinal Data System
Grants Program does show how much grant money has been awarded to each
state from their program. Since 2006
over $612 million has been awarded with $254 million of that in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (stimulus) funds. Information from this program’s website has
been compiled into a table showing amounts each state has been
awarded.
Personally
Identifiable Information, Data Mining and Matching, and Security Breaches
State longitudinal data systems
are not to permit students to be individually identified by users of the
system. What about abusers of the
system? Data from state longitudinal
data systems can be matched with data from other databases enabling the
identification of individuals no matter how much effort is put into keeping
personally identifiable information (PII) out of the state longitudinal data
systems. Records
can be matched by identifying overlapping data.
With the ability to match data
enabling the identification of individuals it is reasonable to think this data
may find its way into the hands of data brokers and database marketers like Acxiom
Corporation who may mine, analyze, refine, and sell the data. While we may laugh at the Ordering
Pizza in 2015 video, it hits real close to reality.
Eventually, whether for sport,
competition, or profit, hackers will compromise the state longitudinal data
systems. Perhaps they already have been
exploiting these systems and the public and parents are never informed it is
taking place. Below is a notice that I
have written and which I believe should be provided to parents and all of the
media. For obvious reasons it never
will.
We have discovered that our state longitudinal data
system servers were attacked, resulting in a security breach. The hackers were
able to access information on all students, parents and teachers in the state.
Our team has worked to secure the state longitudinal data system against this
type of attack from recurring.
Please understand that we are under no obligation to inform you that sensitive data about the students, parents, and teachers in the state has been accessed and copied by unauthorized and unknown individuals. Since our data system contains no personally identifiable information you should comfortably know we assume no liability for any damages resulting from the hacker’s ability to personally identify individuals by matching overlapping information with other database information for which we have no control.
We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. Should you find the consequences of this security breach to be devastating to your life, we suggest you consider assuming another identity and start a new life. Should you wish to exercise this option, for a fee we can assist you in this effort. We take the security of our data seriously and can assure you we are taking measures to protect the system from this kind of breach until it happens again, at which time we will simply send you another message similar to this one reassuring you there is nothing to be concerned about.
Please understand that we are under no obligation to inform you that sensitive data about the students, parents, and teachers in the state has been accessed and copied by unauthorized and unknown individuals. Since our data system contains no personally identifiable information you should comfortably know we assume no liability for any damages resulting from the hacker’s ability to personally identify individuals by matching overlapping information with other database information for which we have no control.
We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. Should you find the consequences of this security breach to be devastating to your life, we suggest you consider assuming another identity and start a new life. Should you wish to exercise this option, for a fee we can assist you in this effort. We take the security of our data seriously and can assure you we are taking measures to protect the system from this kind of breach until it happens again, at which time we will simply send you another message similar to this one reassuring you there is nothing to be concerned about.
J.R. Wilson is a parent and an
education advocate with 25+ years experience in public education as an
elementary teacher, curriculum consultant, staff development coordinator, and
principal.
References
A Blueprint for Reform The Reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, United States
Department of Education, March 2010
A
Statement of Common Purpose: Chief State
School Officers and State Higher Education Executives Promote the Voluntary
Adoption of a Model of Common Data Standards
“America COMPETES Act’’ or the ‘‘America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act” of
2007
American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009
CEDARS: Comprehensive Education Data
and Research System
Confusing Evidence
and Politics, Jay P. Greene’s Blog
Data for Action
2011 Empower with Data, Data Quality Campaign
Data Cleaning:
Problems and Current Approaches
Elementary &
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (P.L. 89-10)
Page 49 of Public Law 89-10
April 11, 1965
Goals 2000: Educate
America Act (P.L. 103-227) MAR. 31, 1994
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994
Leveraging Federal Funding for
Longitudinal Data Systems - A Roadmap for States
Project ALDER:
Advancing Longitudinal Data for Educational Reform
PUBLIC LAW
107–110—JAN. 8, 2002, An Act To close the achievement gap with accountability,
flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.
Race to the Top
You for Sale: Mapping, and Sharing, the Consumer
Genome
I haven't had the chance to look through the archives here. Yet.
ReplyDeleteFor the couple of pieces I have quoted, though, thank you.
You are doing important work.