Could eScholar Data Mining on "Bobby" be Considered Stalking?

Should stalking awareness include the information gathered on your child and disseminated without parental knowledge and/or consent?

Common Core and the revision of FERPA by the US Department of Education allows intensive data mining and sharing of student information to various federal agencies and private firms selected the the USDOEd.  The company eScholar is one education reform company eager and ready to data mine information on students.  From wsj.com and Education Data Companies Chosen, 08.13.2012:

New York state education officials Monday said they selected four companies to build a broad education database that will host students' test scores, curriculum materials and education apps, paid for by up to $50 million in federal Race to the Top funds.

The state Education Department said that by fall 2013, school districts will be able to use one of the data systems created by either ConnectEDU, eScholar or Pearson PLC and its subsidiary Schoolnet.

The systems are supposed to store student test scores, student demographic information, curriculum materials, lesson plans and other items that teachers or parents can access. Companies will get paid, in part, based on how many school districts select their data system.

It's financially lucrative for data mining companies to compile student data and advantageous for them to have start up funding provided by taxpayer money. eScholar has produced a video about "Bobby", a hypothetical student the company is tracking.  From the eScholar website:

"Have you met Bobby yet?"

Meet Bobby, the newest member of the eScholar myTrack team. We think that educators have a lot of students like Bobby, students who have things that they want to do, but aren’t always sure how to get there. Check out the video to see how Bobby and his team of supporters use myTrack to help him reach his goals. What do you think? Do you have any students like Bobby?  

eScholar is a company that received federal stimulus dollars to track your child without your knowledge or permission.  Could such behavior and practice be considered not just data mining but stalking?

From the Judicial Education Center's definition of stalking:

"Stalking" is the term commonly used to refer to a pattern of behavior directed towards an individual by another that results in the person to whom the behavior is directed fearing for themselves and/or others. The behaviors can involve overtly criminal behavior or seemingly non-criminal, innocent behavior or both. Stalking can escalate and ultimately result in actual physical harm to its intended subject.

In contrast to many other criminal offenses, stalking involves repeated victimization of the targeted individual. Stalking, therefore, is a series of acts or a course of conduct and never a single incident. Another contrast between other criminal offenses and stalking is the attention placed on the impact of the actions on the victim in stalking situations.

Here are two examples of stalking from the article:

...The series of events or acts that comprise stalking can involve a mix of criminal acts and acts which, when viewed in isolation, could be seen as perhaps being innocent or non-threatening. Generally, stalking can include:

• Monitoring the victim's internet history and/or computer usage  
• Disseminating personal information about the victim to others 

Should the tracking of student academic and non-academic information and sharing it with federal agencies and private organizations without parental/student knowledge/permission be allowed?  How is the difference in the dissemination of personal information about "Bobby" to others and monitoring "Bobby's" computer usage via the relaxation of FERPA any different than the definition of how stalkers operate?

Here's an example of what eScholar will gather on "Bobby" and why:

Enabling P-20 Data Warehousing

Today, a consensus has emerged amongst educators at all levels that there is a need to create an LDS that provides a comprehensive view of education from early childhood through postsecondary and beyond (P-20). This capability is essential to maximizing the effectiveness of our efforts to encourage every student to achieve his or her greatest potential. A key element of this LDS is a comprehensive data warehouse that supports the data requirements of the P-20 world. With the introduction of CDW-PS, which integrates with our eScholar Uniq-ID® products supporting unique identification and ID management of individuals from early childhood through postsecondary, eScholar now has a complete solution for a P-20 data warehouse. The data model for the CDW-PS product is specifically designed to integrate with the eScholar Complete Data Warehouse® for PK-12 product to create a comprehensive LDS of over 3,000 data elements encompassing student and teacher academic history from pre-K through higher education. This powerful combination enables SEAs to answer key P-20 questions through one software product solution. 

The goal of data mining children from eScholar sure sounds noble, innocent and non-threatening.   The video celebrates the collaboration of teachers, principals and supporters helping "Bobby" to set his goals.  It's sold to districts and parents to ensure the student responds well to structured assessments and behaviors determined to be acceptable to the government's rubrics.

eScholar is a company funded by government money to gather over 3000 data points on your child and teachers so your child doesn't get "off track".  Since when did the government start tracking human behavior and making the determination of what is "off track" and what is a child's "greatest potential"?  Isn't that up to the child and his/her parents?

Can anyone answer this question?  How can eScholar offer a "personalized track" for "Bobby" when "Bobby" is stuck in a "common" educational system?

Watch the CEO's speech at the White House on his view of data and why he believes it is important to track individual data on each student.  Again, it sounds noble, innocent and non-threatening.  A student's future is dependent on the data.  At 9:25 he mentions how  Common Core ties this all together.  A student must determine if his/her goals are  successfully tied into a common skill set.  

What do you think would happen and what could go wrong if "Bobby's" strongest skills and talents did not align with the Common Core skill set prescribed by SBAC or PARCC?

Personal Data Collected and Disseminated via Common Core Standards and P20 Pipelines

P-20 initiatives connect educational systems for increased student performance, greater efficiency, improved outcomes, and smoother pathways throughout a student's career. These factors are of critical importance in a competitive global economy.
The Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE) is working on several fronts to help ensure that connections between early childhood, elementary and secondary education, and higher education can create a more seamless pipeline for Missouri students.  from http://www.dhe.mo.gov/p20/

Remember our post in December 2012 Who Benefits from Data Collection?

"These datasets have been gathered from various agencies to provide detailed information on the state of education on all levels, from cradle to career and beyond. - Education Data Community"

Almost a year ago the White House released a fact sheet UNLOCKING THE POWER OF EDUCATION DATA FOR ALL AMERICANS. The three page document contains the commitments of various partners to collect data on every student in America and make it as easy to access as possible for as many interested parties as possible. Ok, they may not have phrased it that way, but if you read what they wrote, that clearly is the intent.

The need for data to track your child is of ultimate importance in education reform policies and establishing a managed work force.  This can be done through information gathered from Common Core state standards, which will be aligned via the common assessments and the Shared Learning Registry some states now share.  From a whitehouse.gov site:

Pearson has committed to supporting open and interoperable systems that put high-quality, personalized learning resources into the hands of teachers and students. In support of this goal, Pearson will share data into the Learning Registry about many of their existing learning resources, including those that support the Common Core State Standards so that they can be used in each student’s personal learning path.

More information from the site on the type of data the Federal Government will be gathering on your student:

Education.data.gov: The Department of Education announced the launch of education.data.gov - the site serves as a central guide for education data resources including high-value data sets, data visualization tools, resources for the classroom, applications created from open data and more. These datasets have been gathered from various agencies to provide detailed information on the state of education on all levels.  (MEW note: If this is on a whitehouse.gov site, it causes a person to wonder how "state led initiatives" are now appearing on a federal link)

The question then must be asked, what does the government consider "high-value data sets on students, open data and more"?  The government does not provide a detailed idea on this site of what the datasets will contain but we have an idea on what to expect from the datasets from the National Education Model and the Illinois Data Warehouse report.  As the Illinois set is aligned with other state data models, you can reasonably expect this will be present in your Common Core state data set.

Listed in these data sets is personal information such as eye color, political affiliation and religion.  Who is interested in your child's data?  Diane Ravitch has an article Who is Buying your Data detailing some of the private organizations having access to educational data.  And here is a report from Utah (which might as well be from Missouri since we are under the same CCSS mandates) informing citizens on why data systems exist and what information they will impart to various federal agencies and private organizations:

Unknown to most parents, children’s data is being shared beyond the school district with six agencies inside the Utah Data Alliance and UTREX, according to Utah Technology Director John Brandt.  The student data is further being “mashed” with federal databases, according to federal Education Dept. Chief of Staff Joanne Weiss:  http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2012/07/ed_urges_states_to_make_data_s.html  While John Brandt assures us that only a handful of people in Utah have access to the personally identifiable data of children, recent alterations to federal FERPA (Famly Education Rights Privacy Act) regulations which were made by the U.S. Dept of Education, have radically redefined terms and widened the window of groups who can access private data without parental consent.  For more on that, see the lawsuit against the U.S. Dept of Education on the subject: http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/default.html

What it means:  Courses taken, grades earned, every demographic piece of information, including family names and income, is being watched by the U.S. government via schools.

Verify for yourself: The U.S. Dept. of Education’s own explanation is here, showing why SLDS systems exist:  http://www2.ed.gov/programs/slds/factsheet.html

.... even psychometric and biometric data (behavioral qualities, dna, iris and fingerprints) are also acceptable data collection points, to the Dept. of Education (verify: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ferparegs.pdf  )

Even if your state educational agency (such as MO DESE) doesn't have the data listed it will take from your child and where it will be sent, you can rest assured that if your state is in a consortia because of common core, this data will be disseminated and you won't have a clue on where the data is going, that it is being gathered or for what purposes.  

If you are a visual learner here is a video presentation on P20 education data collection in Oklahoma.  The information gathering and dissemination holds true in Missouri, California, Utah and the other states signing on to  Common Core State Standards.

Your Future is Not in Your Hands.

Educational tidbit for the Day: The government is here to plan your life via data tracking.  You are incapable of making your own decisions.

Below is a short video explaining how the Oklahoma P20 Statewide Longitudinal Data System will operate and how it will place students in jobs based on data gathered on them from birth. 

This data is not so much for education as it is to provide workforce data and how that student's data will (or will not) fit employers' specifications.  The video holds true about data information for any state that has adopted common core standards.  Remember, the common core standards initiative is the vehicle that drives the longitudinal data system.  Without the adoption of the standards, the data system could not collect the amount of student data needed to supply various federal agencies and private researchers for workforce purposes.

From the youtube description: 

 P20 describes a Statewide Longitudinal Data System(SLDS)--a framework into which descriptors describing American students from P (PreK) to 20 years of age can be loaded. This provides " a unified longitudinal student data system (SLDS) to provide interoperability and efficient and effective storage, use and sharing of data among the State Department of Education, Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, legislature, other policy makers and executive agencies, and the general public." This all comes, of course, with many concerns about government control, privacy, and "Big Brother" watching us.

Let's Go Ahead and Chip Babies at Birth. It will be a More Efficient Way to Supply Information to the P20 Pipeline. Science Fiction or Real Possibility?

Insert a lifeclock chip or barcode into humans.  What's the difference?

How many of you remember the movie "Logan's Run"?  If you missed it the first time around or were too young, here's a recap:

Logan's Run is a 1976 science fiction film directed by Michael Anderson and starring Michael York, Jenny Agutter, Richard Jordan, Roscoe Lee Browne, Farrah Fawcett and Peter Ustinov. The screenplay by David Zelag Goodman was based on the novel of the same name by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expedient of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopulation. The story follows the actions of Logan 5, a "Sandman", as he runs from society's lethal demand.

In the year 2274, the remnants of human civilization live in a sealed domed city, a utopia run by a computer that takes care of all aspects of their life, including reproduction. The citizens live a mostly hedonistic lifestyle but have been told that in order to maintain the city, every resident must undergo the ritual of "Carrousel" at the age of 30, where they are vaporized with the promise of being "Renewed." To track this, the humans are implanted at birth with a Lifeclock crystal in the palm of their hand that changes colors as they approach their "Last Day."

Most residents accept this loose promise of rebirth, but some sense that it is simply execution for the sake of population control, and go into hiding to avoid Carrousel. These fugitives are known as Runners, and the city's computer assigns Sandmen (officially known as DS agents, de facto executioners), who pursue and terminate them.

The character of Michael York becomes a runner via a computer assigning him to find other runners and his Lifeclock crystal advances four years, making him close to that dreaded age 30 level.  He sets out and what does he find?

Once outside, Logan and Jessica notice that their Lifeclocks are now clear and no longer operational. Venturing further, they discover that vegetation has overrun much of the remains of human civilization, and explore the nearby area, once the National Mall in Washington D.C. Within the ruins of the United States Senate chamber, they discover an elderly man, a surprise to them both, neither having ever seen a person this old before. The old man explains what he knows has happened to humanity outside of the city; Logan and Jessica realize Sanctuary is a myth.

The scene of the ruined Senate chamber resonated with me when I saw this movie in 1976.  I thought "oh, this would never happen" but three decades later, I'm wondering if the book's author and the screenwriter were clairvoyants.  Privacy rights and the rule of law protecting citizen information is quickly disappearing.

We are to embrace and accept government tracking our children from birth to the grave via Longitudinal Data Systems connecting various federal agencies to supply our babies as human capital to the workforce.  Arne Duncan demands "data-driven" statistics to make American students globally competitive.  Human personalities are unimportant as hundreds of data sets determine where your child will be placed, either on a career or college track.  Studies of women prior to even becoming pregnant (but planning on becoming mothers) are taking place in the St. Louis area and other parts of the country: 

  

 Here is some of the information they will gather on children in this study. (For a more detailed report you can access the 76 page brochure here). It seems as if it will indeed ask and answer hundreds of questions about children. Combined with the data sets from the schools, it appears there isn't much varying Federal agencies (over 40 Federal entities in the Children's study alone) won't know about your family or your child. Do you believe this is a positive development? Why do all these federal agencies need to garner information on families and individuals? Is this the role of government?

Whether you think it is a valid role or not, the government is already studying its first baby in the region. Here is an article about the first St. Louis infant born into the National Children's Study: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2011/03/08/first-baby-born-into-national.html

There have been subsequent attempts to remake "Logan's Run".  Inserting a Lifeclock crystal in a baby's hand to track them from birth to "renewal" was a cutting edge technology thought in 1976 but tracking humans now would be easier and more cost effective.  In 2012, we could just microchip babies at birth or barcode them.  From the nydailynews.com and "Human barcode could make society more organized, but invades privacy, civil liberties":

Science fiction author Elizabeth Moon last week rekindled the debate on whether it's a good idea to "barcode" infants at birth in an interview on a BBC radio program.

“I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached — a barcode if you will — an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals,” she said on The Forum, a weekly show that features "a global thinking" discussing a "radical, inspiring or controversial idea" for 60 seconds.

Moon believes the tools most commonly used for surveillance and identification — like video cameras and DNA testing — are slow, costly and often ineffective.

In her opinion, human barcoding would save a lot of time and money.

Is the Longitudinal Data System information mandated by Race to the Top and Common Core standards the first step toward a Logan's Run society?   Should the government have the right to track your life from birth to death and make decisions on who has access to this information for workforce (or other) purposes?  Do you exist to supply the workforce?   

I thought "Logan's Run" in 1976 was science fiction.  I'm not so sure now.  I wonder if Roger Ebert and the NY Times would alter their reviews of this movie based on the current push to gather human capital information for the government's use:

Roger Ebert gave the film a three star rating, calling the film a "vast, silly extravaganza", with a plot that's a "cross between Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars and elements of Planet of the Apes," but "that delivers a certain amount of fun."^[1]

The New York Times was less positive:^[9]

Just why and for what particular purpose Logan makes his run is anything but clear after you've sat through nearly two hours of this stuff. Logan's Run is less interested in logic than in gadgets and spectacle, but these are sometimes jazzily effective and even poetic. Had more attention been paid to the screenplay, the movie might have been a stunner.

What's a stunner is how Americans are evolving from human beings into human capital to be used by the government and its purposes. 

Can Kentucky Students Speak Mandarin with a Southern Accent? The P20 Innovation Lab will Soon Find Out.

Do you remember this commercial by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)? The Chinese professor is speaking to a group of Chinese students in 2030 about great nations failing under crushing debt and now China owns the United States because of the massive amount of debt owed by the US to China.

Do you think The Kentucky P20 Innovation Lab saw this commercial and decided Kentucky students might want to get ready for this takeover? Here are some issues and goals from its Global Issues Lab:

Issue 1: World language requirements for P-12 graduation and university admission

As requirements for world language proficiency change in Kentucky, we will need new curricula and world language and culture assessments that can be coordinated P-20.

Issue 2: Credit for proficiency versus seat time.

With educational trends that encourage independent student learning and stress standards and proficiency-based teaching and learning, granting credit by proficiency in lieu of seat time is becoming more common. Kentucky is positioned to take a leadership role in such initiatives nationally.

Issue 3: Chinese as a critical need language.

In Kentucky, as in much of the nation, there is a critical need for innovative models of extended, well-articulated P-20 Mandarin Chinese language programs with the teaching expertise to lead learners to a high level of proficiency.

Goals

The following goals delineate the overall objectives of the Global Portals Lab as it works toward models for scalability.

1. Develop internationalized curriculum and assessments pathways for P-20

· Develop a curriculum map to be proficiency based and articulated with higher education admissions requirements, degree and study opportunities in world language and cultures with Chinese as the pilot

· Provide professional development for teachers to create and use Chinese language proficiency assessments at elementary, middle and high school levels.

The document goes on to state there is also a need to expand partnership with the increasing Hispanic population and in homes where English is not the first language. What is the goal?

The over-arching goal of the lab is to develop a plan to support the participation of high school students and teachers from central Kentucky schools districts and their peers in schools in Carlos Ruis Burneo, Ecuador; in partnership with UK and PUCE College Of Education students and faculty in building international connections and collaborations (including service-learning) to promote positive learning experiences for near and far participants.

The reason for these programs?

The United States is becoming increasingly diverse (U.S. Census, 2000) and is anticipated to be even more diverse with the largest growth in Latino and Hispanic populations. No where does this diversity have more impact than in the nation’s schools. However, many teachers and school districts have limited resources to meet the needs of this diverse population, especially those children and families for whom English is not their first language (i.e. English Language Learners). Therefore, this planning laboratory seeks to facilitate a partnership among educators in central Kentucky and in Santo Domingo, Ecuador to develop an authentic and innovative approach to this issue using evidence-based models of communication, collaboration and consultation.

It seems as if Chinese language is to be taught so Americans can be globally competitive and on the other hand, Kentucky students and professors get to travel either virtually or in person to Ecuador to understand and address the diversity present in the Hispanic population in Kentucky schools.

Maybe Kentucky is ahead of its time or sees the future. Its children will be able to speak Chinese when China calls in America's debt and at the same time it will spend resources to assist Hispanic students who for some reason cannot assimilate into America culture.

Is this new definition of American exceptionalism?

Question: Is a Version of the P20 Pipeline Already Being Used in St. Louis?

We've written previously about the educational data sets ready to be implemented for students to supply the workforce and reported in Pajamas Media. Data is set to be gathered via a P20 Pipeline on your student for information on blood tests, eye and hair color, gestational age at birth, voting status, non-school activity information and other interesting information. Your student will be tracked from preschool through age 20 and into the workforce. The data prepared is quite extensive and there are 351 data sets listed in the Education Data Model.

Why wait for a child to enroll in school to gather information? Selected pregnant women in the St. Louis City, Jefferson County, and Macoupin County, Illinois areas could be part of a national children's study for their children from birth through age 21. This is a story from Fox 2 in St. Louis detailing the collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and major medical universities.

What is the stated purpose of this study? By following children from the moment of birth until they turn 21, researchers hope to find out what role the environment plays in how children mature and grow. But environment is more than air and water; it also includes family, neighborhood, income, school, and race, among many other factors. By monitoring their environments, and running periodic blood and genetic tests, researchers want to answer hundreds of questions about children. (Emphasis added)

Does this information from a study about children from birth to age 21 either voluntarily or through school records bother you? Do you want the government and school to know details about your family, income and genetic information? We know what the purpose of the educational data system is from the Illinois Data System Warehouse Document.
It is to provide the workforce:

The term workforce is defined as consisting of the workers engaged in a specific activity, business or industry or the number of workers who are available to be assigned to any purpose as in a nation’s workforce.

The public workforce system is a network of federal, state, and local offices that function to support economic expansion and facilitate the development United States workforce. The system is designed to create partnership with employers, educators, and community leaders in order to foster economic development and high-growth opportunities in regional economies so that businesses find qualified workers to meet their present and future workforce needs. (Emphasis added)

This educational data is to be shared with the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. Where is the information from the pregnant women study being shared? From the National Children's Study website:

The National Children’s Study is led by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in collaboration with a consortium of federal government partners. Study partners include the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Here is some of the information they will gather on children in this study. (For a more detailed report you can access the 76 page brochure here). It seems as if it will indeed ask and answer hundreds of questions about children. Combined with the data sets from the schools, it appears there isn't much varying Federal agencies (over 40 Federal entities in the Children's study alone) won't know about your family or your child. Do you believe this is a positive development? Why do all these federal agencies need to garner information on families and individuals? Is this the role of government?

Whether you think it is a valid role or not, the government is already studying its first baby in the region. Here is an article about the first St. Louis infant born into the National Children's Study: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2011/03/08/first-baby-born-into-national.html

A version of the P20 pipeline has arrived in St. Louis with a week old infant.

h/t to CT

How Does the "Aligning of Curriculum" in the State Create More Parental Choice in Education? What Kind of "Reform" is Really Being Offered Taxpayers?

I've been intrigued with the debate raging in the educational circles about the Federal government insisting the common core standards are state led, voluntary and the development of a national curriculum would not occur as a nationalized curriculum is illegal. Let's look at the plan for Missouri on the state level for curriculum today and then move tomorrow to the national level.

This website from the Missouri Department of Higher Education describes the P20 pipeline (that channel of educational/social/family information collected in educational institutions from your student) that ultimately will supply the workforce with human capital and its relationship with aligned curriculum. Here's a snippet from "P20 Initiatives in Higher Education":

P-20 Curriculum Alignment Steering Committee

Phase 3: The Steering Committee will be charged with: overseeing the work of the Discipline workgroups; promoting curriculum competencies in Missouri public institutions; working together with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to align curriculum across the K-12/postsecondary boundary; and compiling and presenting recommendations to the Commissioner of Higher Education for policy development.

What does "align" mean? According to Webster's: "to get or to fall into line". Constructing a syllogism with the information from the Missouri Department of Higher Education might look like this:

• Major Premise: MDHE is aligning curriculum with DESE along the K-12/postsecondary boundary.
• Minor Premise: The aligned curriculum will be presented to the Commissioner of Higher Education for policy development.
  
• Conclusion: The aligned curriculum will result in policy development of adoption of a common curriculum from K-12/postsecondary boundary.

Maybe I don't even have to present a syllogism to believe this is the plan. Just look at the name of the committee again: P-20 Curriculum Alignment Steering Committee. The name says it all.

Here is a description of how DESE addresses curriculum decisions:

Particular emphasis is placed on assisting schools in aligning curriculum with the Show-Me Standards and the development of written curriculum guides required by the Missouri School Improvement Program and the Outstanding Schools Act.

Here's another syllogism:

• Major Premise:DESE assists schools in aligning curriculum with the Show-Me Standards
• Minor Premise: The State Board has signed onto the common core standards which will replace the Show-Me Standards
• Conclusion: DESE will assist schools in aligning curriculum with common core standards.
  

If the syllogisms are valid, local control is non-existent. How is adopting state-wide curriculum considered giving local districts more control in what their students learn? Are the reforms making their way through the Legislature (school choice, trigger options, charter schools, etc) addressing the issue of common core standards and the takeover of curriculum? I've searched the pending Missouri bills and can't find one mention of rescinding common core standards which will presumably lead into common curriculum.

If you can tell us how the state aligning district curriculum into a common state curriculum creates more local control, we'd like to hear your reasoning. The reforms for this legislative session are supposed to be about parental choice. Are we missing something from reading this MDHE document? Aligning curriculum along a K-12/postsecondary boundary seems to be more centralization of control to the state, not to the local districts.

Tomorrow: part II will address the national takeover of curriculum.