Tuesday, March 24, 2015

This Proves the Point--The Superintendents and Program Directors Don't Understand It All

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.

The IDEA FAQ can be found here.

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

This is what DEED's original flyer stated.



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.

Note ACPE's February 5th testimony

No comments:

Post a Comment