Is Your Private School Now A 'Non-Public' School? Sarah DeNeui - ROPE Report Short

Wednesday, June 5th, Broken Arrow resident and homeschooling mom, Sarah DeNeui, spoke with Michael and Jenni about the new "Office Of School Choice" that's been advertised in a press release by State Superintendent Ryan Walters. This is a sticky wicket. 

Mr. Walters worked for a privately-funded organization that championed school choice options. Why increase the size of government by taking over the job of a non-profit? Why can't that non-profit continue to do that job? 

That's one question. The next question came after Mrs. DeNeui spoke with her contact in Walter's office regarding the concerns she had about this office. The response she received, mentioned a new word - "non-public" education. 

Really, there are only two forms of education - private (paid for privately by parents) and public (any school that receives an appropriation from the state for education) - so where does "non-public" come in. We ask - and answer - that question in this video clip from the live video which can be found under the heading of "live" videos on our YouTube channel or on our Rumble channel.

You'll want to watch this video whether or not you have your child/children in private schools - especially if you're concerned about government overreach and federal intervention in local education.

The Student SUCCESS Act or NCLB Lite?

Just recently, I was asked to critique the Student Success Act. The SSA is on track to become the re-authorization of the NCLB - President George W. Bush's re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) installed by LBJ in 1964.  If you'll recall, the Obama Administration has been loathe to re-authorize NCLB as they have found it much easier and more effective to supplant state control of education by creating federal interventions into local public education by means of enticements (Race to the Top, etc.).

Unfortunately, while I believe there are a few good things about the SSA, the upshot is that the federal government apparently still doesn't understand it's Constitutional role. The entire bill is political in nature and wholly unnecessary. The Constitutionally proper thing to do is to repeal NCLB entirely, thereby putting the confederation of states we call the United States, back in charge of educating their own children in the manner their taxpaying citizens see fit. Obviously, the federal government has no Constitutional authority here and the interventions in public education at that level cannot possibly be better than anything a state would choose for its' children, as the state is closer to the voter/taxpayer/parent than any bureaucrat in a chair in Washington, D.C. Any federal level intervention in public K-12 education can do nothing but remove the ability of parents to fully direct their child's education according to their own desires and what is best for each individual child.

I reviewed the floor summary of the bill and as such, will arrange my comments according to the layout of that document.

Returning Responsibility for Student Achievement to States, School Districts, and Parents, While Maintaining High Expectations

• Academic Standards: By dictating FROM the federal government that states MUST use standards, this bill opens the door to Common Core (1). As we have found under RTT, states will most often use the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE and choose a set of standards being pushed by either private vendors or the feds. Either way homogeneity in standards is the likely outcome. * I am most often offended by this bill's often use of the phrase, "States are ALLOWED". WRONG. States have ALL the power. Period. Reading the Constitution comes in handy here.
• Academic Assessments: By dictating FROM the federal government that states MUST test students over their standards - even going so far as to dictate the grades in which students should be tested - you have changed NOTHING under the current NCLB law. In fact, the last sentence of the paragraph dictates that 95% of students must be tested. Again, no different than NCLB. This one prevision in NCLB PREVENTED PARENTS (2) from opting their children out of state testing if they so desired. Schools made the argument that it was a federal mandate to test their student, therefore, opting out was not an available option - TO PARENTS - the people who have ALL CONTROL over their children in every legal sense of the word. How is this NOT egregious? ("states retain the OPTION", "states...are ALLOWED")
• Accountability: Removing AYP is a GOOD THING. However, the bill still dictates a system be used by which to grade school performance. This is the A-F metric used here in Oklahoma. As we have shown previously, the metrics in ANY school grading effort are ill-defined at best and excessively punitive at worst. If students take a national proficiency test like IOWA (4), parents will know how well THEIR child is doing in relationship to other students of the same age. Parents don't need to know how well their school is doing, just how well their individual CHILD is doing. The grading system can't help but open the door to cheating as surely as did the AYP score. A composite or average score of IOWA test scores could be used for each grade for parents wishing to identify schools with high performing students - which is the issue.
• School Improvement: Though SIG grants are eliminated (a GOOD THING) and the legislation mandating school improvement mechanisms is repealed (a GOOD THING), the bill still dictates states use a system of school improvement interventions for poorly performing schools. This is ridiculous to continue at any federal level for two reasons: School turnaround efforts have been shown NOT TO WORK (5) and open enrollment and school choice would likely eliminate the issue of poorly performing schools altogether. In addition, set-asides were a hotly contested item in Oklahoma's Common Core repeal by administrators who often use this money for uses other than that outlined for the set-aside, schools become dependent upon the money and then use it as an excuse for why laws (in this case the NCLB waiver) must be kept.
• Parent Information:  Parent information should not be dictated at the federal level. This is a BAD THING. This entire paragraph supports the State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) which is pulling TONS of personal, private data from individual students through individual district schools through the state to the federal government (6).  ALL personal, private student data  (7) should be kept at the STATE level only. The DOE has access to NAEP (8) scores and that's all they should have under the guise of 'protecting' students and 'informing parents'.
• State Laws On Parent Authority: reiterating that federal law cannot impact state laws dictating parental rights is a GOOD THING.
• Funding Flexibility:  Again, the feds ALLOW states? At any rate, it appears that there will be block funding for "special population" programming.  While block granting is a good thing (though not better than not taking the money from taxpayers in the first place!) 'special population' programming is a BAD THING. Again, this supports the SLDS and collects information on groups the federal government gets through the Census and only serves to collect MORE data on students (9) at the personal level without providing states anything they shouldn't already know more about and be more prepared to deal with.
• Schoolwide Programs:  This eliminates the 40% poverty threshold...anytime the federal government DIVESTS itself of public control it is a GOOD THING.

Eliminating Ineffective Federal Programs and Investing Limited Taxpayer Dollars Wisely

• Authorization Levels:  Unless I know specific numbers, all this section says is that the feds won't give the states back some of the money it takes from taxpayers to apply to the education of their children. Baloney - leave the money in the pocket of the taxpayer so they can decide which SCHOOL/DISTRICT/STATE can provide the best education for their child. Leaving money with the taxpayer provides SCHOOL CHOICE.
• Eliminated Program:  GOOD THING.
• State and Local Innovation:  Creates a NEW Local Academic Flexible Grant. BAD THING. This GROWS GOVERNMENT. Again, leave thee money in the hands of the taxpayer - don't take it from him and give it back with strings attached. After school activities are for PRIVATE and COMMUNITY organizations - including churches - to take on. *In addition, the grants will can be used for "efforts to protect student safety". BAD THING.  Protecting student safety is a program called Safe and Drug Free Schools. Among other issues, it comes complete with a database that tracks bullying - including LGBT (10). The Safe and Drug Free Schools initiative is responsible for collecting data at the federal level from LOCAL districts. Oklahoma has hundreds of fields in our SLDS devoted to Safe and Drug Free Schools data. Many of these fields are subjective and include BEHAVIORS which then go onto a student's permanent record, harming their ability to be a success in the future when electronic transcripts are easily shared among schools and, thanks to the holes in FERPA (11), with anyone who can be identified as school-associated, including volunteers.
• Private Sector Initiatives: Dictates that states must reserve 10% grant monies to use in private sector, but again, leave money with the taxpayer.
• State and Local Spending Decisions:  This looks as though it amounts to a block grant in essence. This is a GOOD THING, but not as good as leaving the money with the taxpayer. The section the goes on to say that to 'protect the traditional federal role in education' federal money 'supplements' state money. First of all THERE IS NO TRADITIONAL FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION. Secondly, state money has always come first - except in Title 1 - so that part makes little sense.
• Department Bureaucracy: GOOD THING because it reduces employee positions associated with eliminated or consolidated programs.
• Program Evaluations:  BAD THING.  Directs Secretary of Ed to work with Institute or Education Sciences (IES) to perform evaluations on federal education initiatives. This portion of the bill absolutely ENSURES the further collection of student level data (12) in the name of 'accountability'. The only data collected at the federal level - until we rid ourselves of the DOE altogether - should be the NAEP.
• Earmarks:  Stops earmarks to comply with House earmark ban. GOOD THING.

Strengthening Programs for Schools and Targeted Populations

• Education of Migratory Children
• Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected Delinquent, or At-Risk
• English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement
• Rural Education
• Indian Education
• BAD THING.  NONE of these categories should be addressed at the federal level. Look at the wording used, "TARGETED". The federal government should not be targeting any "population" or "category" for any kind of data collection. Separating people into groups and then providing separate funding streams to facilitate the collection of data is completely wrong. The Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth...is the worst because of the individual, personal student data collected - information about guns, weapons and very subjective categories of behavior (see citation #9) - do not belong on a personal, electronic, shareable, record at the federal level when all information is best left to states to collect IF NECESSARY. In 2010, Congressman John Kline sent a letter to Arne Duncan (13) accusing him of creating a De Facto national database (establishment of which is against federal law). If Chairman Kline felt that way in 2010, this continued data collection should have stopped at that point and definitely should not be continued at the federal level. In fact, there is a Federal Law that prohibits the collection of data (14) that could be considered a national database.

Supporting Local Efforts to Measure Teacher Effectiveness

• Highly Qualified Teachers: GOOD THING. Repeals federal requirements for teacher certification.
• Teacher Evaluations:  BAD THING. Teacher evaluations KEEP COMMON CORE ENTRENCHED (15) because the data collection models often point back to specific ways of teaching CC. Also, these systems include the collection of behavioral data on students which compromises student privacy (16). This kind of data is also subjective and can be used by school administrators as an excuse to fire teachers for ideology. There is no reason for the federal government to prescribe this action for states. Principles are hired by local school boards. These individuals are trained/certified to conduct evaluations on teachers in order to make employment decisions. This kind of law REMOVES LOCAL CONTROL by circumventing the school board process made up of local parents and community members.
• Uses of Funds:  Frees up existing  funds to be spent on whatever system the state imposed for teacher evaluations. Evaluation same as above - money needs to go back to the state and let local school boards make decisions on teacher employment.
• Teacher and School Leader Innovation:  Consolidates remaining teacher quality programs into a new grant - Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant. BAD THING. As with the previous grant program creation evaluated (Local Academic Flexible Grant), this grant will also GROW GOVERNMENT and cut out local control. States will apply, feds will say what to do with the money and parents will get caught in the middle. As Lindsey Burke of Heritage Foundation writes in "The Dead Hand of Federal Education Reform" (17),
• Completing grant applications, monitoring the federal program notices and complying with reporting requirements siphons away huge amounts of educators' time and money - resources THAT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER DEVOTED TO THE CLASSROOM.
• Teacher and School Leader Academies:  The U.S. already has enough issues with teacher preparation not being rigorous enough (18) while charging students a pretty penny for tuition. All that is really needed is a long-term (one school year?) on-the-job-training (student teacher) assignment. No money is required for this kind of preparation.
• Teacher Liability:  Anything included under this category would be unnecessary as this is a state matter provided for by individual state law.

Engaging Parents in their Child's Education

• Charter Schools
• Direct Student Services
• Magnet Schools
• Family Engagement Centers
• BAD THING. None of the above are needed as what parents demand/expect of/for their children's education is SOLELY A LOCAL MATTER. Again the federal government  is going to dictate to states that they set aside money for competitive grants which are better off left to private organizations or churches in the community. (19) Again, the federal government should not be taking taxpayer money and then doling it back out to them through another state tax-supported government office. *The Family Engagement Centers are particularly noxious as these are the kinds of places where excessive data collection is occurring (20). The school is not and should not be the center of the family (21) - the FAMILY (or the church) - is the center of the family. 

Supporting Impact Aid

• Payments for Federal Property
• Payments for Federally-Connected Children
• Timely Payments
• The only one here I have an issue with (though, again, Constitutionally, all the money collected for education at the federal level should be returned to the state and ultimately taxpayers in order that they may be better able to educate their children) is the Payments for Federally Connected Children. Again, the reason is personal data collection on children. My goodness, just read the verbiage used in this paragraph..."count children", "counting children".

Maintaining and Strengthening Long-Standing Protections for State and Local Autonomy

• Secretary's Authority. It would have been best to scrap ALL of the current NCLB law and simply enact this section as law.  GOOD THING.
• Private School Students: BAD THING. The Blaine Amendment (22) is the exact reason why the federal government should have absolutely NO SAY in PRIVATE EDUCATION ever. This is a local/parent/state matter. The Blaine Amendment has caused considerable issues with school choice - federal intervention in state matters often causes similar ills - therefore this section should be left out completely and all references to private education repealed.
• Military Recruiters: Germane?

Providing Services for Homeless Students

• Improved Collaborations
• School Stability
• This portion of the bill refers to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. BAD THING. This section should be removed. Data collection on the homeless is provided by the Census. Allowing the federal government to collect data on homeless children, is again, providing the federal government with more data than they need on individual children and states. This is a STATE/LOCAL issue best addressed through local private charities and churches and state-run facilities. See citation #9 for all the information on M-V data collection. For the money states get for this particular grant, schools must take time and resources away from classroom activities in order to collect the data required. Associations with organizations at the local level are in the best position to help with the least amount of red-tape, providing better services, faster.

CITATIONS

(1)  Is Common Core Meant To Blow Up The American Educational System? 

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-common-core-meant-to-blow-up.html

(2)  FairTest.org - How NCLB Relates To Opting Out Of Tests: 

http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/Federal_law_related_to_opting_out_-final.pdf

(3)  Oklahoma's A-F Grading System Gets An "F"

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/01/oklahomas-f-grading-system-gets-f.html

(4)  Seton Testing services including IOWA tests: http://www.setontesting.com/iowa-tests/

(5)  School Turnaround Doesn't Work: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/22/study-school-turnarounds-dont-work/

(6)  An Analysis Of Recent Education Reforms and The Resulting Impact On Student Privacy:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94149078/An-Analysis-of-Recent-Education-Reforms-and-the-Resulting-Impact-on-Student-Privacy

(7)  Does Our State Superintendent Truly Care About Student Privacy? 

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/01/does-our-state-superintendent-truly.html

(8)  National Assessment of Educational Progress:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assessment_of_Educational_Progress

(9)  EdFacts Overview: http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/edfacts-overview.pdf

(10)  Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools database in EdFacts:  http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/edfacts-overview.pdf

(11)  Federal Register; FERPA

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/02/2011-30683/family-educational-rights-and-privacy

(12)  Surveys and Programs Listed under National Center for Educational Statistics;

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SurveyGroups.asp?group=1

(13) Letter from Congressman John Kline to Arne Duncan

http://law.fordham.edu/assets/CLIP/Letter_from_House_Committee_on_Education_and_Labor.pdf

(14)  ESEA laws. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg112.html#sec9531

(15)  Seven Reasons Why Common Core Repeal in Oklahoma Isn't. 

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2014/10/seven-reasons-why-common-core-repeal-in.html

(16)  I'm Outraged and You Should Be Too - Private Student Data On Google Docs For All To See

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2015/01/im-outraged-and-you-should-be-too.html

(17)  The Dead Hand of Federal Education Reform: 

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/06/the-dead-hand-of-federal-education-reform

(18)  Training Our Future Teachers:  http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/EasyAs

(19)  Whiz Kids: http://www.whiz-kids.org/

(20)  21st Century After School Programming: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105519107/21st-Century-After-School-Programming

(21)  A Review of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills White Papers

http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2011/08/review-of-partnership-for-21st-century.html

(22)  The Blaine Amendment: http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_11.asp

Lobbying Group - National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) - Says HB3399 Unconstitutional?

As hysteria about one state in the union breaking away from the hold of the federal government increases to fevered pitch, NASBE weighs in by sending Governor Fallin a letter detailing how the law (HB3399) is unconstitutional.  Seriously, this is rich.

Here in Oklahoma, I know at least two school board members (one a school board President) that do NOT want Common Core.  Travis Sallee, the President of the Guthrie School Board made news recently with the Board's very public resolution AGAINST Common Core.  Thompson Spier an Oklahoma school board member, recently made post history for views on our Facebook (over 7000) page with a heartfelt letter he penned about his school board's declining role in the education of his community's children in view of the ever-increasing mandates caused by dictates from Washington, D.C.  He is also not a Common Core fan.

In fact, several school board members have told me that they have NEVER been surveyed as to their opinion about Common Core before the state school board association (OSSBA) and NASBE decided to lobby FOR Common Core and against HB3399.  So why is it that Governor Fallin should listen to an organization that gets its lobbying power from the tens of thousands of dollars it collects in dues, over the cries of parents with anguished kids at their kitchen table?

To finish off this post, here is the comment I made to the article just because I simply had to.

Wow. Not surprising however, with all the backing NASBE has gotten from Bill Gates to shove Common Core down the throats of school board members whether they liked it or not. 

Amount: $450,675; to convene regional meetings of policymakers and leaders to increase member knowledge around the common core standards 

Amount: $1,077,960 ;to build the capacity of State Boards of Education to better position them to achieve full implementation of the Common Core standards 

Amount: $800,000; Purpose: to support a development plan for the organization and its efforts to provide training and information to implement Common Core State Standards 

Hmmm...isn't that conflict of interest? NASBE complaining about Oklahoma trying to stop Common Core when it's been paid to implement it?

Additionally, NASBE has no standing to do anything in Oklahoma other than draw attention to their complaint - and by the way, why do they care what Oklahoma does anyway?  Consequently, there is zero reason for Oklahoma to kowtow to NASBE.

It seems only slightly ridiculous that the idea of 'unconstitutionality' is even being broached here considering Oklahoma wouldn't have had need of HB3399 if the federal government didn't keep stomping on the United States Constitution via the unconstitutional nature of the DOE in the first place and the equally unconstitutional nature of the NCLB waivers handed out to states inconsistently, rather than constitutionally modifying existing law.

Wonder if I should have my lawyer write the president?

Does Our State Superintendent Truly Care About Student Privacy?

Readers of our blog and our research know we have worked very hard to describe the ways in which the state government is working toward feeding the federal government individual student data collected from public schools thanks to our state's love for federal programming (see the bottom of this post for links).  You might remember one of our more nationally popular memes (it was re-tweeted by Anthony Cody of EdWeek) was the Four Pillars of America's Education Takeover:

The Four Pillars show the relationship of the State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) to all other major education 'reforms' endorsed by the Obama Administration since 2009, now being utilized in nearly every state in the Union.

Today, I got an email message from the CEDS (Common Education Data Standards - the group creating the 'common' identifiers that all states can use to share student data across state lines) and I wanted to share it:

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is pleased to announce the release of Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) Version 4.  CEDS is a national collaborative effort to develop voluntary, common data standards for a key set of education data elements to streamline the exchange, comparison, and understanding of data within and across P-20W institutions and sectors.  CEDS Version 4 includes a broad scope of elements spanning much of the P-20W spectrum and provides greater context for understanding the standards' interrelationships and practical utility.  Version 4 includes 1,346 unique elements including 236 new elements and 85 updated elements.

A new resource is available with the release of Version 4: CEDS Extend. Now users can view NCES Handbook data elements alongside CEDS elements as part of the CEDS searchable data elements and the Domain Entity Schema.  Also included in this release are 15 tutorials on using CEDS Align and Connect as well as an expanded list of publications describing how to use CEDS (and more examples are coming).

Version 4 of CEDS can be found at the CEDS website:  http://ceds.ed.gov

The CEDS website includes three ways to view and interact with CEDS:

1. By element: Via the Elements page, users can access a searchable glossary of the CEDS "vocabulary," including names, definitions, option sets, technical specifications, and more.
2. By relationship: Through the CEDS Data Model, users can explore the relationships that exist among entities and elements-viewable both through a logical data model.
3. By comparison: Supplemental tools enable users to take the next step and put CEDS into practice. CEDS ALIGN allows a user to load his or her organization's data dictionary and compare it, in detail, to CEDS and the data dictionaries of other users' organizations. This facilitates alignment with CEDS and across systems, paving the way for easier sharing and comparison of data. CEDS CONNECT enables users at different levels to consider "connections" such as metric definitions of data points, policy questions, or federal data reporting requirements by establishing the data elements necessary to answer a given connection, as well as recommend logic and routines for analysis.

Guess what?  All these 'elements' this email lauds so happily, are named fields that can be used to directly identify YOUR public school CHILD in a national database - fields like, "voting status" or "religious affiliation".

Julia and Lynn have gone to nearly all of Oklahoma's P20W (P = PreK, 20 = 20 years, W = workforce) meetings where participants discuss ways in which Oklahoma can comply with the federal government's need for student data.  They have taken notes and have audio recordings of these proceedings to prove these people care not at all about your children, but simply what your children can provide the federal government in terms of information about themselves and your family all to create newer and better (and more restrictive) federal programming none of which is needed to educate children.

Here was the kicker for today.  Just a few hours ago, Lynn sent me a Facebook message with the following link, "Formal Response To The Chief State School Officers' Letter On Student Privacy".  The response was from a group called Education Liberty Watch, run by a woman named Karen Ephraim M.D., whom I have interviewed for School Reform News, and who happens to be a clinical psychiatrist.  I have personally followed Education Liberty Watch for a number of years and have been educated on a much deeper level about the issues inside public education than I have with commercial publications such as EdWeek (who provides education news by taking money from Bill Gates, among others)  Dr. Ephraim took the letter - signed by 34 Chief State School Officers - and dissected it thoroughly - as any good physician would.

I am not going plumb her analysis here because I essentially agree, and you can read it yourself through the link I have provided.  Though this letter really means nothing much at all in reality - in exactly the same way Governor Fallin's Executive Order on Common Core meant nothing in reality - as Dr. Ephraim points out, these Chiefs very stridently inform Secretary Arne Duncan;

We are writing today to confirm that the consortia will not share any personally identifiable information about K–12 students with USED or any federal agency.

As I read over the 34 names, I didn't find Dr. Barresi's name on the list anywhere!

I guess in one way I'm comforted, as I am fairly well exhausted of the OSDE's constant attempts to fool or finesse the facts about Oklahoma's school 'reform' platforms and programs.  However, it sticks in my craw that - even though the governor saw fit to at least try and 'finesse' the facts about data sharing and education reform through her CC Executive Order - Dr. Barresi didn't even BOTHER to try this time.  She just flat didn't sign the letter at all.

But then, after all, she is the one that hired John Kraman, the Executive Director of Student Information who has worked for The American Diploma Project and Achieve - the Washington, DC epicenters of these new federal education programs!  In fact, Mr. Kraman has told Lynn and Julia that he is here to do one job - create Oklahoma's State Longitudinal Database System - giving him little luxury to worry about the students involved.

Truly, this is WORSE than OBNOXIOUS!  This callous disregard for the CHILDREN involved in this massive data sharing 'collaboration' among states and the feds.  Though I advise EVERYONE to become educated on this topic, I certainly don't advise you joining any of the CEDS email strands or other the CEDS 'Sandbox' news alerts.  The disregard for the privacy of children and their families by this group that seems to WORSHIP data as a deity, is truly frightening.

Maybe Dr. Barresi didn't join the other 34 Chiefs because she knew the letter didn't mean much in the real world of state/federal entanglements, but then again, maybe her most expensive OSDE hire (Kraman) tells everything we need to know about where her loyalties lie.


SLDS/STUDENT PRIVACY INFORMATION

The State Longitudinal Database and Child Privacy - YouTube

An Analysis of Recent Education Reforms and the Resulting Impact on Student Privacy http://www.scribd.com/doc/94149078/An-Analysis-of-Recent-Education-Reforms-and-the-Resulting-Impact-on-Student-Privacy

How Much Data is Enough Data; what happens to privacy when bureaucracies exceed their scope?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110458572/How-Much-Data-is-Enough-Data-What-happens-to-privacy-when-bureaucracies-exceed-their-scope

What Oklahomans Need to Know About The P20 Council
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124766370/What-Oklahomans-Need-to-Know-About-the-P20-Council

Mo Money

Last week, one of the bloggers I follow, okeducationtruths, released a blog about vouchers and, more specifically, Jason Nelson's bill on vouchers.  I added my two cents because, even though we don't always agree, the writer is a great listener and quite accommodating of opinions, and I LOVE that!  

I'm not going to get into the voucher thing here (if you're interested, you can find my comments at the link above) but I am going to paste my answer here to okeducationtruths last post.  It's a post I've wanted to do here on our blog for quite a long time, so it just seemed the right time to make this happen. 

I've had very definite opinions on money in public education for quite a long time and I would like people to hear them.  If you don't agree, that's fine, tell me why not.  I truly do LOVE hearing peoples thoughts.  In fact, the first line of response to okeducationtruths is:

First, I actually love that we don't always agree.  As I've told Nicole a number of times, if we always agreed the world would be a very dull place AND we'd have learned nothing to expand our horizons!

I think your points are excellent and well taken here - especially the point about not being able to add up tax dollars like chits.  True, however, there is an actual proportionality of tax dollars required by each tax payer that goes toward public education (your property tax bill has that fully delineated).  This is the amount of money I was referencing in this case.

Your comment, "I do have a problem with the mentality that everything can be done better when left to private markets", is also interesting to me.

I can come into agreement on that as well for the most part.  In fact, I think the most nefarious thing about this whole latest 'reform' package is the fact that it IS private companies/philanthropists (without any educational expertise on any level in a whole lot of instances - the Chamber of Commerce?  Come the heck on!) making these pronouncements instead of ideas unfolding in a more 'democratic' style.  "He with the gold makes the rules" as it were.  That is NOT American if you ask me.

Here's where I think I get the most frustrated.  I was not for state question 744.  I am not for pouring more money into schools.  The idea that we should somehow be equating money with educational 'rigor' (ack, I can't believe I said that word in a sentence!) or outcomes of any kind is a red herring.  (PS I totally appreciated hearing the definitions provided for both Red Herring and Straw Man!)

I am constantly attacked for what I'm about to say, but I think it speaks to my conviction (or stupidity!) that I keep on message: we put men on the moon when computers took up rooms and rooms, most advanced mathematical computations were done on slide rules and the federal government had yet to really sink their hooks into the educational system.  There are home schooling families out there that use little more than books and flashcards to give their kids a well-rounded, classical education, that has been shown to produce better overall results than public education. 

I studied lots of ins and outs of spending as I researched my arguments against 744 and here is what I found (in general terms).  It takes a HUGE amount of money at the state level to administer federal grants for which we get - after administration costs - pennies on the dollar, yet our state goes running to FedEd constantly for all kinds of programming.  Much of this programming has never been tested or tried - or has been proven NOT to provide much, if any benefit (Head Start, for example) yet we do it because we get 'free' money.

Oklahoma legislators are very fond of riding public education with a heavy hand.  A very large number of education laws are passed because someone in a district needs/wants that very thing they ask of the entire state.  Most laws won't/don't translate well to another district, but suddenly, all districts must fall under the edict.  We have mandated public schools into near complete commonality and the poor house, as most state education laws end up in the unfunded category.

That said, there can be no way that the largest (well second now behind health care I understand) budgeted item in the state needs MORE money to succeed.  (Yes, as a teacher, I DID buy a number of my own things and as a science teacher I was often begging for supplies, just for the record.)  What we do need, however, is an enormous AUDIT of programming, unfunded mandates and job descriptions at the state education level.  We MUST return money to classrooms from the administrative level so science teachers can buy microscopes (instead of watching online videos about Paramecium, the novel idea would be that kids actually get to see them for themselves!) and any other amount and/or kind of tool necessary to teach kids.  There is money in the system, it just needs to be reapportioned and why shouldn't we demand that this happen?  Why must we use federal money when it comes with strings and gives us only pittance for our beseeching?  Why must districts go to the state for money when their 'customers' are right in their own backyards?  Our cities are run in this fashion.  If schools were administered at the district level instead of the state level, it would certainly be a lot easier to reapportion unnecessary funds and redirect money into classrooms...but then do the powers that be really want that? 

Educational Equity doesn't always come wrapped up in a perfect little box labeled "money".  We need to get out of this rut, expand our horizons and realize that few things in life are ever really 'equal' and that equal education is really a subjective term - for parents and even communities.  The only reason we love the word 'equality' in education is because it happens to be the only thing we can use to make that label mean the same thing to everyone - the objective quantity of dollars and cents.  Sadly, true equality in education is only going to come when schools/districts can do for their 'customers' what is actually best for them and NOT best for the state.

Feds Use State Databases Against Them - So Why Do States Want Grants to Set Them Up Again?

Recently I wrote an article for School Reform News, "Obama Administration Demands Teacher Redistribution for NCLB Waiver".  Although the administration's newest excuse to use their SOCIAL JUSTICE stick is certainly inappropriate, unfortunately, one of the most incredible, dangerous and unbelievable things in my mind was not able to be included for space.

This was the fact that it CLEARLY stated in the paperwork for the NCLB part deux waivers that the federal government was going to collect state data - collected from district schools and sent to the state level - to judge whether or not a state was worthy of a second waiver.

Here is the part of the article that was not published.

Using Their Own Data Against Them,

The ESEA Guidance document states, “In July 2013, the Department began an analysis of data” from 2010-2012 to determine “the relationship between the following factors” and how schools were identifying outcomes.  Of the six factors used for analysis were student achievement, graduation rate and participation rate on state assessments.  

States wishing to extend their NCLB waiver are told that if data analysis indicates their state has not been identifying low-performing schools and subgroups appropriately or properly, the Department will work with the state to correct any and all issues identified.  Furthermore, the state will not receive a renewal of ESEA flexibility until the issues are corrected to ED’s satisfaction.

ESEA flexibility requirements, such as those for developing and implementing college and career ready standards and testing, generally align with those requirements provided by ED for successful Race to the Top grant (RTTT) application.  One of the RTTT requirements - that of “Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction” – has been duplicated under the National Center for Education Statistics by way of a federal State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant.

Not surprisingly, all but three states have applied for and accepted federal money to create and institute a database within their state to collect educational information on students from kindergarten through 12^th grade as well as develop and link databases for early childhood education data and postsecondary and/or workforce data.  Quite apparently, states have been successful in this endeavor.  States have used their federal SLDS money to provide ED with all the data they need to further manipulate state education reform plans, all the while generating great controversy over student privacy.

Another part of the article that was not published had to do with the fact that schools would ALSO be forced to 'inform' parents of the new reforms.

Informing Or Cheerleading 

Another new requirement for successful waiver extension is the necessity for states to “meaningfully engage and solicit input from diverse stakeholders and communities on its request”.  States must provide evidence for this effort and are given five categories of admissible proof which includes, “copies of parent-friendly information regarding the renewal submission, including accessible formats and translated as necessary.”  

Minus the requirement for evidence, the necessity to include ways in which public comment were solicited were found in the first waiver documentation – “SEA must also provide a description of how the SEA meaningfully engaged and solicited input”. Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver contained approximately 56 pages of community input.  Much of the included commentary was in the form of questions to Oklahoma State Department of Education concerning the waiver, or general comments about the individual requirements.  The only specific comments regarding NCLB were against application for a waiver, yet the waiver was granted.  

It remains to be seen whether requirements to inform the community will result in efforts more akin to cheerleading than actual objective, dispassionate information sharing regarding NCLB waiver application.

Kind of makes you wonder why those of us speaking against Common Core are having such trouble getting a toe hold!  When taxpayer money is used to PROMOTE an AGENDA that has neither been proven or studied and parents (also taxpayers) are not able to hear BOTH sides of this particular AGENDA, is that fair?  Is that honest?  Heck, is that even morally right - considering the fact that many taxpayers NOT being told both sides of the issue might decide they don't like it?  Oh, hmmm...not so hard to figure out after all, is it?