This can’t be an easy time for New York State Education Commissioner John King. The commissioner, who came into office not long ago with a bold reform agenda, is increasingly seeing those plans come under fire.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is the latest to question King. He sent a letter to the state Education Department recommending that the massive data collection program that is supposed to provide detailed information on all students to inBloom for analysis be suspended.
The company has received $100 million from the Gates Foundation to collect data that can be used to quickly provide districts with more accurate assessment tools. But parents from New York City to Buffalo are extremely concerned about who will have access to this personal information and how it will be used.
And with information frequently being stolen and systems hacked, parents put little faith in a company’s promises of safeguards.
Until recently, King has been able to sidestep criticism about the Common Core curriculum and the new teacher evaluations. But after months of failing to ease the concerns of many vocal parents and teachers, King, is dealing with growing resistance instead of less. The criticism extends to the SED and the Board of Regents, too.
Last week, State Senator John Flanagan issued an unflattering report based on his own findings. It recommended slowing down the implementation of the Common Core and reducing the number of tests students take.
This article appears in Dec 18-24, 2013.
Tim, What is your evidence that dumping data to InBloom and back again will result in a way “to collect data that can be used to quickly provide districts with more accurate assessment tools?” Sounds like an uncritically quoted statement from Commissioner King and it does not make sense. “Data collection” takes place in the district. RCSD already has claimed that we have data analysis systems that are superior to NYSED’s expensive data dashboards. The state has blackmailed us into this unaffordable gimmick because Gates, McKinsey and the rest are into “big data” and big money for the digital education market. I am hoping Sheldon Silver pushes forward on ethical and public finance grounds. A quote from RCSD Finance Committee Meeting minutes, July 2013:
“Annmarie Lehner explained that NYSED is promoting a new data portal available to school districts for data formatting and warehousing. She stated that this service will be free of charge to districts for the first year, and then for a cost of $5 per student in subsequent years. Ms. Lehner described progress in creating an in-house data warehouse for RCSD that is much more accurate and comprehensive, which will be updated almost in real time. She pointed out that the District will have greater assurance of information privacy and security by managing their own in-house data warehouse.” (But not too long after this stance, our administration about-faced into full compliance with InBloom plans based on RTT requirements.)
All we need to do is look to the debacle with Target and know that this personal data is not going to be safe. inBloom’s website even states that it is not responsible for the security of personal data. I would also like to know why we need inBloom to handle the data. We currently have data collection systems in place within school districts that allow the district personnel and parents to access data and use that data appropriately. Our children’s personally identifiable data does not need to be uploaded to inBloom to be made accessible to 3rd parties. This is just the federal government stretching it’s tentacles and trying to access information that it legally has not right to collect under the guise of the RttT carrot.
New York is the ONLY state in the ENTIRE country to stick with InBloom. The other five states who signed on originally have ALL backed out.
BTW, King has not actually been ‘dealing’ with the growing resistance. He has been tolerating the masses but could care less he has nothing to lose, since he is not elected, and lots of money to gain. Shame on him, Meryl Tisch, and state.
Well, Tim, let us see why people are unhappy: take an untested curriculum based on faulty statistics from flawed report, developed by the company that also designs the tests, and force it on districts with no chance for review and examination (or proofreading at the printer, apparently), and you get angry teachers and parents. Add to that the veiled agenda of globalization, reduced emphasis on American History and pride and claims of rigor that translate to daily boredom and limited creativity, and the distress grows. Data mining is the icing on the cake. Dr King never once acknowledged any of the criticism and points of contention, raised by concerned parents and teachers. Yes, this tide is swelling as the realities of this educational catastrophe become more clear. It is imperative that CCSS be stopped before more damage is done.
The state has no business collecting this data in the first place. Education is a LOCAL concern. There’s nothing anyone can do for my child from Albany which requires them to know such personal information. Albany has no intention of protecting this information. The very purpose for collecting it was to sell it. And they’ve already been paid. So they’re just collecting the info to keep up their part of the bargain -_-
Despicable.
Tim, you need to do a better job at researching and reporting this issue. You do a disservice to yourself and others by doing a poor job. There is absolutely no evidence that collecting students personal data will help identify students at risk of not graduating, track student progress, or allow for the personalizing of instruction. These are the responsibilities of teachers and administrators of a local school district. You know, the people that actually know the student. What NYSED and inBloom are offering is a service that no one needs. Ask the right question: Why do we need this? RttT offered a revenue stream for those in the “education business” and they are many who will be cashing in as long as the money lasts. “Students first”? Hardly.
Tim, ask the question, why does NYSED or inBloom need this data? To track student progress? To identify students at risk for not graduating? To individualize or personalize instruction?! These are the responsibilities of teachers and administrators of a local school district. You know, those education professionals that actually work with and interact with the student every day. NYSED and a private corporation have nothing to offer in these areas. It is an unnecessary invasion of student’s personal privacy AND it is a service that no one needs. RttT offered a revenue stream for so-called “reformers” and people in the education “business”. It is a ruse; and your reporting shows that you have been completely taken in.
Tim, did you ask about what are the evidence that these Common Core State Standards have been proven and they are getting our kids ready for college? These standards have never been tested, they are age appropriate at all. First graders learn about Mesopotamia, when they barely start to read and to spell and let’s not start to talk about the Common Core Math which is ridiculous. Then there is the data sharing with InBloom, which will be free of charge to districts in the first year but then it will cost them at least $5/student, without talking about the 400 points of information NYSED wants to share with InBloom. Moreover, NYS is the only state in the whole country that stay with the data sharing, while the other states that sign up to it, decided to back down….ask yourself why! What is the agenda behind all this? Why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have to be involved with the education. Our children are used as guinea pigs and also Bill Gates said that with this new type of education we will not know if it works for real before at least 10 years…. 10 years.
Dr. King’s listening tour around the state has been a farce…. NYSED is not listening to the concerns of parents and educators, but they keep on wanting to push their own agenda without giving out the right answers. Apart from the fact that NYS sign up for these standards before seeing them, the introduction has been botched as districts were receiving the modules, as they were coming out… it is really like learning to fly a plane while it is built and this is simply disgraceful because who is paying are the children and NYSED doesn’t care about that. Dr. King was not even acknowledging students asking questions during some of the various meeting, let alone answering their questions. We do not need someone like that as a Commissioner. Additionally, Governor Cuomo said at the beginning of his mandate that he was going to be an advocate for our children with regards to their education and now he totally disappear on this issue.
The state of education in New York State is dismal and parents, teachers and educators are fighting this Common Core for a reason: we see what it is going on in our houses and in our schools and we are very concerned.
The main point against Common Core is still being missed, although the first comment touches on it. Much of the CC is developmentally inappropriate. I have been waiting for child development folks to weigh in on the expectations being forced on young children, in particular. Teachers are expected to teach 5 year olds science concepts such as germination and pollination and vocabulary such as nectar and deciduous when they don’t even know what the word “opposite” means! The city has some of the best teachers anywhere, but they are being forced to cram very abstract and sophisticated material down the throats of children at the expense of doing what they know is best. And yet, according to APPR, it is the teachers who are failing because so few children can meet these unrealistic expectations.