Data walls are a widespread practice in many schools, in which students’ test scores and other personal data are posted publicly in a school, along with their names, photos or other information that makes them identifiable.  These practices not only shame students but also violate their privacy rights, as specified in the federal law called FERPA, in which only school officials or their designees engaged in research, evaluation or contractual services are able to access student personal information.

Here is an article about the damaging impact of data walls by a Virginia teacher; here is a post reprinted from Exceptional Delaware, in which the blogger Kevin Ohlandt explains how he is writing every Superintendent in the state to demand these walls come down.  Here is his follow up post with the letter.

If any parent is interested in filing a FERPA complaint against the use of these data walls, let us know at [email protected] and we will help him or her do so.

Sheila Resseger, a retired teacher, education activist, and  a member of the PCSP, wrote the post below.  Her new blog is at https://resseger.wordpress.com/

On  April 5,  the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, FairTest, Network for Public Education and other parent and teacher activists sent a letter to the State Education Commissioners from the PARCC and SBAC states.  I signed the letter as well.  We demanded these Commissioners inform us as to whether they plan to use computer scoring for the writing sections of these exams.

As research has shown, computers are unable to distinguish nonsense from coherent prose, and instead grade mostly on an essay’s length and how much arcane vocabulary is used.  Employing computers to score the Common Core exams is completely contrary to the supposed goal of these standards: to encourage critical thinking and writing skills; an article about this issue is here.

Later that day, Rhode Island Commissioner Ken Wagner met with our Council on Elementary and Secondary Education.  He was enthusiastic about the prospect of computer scoring of the PARCC constructed responses, and made many astonishing claims, including that research showed that computers scored writing as well or better than expert trained teachers.

(You can see the video, watch from about 11 minutes.)

He also falsely claimed that the SAT and Graduate Record Exam (GRE) used computer scoring. Yet on the GRE, every writing sample is scored by both a computer and a human being, and the College Board uses only human scorers on the SAT.

On May 17, 2016 the RI Board of Education met. Only two people commented during the Open Forum part of the meeting. A retired Providence high school English teacher spoke about her disapproval of the proposed revised regulations for high school graduation, with several diplomas offered of differing value, which would be discriminatory.  I spoke to critique Wagner’s enthusiastic endorsement of automated scoring of the PARCC constructed responses:

At the April 5, 2016 meeting of the RI Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, Commissioner Wagner was enthusiastic about the prospect of computer scoring of the PARCC constructed responses. However, he did not inform the Council of serious misgivings about computer scoring that many knowledgeable people have expressed.

The group Student Privacy Matters [Parent Coalition for Student Privacy] included the following information in an issue brief regarding automated scoring on April 5 under the title,

“Too Many Unanswered Questions about Machine Scoring of the Common Core Exams”

“… wasn’t the Common Core supposed to encourage creativity and critical thinking? And the Common Core aligned exams supposed to assess these skills? Is there any evidence that machines can do either? As far as one can determine, the answer is no.

“Last year, Les Perelman, who was in charge of MIT’s Writing program,wrote an opinion piece for the Boston Globe. Perelman tested out another automated scoring system, IntelliMetric, that could not distinguish essays with meaningful coherent prose from nonsense, and that [gave] high marks to gibberish, such as this:

“’According to professor of theory of knowledge Leon Trotsky, privacy is the most fundamental report of humankind. Radiation on advocates to an orator transmits gamma rays of parsimony to implode.’

“Unable to analyze meaning, narrative, or argument, automated scoring instead relies on length, grammar, and measures of abstruse vocabulary to do [sic] assess prose.”

On a related matter, Commissioner Wagner insisted that it’s necessary to get all schools to use the online version, rather than the paper and pencil version of the PARCC, as soon as possible. He claimed that this is important not only for the testing, but also for an underlying instructional purpose. He said,

“We can’t think about student engagement unless we have a serious strategy around digital learning.”  This does not match my understanding of the phrase student engagement. Thank you.

The format of the Board meetings does not allow for questioning or discussion of the comments from the public. However, later during the meeting, one of the board members asked:

“Can members follow up on public comments, and have a discussion about them? “The answer was that an agenda item can be added during a meeting if the Board votes to do so. No agenda item was added.

The Chair of the Board made a brief comment in answer to the member’s question, and then Wagner spoke up. He explained that there would be a discussion of the proposed graduation requirements later on the agenda. As for my comments about automated scoring, he stated that he stands by his previous comments, notwithstanding the information by the person who was quoted (i.e. Les Perelman).

Wagner continued to insist, as he did in the previous public meeting, that teachers have complained about the time taken out of their classrooms, robbing students of instruction, to SCORE the state assessments! This was one of his rationales for using computer scoring, along with efficiency (shorter wait time for the scores and less money)! Yet neither the PARCC nor the SBAC exam have ever pulled teachers out of the classroom to score; nor in my memory has this been an issue in Rhode Island, so his rationale is completely irrelevant.

Wagner did admit that he misspoke in his April 5 remarks when he claimed that the SAT and GRE have used automated scoring for some time. Apparently he didn’t bother to fact-check before making that comment.

So once again Commissioner Wagner stands firm on espousing the misguided tenets of the corporate education reform that is ruining public education for students, teachers, families, and public schools. Once again he dismisses authentic research by actual experts and refuses to acknowledge that there are legitimate counter-arguments to his positions. Unfortunately, most of the members of the RI Board of Education did not call him out on his careless and false claims.

At least one Board member at this meeting had the initiative to call for more discussion of comments made by members of the public. However, it is doubtful that this will be enough to derail the direction that the RI Strategic Plan for Public Education, the Commissioner, and the Rhode Island Department of Education are taking our state. It is up to those of us who recognize the depth of the damage that is happening under the radar of the general public to speak up and expose the insidious agenda of corporate technocrats like Commissioner Wagner, who argues that online learning is necessary to “engage” students and that machines can do a better job than expert teachers in assessing critical thought.

Students in the great state of Connecticut are fortunate to have warrior parents protecting their private information.

Read how Jennifer Jacobson, a member of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, and a handful of other parents joined together to create CAPE, the Connecticut Alliance for Privacy in Education. Read how how their group was able to work with stakeholders and legislators to enact the state’s first student privacy law. This is a great example of how parent power can affect meaningful change.

Congratulations to Jennifer, CAPE, and the students of Connecticut!

HB 5469 An Act Concerning Student Data: Origin, Outcome and Gratitude
What began as a labor of love through the collaboration of four moms; Maria Naughton, Anne Manusky, Kimberly Norton Butler and myself, became a venture into our own education in how student information, used as a tool to help our educators can also pose risks to students. We met with many other concerned parents and several state representatives after learning how a majority of other states have already enacted such legislation. We began advocating for a state law that would serve to protect the children of our state and provide greater awareness to their families.

After an unsuccessful first attempt in 2015, an alliance of organizations was created, across ideological perspectives who came together to have this important conversation- known as CAPE. Together we were able to focus our priority areas within a complex issue that were pertinent to our stakeholders and advocate for their addition into a first state law for Connecticut.

What this bill does: HB 5469 An Act Concerning Student Data Privacy regulates contracts with third party vendors and operators of websites and apps who utilize student information, student records and student generated content via a written agreement with a local or regional school board.

The bill.

• Clarifies what must be included in contract provision with vendors who receive student information, student records or student generated content.
• Restricts the use of student information, student records and student generated content to purposes defined within the contract.
• Requires a means by which a parent can review student information held by a vendor and correct any erroneous information
• Specifies that student information, student records and student generated content cannot be retained by a contractor after the contracted services expire, unless requested by the parent.
• Clarifies that contractors and vendors do not “own” the data and that all student generated content remains property of the parent or student.
• Defines technical security standards for the maintenance, transmission, access and destruction of sensitive student data.
• Requires parental notification of a locally executed contract to which their children are a party to, details of the contact, and requires that contracts be posted.
• Bans targeted advertising based on a students use of websites and apps used at school for school purposes.
• Bans the sale, rent or trading of student information unless the sale is part of a merger.
• Details the conditions and instances when an operator may disclose, use and share student information.
• Specifies the timelines and process for breach notification to local and regional school boards and parents.
• Creates a Task Force to examine other important issues relating to student data including: parent deletion of student information when appropriate, notice of website and apps used in school to parents, reasonable penalties for violators of the law, training on secure data handling, developing a list of approved websites and apps for use in school, a grievance process for parents and students, developing a tool kit for schools, and raising awareness on the issue of student data. The task force shall report to the general assembly with any findings and recommendations by January 1, 2017.

This bill does not stop the collection of student data or its appropriate use for instructional purposes or to improve student outcomes. It simply provides greater notice and transparency for parents and delineates contract provisions and technical security safeguards, while seeking to address misuse in an under regulated and under enforced industry.

HB5469 is a bill that serves to provide greater protection for our students, information for our parents, guidance for our schools and grants a vehicle to bring all stakeholders to the table to continue this important conversation. A bill which was borne by parents and their representatives who heard their concerns and acted to address the issue.

HB 5469 truly represents the best of us in Hartford. When constituents, lawmakers, organizations and advocates work together, listen to one another and work across the aisle we can create good policy that benefits kids, families and leaves open the door for further conversation

This is an important first step for Connecticut’s students and families and we are incredibly grateful that the legislature has heard our call this year. The bill passed unanimously in the House on May 3rd and on consent in the Senate on May 4^th.

We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to those representatives who championed this work:  Cristin McCarthy-Vahey, Gail Lavielle, and Toni Boucher. To the Co-Chairs of the Education Committee- Andrew Fleischmann and Gayle Slossberg, all of the co-sponsors of the bill and every member of the House and Senate for their support and vote.

I wish to also thank CAPE member representatives from  the Connecticut Parental Rights Coalition-Pam Lucashu and Anne Manusky, Connecticut PTA-Marne Usher and Kathleen Kennedy, American Civil Liberties Union CT-David McGuire, Connecticut Association of Private Special Education Facilities-Ana Wittig, Connecticut Council of Administrators of Special Education-David Scata, Connecticut Association of School Administrators-Ann Jellison and Kevin Graff, Connecticut Education Association-Ray Rossomando and Susan Williams, Connecticut Federation of School Administrators-Gary Maynard and Paul Stinger, American Federation of Teachers- Jen Berigen and Jen Hochadel and Oak Hill School-Stan Stoby for their insight, support and tireless dedication to our states students and parents. It is truly an honor.

To the Grassroots contingency, starting with the original foursome and stretching across the state- what can I say ? Your fierce and fearless voices, always ready to stand guard- for which I can only bow down in awe of your continued action and advocacy.

To the parents and children of this state- this one’s for you!

On to the Governor with vigilance through to the finish line, who you may contact at 860-566-4840 to urge his signing. Nationally and within state there is more work to be done, but we have a start.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Jacobsen, M.Ed

Director, CAPE

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world”

Heather Hicks is a parent and teacher who resides in Lacey Township, New Jersey.  She spoke up at her school board meeting, criticizing Edgenuity – an online learning program produced by Pearson that her son’s school was using. In Heather’s words,

My concerns continued to grow when my son began to complain about his Biology class and a program product they were using for Blended Learning. I researched Blended Learning, the specific program- Edgenuity, by Pearson, and spoke with other parents and my son’s friends. I also watched some lesson segments with my son. The program was garbage and I spoke at two board of education meetings about it. The district ultimately did not renew the contract, and many parents and students were relieved.

Heather was surprised to discover later that she was repeatedly criticized by Bruce Friend, the chief operating officer of iNACOL (the International Association of K-12 Online Learning) in a February 10, 2016 workshop he gave at  Pearson’s CITE 2016  conference – in a presentation called “Gaining Stakeholder Buy-in for your Online/Blended Learning Program.”  He later gave the same presentation at the Mid-Atlantic Conference on Personalized Learning, where the session was described this way:

It is difficult to conceive of how effective strategies for gaining parent support would include attacking concerned parents by name, (although at the second forum he mistakenly called her “Heather Micks.”)  He showed a screen shot of her face taken from the school board presentation, and accused her of being ignorant about the purported benefits of blended learning and technology.  He said she “killed just about three and half years of work” with her presentation, in which she had refused to “let the facts get in the way of the truth.”  He also revealed her son’s log-in data in the Edgenuity program – a violation of his personal privacy by both him and presumably Pearson – and suggested that the school board should have shut off her microphone.

More recently, Susan Patrick, the CEO of iNACOL, called online learning the “Trojan horse for education reform” in a video posted on their website.   This video was subsequently taken down from the website after the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy called attention to it, but the video is still posted on YouTube.

iNACOL’s board is chaired by Nicholas Donahue, the head of the Nellie Mae Foundation, and the organization is funded by that foundation as well as by the  Walton Family Foundation and the Gates Foundation, the latter with about $2.5 million since 2010.

Anyway, please check out this nine minute video which juxtaposes Heather’s calm and convincing presentation with Bruce Friend’s personal attack.  It is rather astonishing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERFGuUGgdqg&feature=youtu.be

Below is the letter from Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, Parents Across America, Network for Public Education, FairTest and many state and local parent groups  to the Education Commissioners in the PARCC and SBAC states, asking if they use machine scoring of their Common Core exams.  Please send your own letter to your State Education Chief if you are in one of these states.  More information about the lack of evidence for machine scoring is in this issue brief here and the Washington Post Answer Sheet here.

UPDATE: In response to our (or reporter) queries, PARCC finally posted their study from March 2014 on automated scoring  here.  The SBAC automated scoring study is here.  Both are problematic in different ways.  Our analysis featuring Les Perelman’s comments was published in the WaPost AnswerSheet (see above). 

Dr. Salam Noor, the Deputy Superintendent of Oregon, and Deputy Commissioner Jeff Wulfson of Massachusetts,  Henry King of the Nevada Department of Education , and Dr, Vaughn Rhudy from the Office of Assessment in West Virginia were the only officials to reply to our letter within a month  — though we sent  it to all the Education Commissioners in the PARCC and SBAC states.  All three informed us that their states are not participating in automated scoring at this time.  They are all from SBAC states except for MA, which is using PARCC in some districts. (The Wyoming Commissioner Jillian Balow also responded, saying that she shared our concerns about computer scoring, and the state has decided not to use the SBAC exam as we had mistakenly believed.) 

Subsequently the CO Commissioner Rich Crandall responded to  a parent activist, Cheri Kiesecker, that the state would be using  computer scoring on 2/3 of the PARCC writing samples this year — as the standard PARCC/Pearson contract prescribes.  On May 19, the Jack Smith, interim Commissioner of the Maryland Dept of Education responded that they too would be using machine scoring for 2/3 on PARCC written responses.  Check out Les Perelman’s response to his claims here.

Rhode Island Commissioner Ken Wagner mentioned this issue at a board meeting, and confirmed they would be using  machine scoring for most of the state’s PARCC written responses, while falsely saying  that this was standard practice for SAT and GRE exams as well — although each of these exams is scored at least once and sometimes twice by human beings.  (see video here).

Angela Chamness, Illinois Director of Assessments, ambiguously responded to a parent’s specific queries about what percent of the writing samples were scored by machine  this way:  “Like the majority of PARCC states, Illinois PARCC writing assessments are evaluated using automated and non-automated scoring approaches.”  We can only surmise that Illinois is using the standard PARCC method of scoring 2/3 of the exams by machine, as in Rhode Island and Colorado, though she refused to make that clear.

After six weeks, none of these states have responded to our letter or other parent queries as far as I know:  CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, ID, LA, MI, MT, NH, NJ, NM, ND, SD, VT, WA, WV.

If you are a parent from one of these states: please continue to send in your questions, especially #1-#3 below.  The email addresses of your State Commissioners are posted here.  And please let us know if you get a response by emailing us at [email protected]

thanks Leonie

April 5, 2016

To the Education Commissioners in the PARCC and SBAC states:

As parents and advocates, we have many outstanding concerns about the administration and scoring of the PARCC and SBAC Common Core exams this spring. There are several unresolved questions the answers to which have not been publicly revealed.  The original PARCC contract called for two thirds of the students to have their ELA exams, including written responses, entirely scored by computers this spring, with only 10 percent of them re-checked by humans.

Similarly, according to the SBAC contract, 100 percent of students’ written responses would be scored by computers, with only half re-checked by a human being.

This is despite the fact that many experts have cited the inability of computers to assess the creativity and critical thought that the Common Core standards were supposed to demand and these exams to assess, no less distinguish nonsense from coherent narrative and reasoning.  In each case, however, states had the option of having the exams entirely hand-scored for an additional charge.

So we demand that you answer the following questions:

• What percentage of the ELA exams in our state are being scored by machines this year, and how many of these exams will then be re-scored by a human being?
• What happens if the machine score varies significantly from the score given by the human being?
• Will parents have the opportunity to learn whether their children’s ELA exam was scored by a human being or a machine?
• Will you provide the “proof of concept” or efficacy studies promised months ago by Pearson in the case of PARCC, and AIR in the case of SBAC, and cited in the contracts as attesting to the validity and reliability of the machine-scoring method being used?
• Will you provide any independent research that provides evidence of the reliability of this method, and preferably studies published in peer-reviewed journals?

We look forward to your prompt reply,

Leonie Haimson  and Rachael Stickland, Co-Chairs, Parent Coalition for Student Privacy

Julie Woestehoff, Executive Director, Parents Across America  and Wyoming  parent advocate

Carol Burris, Executive Director, Network for Public Education

Monty Neill, Executive Director, FairTest

Save Our Schools New Jersey

Parents Across Rhode Island

Lee P. Barrios, M.Ed., NBCT, Louisiana Friends of Public Education

Cheri Kiesecker, CO parent, privacy advocate and blogger, Missouri Education Watchdog

Cassie Creswell, More Than A Score, Chicago IL

Dawn Collins, board member, East Baton Rouge (LA) school board

Stephanie Zimmerman, Idahoans For Local Education

Wendy Katten, Raise Your Hand for Illinois Public Education

Michelle Fine, Lynn Fedele, C. McGoey , R. Tuma & E.Halberstadt , Montclair Cares About Schools [NJ]

Arthur Freitas and Kayla Kirkpatrick, M.Ed., Colorado parents

Sheila Resseger, retired teacher from the RI School for the Deaf