Tag Archives: Privacy

Reference

The Exodus, opting out of Common Core assessments and data collection

32 Comments

This is a post to share with all your friends and neighbors. Not everyone is going to do this, but we need as many people as possible to participate. If you have a child in school, please print out a copy of this form and send it in. Here’s a pdf copy and the text of the document is reproduced below which you can copy/paste into a word processor of your choice.

State National CAT / Data Collection Opt-Out Form (PDF)

To help spread the word, have your children share these small pass-along cards with their friends: My parents opted me out (PDF)

To properly introduce this topic, please check out this short interview clip my good friend Ken Cromar made for a documentary he’s making called Miracles. It’s an interview segment he did with Rabbi Daniel Lapin and it’s what we need right now to understand Miracles come after we take action. Please take action today. We need massive amounts of parents to opt-out of these assessments

 

 

State/National CAT/Data Collection Opt-Out Form

School:________________________________________________

Teacher(s):_____________________________________________

Student:_______________________________________________

First, I, _____________________, as the parent/guardian of ___________________, have a  “fundamental liberty interest” in the care, custody and welfare of my child as codified in Utah Code §62A-4a-201. In exercise thereof, I hereby elect to exclude my child from participating in all computer adaptive tests (CAT) administered by or through Utah’s public education system (including but not limited to MAP/CRT/AIR/NWEA assessments) which are optional or required by the state for standardized testing. Utah code §62A-4a-201 states:

(d) The state recognizes that:
(i) a parent has the right, obligation, responsibility, and authority to raise, manage, train, educate, provide for, and reasonably discipline the parent’s children; and
(ii) the state’s role is secondary and supportive to the primary role of a parent.
(e) It is the public policy of this state that parents retain the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children.

I take this action to protect the privacy and welfare of my child because these examinations contain behavioral testing1 which I believe is a violation of state law2 and the individual results are tracked in a statewide longitudinal database system (SLDS) which is accessible by the federal government and private entities3, used for school grading4, and allows my child’s personal information to be individually identifiable5. In taking this action, I recognize the state office may label my child as non-proficient6 which has negative repercussions.

I believe these tests are fundamentally flawed by attempting to test students on material to which they may have never been exposed. The fact that the exams are confidential7 so no one may examine the questions before or after a child takes the exam and that they provide psychometric feedback from embedded behavioral questions, are unacceptable to me as a parent.8

Second, I further opt my child out of any and all surveys that contain personal, financial, or any other information on our family, and from any other type of data collection method that would contain personal, private, and confidential information (eg. DNA collection).

To the extent that the above named school now, or in the future, possesses any data on my child, I do not give permission for such data to be passed to the state unless it is de-identified, aggregate data combined with that of many other students.

When CAT’s are given to my child’s class, I request that my child be provided an alternative exam that will be graded by my child’s teacher, or, alternatively, that my child be allowed to spend that time in quiet study.

I further request that the school keep a copy of this document in my child’s school file and that the school acknowledge my rights and their intent to support my decision by signing below and returning a copy to me.

Finally, this action is not intended to be an indication of my opinion regarding the quality of my child’s teacher(s), or of the school, but as a statement that my family refuses to participate in any activity that further erodes our privacy. I respect and appreciate your work in educating my child.

Please provide a copy to each of my son/daughter’s teachers who administer CAT assessments so they are aware that my child needs an alternate activity during testing.

Please contact me via email __________________ or phone ________________ if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

____________________

Parent

____________________               ___________                       ___________

School Official Signature                       Title                                         Date

 

1- http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillenr/sb0175.pdf (line 66)

2- Utah Code Title 53A Section 302

3- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ferparegs.pdf (page 13) and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/state.asp?stateabbr=UT

4- http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillenr/SB0271.htm

5- http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System/FAQTop10Questions.aspx (pg. 17)

6- At the 8/2/2013 Utah State Board of Education meeting, amendments to SB 271 were made to label students non-proficient if they failed to take the CAT standardized assessments

7- http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System/FAQTop10Questions.aspx (search “confidential”)

8- https://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/dr-thompsons-letter-to-superintendent-menlove/

Reference

Jared Carman’s opt-out form for notifying the state on CAT’s and privacy

2 Comments

Jared Carman put together a great opt-out form you can print and send to the state notifying them that they may not compel your child to participate in computer adaptive testing and may not share your child’s personal information with AIR, the federal government, or any other 3rd party. If everyone would print one of these out for each of your children and mail to the state superintendent, it would certainly be helpful to show our officials that we want them to take this matter seriously.

Form: PARENTAL PERMISSION WITHHELD 2012 0429

Not sure if you want your child to take a computer adaptive test? Not sure what the harm is?

“We’ve been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were ten of the top psychologists working with one student.You’ve seen the tip of the iceberg.Won’t it be wonderful when the child in the smallest county in the most distant area or in the most confused urban setting can have the equivalent of the finest school in the world on that terminal and no one can get between that child and that computer?”

Dustin H. Heuston, “Discussion-Developing the Potential of an Amazing Tool,” Schooling and Technology, Vol. 3, Planning for the Future: A Collaborative Model (Southeastern Regional Council for Educational Improvement), p. 8.

Reference

The State Testing Opt-Out Form

Leave a comment

Alisa Ellis is sharing this great letter she used to opt her children out of state testing. You can easily modify this to your needs and opt out your children as well. Happening right now in schools, it’s CRT tests. By next year it will probably be the AIR/SAGE adaptive tests unless we succeed in getting those thrown out. These tests are not only dangerous for behavioral tracking, but have other concerns as well as they are designed to have all children hit 50% scores by increasing or lowering the difficulty based on their performance on each question. Some students may only have a 15 question test, while others could be forced to answer 100 questions to complete the test.

I would add one word of caution. Some teachers may use the state test in some way for student grading. You may want to include a statement such as, “if you plan to use this test in my child’s grade for some reason, I ask that you make an exception and not factor this state test into their final class grade.”

**********

The opt out letter I sent my child’s teachers (I copied the Governor, state superintendent, local superintendent, and principal):

Ms. ________, Ms. ________, and Ms. _______,

________ thoroughly enjoys all of your classes. Thank you.

I’m guessing you know my name and the research I’ve been doing into the education reform taking place in the United States. If not, I’d be happy to share my research with you.

I am writing to let you know that ______ will not be taking the CRT’s this year. I recognize that there is nothing new about the testing taking place this year but feel that I must take a stand. This is nothing personal with you or your teaching. You are excellent and I appreciate your willingness to spend time educating children.

I have been studying the increasing push for data. While I recognize that data has great value, I don’t agree with the blatant disregard by the Federal Department of Ed of parental authority. Last year’s changes at the Federal level to privacy laws cause me great concern.

January of 2012, the FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act – governing what student records schools can share) laws were changed due to a request by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

• Page 52 of the new FERPA document outlines 11 different ways Personally Identifiable Information (PII) can be shared by schools without parental or student consent.

In Utah we accepted $9.6 million in Stimulus Funds to develop our State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS).

SLDS FAQ sheet: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/slds/factsheet.pdf

We have been assured that no one wants to release our children’s information but the fact is the State of UT does not currently have the proper protections in place to prevent Personally Identifiable Data to be released. Someone’s word isn’t good enough when it comes to our children, we must have the proper protections in place. Until there is a remedy to this problem my children will not be participating in end of year testing. Terms like “de-identified data” and “dis-aggregate” data are not acceptable. There are so many data points being collected assigning a child a number does not protect their identity.

Utah may not currently be releasing student level data to private interest groups or the Federal Department of Ed but we have a system set up making that possible. Utah must shore up our student privacy laws and reject the data push currently stemming from the Department of Education.

I’ve heard many teachers upset about the more stringent teacher evaluations and placing blame on the legislators for these laws. The fact is, before the law was written the State office and Governor’s office accepted grants (see below) and waivers agreeing to such evaluations.

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/utah-receive-more-129-million-additional-recovery-funds

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/pdf/Utah2009-ARRA.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/state.asp?stateabbr=UT

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/map/ut.html

As a teacher you should also be aware that the SLDS grant UT (according to the SLDS FAQ page) accepted also called for tracking individual teachers, by name and linking teachers to students they teach and then tracking the student’s performance. This is in order to “…help identify teachers who are succeeding…and find teachers who are struggling…” I do not agree with so much emphasis being put on high-stakes testing when evaluating teachers. I’ll explain why below.

I have 7 very different and all very bright children. They all test differently. A test can never measure home life, stress in a child’s life, parental support or lack thereof, or sheer determination on the part of a child. It just can’t. I don’t support the notion that schools and teachers should be graded on these high-stakes test scores. This narrows the curriculum as teachers are forced to teach to the test. The NCLB waiver did not solve this problem created from NCLB.

My _______ scores very well on these test (top 8% in the Nation) and also does decent in school but falls dead center in his class. He never passed the GATE tests but has consistently competed with those GATE students since the 2nd grade.

My _______ child score fairly well on these tests, but not in the very top; yet, she has been the #1 student in her class for several years running due to hard work and determination. A test simply can’t measure one’s ability to work hard. She is not taking easy classes either.

_______ has a very high amplitude. He does well on tests and in school. My point is each child is different. A test, no matter how great, cannot measure a child’s worth.

Just to be clear, I am not opposed to testing but I am opposed to high stakes testing especially when it is collecting so much data on our children and being so heavily used to determine the effectiveness of a teacher.

I thank you for honoring my wishes. Tomorrow I will not be in town when the CRTs are being administered. ______ can be sent to sit in the office or library during testing. I trust that you will not punish _______ in any way, shape or form for my taking this stand. Please advise if the CRT was to be used toward his class grade. If this is the case, I hope we can come up with a solution at the local level without involving high-stakes testing. _______ is very bright and scored in the top 5% of the Nation in all subjects of the IOWA test a few years ago but I don’t believe that can truly measure what he is capable of.

You may want to take some time looking through the 200 page document from the Data Warehouse in UT http://www.schools.utah.gov/warehouse/Specifications/Warehouse-Data-Dictionary.aspx.

The National Center for Educational Data has scrubbed their site tonight so I can’t send you to see the 500 data points they recommend. http://nedm.sifassociation.org/datamodel_review/eiebrowser/techview.aspx?instance=studentElementarySecondary

Thank you for your time,

Alisa Ellis

News

U.S.O.E. Informational Meetings on Common Core Tests: Clueless on the Big Issues

2 Comments

Did you watch the Deseret News live feed of the Davis District meeting tonight?

I had an “A-ha!” moment, as I again watched Judy Park of the Utah State Office of Education present information about the Common Core tests.

I realized that Judy Park just does not know the answers to the big, big questions that are being asked.  She isn’t actually being dishonest; she is simply clueless.  It’s tragic.  I feel almost sorry for her.

What makes me say this?

One example:  When parents asked about the data collection issue she seemed to be blissfully unaware that the Utah State Longitudinal Database System collects personally identifiable information on every student –without parental consent and without any opt-out alternative.

“There’s federal laws. There’s all the protection in the world,” she said, and added a little simile:

As banks can’t give away your money, databases can’t give away your personally identifiable information, she said.

Really?

– Does she not know that there’s a huge lawsuit going on right now because the Department of Education has loosened and ruined privacy regulations so entirely that parental consent has been reduced from a legal requirement to an optional ”best practice”??

– Does she not know that the State Longitudinal Database System is federally interoperable, and that that was one of the conditions of Utah receiving the grant money to build the SLDS in the first place?

– Does she not know that the SLDS is under a (totally unconstitutional) mandate to report to the federal government via the “portal” called the EdFacts Exchange?

– Has she not seen the hundreds of data points that the federal government is “inviting” states to collect and share on students at the National Data Collection Model?

– Has she never studied the Utah Data Alliance and the Data Quality Campaign?

– Is she unaware that the Federal Register (following the shady alterations by the Dept. of Ed to federal FERPA privacy regulations) now redefines key terms such as who is an authorized representative and what is an educational agency, so that without parental consent and without school consent, vendors and corporate researchers can access data collected by the SLDS (State Database)?

– Does she not know that state FERPA is protective and good, but federal FERPA is utterly worthless because of what the Dept. of Education has done?

Ms. Park said:

“FERPA [federal privacy law] doesn’t allow that,”   and:   “I don’t believe that,” and “Personally identifiable information is not even in our state database.”

Dear Ms. Park!   I wish I could believe you.

But last summer, at the Utah Senate Education Committee Meeting, we all heard (and Ms. Park was in the room) when Utah Technology Director John Brandt stood up and testified that “only” a handful of people from each of the agencies comprising the Utah Data Alliance (K-12, Postsecondary, Workforce, etc.) can access the personally identifiable information that the schools collect.  He said it to reassure us that barring dishonesty or hacking, the personally identifiable information was safe.  But he simultaneously revealed that the schools were indeed collecting that personal information.

Sigh.

Why don’t our leaders study this stuff?  Why, why?

Even Ms. Park’s secondary title, which is something about “federal accountability” is disturbing.  It’s an illegal concept to be federally accountable in the realm of state education.  Has nobody read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution at the State Office of Education?  Has no one read the federal law called the General Educational Provisions Act, which forbids —FORBIDS— the federal government from supervising, directing or controlling education or curriculum in ANY WAY.

I am not the only one flabbergasted at what I saw and heard on that live feed of the Davis District meeting today.

 

This portion is posted with permission from clinical psychologist Gary Thompson.

Gary Thompson:

I’m mortified at USOE.

I’m half tempted to shoot off (another) letter to the State Superintendent of Schools demanding that they stop all future “informational”meetings until they themselves either know the correct answers, or can be honest and simply state, “we are investigating these issues currently, and we will get back to you when we know the answers.”

Anything other than that is pure deception, and if they (Judy Park, etc) are deceiving tax paying parents, then they should be asked to resign from their positions of trust. If I hear one more meeting filled with deception and plausible deniability, I may take it upon myself to publicly ask for those resignations myself in a very public manner that will make the my Glenn Beck appearance look like minor league.

It is just common respect. THEY asked for my letter of assistance and clarification. Attorney Flint and myself spent an entire weekend drafting it for them and the parents in our community.

Their response over a week later?

Crickets.

Not even a thank you note…and then they have the gall to present a LIVE feed to the entire State filled with definitive answers to parents questions that not only could they not answer during our 2 hour in person meeting, but asked for our assistance to clarify the issues they did not understand.

How hard would it had been to simply say, “We do not know.” ???
Ms. Parks response to questions regarding adaptive testing to children with learning “quirks” (our new name for disabilities) was so devious and deceptive that I had to turn it off.

Alisa Olsen Ellis, don’t you ever stop this fight as long as you have life in you.

God bless you.

-Gary Thompson

Concerns

Common Core: A Mental Health Professional & Parent’s Perspective

2 Comments

The following letter was posted to Facebook by Dr. Gary Thompson concerning the very real privacy concerns in Common Core. I strongly encourage you to read this and share it with others.

Dear Mrs. Swasey & Mr. Beck:

I am writing this note on behalf of your joint request to address issues surrounding the Common Core State Standards Act (CCSS) that is currently in the process of being implemented in the vast majority of our public school systems in the country.

By way of background, I’m an African American Doctor of Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.) currently serving as Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy at a private child psychology clinic in South Jordan, Utah.  I completed undergraduate education at both the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.  In addition to my personal experiences involving my four children in public schools, I have completed multiple thousands of hours in training/therapy/assessment/legal advocacy work with children in both the private and public school settings in multiple western states.   I am also the author of an award winning doctoral project/dissertation which tackled the ago old problem of why many African American school aged children underperform in public schools titled, “Cracking the Da Vince Code of Cognitive Assessment of African American School Aged Children:  A Guide for Parents, Clinicians & Educators” (Thompson, G. 2008).

As a “local clinical community scientist”, I have an ethical obligation to our community at large to provide unbiased opinions regarding issues that affect the education experiences of school-aged children and their respective guardians.  The “Common Core States Standards Act” (CCSS) falls uniquely into this category.    I have devoted many hours reading commentaries and studies, both pro and con, regarding the overall efficacy of CCSS.

In a nutshell, the (mostly) progressive public education community speaks highly of CCSS and its stated goal of raising educational standards across the board in a effort to improve the educational process for all students in the country, particularly under performing African American and Latino students nationwide.

The (mostly) conservative opponents of CCSS claim that involvement in public school education should be primarily a local/statewide process, and that Federal intrusion into public school education is not effective for multiple alleged reasons.  In addition, there are disputes involving the CCSS curriculum itself whereas proponents cite multiple sources of research that allegedly support the efficacy of the education content.

Opponents also cite similar competing references that support their contention that CCSS curriculum stifles’ teachers’ creativity and that the content, especially in math, is not effective for early learners, gifted students, and children with diagnosed learning disabilities. The amount of information available to voters and parents by “experts”, both for and against CCSS, is overwhelming in its length, complexity and emotional intensity.   Like the Affordable Care Act, the implementation of the Common Core State Standards in the vast majority of public schools nationwide, has caused a seemingly unbridgeable divide in many quarters of this country.

I am not an expert in the development and implementation of core educational curriculum in public schools, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not an expert on the effects of federal government involvement, verses local involvement, in public school education, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not a forensic accountant with expertise in the areas of national and local financial accounting tax monies submitted towards public education, so I will not comment on that issue.  I am also not a politician, nor do I represent any special interest groups that could even be remotely tied to the multiple and complex issues surrounding CCSS.  I find the political process in this day and age to be ineffective and personally unfulfilling, and will not comment on the efficacy of education platforms set forth by the three main political parties.   I am, however, an expert in psychological and educational assessment/testing, as well as privacy acts surrounding the use of these tests in both private and educational settings.   My remaining comments will focus on these two issues as they are addressed by the CCSS.

Educational Testing

According to the U.S. Department of Education, CCSS will authorize the use of testing instruments that will measure the “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitude’s and intra personal resources” of public school students under CCSS (USDOE Feb, 2013 Report).  In a nutshell, CCSS simply states that it will develop highly effective assessments that measures….well….almost ”everything.”

Our clinic performs these comprehensive IEE’s (Individual Education Evaluations) on a daily basis. These test measure “attributes”, “dispositions”, “social skills”, “attitudes” and “intra personal resources” as stated by the USDOE.    In addition, we utilized state of the neuro-cognitive tests that measure the informational process functioning of children in school (Cognitive Assessment System, Naglieri 2002).

A careful, or even a casual review of a “comprehensive evaluation” would clearly show that the level of information provided about a particular child is both highly sensitive and extremely personal in nature. They are also extremely accurate.  In a private clinic such as ours, we follow strict privacy guidelines regarding patient privacy (HIPPA) and when dealing with educational institutions, we also make sure that we comply with the FERPA Act (Federal Education Reporting & Privacy Act).

Bluntly put, if a client’s records somehow get into the hands of anyone besides the parents without written consent from the parents, or a court order, our clinic would be shut down in a heartbeat and the clinician who released unauthorized comprehensive assessments would lose their license.   Clinical Psychologists in graduate level classrooms and clinical training sites spend years getting these basic privacy rights pounded into our heads.  Failure to articulate and implement strict privacy guidelines issued by the Federal Government, State licensing boards, or the American Psychological Association (APA) would result in immediate dismissal from graduate school academic institutions, as well as any clinical psychology training sites in either Internship or Residency settings.

The accuracy of psychological testing has grown in the past 10 years to astonishing levels.  The same tests used in our clinic for assessments, are used in part by federal law enforcement agencies, the military, local police departments, and the Central Intelligence Agency. (Interesting enough, these agencies are also interested in finding out about alleged terrorist’s, serial killers, or airline pilots “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes and intra personal resources”).  When placed in the “right” hands of trained mental health professionals, psychological testing can save lives.   Placed in the “wrong” hands, psychological testing can ruin lives as well as cause psychological trauma to people if they have knowledge that their results were used for nefarious purposes.

Below are issues regarding CCSS “testing” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors’, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to parents of children in public school education:

  1. Common Core does not address what types of tests will be utilized on our children.
  2. Common Core does not address, specifically, exactly who is developing these tests.
  3. Common Core does not address the fact that these tests have not yet been developed, and are not available for public consumption or private review by clinical psychology  researchers and psychometric professionals.
  4. Common Core does not address if the soon to be completed tests will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review process that ALL testing instruments are subjected to prior to being released to mental health professionals for their use in the private sector.
  5. Common Core does not state which public school employees would be administering or interpreting these tests.   There is a reason that School Psychologists cannot “practice” outside of their scope in school districts.   As hard working and as wonderful as this group is, their training pales in comparison to the average local clinical psychologist.
  6. Common Core does not address the well documented, peer-reviewed fact that both African American and Latino students, due to cultural issues, tend to have skewed testing results when cultural issues are not addressed prior to the initiation of such testing.  This should probably be addressed if these results are going to be following a student “from cradle to high school graduation.”
  7. Lastly, once these highly intimate, powerful, and most likely inaccurate testing results are completed, who EXACTLY will have access to all of this data?   Common Core DOES address this issue and it is the subject of the next section.

Privacy

I mentioned above that our private clinic is subjected to multiple federal, state, and professional association regulations when it comes to protecting and releasing mental health records. The rationale behind these regulations is obvious in nature both to the professionals, as well as their clients.   Records do not leave our clinic unless the guardians of the children instruct us, or unless a District Court judge orders the release of the records.   In some cases, we are even ethically obligated to fight court orders that request private mental health records.

Common Core State Standards radically changes this game.  

Prior to CCSS, public school districts were required to adhere to the same rules and regulations regarding private records as our clinic is subjected to.   HIPPA tells us how to store records, were to store records, and whom to release them too.  FERPA (Federal Education Records Protection Act) is subjected to HIPPA requirements when it comes to protecting sensitive education records.   As show herein, educational testing records are highly sensitive and it only makes common sense that this practice of protecting these sensitive records continues.

Buried in all of the fine print of the CCSS is a provision that allows participating school districts to ignore HIPPA protections.   The newly revised FERPA laws grants school districts and states HIPPA privacy waivers.  

Department of Health & Human Services Regulation Section 160.103 states, in part,:

“Protected health information EXCLUDES individually identifiable health information in education records covered by the Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA), as amended 20 U.S.C. 1232 g”.

CCSS also states that this “information” may be distributed to “organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to develop, validate, or administer predictive testing.” (CCSS (6)(i).  

In summary CCSS allows the following by law:

  1. Grants school districts a waiver from FERPA in terms of deleting identifying information on their records.
  2. Allows school districts to then give these identifiable records basically to anyone who they deem to have an viable interest with these records.
  3. These organization or individuals chosen by the government to use this data to develop highly accurate predictive tests with no stated ethical procedures, guidelines, or institutional controls.   (What are they exactly trying to “predict”?”
  4. All without written parental consent.

The “Comprehensive Statewide Longitudinal Data System,” employed by CCSS that will hold this sensitive data, per DOE webpage, states, “all States implement state longitudinal data systems that involve elements specified in the “America Competes Act”.   I spent two hours pouring over this Act to see if there were any further guidelines to Federal of State officials as such may pertain to privacy issues.   None could be found.

Proponents of the CCSS point to volumes of articles and promises and policies that state that our children’s data will be private and protected by the national and state data systems that will shortly be implemented per CCSS guidelines.   I have very little doubt that the computer systems employed by Federal, State and local districts that contain this data will be state of the art computer systems.  Others whom are experts in this field may differ strongly).  The point however is this: CCSS does not specify who can have access to their records, or for what specific purposes this sensitive data will be utilized.   When it comes to addressing privacy issues, the CCSS contains abundant, generalized “legal speak”.

In terms of privacy issues, below are issues regarding CCSS “privacy” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to the parents of children in public school education:

  1. Exactly WHO will have access to records obtained by this national/state database?  The generic political answer of “Appropriately designated education officials or private research entities” does not “cut the mustard.”
  2. For what EXACT purpose will this sensitive data be utilized?
  3. What organizations will have access to identifiable academic records?  Other than generic information regarding race, age, gender and geographic location, why does the Federal database require identifiable information to be accessible?
  4.  If the political responses to these questions are “all information contained in the database is unidentifiable and securely stored,” then why were changes made to FERPA to allow an exemption to educational privacy rights when it comes to the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
  5. What type of “predictive tests” are currently being designed and who will have access to results of whatever is being measured?

Conclusion

Like the infamous “No Child Left Behind” laws that on some levels (with the sole exceptions of the 2004 IDEA Act included in NCLB), have set back progress of public school education years, I honestly believe that a few lawmakers with good hearts and intentions honestly wanted to find solutions to our public school systems.  I believe also that the Obama Administration wants every child to have a proper and rigorous education and that the implementation of Common Core will bring them closer to that goal.

I am also, however, a local clinical community scientist. In this role I have several serious questions concerning CCSS noted herein which have yet to be answered to my satisfaction as a scientist, education advocate, and parent. I would implore every Governor, State Superintendent, and State School Board member in the country to honestly and openly explore the issues cited above and provide accurate answers to these issues to the public in “plain speak”.

Given the gravity of these issues, I cannot professionally endorse the Common Core State Standards as currently written until pointed clarification is provided by politicians and educators from both party’s endorsing CCSS.  Nor in good conscience can I enroll my toddler in a public school system that utilizes CCSS until these issues are clarified to my satisfaction.

The issues involving psychological testing and privacy are issues that should be of concern to every parent with a child enrolled in public school.    The power granted federal and state education administrators via the regulations of CCSS are unprecedented in nature.   Some parents will be quite comfortable with CCSS even in light of the issues detailed in this letter.   Some parents would be aghast with the same provisions.   Regardless, parents deserve to be clearly informed about these and other issues surrounding CCSS in a clear and straightforward manner so that they can make educated choices regarding their children’s educations.

On a final note, I wish to publicly show my support to the underpaid and overworked public school teachers nationwide.  If I had the power, I would elevate their status to that of a medical doctor in terms of pay and prestige. What they do with the limited resources available, and with the burden of bureaucracy following their every professional move is simply nothing short of amazing.  Our clinic employees several public school teachers (One is a former Utah Teacher of the Year), and school psychologist due to their amazing talents and abilities of reaching the hearts and minds of our young and diverse educational psychology clients.

There are answers to most of the perplexing questions facing public school officials.  I believe these answers can be readily found in multiple peer-reviewed journals in neuropsychology, clinical psychology, education and public policy.  Answers can also be found by mining the experiences, wants and needs of our hardworking public school teachers on the local and statewide ground level, as well as local parenting organization of various stripes.  Once science and cultural based solution are found and implemented, I believe even cynical conservative lawmakers nationwide would be more willing to pony up additional tax payer money when presented with imaginative, science based educational models in public school systems.   On the other hand, simply adding billions of dollars towards a 150-year old foundational system of education in crisis without implementing massive changes is irresponsible, unimaginative, and most likely politically  and monetarily motivated.

When politics and money are taken out of the public school education policy arena and replaced with common sense and culturally sensitive science, mixed in with local value systems, I believe we, as a nation will make great strides in the goal of educating our children.

Until that time comes, it is my wish that regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliations, our country will join together at the grass roots to amicably reach “common core” grounds of restoring our once proud public education system.

Best regards,

Dr. Gary Thompson

Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy Services

Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center, Inc.

www.earlylifepsych.com

Doctor Thompson can be reached for comment at drgary@earlylifepsych.com