Local School Boards Not Needed. Will the US Dept of Education be Running Your School District?

He's BAACCCKKK. Tell your school district Arne Duncan should stay out of our states, districts and schools.  If your district takes Federal money, go ahead and abolish your school board.  A centralized system doesn't need/want local input. 

IMPORTANT! Some info about the new round of race to the top - district grants that are due on October 3rd. 

School districts who want to take federal money directly from the Federal Government and bypassing state agencies are listed below.  What taxpayers, parents and legislators must understand is with money comes enormous strings.  Why not just abolish state educational agencies and school boards if the Federal Government gives money directly to school districts?  Forget about the constitutional authority of state agencies and local school boards.  The US Department of Education is now directing local and state educational directives.  

Here is a list of school districts by state that have indicated that they intend to apply for RTTT-D funding: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/2013-list-intent-apply.pdf THERE ARE DISTRICTS FROM EVERY STATE on this list!

There is a state and local comment period -- start working on the mayors or town administrators to influence their comments!

"Each LEA included in an application must provide its State at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA’s application and submit as part of its application package: (a) the State’s comments or, if the State declined to comment, evidence that the LEA offered the State 10 business days to comment; and (b) the LEA’s response to the State’s comments (optional). Similarly, each LEA included in an application must provide its mayor or comparable official at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA’s application and submit as part of its application package: (a) the mayor’s or city or town administrator’s comments or, if that individual declines to comment, evidence that the LEA offered such official 10 business days to comment; and (b) the LEA’s response to the mayor’s or city or town administrator’s comments (optional)."

This grant application also requires the signature of the head of the teachers union in the district-- they are sealing this one airtight. "Required signatures for the LEA or lead LEA in a consortium are those of the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and (where applicable) local teacher union or association president."

Does the Key To Correcting Common Core Lie in the Proposed Student Success Act

Representative John Kline of Minnesota, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, has provided his solution to the overreach of the US Department of Education that has given us Common Core and a host of other education accountability programs that have robbed our states of their sovereignty over education. The Student Success Act, if passed, would empower local control of education, returning choices for what is best for our children to the closest possible authority: parents, teachers, districts, and state government.

From an Ed Week article on SSA,

There are currently more than 80 distinct federal programs that are supposed to promote student achievement. The Student Success Act would eliminate more than 70 of those programs and replace them with grant funding that states and school districts would have the flexibility to use to tailor programs to their local needs.

Instead of Washington bureaucrats making decisions, the legislation would allow superintendents, school leaders, and local officials to make funding decisions based on what they know will help improve student learning. In addition, the Student Success Act would require the U.S. secretary of education to identify and eliminate positions associated with those programs.

The Student Success Act would repeal the onerous No Child Left Behind requirement that districts employ teachers deemed “highly qualified.” This mandate has valued a teacher’s credentials over his or her effectiveness in the classroom. Instead, the Student Success Act would support state- and locally driven teacher-evaluation systems that provide states and school districts with the tools necessary to measure an educator’s influence on student achievement

These changes are consistent with the message being delivered by the Missouri Coalition Against Common Core. Accountability is all well and good, but it is important to be accountable to the right source for the things that are most important to the people actually paying the dollars. Our current system, and the one we will have going forward, moves that accountability further and further away from the local district and the local taxpayers.  We send our money to Washington and then have to do the dance they want to get a portion of it back (through IDEA, Title I and the other 75 programs.) Lesson plans and curriculums are designed around the goals of people far removed from the state. Even the goals of "college and career ready" laid out by CCSSI are not necessarily the goals of all school districts for all children. Yet 100% of the school's focus will now be those goals. With the average district getting on 7% of its funding from the feds (some as low as 2% and the high only being around 15%), it is absurd how much control the US Department of Education has over local school districts.

MCACC has pointed out repeatedly the existing federal laws that limit the authority of the USDoEd that are not being followed.

--> Department of Education Organization Act (1979) Sec. 103 (a) “It is the intention of the Congress . . . to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies . . . (b) no provision of a program administered by the Secretary [of Education] or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.”

--> No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (reauthorization of ESEA) Section 9529 “PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY SPONSORED TESTING.(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION.-Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law and except as provided in subsection (b), no funds provided under this Act to the Secretary or to the recipient of any award may be used to develop, pilot test, field test, implement, administer, or distribute any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject, unless specifically and explicitly authorized by law.” 

If it takes yet another congressional act to to force the USDoEd to adhere to the restrictions placed on it, then so be it. In the end it does not seem likely that DC will voluntarily back off. It will be up to the states and the local districts to stand up and assert the rights they already have, to say "We do not see the benefit to us in supplying you with all the reporting your program requires," "The seed money you want to dangle in front of us is pitiful compared to the lifetime cost of running this program.  Regardless of the benefits you claim the program will have, we will not establish and then accustom our taxpayers to a program we cannot afford to keep running." To the extent that Congress can cut off the funding of the people who would threaten to cut off the return of our money to us to keep us dancing their dance, we applaud the efforts of the House Education Committee. SSA will not completely stop that process. The department will still be doling out funds in the form of grants. SSA will only remove DoEd's ability to dictate the exact conditions to be met to receive the money. Beyond that, the solution lies in reclaiming our legal and rightful local control.

Common Core Data Mining and FERPA: Sheila Kaplan Written Testimony in Support of Missouri SB 210 & HB 616

Below is written testimony from Sheila Kaplan entered in support of Missouri SB 210 and HB 616.  These bills would prohibit the State Board of Education from adopting and implementing the standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative.

************************************************

Legislative Hearing on SB 210 and HB 616
Testimony by
Sheila Kaplan, Education New York

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today.
I am Sheila Kaplan, an education and information policy expert and
researcher and founder of Education New York.

As the 45 states that have adopted Common Core Standards begin
implementation serious concerns are being raised about the impact on the
privacy of students and their families.

The federal Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, or FERPA, was
enacted in 1974 to protect the privacy of education records.

Schools are a rich source of personal information about children that can
be legally and illegally accessed by third parties. With incidences of
identity theft, database hacking, and sale of personal information rampant,
there is an urgent need to protect students’ rights under FERPA and raise
awareness of aspects of the law that may compromise the privacy of
students and their families.

In 2008 and 2011, amendments to FERPA gave third parties, including
private companies, increased access to student data. It is significant that in
2008, the amendments to FERPA expanded the definitions of “school
officials” who have access to student data to include "contractors,
consultants, volunteers, and other parties to whom an educational agency
or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions it would
otherwise use employees to perform." This change has the effect of
increasing the market for student data.

For example, the amendments gives companies like Google access to
education records and other private student information. Students are
paying the cost to use Google's "free" servers by providing access to their
sensitive data and communications.


The 2011 amendments allow the release of student records for non-academic
purposes and undermine parental consent provisions. The changes also promote the
public use of student IDs that enable access to private educational records.
These amendments are critical to supporting initiatives like Common Core that
depend on collection of student data to monitor implementation and measure
success. Schools across the country will contract with third-party vendors to
provide products, programs, and services in order to meet the Common Core
requirements -- and government agencies and researchers will be mining student
information for studies and databases. The FERPA amendments are paving the
way toward greater accessibility to student data while providing no meaningful
sanctions or protections against breaches of student privacy. As amended, FERPA
will loosen privacy protections while helping to promote the business of education.
How can we stop this invasion of student and family privacy in the name of
education reform?

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, is one national group that is
sounding the alarm on these changes to FERPA. EPIC filed suit against the U.S.
Department of Education claiming that the Department lacks the statutory
authority to amend FERPA to make student data more available and accessible to
third parties -- effectively changing the privacy law. EPIC vs. Department of
Education is pending in federal district court in Washington, D.C.

In bringing suit EPIC mentions the numerous education organizations as well as
private citizens who submitted comments against the changes during the
Department’s public comment period in 2011. They included the American
Council on Education. ACE stated that: “We believe the proposed regulations
unravel student privacy protections in significant ways that are inconsistent with
congressional intent.”

The comment by ACE was echoed by other influential groups, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the Center on
Law and Information Policy at Fordham University Law School, and the World
Privacy Forum, which stated that “Student and parental records will be scattered to
the winds to remote and untraceable parties, used improperly, maintained with
insufficient security, and become fodder for marketers, hackers, and criminals. The
confidentiality that FERPA promised to students and their families will be lost.”
The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers also
raised a number of concerns about the changes, charging that “The proposed
regulations have been overwhelmingly influenced by the single-issue lobbying of a
well-financed campaign to promote a data free-for-all in the name of educational
reform.”


It is important to note the interests of those who submitted comments in favor of the
FERPA amendments. For example, the Software & Information Industry
Association, which represents more than 500 leading high-tech companies, argues
in favor of easier access for vendors to student data. The College Board supported
the amendments because they facilitate “the robust educational research and
evaluation needed to improve opportunities and outcomes for all students along the
P-16 continuum.” This means the College Board would have greater access to
student data to, in their words, “validate our tests, assessments, and educational
programs” -- their primary business.

The Education Information Management Advisory Consortium of the Council of
Chief State School Officers noted that the FERPA changes will “allow us to
facilitate better research and evaluation using our statewide longitudinal data
systems.” And the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education supported
easier access to student data to develop a multi-state longitudinal data exchange
that incorporates secondary and post-secondary education data and workforce data.
This project is supported by the Gates Foundation.

Note that protecting the privacy of student information is not the primary concern
of those commenting in favor of the amendments.

What lies ahead for student privacy when private companies, government agencies,
and a wide range of researchers have greater access to student data and
information? I mentioned earlier the “business of education.” This phrase was used
by the Council of Chief State School Officers in their comment in support of
FERPA changes. Business is booming and groups like CCSSO are benefiting.
Technology startups aimed at K-12 schools attracted more than $425 million in
venture capital last year.

CCSSO initiated the creation of a $100 million database with funds from the Gates
Foundation to track public school students‘ information and academic records from
kindergarten through high school. This is called the Shared Learning Infrastructure
and it is now being run by an organization called inBloom, specifically created to
operate the system.

The SLI will collect and maintain a range of student data in two “buckets” --
the first will include names, demographic information, discipline history, grade,
test results, attendance, standards mastered--the list goes on. While schools may
already have much of this data, this information is not usually stored in one place.
The second “bucket” will store information about instructional content and
materials that will be linked to student test data in the SLI. Using Learning
Resource Metadata Initiative meta-tags and the Learning Registry indexing
(both aligned with the Common Core State Standards) this bucket will point to
web-based resources.


So how will this work? First student data is shared with vendors. Then the vendors
will align their products to Common Core. Internet searches on standards and
instructional materials will point to Common Core-aligned resources developed by
these vendors. Soon, when you search for education on the Internet, the bulk of the
search will be Common Core related.

Clearly this narrows the education enterprise and raises issues of anti-trust and
control of the Internet. And what will be the impact on the privacy of students‘
records? inBloom has stated that it "cannot guarantee the security of the
information stored ... or that the information will not be intercepted when it is
being transmitted." The question is: Should we compromise and endanger student
privacy to support a centralized and profit-driven education reform initiative?

Given this new landscape of an information and data free-for-all, and the
proliferation of data-driven education reform initiatives like Common Core and
huge databases of student information, we’ve arrived at a time when once a child
enters a public school, their parents will never again know who knows what about
their children and about their families. It is now up to individual states to find ways
to grant students additional privacy protections.

I will conclude my remarks today with the words of privacy expert Daniel Solove
who said: “Privacy is rarely lost in one fell swoop. It is usually eroded over time,
little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how
much is gone.”

Thank you.

********************************************

Sheila Kaplan is a longtime independent education researcher, publisher, consultant, program developer, and advocate for students' rights.

Ms. Kaplan has brought state and national attention to the issue of children's privacy rights under federal education law and has identified gaps in the system that leave students vulnerable to breaches of their personal privacy. She has consulted with federal officials on making the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) more responsive to the 21st century challenges of protecting students' education records in the electronic information age. Ms. Kaplan's comments submitted in May 2011 to the U.S. Department of Education on the proposed amendments to FERPA focused on the failure of the proposed rules to adhere to the highest standards of practice in protecting students' privacy and confidentiality.

Ms. Kaplan led efforts to introduce a student privacy bill (S.2357) in the New York State Legislature that would impose greater restrictions on access to student information than what is afforded under federal law. The bill passed 62-0 in the NY Senate in 2011 and was advanced by the Senate Education Committee in 2012 but was not taken up by the Assembly.

Given the growing state-level interest in protecting student privacy, Ms. Kaplan has developed a model STUDENT PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. She also continues to reach out to parents to inform them of their rights under FERPA and what they can do to protect their children. In September 2011 she launched Education New York's National Opt-out Campaign to alert parents to their rights under FERPA to restrict third-party access to their children's information and encourage them to review their school's annual FERPA notification at the beginning of the school year.

To kick off the 2013 OPT-OUT Campaign Ms. Kaplan produced the video, "It's 3 PM: Who's Watching Your Children?"

Ms. Kaplan founded Information Policy Watch in 2008 to warehouse her in-depth research of FERPA and additional emerging information and privacy policies.

Ms. Kaplan founded Education New York Online in 2005 as a one-stop website for state and national education news, research on information policy and children's privacy rights, and issues in education. In 1997 Ms. Kaplan founded Education New York, at the time the only independent education publication in New York.

Ms. Kaplan is a graduate of George Washington University. She holds a master's in social work from Fordham University and a master's in Information Policy and Records Management from the University at Albany.