For many families, the most important reason to opt out of the test is the data collection and tracking of students by data collectors. The AMP is a data element in the P-20W Answers Project. So, while this blog is mainly about the right of parents to refuse or opt out of testing, the data issue is related to it. So Alaska, there is good news and bad news....
The Good News
The Alaska Department of Education has confirmed that the AMP has been suspended for 2016.
The Bad News
However, it seems that Alaskans were misled regarding the P-20W ANSWERS program. Remember being told that the P-20W/Answers project would sunset in 2015?
Guess what? It did not sunset. In fact, it seems to have new life, and a clone program in the Alaska Department of Labor. The clone program through the Department of Labor is yet unnamed, but is discussed here. It is very self explanatory, but a screen shot of what it says is below in case they decide to scrub it from their page.
So, it seems the Alaska Student Loan and the Alaska Commission on Post-secondary Education are committed to keeping this database alive anyway they can.
How did this happen? It was suppose to sunset in June 2015.....
The first reports that met our ears (and later our eyes) happened when the ANSWERS project did not sunset as it was scheduled in 2015. At first it appeared that the original P-20W grant was simply extended to 2016 by the Institute for Education Science as shown here.
You can go to the website and download the grant for yourself and see that it is the same one that was suppose to sunset in June 2015. In August 2015, the Alaska Department of Labor received a generous extension and funds.
It seems they also went hunting for more funds. This time they received funds from the US Department of Labor under the guise of Workforce Data Quality.
So, how long does round 5 WDQI keep ANSWERS going? It appears until 2018 based on their press release from the segment shown below:
What data does it cover? Well, we don't know because it is redacted. What is known is that it will continue to include the PFD data, the wage and occupation codes of every Alaskan who has a pay check, and where that person lives and works. The data is connected to the data held by the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development in the On-line Alaska School Information System (OASIS).
People need to speak up and register their disapproval--or these agencies will take your silence as consent. The people of Alaska have the right to know what data is being collected on them and by whom and how that data is used. This is federal law. The state constitution also has strong right to privacy provisions, and the Alaska legislature is tasked with overseeing that provision of the state constitution.
Please contact your state representatives and state senators. Also, let your school district know that you are opposed to this data mining. Contact ACPE and give them your opinion on tracking your students without your consent. Also, don't forget the Governor Bill Walker at (907) 465-3500.
As many of you are aware, there is a new federal law on the books regarding education that is titled Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). There is an interesting provision in this law that parents may find useful, according to Senator Murkowski's Office. Oh, Alaska parents, did you not know that the Alaska Department of Education and your local school districts were suppose to inform you of your rights to refuse the test under the new federal law? Perhaps Interim Commissioner MacCauley is too busy calling parents a threat to be bothered to study the new ESSA? Because under the new law, it is her job to notify parents of their right to refuse the test, not to demonize them in power noodle presentations.
Once again, this blog will be about the work that your tax dollars pay others to do.
First, there is the provision that districts are suppose to inform parents that they have the right to refuse/opt out of testing.
Section 1111(e)(2), which reads:
‘‘(e) PARENTS RIGHT-TO-KNOW.—
‘‘(2) TESTING TRANSPARENCY.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the beginning of each school year, a local educational agency that receives funds under this part shall notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the local educational agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments mandated by section 1111(b)(2) and by the State or local educational agency, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable.
‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—Subject to subparagraph (C), each local educational agency that receives funds under this part shall make widely available through public means (including by posting in a clear and easily accessible manner on the local educational agency’s website and, where practicable, on the website of each school served by the local educational agency) for each grade served by the local educational agency, information on each assessment required by the State to comply with section 1111, other assessments required by the State, and where such information is available and feasible to report, assessments required districtwide by the local educational agency, including—
‘‘(i) the subject matter assessed;
‘‘(ii) the purpose for which the assessment is designed and used;
‘‘(iii) the source of the requirement for the assessment; and
‘‘(iv) where such information is available—
‘‘(I) the amount of time students will spend taking the assessment, and the schedule for the assessment; and
‘‘(II) the time and format for disseminating results.
‘‘(C) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY THAT DOES NOT OPERATE A WEBSITE.—In the case of a local educational agency that does not operate a website, such local educational agency shall determine how to make the information described in subparagraph (A) widely available, such as through distribution of that information to the media, through public agencies, or directly to parents.
Second, the federal law cannot override state and local legislation--or the Alaska Constitution. It is in the law itself. Again, Section 1111(b)(2)(K)m which ensures that State or local laws allowing parents to opt their children out of assessments cannot be overruled by the U.S. Department of Education. Section 1111(b)(2)(K) reads:
‘‘(2) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.—
‘‘(K) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON PARENT RIGHTS.—
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent
to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.
Then there is that pesky 95% test rule from No Child Left Behind. The old rule stated that a state was not making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) if 95% of students failed to take the exam. It seems the "requirement" is still there in Sec. 111.
Sec. 1111
‘‘(c) STATEWIDE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.—
‘‘(4) DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM.—
‘‘(E) ANNUAL MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT.—
Annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools on the assessments described under subsection (b)(2)(v)(I).
‘‘(IV) the weight of any measure or indicator used to identify or meaningfully differentiate schools, under this part;
‘‘(V) the specific methodology used by States to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools under this part;
HOWEVER, under ESSA, the 95% requirement is no longer a pass/fail indicator. If a state chooses for it not to be a requirement, it can simply rewrite the weights assigned in the formula for evaluating schools, or in the case of Alaska, the Alaska School Performance Index, commonly called the ASPI by education technocrats. For example, give a weight of 0.1% to participation rate in evaluating schools and the Department cannot make them do otherwise:
Sec. 1111
‘‘(e) PROHIBITION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or permit the Secretary—
‘‘(B) as a condition of approval of the State plan, or revisions or amendments to, the State plan, or approval of a waiver request submitted under section 8401, to—
‘‘(iii) prescribe—
‘‘(III) indicators that States use within the State accountability system under this section, including any requirement to measure student growth, or, if a State chooses to measure student growth, the specific metrics used to measure such growth under this part;
‘‘(IV) the weight of any measure or indicator used to identify or meaningfully differentiate schools, under this part;
‘‘(V) the specific methodology used by States to meaningfully differentiate or identify schools under this part;
‘‘(XI) the way in which the State factors the requirement under subsection (c)(4)(E)(i) [the 95% participation rate; see above] into the statewide accountability system under this section; or
‘‘(C) to issue new non-regulatory guidance that—
‘‘(i) in seeking to provide explanation of requirements under this section for State or local educational agencies, either in response to requests for information or in anticipation of such requests, provides a strictly limited or exhaustive list to illustrate successful implementation of provisions under this section; or
‘‘(ii) purports to be legally binding;
Don't forget, your right as a parent doesn't flow from the state of Alaska, it flows from the founding documents, along with the due process provisions of the 14th Amendment. Alaskan parents should not be bullied.
Last year, parents were encouraged to exercise their right to refuse the test known as the Alaska Measures of Progress-- or AMP. This year we are encouraging parents to do the same thing. For those parents new to Alaska, the AMP is Alaska's version of the PARCC, SBAC, and SAGE test. It is a computer adaptive test given in March and April to students in 3rd through 10th grade to comply with a federal grant requirements related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Program (ESEA).
The AMP should not be confused with the MAP, or Measures of Academic Progress. The MAP is used by many districts as a placement test. Placement tests are an entirely different entity--this website does not address the MAP, but it does address the AMP.
We have a suggested letter parents can use, or you can obviously write your own.
1) The test is not a valid measure of student progress. There have been repeated requests by the various people to the Alaska Department of Education for the documents demonstrating that the test meets professional standards of fairness, validity, and reliability. There have been no documents forthcoming that meet the professional standards of testing.
The only mechanism for demonstrating this was to add performance standards to the testing. The addition of these standards would have made the test developmentally inappropriate and cost prohibitive. The Mat-Su School Board had meetings on these performance standards.
2) The data is shared without parent or student consent and placed in a longitudinal data base for the purpose of tracking students. This data base correlates the AMP scores with wage data from the Department of Labor, Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend data, and Higher Education Data. It may also correlate other information collected regarding students. The data is housed in a way that is personally identifiable, or "unit level."
While the grant for this data base was suppose to expire in June 2015, it seems the grant was extended. Commissioner Hanley indicated at a meeting in May 2015 in Anchorage that he closed the door between the P-20W and the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development data set. However, the Commissioner appears to have had a change of heart, and the data set is still active with student data being added.
Don't let school officials or the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development confuse the conversation on this data with the district report card--that is aggregated data. That is entirely different from the P-20W ANSWERs project-- this is personally identifiable data, or "unit level record" data.
3) The AMP is a computer adaptive test. It was designed to measure the performance of the teacher and the school--but becomes part of your student's permanent record. The accountability measures have been greatly relaxed by new federal legislation, making the AMP and similar tests much less important. This test is being retired, and will not be used in subsequent years. The Commissioner has resigned, and the Obama Administration will be gone next year. The administration of this test is no longer necessary. While school officials may be required to administer the test, parents have the right to refuse the test for their child.
Why should a flawed metric become part of your child's permanent record?
4) The AMP is an computer adaptive test. The American Enterprise Institute, the group that owns the computer adaptive technology, has stated repeatedly that the test discriminates against students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Why would you want your child to participate in such a test?
5) The results from the 2015 AMP test were so bad, many parents called for an investigation into the grading procedures and the KITE application. Less than 20% of the state scored
Parents Have The Right to Refuse AMP Testing
WITHOUT Retribution
Commissioner Hanley in October 2015
Former School Board President Esther Cox
(start at the 4:44 mark)
Chairman of the Senate Education Committee Mike Dunleavy
What does a parent need to do in order to refuse testing?
Some districts have a form for parents to fill out to refuse the test and others do not. However, the AMP administrator test booklet issued last year stated on page 112 that a parent could send a note, call the school, or email the school. It is recommended that parents refuse the test in a way that they can document. Also make certain the school knows that you are also refusing testing on make-up days. Last year, several families that had refused the test found out later that their student had taken the test on a make-up day.
The right to refuse (sometimes called opt-out) is a right that flows from the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents possess the “fundamental right”
to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.” The Court stated that
“the child is not the mere creature of the State: those who nurture him and direct his destiny have
the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
(Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35)
The Supreme Court criticized a state
legislature for trying to interfere “with the power of parents to control the education of their
own.” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402.) In Meyer, the Supreme Court held that the
right of parents to raise their children free from unreasonable state interference is one of
the unwritten “liberties” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. (262 U.S. 399).
In recognition of both the right and responsibility of parents to
control their children’s education, the Court has stated, “It is cardinal with us that the custody,
care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and
freedom include preparation for the obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder.”
(Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158).
Griswold v. Connecticut emphasized that the state cannot interfere with the right of a parent to
control his child’s education, and that the right to educate one’s child as one chooses is
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The Court further stated that this right was applicable by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The choice to refuse is up to you.
https://tinyurl.com/NOAMP4ME
Refusal/Opt Out of ESSA Testing--- Sample letter for Alaska
I am the legal parent/guardian of _________________________ at ___________________________
(Child's name) (School/District)
I am refusing to consent to my child being administered the Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP) in the 2015-2016 academic year.
Without my consent, the data from the Alaska Measures of Progress, along with other information in the Online Alaska Student Information System (OASIS) is being given, without my consent, to the Alaska Commission on Post-secondary Education. From there, the data is being shared with other entities. Commissioner Hanley gave assurance in May 2015 that the data would no longer be shared and the P-20W grant would expire. However, a recent presentation in Juneau by ACPE indicates that the ANSWERS project is alive and well. This data sharing and tracking of students continues, despite assurances otherwise made by the Commissioner in May 2015. This violates my child's right of privacy under the Alaska Constitution and violates my right as a parent.
Furthermore, the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development has not provided any documentation showing the validity of the AMP test. In the 2014-2015 academic year, the test scores did not provide educators with any useful information in a timely fashion. With less than 20% of the state testing at the proficient level, it seems there are major problems with the test as a measure of student progress. This is not a metric I want on my child's permanent record.
The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development is eliminating the test in subsequent academic years. This means that if there are any results, there will be no basis of comparison. Therefore, there is no benefit to my child for taking the test.
As the parent, I have the right to refuse the test without retribution to myself or my child. That right was recognized in hearings before the Alaska Senate by outgoing School Board President Esther Cox and in October 2015 by Commissioner Hanley. The right to refuse is also included in the 2014 AMP District Test Coordinator Manual, page 112, and by the Alaska State Senate Education Committee.
The right of the parent flows from the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment in Meyer v Nebraska (262 U.S. 390, 402) and upheld in Prince v. Massachusetts, (321 U.S. 158). Constitutional law has greater weight than Alaska's Administrative Code.
While the District may be obligated to make sure 95% of all students are tested, the new federal law allows states to determine how that calculation is made and how the sanctions are determined. Since the Commissioner is already on the record that there will be no retribution, it would be difficult for any school to be penalized over the 95% rule.
On March 23, 2015 the director of the largest correspondence program in Alaska, and quite possibly the United States, issued an FAQ based on the concerns of parents. While the letter was intended to alleviate concerns, it really proved the point that this blog has been making all along--the Superintendents and Program Directors don't really understand what is going on at all. They have been treated like mushrooms, fed dung and kept in the closet. Thus, they have been unable to grasp what is going on and transmit to families accurate information.
Tim Cline is not alone in this. Another blog recently showed that Deena Paramo through the state had returned the P-20W grant money! She didn't even realize that the data that Answers analyzed came from her own OASIS database.
Then there is the confusion on regulations. An education official--one that I have been acquainted with for many years in social settings for many years told one of their parents yesterday:
"As I remember, regulation implements statute and statute allows him, Commissioner Hanley and requires him to test . I looked it up today."
Of course, this is incorrect. Regulations come from STATUTE, not the reverse. That is why they probably force people to do that silly literacy test. It isn't in statute. Any regulation not grounded in statute has no force of law. Deputy Les Morse covered this in hearings before the House Finance Committee.
To highlight the point that the Superintendents and Program directors are not being adequately informed by the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, let's dissect the FAQ and show where the lack of information/understanding emerges. Specifically, what is it that the superintendents don't understand. Before we do, let's take a quick trip down memory lane at the Safe Haven, because this highlights the issue.
Memory Lane: Idea A Safe Haven
Before delving into tonight's memo, it is useful to take a trip down memory lane. On February 9, 2015, Mr. Cline issued a missive titled, IDEA: A Safe Haven. The document covers a variety of issues that deserved a response, but there is one issue that is relevant for discussion here. The information was most likely given in good faith--but later House Testimony revealed that this information was not accurate.
It is interesting that the letter is dated February 9, 2014, the same day as the ACPE hearings.
In IDEA's February 9th Safe Haven memo, Cline expounded on the noble and worthy effort of data collection. He characterized the tracking of students in aggregate data. He had a favorable opinion of data collecting.
The reason the memo is noteworthy is that on February 9, 2015, the Alaska Council on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) made their first appearance before the House Education Committee. During that testimony, they denied tracking individual data. When they were confronted with the grant contracts on February 20th, 2015, they had difficulty denying the facts. The data is at the personal identifiable level, or "unit" level as it is referred to by researchers. They do retain the personally identifiable data to match subsequent years.
As the video shows below, the data is NOT aggregated. The data is individual data, or "unit" level. That is in the grant, and no amount of memos can change that. Watch the whole video to see what they said on February 9, 2015, and then compare the answer to the February 20, 2015 testimony.
IDEA's AMP Testing FAQ
On the night of March 23, 2015, an IDEA FAQ was sent to many parents. The FAQ has a few errors. This is an effort to correct them with the documents and evidence.
The first question of that FAQ raises two issues: the nature of the data and the location of the data or the routing. If you are taking a paper version of the test, certainly his routing of the test documents is almost correct. But the Alaska Department of Education has already sent everyone's data to Questar, in Minnesota, irrespective of the type of test used. How do I know? First, it is in the AAI contract as it was revised after they expedited testing in the summer of 2014. That contract shows a timeline, and on page 10 of the pdf version of the document, the timeline shows that the data went to Questar in November of 2014. This probably occurred since the FNSB district had a trial run. This was discussed by 147 Degrees West back in February 2015.
Here is how the IDEA FAQ Shows the data routing
Data Routing from IDEA FAQ
Here is how the AAI Contract shows the data routing.
Contract between AAI and the State of Alaska
The other reason that I know is that Les Morse discussed the data routing issue in the House Finance Subcommittee for the Alaska Department of Education. So, that part of the FAQ is not correct. Even so, the AMP
If your child takes the computerized version of the test and hits enter, the data goes to Questar, either via Kansas or directly. However, it doesn't matter if the data goes to Timbuktu from a legal perspective--once it crosses state lines it is out of the jurisdiction of the legislature. It is in the purview of the federal government and out of the care, custody, and control of the state of Alaska and the primary privacy officers. That is in the AMP book, and that is how it is for the computerized version.
Does Tim Cline realize the shift in privacy liability here for most of the Superintendents who have the computerized version and for his students who will be taking the computerized version? Did he read that statement in the AMP book?
That is why there should be concern here for every superintendent. They don't understand the issues, but they have had the liability placed on them.
The IDEA FAQ also states that the data is "de-identified." That isn't entirely correct. The grant is very specific that the data is identifiable. I covered this in a prior blog entry. Further the entire P-20W/Unity/Answers team is funded by the federal government and was set up by WICHE, so that whole notion of the federal government not getting the data is rather absurd. Second, ACPE is the Alaska Student Loan Corporation, and they are an independent agency from the state. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself--they are ACPE when they are operating inside DEED on federal funds and they are an independent agency when they are not. It is the same people.
But even so, the Answers project retains identifiable data. They admitted in their February 9, 2015 testimony that they do keep the identifiable data. This is so they can "track unit records," those records being your child. In other instances, it is district personnel. This directly conflicts with the IDEA FAQ--not because Tim Cline is evil, but he just hasn't read the decision documents and he is late to the game and doesn't really grasp what is going on here.
Furthermore, the data can go across state lines in the P-20W. There is no legislation in place at this point to preclude the partners from sharing the data, now or in the future. So, even if today, DEED does everything correctly, some future government official may not. The door is left open for future data sharing by future officials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR6fDLGJGpo
So, that obliterates the first part of the FAQ. Most parents won't even have the patience to go further. However, the State School Board President, Esther Cox said parents have the right to opt out. Commissioner Hanley stated that parents have the right to opt out. The Constitution upholds the rights of the parents.
If you think Tim Cline is looking out for parents, read carefully his Safe Haven letter again from February. He is looking out for the contact teachers, not the parents!
The second question in the FAQ has to do with regulation. Statutes and case law always trump regulation. Tim Cline discusses 4 AAC 32.421 which is regulation. Parent rights have been upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly, and that always trumps state regulation.
The question in the FAQ document on code 9999 is simply silly. That is the federal code. If Alaska is using Common Education Data (CEDs) then that is the code. That isn't a district issue, that is an issue between DEED and the federal government. Please notice below that Alaska's K-12 data is in CEDs.
The next FAQ question has to do with career tracking. Clearly, the whole point of correlating K-12 data with workforce data is to steer people into the "right" career. That is the whole point of Common Core-- a managed economy where people are put to work where the elite need them. This is clearly why the data is being correlated with the Department of Labor database--it is either that or they are tracking families for some other agenda that is far more nefarious.
IDEA's FAQ also gets the adaptive testing wrong. AAI is part of Dynamic Learning Maps, the consortia for the Alternative Assessment. The AAI test that KU Board authorized was an adaptive test. KU hired one of the top psychometricians from ACT/College Board to facilitate the development of an adaptive test. DEED's own words say the test is computer adaptive.
Tim Cline knows full well that the time line was moved up. Joint Administrative Regulatory Review in August 2014, Rep. Reinbold took the Alaska Department of Education to task over moving the timeline of the testing one year forward. Cline was at the Joint Administrative Regulatory Review Committee meeting in October 2014 when this was discussed again. Any parent can find those meeting minutes for themselves
The reader should carefully note that IDEA was crickets on the underlying KITE technology being "agile." That is what Kathleen Sebelius used in the Obamacare website construction. They were "crickets" on a great many other issues raised, like the Uniform Electronic Numbers in the Alaska Standards, the AMP, and the Common Core.
Notice that Tim Cline never mentions the Indistar Shepherd and the other consultants who clearly have access to the data. They are not DEED employees--they are consultants. Why isn't their access to data being questioned? Why? Do the IDEA parents know this? Do parents in brick and mortar schools know this?
Tim Cline's FAQ proves my point. The Superintendents and Program Administrators do not understand everything that is going on in this test.
This is going to make tons of money for the lawyers.
Intrusions of the Mind--The ultimate invasion of privacy is the way the common core standards allow for an invasion to the mind.
One of the unique features of the Common Core standards is something called the Uniform Electronic Numbers (UENs). This is not a tin foil hat issue; it is on the Common Core Standards website. That is why when one looks at a Common Core book, the UENs on each concept are listed on the page.
Alaska's standards have UENs that are correlated to the Common Core standards. That is how activists on both sides of the argument know that the Alaska Standards and the Common Core are identical. The interested reader can download the PDF of this correlation--it begins on page 7. Please note that all of the Alaska Standards have a Common Core UEN assigned to them. A partial list is below. There is also a curriculum integrator verb list that is correlated to various domains that appear to be related to the AMP test and these UENs, or domain clusters.
In the event someone thinks this is fabricated, please download the whole document and turn to the notes at the end.
So, what is the deal with these UENs? According to the Common Core website,
"Unique identifiers are needed for humans and technology to refer to individual standards in a consistent manner. Three sets of canonical identifiers, as detailed below and now readily available here on www.corestandards.org, will maintain fidelity to the published and adopted documents, while acknowledging the wide variety of use cases, users, and systems needing to reference the standards..."
To conceptually understand these numbers, think of your child's knowledge as a supermarket of ideas and concepts. Think about each idea in the Common Core as a product on a supermarket shelf that has a scan code. Think about your child's knowledge deficits as a product that is missing from the knowledge inventory. With assignments and tests tied to the UENs, the theory is that any deficits in the stock of knowledge can be detected and remediated.
The UENs come in one of three forms. One form is the "dot" notation, and that is the one that most teachers see in the teacher guides and one sees referenced most frequently in the policy arena. The example given on the Common Core website is Math.6.EE.1, which would be readily referenced in the way the standards are presented. The second UEN form is called a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). This is used primarily for internet presentations of information. The third identifier is a Globally Unique Identifier (GUIDs). This latter number is an alpha numeric sequence that is useful for computer programmers.
Again, Alaska's Standards are correlated to the Common Core UEN and GUIDs. While the letter to Patrick Rooney is sufficient, the computer coding on the UENs through the GUIDs give it away. All the vendors know this, and when Commissioner Hanley makes his absurd statements that Alaska "didn't buy into the standards" it simply diminishes his credibility.
The ramifications of these UENs is huge for your child's privacy due to the way this information has been extended by researchers in the private sector. Pearson and a group of other companies have taken this research a step further. Just as a store might have a store map of product location based on the product code, Common Core developers have correlated this knowledge with areas of the brain through MRI imaging. This was presented at a White House sponsored summit in 2012 known as Datapalooza. The idea behind this brain mapping is the development of a unique brain identifier.
Below is a 3 minute synopsis of a two day event sponsored at the White House called Datapalooza 2012. It seems that the Common Core Standards are being used to correlate all these concepts and image them to the brain and correlate them to behavior modification. So, teachers may unknowingly be participating in contributing to these researchers through the use of products such as Powerschool. Further, since some districts ask teachers to back-up their Powerschool entries on OASIS and the Enterprise system.
In theory, these attributes could be accessed by the Alaska Department of Education, ACPE, and various vendors like Scholastic who have contracts and portals on that system. A friend of mine suggested that AK DEED isn't smart enough to know what to do with the data. They don't need to be smart enough, they only need to be smart enough to hire people who know how to use it.
The real policy question is this: Did any parents consent to this? Did Common Core supporters know this was behind the standards? Am I the only person out there who sees the inherent danger in all of this and the erosion of liberty? This information could be used to do good; but it could also be used to do incredible evil. I have no doubt that current policy makers have the best of intentions... it is the future ones that are of major concern. Governments can go rogue, data can be hacked, and wars happen. What are the ramifications of this information being stored for your child's future?
