What Would This Mom Think About Common Assessments and Data Collection on Young Children?

An uncommon woman.  What would she think about common assessments?

Desiree Harris Steiner (died 1974) was a mother and writer in Cincinnati whose sons gathered her short stories, skits and travel articles into a book for family and friends after her death.  Her rabbi delivered her eulogy and it was apparent she was an individualist and  didn't fit into a common mold. From Rabbi Albert Goldman's remarks:

She received the award of the Veteran's Boxing Association as "Mother of the Year" (date unknown), and she remarked: "They should have named me 'Character of the Year,' for that's exactly what I am.  I like to do things that are different, exciting.  I'd climb a mountain or swim an ocean just because it was there."   

Steiner wrote an annual holiday letter (1949) and it contained a poem about  grandchildren.  I immediately thought of children today and sixty years ago.  I bet this independent mom and grandma would have little to no patience to common expectations for young boys and  the data collection to go along with their behavior at young ages.  From Emma's Written for the Fam-uel....(or) Emma's Dilemmas Written and read by Emma, herself. (1949):

My second shift grandchildren would be much better if they were ALL Steiner and not just half...Corky isn't a student, Johnny is noisey and Richard is housebroken, he breaks everything in the house...they get all their bad faults from their mothers.  Of course I'm not criticizing, I'm just suggesting.  I always feel that boys will be boys....

See the little angel
Busting up his toys
Please don't scold him, Margie-
Boys will just be boys.

If a little darling 
Should kick you in the shin
Just remember, Desiree,
It's lots of fun for him.

What's the difference
If they spit, on Edith Mayers' floor?
If the child likes the sound of it,
Let him spit some more.

See the shattered window?
Footprints on the chair?
Ink on every sofa?
My grandchild has been there.

Let the little darlings
Slash and wreck and bust
Let them do just as they please
In Krug let's put our trust.

Never scold for anything-
That brings a child real joys
And when he reaches fitty-odd
He'll manufacture toys.

Let's revisit the questions in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study K-2011 that parents are to answer and data made accessible to the Federal government.  From our previous posting:

Parent Interview

• What is the status of children’s development (as defined by cognitive, social, and emotional development; behavior; and physical status measures) at entry to kindergarten and beyond? How does children’s development vary by child and family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics at the time of kindergarten entry? How do children’s experiences with transitioning to kindergarten (e.g., children’s adjustment to kindergarten) relate to children’s developmental status at entry to kindergarten? How do variations in children’s developmental status (as defined by ECLS-K:2011 cognitive, socioemotional, and physical measures) at kindergarten entry relate to later success in school?
• What are the associations between family sociodemographic and contextual characteristics and later success in school within and across developmental domains and across sex and racial/ethnic subgroups?
• How do family processes and parenting practices (e.g., home environment, family activities, and cognitive stimulation) relate to children’s school readiness, developmental status, and social and emotional adjustment? Are critical family processes and parenting practices associated with later success in school?
• What are parents’ definitions of school readiness—i.e., what beliefs and standards do they have for children’s behavior and academic performance at entry into kindergarten? How do definitions of readiness differ by parental socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity? What are parents’ assessments of individual children’s readiness for and adjustment to school?
• To what extent does parental involvement in children’s education relate to school performance over the course of the early grades? Do parental involvement levels differ by family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics? What forms of parent involvement are most highly correlated with children’s outcomes? What factors might influence the extent of parental involvement?
• What are children’s patterns of participation in early care and education? How do early care and education arrangements differ by family sociodemographic factors, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity? To what extent are these arrangements related to children’s progress through school? How does participation in early care and education in the year before kindergarten relate to participation in before- and/or after-school care during kindergarten (e.g., in what ways are these arrangements similar or different)? Does Head Start attendance relate to any differences in children’s readiness and progress in school relative to other early care and education experiences?

How do you think this 1949 era grandmother would answer these questions?

She would probably have little to no patience with these questions and would opt-out of such invasive data gathering on her great or great-great children.  She would probably be horrified.  She understood boys would be boys and that they would grow up to be successful even as they exhibited childish behavior...as children.  She had a better understanding of children and age appropriate behavior than the "experts" who have devised these questionnaires and Common Core grade level standards/expectations.

You may make your objections to data collection and tracking by October 24, 2013 in the Federal Register here.  I'm thinking about posting this poem when I register my concerns there about data tracking, collection and dissemination.  I believe Desiree Harris Steiner would approve.

Common Core is a Catastrophe and Race to the Top is NCLB in Drag....So Says Bill Ayers.

 

Ayers refers to Race to the Top as "No Child Left Behind in Drag", is underwhelmed by education competitions, and takes Arne Duncan to task

Arne Duncan and the Obama Administration doesn't have Bill Ayers' support on the current educational blueprint.  From a meeting at Elgin Community College on September 25, 2013 are Ayres' comments at a reception:

The background noise makes it difficult to hear some of his remarks clearly but a posting at freepatriot.org has transcribed much of it.  What is clear is that Ayers states:

Race to the Top, in my view, is No Child Left Behind in drag.  It is a rebranding in fact the Secretary of Education said that himself.  He said No Child Left Behind has gotten bad press, so let's rebrand it.  How about Race to the Top?  Same idea.

and

On the standards, common core, (I know a lot of people and their motivations who wrote that).  I think it is a catastrophe.

There is a question on whether he says he actually wrote Race to the Top.  Read more here.

Below is a video of Ayers speaking in 2006 about the testing companies and pedagogy.  It's clear he is not a fan of the testing companies making money.  Is that the reason he doesn't like the current version of Common Core and Race to the Top?  It's clear he finds competition distasteful from the Elgin, IL video and this video (edited) from 2006:

Race To the Top, in my view, is No Child Left Behind in drag. It is a rebranding in fact the Secretary of Education said that himself.  He said No Child Left Behind has gotten bad press, so let’s rebrand it.  How about Race to the Top? Same idea. - See more at: http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/26/bill-ayers-common-core-disaster/#sthash.q4uQvee7.dpuf

He says there is a quest for a national curriculum and the textbook publishers will profit enormously from such a curriculum.  He also believes "teaching and learning is central to Socialism for the 21st Century".  He also says  What's sold to us in the United States is the idea we are free, that we were born free and that proclamation entangles us.  

 In a 2012 video he explains how community organizing at work, in schools, on farms, in shops, etc is where real change evolves.  He states how legislation comes from the people rising up and the president at the time reaches out to those groups for the change.  Does Ayers' criticism of Race to the Top and Common Core emanate from his belief that the president is not listening to his group?  That's the same complaint from the groups normally in opposition to the progressive left.  But really, what does he expect?  When you have a centralized system, there is no room for the people.  It's all about the system.  Maybe he is coming to the realization that he's been played.







A reader responds to the freepatriot.org posting:

I don't want common Core any more than I want Bill Ayers opinion.

Apparently Arne Duncan didn't want Ayers' opinion either.

Common Assessment Sample Questions in the Kindergarten Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K:2011) by the Department of Education

 

Oh dear.  This poor boy will receive poor marks for his emotional state on his first day of kindergarten since he misses his mom.  The teacher must make a note of this on his ECLS-K:2011 survey.   

We recently wrote about the kindergarten study (class of 2010-11) to be done by the Federal Government that will ultimately start tracking the class in 5th grade.  

What does the study entail?  From the Institute of Education Sciences:

Information for Children, Parents, and Schools Participating in the ECLS-K:2011

The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) is an exciting new study sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education and conducted by Westat. The ECLS-K:2011 will provide comprehensive and reliable data about children's early learning and development, transition into kindergarten, and progress through school. The data collected over the years will allow researchers, policymakers, and educators to study how student, home, classroom, school, and community factors at various points in the child's life relate to cognitive, social, and emotional development, as well as physical growth.

For more information about the ECLS-K:2011 designed especially for study participants, including a study timeline, selected findings from the ECLS program, and a link to send us your questions about the study, please visit Westat's "myeclsk2011" website.

From Westat's site:

Welcome to the ECLS-K:2011!

The ECLS-K:2011 is the third in a series of early childhood longitudinal studies sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics. Like its predecessors, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K) and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort of 2001 (ECLS-B), the ECLS-K:2011 will provide comprehensive and reliable data about

• children's early learning and development,
• their transition into kindergarten, and
• their progress through school.

The data collected over the years will allow researchers, policymakers, and educators to study how student, home, classroom, school, and community factors in children’s lives relate to cognitive, social, and emotional development and physical health at various points.

The Questions We Will Answer Together

Thanks to you and your school, the ECLS-K:2011 will allow researchers and policy makers to answer such questions as:

• What do children know and what skills do they possess when they start school?
• How well do children do in their first encounter with formal schooling?
• How healthy are kindergartners? What percentage are considered overweight or underweight? How many have difficulty hearing?
• How do kindergartners behave? Do they pay attention to teachers, cooperate with other children, and display an eagerness to learn?
• How do children’s knowledge, skills, and behavior change over time? How do their school experiences change over time?
• How well do children’s kindergarten programs prepare them for the opportunities and challenges in later grades?

This explains how and what kindergarten  research questions will be gathered from parents, administrators, teachers and early childhood caregivers:

Example Research Questions

The ECLS-K:2011 has been designed to study the following sets of research questions, which are organized by the different study data collection instruments. While the questions below focus on the early years of the study, the ECLS-K:2011 is designed to follow the kindergarten cohort of 2010-11 through the 2015-16 school year (when most of the children will be in fifth grade). Additional study research questions will be added to this list as the study progresses.
Direct and Indirect Child Assessments

• What are children’s competencies in the cognitive, socioemotional, language, and executive function domains? How does children’s development of and growth in these competencies vary by child and family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics?
• What literacy, language, mathematics, science, and executive function skills do children exhibit as kindergartners, and how do these skills vary by demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and family structure? How do these skills differ between children repeating kindergarten and those who are in kindergarten for the first time?
• To what extent and how do children’s executive functioning abilities (e.g., self-monitoring, impulse control, adaptability) change over time?
• How prevalent is obesity among young children? How do the rates of obesity vary for children with different characteristics and backgrounds? How do the rates of obesity change over the elementary years?

Parent Interview

• What is the status of children’s development (as defined by cognitive, social, and emotional development; behavior; and physical status measures) at entry to kindergarten and beyond? How does children’s development vary by child and family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics at the time of kindergarten entry? How do children’s experiences with transitioning to kindergarten (e.g., children’s adjustment to kindergarten) relate to children’s developmental status at entry to kindergarten? How do variations in children’s developmental status (as defined by ECLS-K:2011 cognitive, socioemotional, and physical measures) at kindergarten entry relate to later success in school?
• What are the associations between family sociodemographic and contextual characteristics and later success in school within and across developmental domains and across sex and racial/ethnic subgroups?
• How do family processes and parenting practices (e.g., home environment, family activities, and cognitive stimulation) relate to children’s school readiness, developmental status, and social and emotional adjustment? Are critical family processes and parenting practices associated with later success in school?
• What are parents’ definitions of school readiness—i.e., what beliefs and standards do they have for children’s behavior and academic performance at entry into kindergarten? How do definitions of readiness differ by parental socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity? What are parents’ assessments of individual children’s readiness for and adjustment to school?
• To what extent does parental involvement in children’s education relate to school performance over the course of the early grades? Do parental involvement levels differ by family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics? What forms of parent involvement are most highly correlated with children’s outcomes? What factors might influence the extent of parental involvement?
• What are children’s patterns of participation in early care and education? How do early care and education arrangements differ by family sociodemographic factors, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity? To what extent are these arrangements related to children’s progress through school? How does participation in early care and education in the year before kindergarten relate to participation in before- and/or after-school care during kindergarten (e.g., in what ways are these arrangements similar or different)? Does Head Start attendance relate to any differences in children’s readiness and progress in school relative to other early care and education experiences?

School Administrator Questionnaire

• To what extent does the length of the school year relate to children’s academic progress, especially cognitive gains, during the elementary years?
• How do differences in schools’ basic demographic characteristics, enrollment, resources, policies, and organizational characteristics relate to children’s academic and social development in the elementary school years?
• Do school practices to involve parents result in higher levels of parent involvement?
• Does the school or administrative climate, teachers’ opportunities for staff development, or school goals for teachers’ progress in the classroom relate to children’s academic development?
• What kinds of services or programs do schools provide to families, children, or community members? How do these relate to children’s academic and socioemotional development?
• How do schools respond to the needs of parents with little or no English proficiency?
• How do neighborhood or community differences relate to children’s cognitive and social development?
• What challenges associated with student behavior, attendance, teacher mobility, and school safety do schools face, and how do these relate to other school characteristics and children’s cognitive and social development?
• How do differences in principals’ background characteristics relate to other school characteristics and practices?

Teacher Questionnaires

• How do instructional practices, content coverage, classroom resources, and methods of providing feedback differ across classrooms or schools? Do those differences correlate with children’s academic and social development over the elementary grades?
• To what extent and how are children’s opportunities to learn in the elementary grades associated with family social background characteristics? To what extent and how are children’s opportunities to learn in the elementary school grades associated with later school success?
• How does diversity in the classroom regarding age, race/ethnicity, sex, and number of kindergarten repeaters relate to other classroom characteristics? How might these class-level characteristics interact with children’s own characteristics for the development of academic and social skills?
• How do teachers and schools handle the diversity of children’s skills? How are children with special needs (e.g., English Language Learners, gifted and talented students, students with Individualized Education Programs for children with disabilities) taught? How might instructional differences for these students relate to academic and social outcomes?
• Do teachers’ characteristics, including sociodemographic characteristics, views on school readiness, sense of efficacy, job satisfaction, perceptions of school climate, educational background, certifications, and teaching experience correlate with children’s outcomes either in isolation or interacting with children’s sociodemographic backgrounds?
• Do teachers’ practices to involve parents relate to higher levels of parent involvement?
• How do teacher's relationships with individual students differ? What might the consequences of those differences be for children's academic and social development during the elementary years?
• What academic and socioemotional skills and behaviors (including activity level) do teachers report children having as they enter and go through school? Do these vary by family social background characteristics? How do these skills and behaviors change over time?

Special Education Teacher Questionnaires

• How do teachers and schools handle the diversity of children’s skills? How are children identified for receipt of special education services? How are children with special needs taught? What are the types of service delivery models in place for special education? How do program variations relate to differences in children’s academic or social development?
• What is the prevalence of different types of disabilities among children in elementary school? What types of services, instructional strategies, and assistive devices are provided to children with different types of disabilities?
• Do children receive special education services before kindergarten?
• What transition activities take place from prekindergarten to kindergarten for children with special needs?
• What is the association between inclusion in the regular classroom and children’s progress through the early grades?

Before- and After-school Early Care and Education Provider Questionnaires

• What are the patterns of participation in before- and after-school care and education programs? Do children with different family sociodemographic factors, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity participate in different types of care and education programs? How are these arrangements related to children’s academic achievement and progress?
• To what extent do variations in before- and after-school care and education programs—including organization, sponsorship, and quality—relate to the achievement of children with varying backgrounds and needs during the kindergarten year and beyond?
• Does participation in before- and after-school care and education relate to academic and social outcomes experienced by children?
• To what extent are the characteristics, experience levels, educational backgrounds, and professional development of teachers/care providers related to children’s outcomes?

What will the kindergarten questions look like?   Westat provides example sample test questions:

Sample Test Questions

The assessment items children are asked to complete are age appropriate and fun. Here are some examples.

Example 1: Mathematics

SAY: Jacob has six teddy bears. Each teddy bear has two eyes. How many eyes are there in all?
POINT TO CORRESPONDING AREAS ON THE STIMULUS PAGE AS NUMBERS ARE BEING READ.
TAKE OUT PAPER AND PENCIL OR POINT TO THE PAPER AND PENCIL THE CHILD ALREADY HAS AND
SAY: You can use these to figure it out.
RECORD CHILD'S RESPONSE.
SCORE 1 = CORRECT (12)
SCORE 2 = INCORRECT

Example 2: Reading

MATERIALS NEEDED: EASEL.
POINT TO DOG.
SAY: What is this?
ENTER CHILD'S RESPONSE.

Example 3: Science

What most likely happens first to a tennis ball when it is hit hard by a tennis racket? (POINT TO AND READ EACH RESPONSE CATEGORY.)
RECORD CHILD'S RESPONSE
A. The ball slows down.
B. The ball changes direction.
C. The ball sticks to the racket.
D. The ball goes through the racket.

  

Are these questions really age appropriate for kindergartners?  Does a kindergartner have the ability to determine the answer to "6 x 2"?  Have all kindergartners seen a tennis racket or even played tennis?  Can the game of tennis be "fun" instead of being scientifically scrutinized by a 5 year old?  Would an  answer other than just pointing to "dog" be acceptable?  This exercise reminds me of a 3 year old who failed a Parents as Teachers question because she didn't answer it exactly how the teacher requested.  Instead of pointing to "yellow boots" she answered in "it's the girl with the boots".  She failed that question because she didn't follow the prompt correctly.   The mother withdrew her child from Parents as Teachers and did not use this group for her subsequent children.  She realized quickly her child's individuality and skills were not recognized and her time with these educators were of little benefit (and possible detriment) to her child.

This link provides information on the survey and note that active parent permission is not required.   These children will be surveyed again in 4th grade and subsequent tracking will begin in 5th grade.  More information will be gleaned from common academic assessments...which would be academic assessments via Common Core.  A valid national assessment couldn't exist without commonly coded data sets. 

Would you agree to have your child part of this survey and data gathering in future years?  Do you believe the USDOEd should have the right to this information?  More importantly, can you find anywhere in the notices and survey information who specifically has access to this data and how it is going to be used?  Who are the researchers and policymakers who will have data access?

 

An Open Letter To Missouri School Boards

An open letter to the school boards in the districts whose representatives did not vote to override the Governor's veto of HB253.

Entlicher, Sue    128:Dallas County                       Pfautsch, Donna    33:Jackson County
Fitzwater, Paul    144:Potosi                                  Phillips, Don    138:Kimberling City
Fowler, Dennis    151:Advance                              Redmon, Craig    4:Canton
Fraker, Lyndall    137:Marshfield                           Rowland, Lyle    155:Cedarcreek
Gannon, Elaine Freeman    115:DeSoto                 Thomson, Mike    1:Maryville
Hampton, Kent    150:Malden                                Walker, Nate    3:Kirksville
Messenger, Jeff    130:Republic                             Wood, David 58:Versailles
Morris, Lynn    140:Nixa

Dear School Board Members,

Two weeks ago your representative was one of fifteen House Representatives who did not vote to override the Governor's veto of HB253 resulting in the legislature's failure to pass an override of that bill.

HB253 was an historic piece of legislation that would have made changes to Missouri's tax code for the first time in almost 100 years. It was passed at a time when all of Missouri's neighboring states were making similar changes to their tax structure in order to make their states more competitive. Now our state stands alone as one with an outdated, overbearing tax structure that is not friendly to business. This is nowhere more obvious than in Kansas City where dozens of what were formerly Missouri businesses moved across State Line Road to enjoy a better tax environment in Kansas. Over the last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 9,500 new jobs in Kansas City, Kansas, compared to zero job growth in Kansas City, Missouri. Our Governor is ranked #39 by The Business Journals in terms of job creation and isn't any lower because five other governors were too new to be ranked.

The legislature carefully crafted HB253 to make sure that the state would not suffer. There were several triggers included in the bill to ensure that our mandatory spending categories, like education, would not be negatively affected in the unlikely event that revenues dropped. History has shown repeatedly that when tax rates are lowered, revenues actually increase, so there was little concern that the state would face a revnue shortfall. Similar fears, that proposed tax cuts would starve public schools and drain government services, were expressed in Kansas, yet the Kansas Department of Revenue collected $160 million more under lower taxes in fiscal year 2013 than it did under higher taxes in fiscal year 2012. The Missouri legislature acted prudently to protect our children by putting measures in place in HB253 to maintain education spending at current levels.

The sponsors of HB 253 worked closely with the Governor’s staff to design a bill that would benefit all Missourians.  In a good faith effort, the Legislators used language that the Governor’s Department of Revenue crafted in expectation that he would sign the bill into law.  Imagine how hoodwinked the Legislators felt when the very language the Governor’s staff asked to be included was the language that the Governor used to confuse the public and insinuate the bill was poorly drafted and ill conceived. He then used the Missouri School Board Association and MNEA as his personal lobbying arms to spread misinformation about the ramifications of HB253 to the school superintendents, many of whom turned around and applied extreme pressure to your representative to vote against the override.

The fact is, the only one withholding money from education is Governor Nixon himself.  He withheld $400 million dollars this year from education. This is not the first time he has exercised this abuse of executive privilege. In FY2011 he withheld $150 million from education for disaster relief in Joplin, spent $36 million, and never returned the remainder. Though the Missouri constitution only requires the state to spend a minimum of 25% of our budget on K-12 education, this past year our Legislature authorized a full 38% of our spending to be used on education. The legislature has consistently funded education to record highs and it’s the Governor who continues to hold these funds hostage. 

This bill was about far more than education. Without these changes to our income and business taxes, our state has little chance of rising from the bottom of the economic barrel. We will be educating our children for jobs that just don't exist in Missouri.

We would like to ask a few questions:

• Did your Board meet to discuss HB253?
• Did your Superintendent provide a recommendation on the override? What sources did he/she cite? Did it include anything besides MSBA and MNEA talking points?
• Was information in favor of the override presented and considered?
• Was a formal vote taken to authorize your Superintendent to lobby your representative on behalf of the district?

If you answered no to any of these questions, then you need to examine the way in which your Board operates in relationship to your superintendent. We must note that the lobbying efforts of your superintendents were specifically cited as a main factor in the way in which your representatives voted. While extremely important to a school district, superintendents should never be allowed to act as rogue agents appearing to represent the will of the school board without the actual approval to do so. If they act without formal permission from the publicly elected Board members, then they not only disempower the Board but also deprive the public of effective representation.

If anything mentioned in this letter was news to you, it is obvious that due diligence was lacking on  this issue. Despite the message you likely received in your school board training, unity in public is not the most important aspect of your role as a school board member. Careful consideration of facts, a willingness to assert proper authority when necessary and the ability to bring the disparate views of the taxpayers you represent to the table to seek out points of consensus are the characteristics needed in a school board member. We hope that you will take action to restore the proper roles of school board members and superintendents going forward.

Sincerely,
The Editors of Missouri Education Watchdog

Common Core and the Federal Government's Announcement of Intent to Track Students.

The Office and Management and Budget wants access to kindergarten (2010-11) data, data from this class in fourth grade (2015) and subsequent tracking this class in fifth grade 2016. 
 

You have 30 days to comment on this proposal by the Federal Government to gather personal data on children.  Comment period ends October 24, 2013.

From The Federal Register:  

Abstract: The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011), sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), is a survey that focuses on children's early school experiences beginning with kindergarten and continuing through the fifth grade. It includes the collection of data from parents, teachers, school administrators, and nonparental care providers, as well as direct child assessments. Like its sister study, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), the ECLS-K:2011 is exceptionally broad in its scope and coverage of child development, early learning, and school progress, drawing together information from multiple sources to provide rich data about the population of children who were kindergartners in the 2010-11 school year. This submission requests OMBs clearance for (1) a spring 2014 third-grade national data collection; (2) recruitment for the spring 2015 fourth-grade data collection, and (3) tracking students for the spring 2016 fifth-grade data collection.

Common Core proponents state there is no data collection dictated in the standards.  They proclaim, "they're only standards".  But the standards allow for common coded data sets to compare children.  If there were not "common" standards and assessments, then the tracking of children via a common data set would not be possible.  The standards do set up the procedure to track students.  Common Core provides the framework for common "direct child assessments".  It's not much of a conspiracy theory when the government tells you what personal data it needs to track your children and publishes it in the Federal Register.

Do you remember the NCES with its 400 data points that CCSS proponents say will never be used?  Based on this proposal by the Federal Government, it sure seems as if that data set will be put in place and data gathered from parents, teachers, school administrators and nonparental care providers.

From Missouri Coalition Against Common Core and list of NCES data points:

 

P20 Longitudinal Data System – Student Data Points

Ability Grouped Status	Absent Attendance Categories
Academic Honors Type	Activity Code
Activity Curriculum Type	Activity Involvement Beginning Date
Activity Involvement Ending Date	Activity Leadership/Coordinator Participation Level
Activity Level	Activity Title
Activity Type	Additional Geographic Designation
Additional Post-school Accomplishments	Additional Special Health Needs, Information, or Instructions
Address Type	Admission Date
Admission Status	Ala Carte Non-Reimbursable Purchase Price
Alias	Allergy Alert
American Indian or Alaska native	Amount of Activity Involvement
Amount of Non-school Activity Involvement	Apartment/Room/Suite Number
Asian	Assessment Reporting Method
Assignment	Assignment Finish Date
Assignment Number of Attempts	Assignment Type
Assignment/Activity Points Possible	At-Risk Indicator
At-Risk Status	Attendance Description
Attendance Status Time	Awaiting Initial Evaluation for Special Education
Base Salary or Wage	Birthdate
Black or African American	Boarding Status
Born Outside of the U.S.	Building/Site Number
Bus Route ID	Bus Stop Arrival Time
Bus Stop Description	Bus Stop Distance
Bus Stop from School ID	Bus Stop to School Distance
Bus Stop to School ID	Career and Technical Education Completer
Career Objectives	Change in Developmental Status
Citizenship Status	City
City of Birth	Class Attendance Status
Class Rank	Cohort Year
Community Service Hours	Compulsory Attendance Status at Time of Discontinuing School
Condition Onset Date	Corrective Equipment Prescribed
Corrective Equipment Purpose	Country Code
Country of Birth Code	Country of Citizenship Code
County FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standards) Code	County of Birth
CTE Concentrator	CTE Participant
Daily Attendance Status	Day/Evening Status
Days Truant	Death Cause
Death Date	Developmental Delay
Diagnosis of Causative Factor (Condition)	Dialect Name
Diploma/Credential Award Date	Diploma/Credential Type
Discontinuing Schooling Reason	Diseases, Illnesses, and Other Health Conditions
Displacement Status	Distance From Home to School
Dwelling Arrangement	Dwelling Ownership
Early Intervention Evaluation Process Description/Title	Economic Disadvantage Status
Education Planned	Electronic Mail Address
Electronic Mail Address Type	Eligibility Status for School Food Service Programs
Emergency Factor	Employment End Date
Employment Permit Certifying Organization	Employment Permit Description
Employment Permit Expiration Date	Employment Permit Number
Employment Permit Valid Date	Employment Recognition
Employment Start Date	End Date
End Day	End of Term Status
English Language Proficiency Progress/Attainment	English Proficiency
English Proficiency Level	Entry Date
Entry Type	Entry/Grade Level
Established IDEA Condition	Evaluated for Special Education but Not Receiving Services
Evaluation Date	Evaluation Extension Date
Evaluation Location	Evaluation Parental Consent Date
Evaluation Sequence	Exit/Withdrawal Date
Exit/Withdrawal Status	Exit/Withdrawal Type
Experience Type	Expulsion Cause
Expulsion Return Date	Extension Description
Family Income Range	Family Perceptions of the Impact of Early Intervention Services on the Child
Family Public Assistance Status	Federal Program Participant Status
Fee Amount	Fee Payment Type
Financial Assistance Amount	Financial Assistance Descriptive Title
Financial Assistance Qualifier	Financial Assistance Source
Financial Assistance Type	First Entry Date into a US School
First Entry Date into State	First Entry Date into the United States
First Name	Former Legal Name
Full Academic Year Status	Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Status
Full-time/Part-time Status	Future Entry Date
Generation Code/Suffix	Gifted and Talented Status
Gifted Eligibility Criteria	GPA Weighted
Grade Earned	Grade Point Average (GPA): Cumulative (High School)
Graduation Testing Status	Head of Household
Health Care History Episode Date	Health Care Plan
Health Condition Progress Report	Highest Level of Education Completed
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity	Homeless Primary Nighttime Residence
Homeless Unaccompanied Youth Status	Homelessness Status
Honors Description	Hospital Preference
IDEA Status	Identification Code
Identification Procedure	Identification Results
Identification System	IEP Transition Plan
IFSP Goals Met	Illness Type
Immigrant Status	Immunization Date
Immunization Status	Immunization Type
Immunizations Mandated by State Law for Participation	Impact of Early Intervention Services on the Family
Individualized Program Date	Individualized Program Date Type
Individualized Program Type	Information Source
Initial Language Assessment Status	Injury Circumstances
Injury Description	In-school/Post-school Employment Status
Insurance Coverage	International Code Number
IP Address	Language Code
Language Type	Languages Other Than English
Last/Surname	Last/Surname at Birth
Length of Placement in Neglected or Delinquent Program	Length of Time Transported
Life Status	Limitation Beginning Date
Limitation Cause	Limitation Description
Limitation Ending Date	Limited English Proficiency Status
Marital Status	Marking Period
Maternal Last Name	Meal Payment Method (Reimbursable/Non-reimbursable)
Meal Purchase Price (Reimbursable)	Meal Service
Meal Service Transaction Date	Meal Service Transaction Type
Meal Type	Medical Laboratory Procedure Results
Medical Treatment	Medical Waiver
Middle Initial	Middle Name
Migrant Certificate of Eligibility (COE) Status	Migrant Classification Subgroup
Migrant Continuation of Services	Migrant Last Qualifying Arrival Date (QAD)
Migrant Last Qualifying Move (LQM) Date	Migrant Priority for Services
Migrant QAD from City	Migrant QAD from Country
Migrant QAD from State	Migrant QAD to City
Migrant QAD to State	Migrant Qualifying Work Type
Migrant Residency Date	Migrant Service Type
Migrant Status	Migrant to Join Date
Migratory Status	Military Service Experience
Minor/Adult Status	Multiple Birth Status
Name of Country	Name of Country of Birth
Name of Country of Citizenship	Name of County
Name of Institution	Name of Language
Name of State	Name of State of Birth
National/Ethnic Origin Subgroup	Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
NCLB Title 1 School Choice Eligible	NCLB Title 1 School Choice Offered
NCLB Title 1 School Choice Transfer	Neglected or Delinquent Below Grade Level Status
Neglected or Delinquent Pre-test and Post-test Status	Neglected or Delinquent Program Placement Duration Status
Neglected or Delinquent Program Type	Neglected or Delinquent Progress Level
Neglected or Delinquent Status	Nickname
Non-course Graduation Requirement Date Met	Non-course Graduation Requirement Scores/Results
Non-course Graduation Requirement Type	Nonpromotion Reason
Non-resident Attendance Rationale	Non-school Activity Beginning Date
Non-school Activity Description	Non-school Activity Ending Date
Non-school Activity Sponsor	Non-school Activity Type
Notice of Recommended Educational Placement Date	Number of Days Absent
Number of Days in Attendance	Number of Days of Membership
Number of Dependents	Number of Hours Worked per Weekend
Number of Hours Worked per Work Week	Number of Minutes per Week Included
Number of Minutes per Week Non-Inclusion	Number of Tardies
Other Name	Overall Diagnosis/Interpretation of Hearing
Overall Diagnosis/Interpretation of Speech and Language	Overall Diagnosis/Interpretation of Vision
Overall Health Status	Participant Role
Participation in School Food Service Programs	Payment Source(s)
Percentage Ranking	Personal Information Verification
Personal Title/Prefix	Placement Parental Consent Date
Planned Assessment Participation	Points/Mark Assistance
Points/Mark Value	Points/Mark Value Description
Postal Code	Post-school Recognition
Post-school Training or Education Subject Matter	Preparing for Nontraditional Fields Status
Present Attendance Categories	Primary Disability Type
Primary Telephone Number Status	Program Eligibility Date
Program Eligibility Expiration Date	Program Eligibility Status
Program Exit Reason	Program of Study Relevance
Program Participation Reason	Program Placement Date
Program Plan Date	Program Plan Effective Date
Progress Toward IFSP Goals and Objectives	Promotion Testing Status
Promotion Type	Public School Residence Status
Qualified Individual with Disabilities Status	Race
Reason for Non-entrance in School	Recognition for Participation or Performance in an Activity
Reevaluation Date	Referral Cause
Referral Completion Date	Referral Completion Report
Referral Date	Referral Purpose
Related Emergency Needs	Released Time
Religious Affiliation	Religious Consideration
Residence after Exiting/Withdrawing from School	Residence Block Number
Resident	Resource Check Out Date
Resource Due Date	Resource Title Checked Out
Responsible District	Responsible District Type
Responsible School	Routine Health Care Procedure Required at School
Safety Education Status	School Choice Applied Status
School Choice Eligible Status	School Choice Transfer Status
School District Code of Residence	School Food Services Eligibility Status Beginning Date
School Food Services Eligibility Status Determination	School Food Services Eligibility Status Ending Date
School Food Services Participation Basis	School Health Emergency Action
School ID from which Transferred	Score Interpretation Information
Score Results	Screening Administration Date
Screening Instrument Description/Title	Screening Location
Section 504 Status	Service Alternatives
Service Category	Service Plan Date
Service Plan Meeting Location	Service Plan Meeting Outcome
Service Plan Meeting Participants	Service Plan Signature Date
Service Plan Signatures	Sex
Social Security Number	Social Security Number (SSN)
Special Accommodation Requirements	Special Diet Considerations
Special Education FTE	Start Date
Start Day	State Abbreviation
State FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standards) Code	State of Birth Abbreviation
State Transportation Aid Qualification	State-assigned Code for Institution
State-assigned County Code	Street Number/Name
Student Program Status	Substance Abuse Description
Technology Literacy Status in 8th Grade	Telephone Number
Telephone Number Type	Telephone Status
Title I Instructional Services Received	Title I Status
Title I Supplemental Services: Applied	Title I Supplemental Services: Eligible
Title I Supplemental Services: Services Received	Title I Support Services: Services Received
Title III Immigrant Participant Status	Title III LEP Participation
Total Cost of Education to Student	Total Distance Transported
Total Number in Class	Transition Meeting Date
Transition Meeting Location	Transition Meeting Outcome
Transition Meeting Participants	Transition Plan Signature
Transition Plan Signature Date	Transition Service Description
Transportation at Public Expense Eligibility	Transportation Status
Tribal or Clan Name	Tuberculosis Test Type
Tuition Payment Amount	Tuition Status
Uniform Resource Identifier	Unsafe School Choice Offered Status
Unsafe School Choice Status	User/Screen Name
Voting Status	Ward of the State
White	Work Experience Paid
Work Experience Required	Work Type
Zip Code	Zone Number

When your Commissioner of Education or superintendent tells you this information will not be shared or accessed, or it is not the intent of the agencies/schools to release information, show him/her this Federal Register notice and ask them if they will refuse to provide the requested data to the Federal Government for its longitudinal study purpose.

Make your comment to the Federal Government that you do not need your child's information data mined and ultimately tracked by the government for government's use.  You do not give permission for your student's information to be gathered and disseminated and you have no need, desire or grant permission to the government to track your child:

Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number

ED-2013-ICCD-0096 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Acting Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.