Common Core Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Privacy Issues –: Data Collection from Cradle to Adulthood

It is important that you read this page carefully.  There are SEVERAL SMOKING GUNS listed below which will demonstrate to you that Common Core IS all about ‘big data’ sharing and comparing on a national level (even though you have been told that this is a big lie.)  Sneaky Sneaky!

The Common Core State Standards themselves do not mention data collection – the standards are simply a list of what skills are taught at each grade level.  Paid defenders and the official Common Core websites claim that CCSS has nothing to do with data collection.

Each standard is labeled with an alphanumeric code.  This code is used to label which standards are met by every lesson plan taught to your child.  Using this coding system, both online learning tools and traditional textbook work track everything your child learns.  In fact, especially with online learning, not only do these third party apps keep a record of which standards your child is exposed to each day, it also can track your child’s time spent on each standard and in extreme cases the camera can turn on to gage the child’s facial expression/emotional response.

Read more about Common Core tagging of aligned lesson plans and data collectionHERE .

It is accurate to state that data collection is part of the Common Core system.  By this we mean that the developers of Common Core were counting on a variety of data collection programs to measure student and teacher performance.  Obviously, if your stated goal is to create standards which boost student achievement, and teacher evaluations are going to be based on student performance metrics, data collection and analysis is a key part of Common Core *Duh!*

HERE is the document which clearly states that   “The Illinois State Board of Education may disclose confidential, personally identifiable, information of students to organizations for research and analysis purposes to improve instruction in public schools.”

Remember, the stated goal of Common Core State Standards is to create students which are college and career ready.  To measure achievement of this goal, the Common Core system would need to track and measure the students all the way through into the workforce (adulthood career.)  Look HERE to see Illinois Department of Education documents and diagrams which clearly show the Common Core data collection.  HERE is the data sharing agreement with colleges and university data.

When you think about education data collection and research, there are many moving parts that are all coordinated to work with each other – all are separate gears and wheels which on first glance seem unrelated.   However, when you step back you can see the machine that they are building.

You may be a person who accepts data collection as a part of modern life.  Some or all of the information on this page may seem OK with you.  WHAT IS DISTURBING is that officials are not explaining the specifics about data collection  AT ALL.  In fact, as Common Core rolls out, officials steer away from any and all questions about Common Core data collection and ridicule those who are concerned.  They have been caught on the record giving partial and misleading information to the public.  Also disturbing, students cannot opt out of most student data collection and related research.

Great investigative article about education ‘big data’ and how apps are collecting tens of thousands of data points on each student DAILY and then selling that data without parental consent HERE.

If you do not believe that the Common Core standards are a Trojan horse for massive data collect, here is a clip of David Coleman, ‘architect’ of the English Language Arts standards and the new college entrance exams talking about the ‘data revolution.’

SMOKING GUN?  If you have already studied the Common Core State Standards page on this website, then you know that at the heart of Common Core is the funding provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  When you look at Gates and other key players, a majority of them are in some way related to either software companies, data management systems or data consultants.  Many critics of Common Core have concluded that the Common Core system is more about ‘big data’ contractors and less about learning and ‘rigorous standards.’

Pearson Publishing’s vision of the future:  Monitoring students in their bedrooms, using massive amounts of data to analyze a students behavior and performance metrics, principals using cameras to watch every student and getting the students onto the “global agenda.”  A MUST WATCH VIDEO TO SEE WHERE THIS IS LEADING.

Data Privacy Laws and recent changes to Allow for “Big Data.”

REALLY EASY READ – BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT ALL PRIVACY LAWS HERE

Changes to FERPA (Family Education Rights & Privacy Act):

The Department of Education (DOE) has initiated changes to the regulations issued under the primary federal student-privacy statute, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The stated purpose of the changes is “to protect the privacy of education records, as intended by Congress, while allowing for the effective use of data in statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) . . . .”

In reality, DOE’s desire to stimulate the “robust use of data” to evaluate federally funded education programs seems to outweigh the congressional mandate to protect student privacy – and the proposed changes to the FERPA regulations are a blatant attempt to bypass Congress by weakening the privacy law through radical regulation.

Listed below are objections to the proposed changes.

• Authorized Representative – DOE proposes to define “authorized representative” (i.e.,the individual or entity authorized to receive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on students) in a way that greatly expands the universe of bureaucrats or even private entities that might be allowed to access PII. Throughout FERPA’s existence, DOE has interpreted the statute to allow nonconsensual disclosure of PII only to officials of state or local educational authorities, or to the agencies headed by certain federal officials (Secretary of Education, Comptroller General, or Attorney General). The proposed change would allow any of these people to designate other bureaucrats in other agencies – such as state employment or public-health agencies – or even private entities as “authorized representatives” for purposes of accessing PII. This is a radical change to the interpretation of FERPA, and a substantial limitation on its privacy protections.
• Education Program – DOE proposes to define “education program” in a way that would further expand the reach of bureaucrats into private student data. The current interpretation of FERPA allows nonconsensual disclosure of PII during audits or evaluations conducted of federally funded “education programs” that are administered by educational authorities. The proposed changes would broaden this PII access to any program that could even be marginally considered “educational,” even if not conducted by an educational authority. The concern is that designating something as an “education program” to be “evaluated” becomes an excuse for gaining access to data from that program.
• Research Studies – DOE proposes to greatly expand access to PII for use in “research studies.” Currently, FERPA allows nonconsensual disclosure of PII by educational agencies and institutions (with strict limitations) to companies that are conducting research on behalf of those agencies or institutions. The proposed changes would allow agencies further up the food chain – those that receive such PII from other agencies or institutions — to disclose that data for their own research purposes, and to do so without express legal authority.Thus, for example, a school may turn over PII to DOE as part of regular procedure and not be told that DOE is disclosing that data to a research company. And if the school discovered, and objected to, the redisclosure, DOE would not even have to point to an express legal authority for its action. “Implied authority” would be sufficient.
• Here is the application process for researchers to get access to Illinois student data
• Authority to Audit or Evaluate – DOE proposes to allow state or local educational authorities, or agencies headed by the Education Secretary, the Comptroller General, or the Attorney General, to conduct audits, evaluations, or compliance activity without establishing that they have legal authority to do so. The longstanding interpretation of FERPA is that any entity seeking to audit or evaluate a program must cite particular federal, state, or local legal authority for this activity, because FERPA itself confers no such authority. DOE proposes to allow such activities – with their consequent access to PII – to be conducted even by entities that can show no legal right to engage in them. Apparently, “I’m from the government and I’m evaluating this program” will be sufficient to access the data.
• Enforcement – DOE proposes to extend its FERPA enforcement authority beyond “educational agencies or institutions” to include any other recipients of federal funds that may misuse PII. Such entities might include, for example, student-loan lenders. While DOE’s vast expansion of access to PII would greatly increase the potential for misuse of that data, and therefore would indicate the need for broader enforcement authority, the fact remains that Congress is the only entity that is entitled to make this change. FERPA spells out DOE’s enforcement authority, and DOE cannot change this statutory law merely by changing the regulations.

There are two key points to be made regarding these proposed changes:

1) DOE is weakening longstanding student privacy protections by greatly expanding the universe of individuals and entities who have access to PII and by broadening the programs whose data might be subject to this access; and

2) DOE is attempting to evade Congress by pushing through radical policy changes through regulation rather than legislation.

Source:

Data Stewardship: Managing Personally Identifiable Information in Student Education Records.  (2010, Nov.).  IES National Center for Education Statistics.  SLDS Technical Brief.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011602

This is the newly changed definition in FERPA for Personally Identifiable Information or PII that should be a concern to every parent.  It was changed to now includes biometric markers: CLICK HERE TO SEE FERPA DOCUMENT PAGE 4

(a) The student’s name;

(b) The name of the student’s parent or other family members;

(c) The address of the student or student’s family;

(d) A personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record;

(e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name;

(f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or

(g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates.

“Biometric record,” as used in the definition for “personally identifiable information,” means a record of one or more measurable biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual.

Examples include fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting.

RECENT REPORT OF BIOMETRIC MARKER DATA COLLECTION:

Parents in Polk County, Florida are outraged after learning that students in area schools had their irises scanned as part of a new security program without obtaining proper permission. Reuter’s announced on May 30, 2013,

“It simply takes a picture of the iris, which is unique to every individual,” Rob Davis, the school board’s senior director of support services, wrote home to parents in a letter dated May 23. “With this program, we will be able to identify when and where a student gets on the bus, when they arrive at their school location, when and what bus the student boards and disembarks in the afternoon. This is an effort to further enhance the safety of our students. The Eye Swipe-Nano is an ideal replacement for the card based system since your child will not have to be responsible for carrying an identification card,” he added.

YOU CAN MAKE YOUR CHILD’S FERPA REGISTRY DATA PRIVATE (NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE.)  YOU CAN ALSO PREVENT YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM PUBLISHING/USING PHOTOS OF YOUR CHILD.

FTC FERPA warning to OPT OUT of the FERPA registry.  Please strongly consider taking this action to protect your child from fraud.

COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection) & Schools

COPPA is another privacy law which protects student data.  School applications are NOT ‘for commercial purposes’ but rather are for educational purposes.  Most legal experts believe that COPPA would prevent school app companies from using student data for commercial purposes, such as using the data to try and sell your child something.  But, what about using the data for ‘educational purposes?’

The primary goal of COPPA is to place parents in control over what information is collected from their young children online.  The Rule was designed to protect children under age 13 while accounting for the dynamic nature of the Internet.  The Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services (including mobile apps) directed to children under 13 that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children, and operators of general audience websites or online services with actual knowledge that they are collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13.  The Rule also applies to websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service directed to children.

What and how is data collected?

Great article that summarizes data collection and the Common Core HERE

Student data is collected and analyzed on on several different levels.  This list is not comprehensive but it gives you insight into different types of data collection:

• School district maintains their own data (ask your school district for this information.)  The data collected on this level varies depending on your school district’s own requirements and their participation in programs which may require data collection and sharing.
• The Illinois Department of Education receives data from the school districts:  HERE is the website page which shows the data fields in the IL Dept. of Ed SIS database (student information system.) Data from a variety of programs and standardized tests is collected here.  Of course, what is collected can be adjusted at any time.
• The US Department of Education requires each state to directly transmit aggregate data; by this we mean statistical reports about ALL Illinois students, schools and teachers but not individual student records.
• Third Parties Research:  Often, when schools recieve grant money or decide to participate in programs offered through third parties, that third party requires reporting data to track the success of their program.  Generally, your school district privacy manager will review the contractual arrangement required and make a determination about sharing this data.
• Third Party Apps:  Internet learning tools/games etc. all collect performance data.  This data is usually maintained by the company which owns the application as well as sharing the performance data from the app with the school.  While it is easy to understand that if a student is engaged in an exercise which requires them to answer questions, those answers would be saved as data. It is less obvious that a whole host of other data elements may be collected by the app.  For example, how long it took to answer the question, did the user change the answer a few times?  Some apps utilize the device camera or microphone to record the child’s facial expressions or to capture verbal answers or other auditory data.  Watch a video of the CEO from Knewton, Inc. talk about how apps will data mine your child and ‘predict’ their learning HERE.
• Testing Companies:  Common Core requires that Illinois take the CCSS aligned standardized tests.  The CCSS standardized tests are administered via computer.  The testing consortium (company) will maintain an individual record for each student as well as share the test data with the school and a variety of other government agencies.
• Self-Reporting Surveys:  Many school districts participate in programs which require them to collect personal data via student surveys administered in the classroom.  Information collected in these surveys can either be kept internal to the school or shared with third parties.

NOTE:  In Illinois student data is legally ‘owned’ by each school district.  An official within the district is tasked with making sharing and security decisions.  Unfortunately, most school officials are not adequately informed about the use of data and the impact it may have on children.

Department of Education Releases New Documentation regarding the type of demographic data that can be collected by each state

Illinois and other states are now able to collect new types of demographic information as described in ESEA regulations (a.k.a. No Child Left Behind.)  The ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION claims that they has not expanded their data collection to include ‘religion’ or ‘political affiliation’ *YET*.  It worth mentioning that while the Illinois Department of education may not be collecting this type of information, school districts may be.

SMOKING GUN?  There are SCHOOL DISTRICTS which are collecting this type of data in the guise of in-school social/behavioral surveys.   Students are asked to fill-out and self report personal and family information regarding religion, home life, behavioral traits, drug use, sexual activity etc.  These surveys are often ‘voluntary’ yet the students are not given clear instructions that they may opt out.  Example HERE.

Great article about teaching children to be ‘human capital’ instead of human beings. Mining testing data to analyze and adjust your child’s attitudes and behaviors to foster 21st century ‘global competitiveness’ HERE.

NOTE:  As a parent, you may consider having a conversation with your child regarding what sort of information is OK to share with the school and which information you deem ‘too personal.’  Many parents tell their children “when in doubt, skip answering the personal questions.”

ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION

Part F — General Education Provisions Act

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg122.html#sec1061

SEC. 1061 | SEC. 1062

SEC. 1061. STUDENT PRIVACY, PARENTAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION, AND ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS TO MINORS.

Section 445(b) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(b)) is amended —

(1) by striking paragraphs (1) through (7) and inserting the following new paragraphs:
(1) political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent;
(2) mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family;
(3) sex behavior or attitudes;
(4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior;
(5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;
(6) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;
(7) religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student’s parent; or
(8) income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program),’;

(c) DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL POLICIES CONCERNING STUDENT PRIVACY, PARENTAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION, AND ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS TO MINORS-

(1) DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF LOCAL POLICIES- Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b), a local educational agency that receives funds under any applicable program shall develop and adopt policies, in consultation with parents, regarding the following:

(A)(i) The right of a parent of a student to inspect, upon the request of the parent, a survey created by a third party before the survey is administered or distributed by a school to a student; and
(ii) any applicable procedures for granting a request by a parent for reasonable access to such survey within a reasonable period of time after the request is received.
(B) Arrangements to protect student privacy that are provided by the agency in the event of the administration or distribution of a survey to a student containing one or more of the following items (including the right of a parent of a student to inspect, upon the request of the parent, any survey containing one or more of such items):

(i) Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent.

(ii) Mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family.

(iii) Sex behavior or attitudes.

(iv) Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior.

(v) Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships.

(vi) Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers.

(vii) Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent.

(viii) Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

(C)(i) The right of a parent of a student to inspect, upon the request of the parent, any instructional material used as part of the educational curriculum for the student; and

(ii) any applicable procedures for granting a request by a parent for reasonable access to instructional material within a reasonable period of time after the request is received.

(D) The administration of physical examinations or screenings that the school or agency may administer to a student.

(E) The collection, disclosure, or use of personal information collected from students for the purpose of marketing or for selling that information (or otherwise providing that information to others for that purpose), including arrangements to protect student privacy that are provided by the agency in the event of such collection, disclosure, or use.

(F)(i) The right of a parent of a student to inspect, upon the request of the parent, any instrument used in the collection of personal information under subparagraph (E) before the instrument is administered or distributed to a student; and

(ii) any applicable procedures for granting a request by a parent for reasonable access to such instrument within a reasonable period of time after the request is received.

State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS)

As part of the stimulus bill (State Fiscal Stabilization Funds & Race to the Top Program), states were incentivized to expand their existing State Longitudinal Data System.  These state databases have been a work in progress for several years.  The idea for this database DID NOT originate with the introduction of the Common Core, however the Common Core system is designed to use this database.

As part of Common Core system, the database was expanded from womb to adulthood.  It started out as database which contained K-12 student data.  It has not been expanded to a ‘P20′ system.  This means Prenatal through to age 20 – think “college and career ready.”  HERE is the law passed to allow for the P20 database.

In addition, a Shared Learning Environment portal was added to the database concept.  This allows third parties to access certain data elements.  As you can see in the slide below, eventually employers and workforce agencies, parents, teachers, colleges and ‘other stakeholders’ will be able to log into the P-20 database.

Blogger Don’t Tread on Farm’s video of Oregon School official describing the purpose of the P20 (Prenatal to age 20) database:

Official purpose of the state longitudinal database:

Recent legislative initiatives provide funds for states to develop and implement statewide longitudinal data systems to support data-driven decisions to improve student learning and to facilitate research to increase student achievement and close achievement gaps. These data systems are intended to enhance the ability of states to manage, analyze, and use education data. The supporting legislation calls for an expansion in the amount of information included in student education records, including linkable student and teacher identification numbers and student and teacher information on student-level enrollment, demographics, program participation, test records, transcript information, college readiness test scores, successful transition to postsecondary programs, enrollment in postsecondary remedial courses, and entries and exits from various levels of the education system. To facilitate the usefulness of this information, the legislation also calls for an alignment between P–12 and postsecondary data systems, which requires linkages between student and teacher records, between preschool and elementary education, and between secondary and postsecondary education and the workforce. These linkages require data sharing across different components of the education system.

Source:

Data Stewardship: Managing Personally Identifiable Information in Student Education Records.  (2010, Nov.).  IES National Center for Education Statistics.  SLDS Technical Brief.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011602

To download the pdf, click here.

Information about the Illinois Longitudinal Data System (ILDS)

Illinois P-20 Council website HERE 

Click HERE to see the detailed report on the infrastructure for the Illinois database

Unlike other states, Illinois already has it’s own home-grown cloud storage and portal point called IlliniCloud.  Many school districts store their data in this system.  Read more about IlliniCloud HERE.

The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), along with our Education Partners, is now actively moving forward with the design and development of the state-wide Illinois Longitudinal Data System (ILDS).  The system, when fully deployed, will provide data to help to track the outcomes of Illinois students as they progress from Pre-K through Postsecondary education, and as they enter the workforce.  Longitudinal data supports an in-depth, comprehensive view of students’ progress and will ultimately help guide policymakers on where to invest time and energy to most effectively improve student achievement in our State.

The ILDS is defined by Public Act 96-0107 and enabled through federal funding, and instructs the State Board of Education to link student test scores, length of enrollment and graduation records over time.  The system also will connect students to career planning and resources, with the potential to facilitate the application process for financial aid and records for transfer students.

ILDS will serve a large stakeholder group, including:

• Illinois State Board of Education
• Local Education Authorities
• Regional offices of education and intermediate service centers
• Parents and other members of the general public
• State Legislatures
• News media
• Research organizations
• Postsecondary Institutions
• State workforce and higher education agencies
• Education Partners

Project activities will include working with the stakeholders to define the appropriate data access rights for each group while preserving the privacy of individuals per Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Illinois School Student Records Act (ISSRA).

Illinois has received two federal grants that help provide funding for the ILDS project.  The initial Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant is comprised of five major components:

1. Establishment of a Data Advisory Committee
2. Development of an Enterprise-wide Data Architecture
3. Improved Data Quality through Data Stewardship
4. Development of an Education Enterprise Data Warehouse
5. Linking of the ISBE Unique Student Identifier with Postsecondary and Employment Data

The second grant, the Statewide Longitudinal Data System Recovery Act Grant, is funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  Referred to as the ILDS Expansion Project, it is comprised of four interrelated components:

1. Establish a Statewide Transcript System for Middle and High School Students
2. Integrate Student-level Data with Teacher and Administrator Data
3. Continued Expansion and Development of Postsecondary Education Data Systems
4. Expansion of Early Childhood Data Collection Systems.

The four components also address many of the data collection requirements the state must meet as part of Phase II of the Education Fund under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Program.  Please visit our Overview page for more detailed information.

For questions regarding the ILDS project please email the ILDS Project Management Office at ILDS@isbe.net.

CLICK HERE to see recent PowerPoint presentation given by the Illinois Department of Education regarding data entry into the student records system.  This presentations show screen shots from the actual database.  Unfortunately, it does not include details about the collection of demographic information.

CLICK HERE to see the data fields which are currently being collected in the Illinois Student Information System (SIS.)  As required, Illinois is currently building a unified system for all school districts to collect state level data.

“Baby Talk” Data Set Revealed

From Missouri Education Watchdog-

Illinois will be gathering data on children from 24 hours old to 3 years old in its Student Information System (SIS).   It is not stated whether this is mandated by a federal requirement, but this information taken by the state on children less than 3 years old includes data beyond the usual information of name, address, courses taken and attendance.

The so-called ‘baby talk’ data set begins on page 52/92 from All Schools Meeting May 2011: Illinois State Board of  of School Year 2011 and Planning for School Year 2012:

Student must be identified as one of the following when student is enrolled

Preschool for All (PFA)

Head Start

Pre-K Title I

Local or Other Funding

New SIS Data Collections for School Year 2012

Birth to 3 Data Collection

Students Ages 1 day old to less than three years of age identified with Grade Level ’00′

Birth to 3

Data Elements

EI Number                                                                       Optional

Program Model                                                               Mandatory

Service location (modality) for prevention

initiative programs                                                          Mandatory

Screening for eligibility tool                                          Mandatory

Total number of home visits during the year             Mandatory

Total number of parent groups/sessions

attended during the year                                                Mandatory

Total number of hours of services for student

per week                                                                             Mandatory

Student born with a low birth weight                          Mandatory

Is student living in a foster home                                 Mandatory

Was parent married at time of student’s birth           Optional

Biological mother’s date of birth                                   Optional

Student’s family is receiving child support                 Mandatory

Student’s family is receiving TANF                              Mandatory

Student‘s family is receiving WIC                                 Mandatory

Student’s family is receiving food stamps                   Mandatory

Student’s family is receiving a Housing Subsidy       Mandatory

What is this program of tracking 1 day old babies to 3 years old called?  It’s called ”Baby Talk” (pg 65/92):

Is this a National Database?

One of the the more ‘disturbing’ aspects of the SLDS program is that the federal government, which has dangled funding out there for each state to build their database, is encouraging the states to also build their database using a shared model.  If each state builds the same database, then the end result is ONE NATIONAL database distributed over several physical locations.

The National Education Database Model is found HERE.  This model defines 400 data elements in each student record.  If all data elements were collected for a student, data experts argue that even without revealing the child’s name or other identifiers, that child would become easily identifiable based on the data profile.  Using simple techniques of data matching and cross referencing, the child’s identity could be determined with a high degree of certainty.

At this point in time, it is unknown if any state or school district has moved ahead to collect all possible data elements.

SMOKING GUN?  By law, the federal government is NOT ALLOWED to create or maintain a national student database.  I’m sure that is frustrating to the researchers and number crunchers on the federal level.  However, if each state’s database were build using a national model, these individual state databases are equivalent to one centralized national database. Sneaky huh? 

SMOKING GUN?  Officials deny that the state of Illinois or school districts will share personally identifiable information (PII)  with Federal government agencies.  Well by law, that is correct.  However, there is a potential LOOPHOLE that they are not telling you about.  Each state that administers the CCSS tests signed a contract with the testing organizations.  Within that contract there is a clause which states that the US Department of Ed can demand access to the data which the testing company has access to.  In essence, the FEDs have access to PII via the testing company.  Is this a sneaky loophole or simply a case where the contracts were poorly written?  Will this potential loophole ever be exploited?  Look HERE and HERE for additional information about this potential loophole.

Heartland Institute’s Common Core expert Joy Pullmann talks about this sharing via the testing company and what/how data is shared

Illinois Shared Learning Environment (ISLE)

Source:  http://www.isbe.state.il.us/racetothetop/PDF/rttt3_ISLE_webinar_pres_022112.pdf

SHARED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT UPDATE April 2014:  InBloom, the Gates Foundation funded vendor which developed the Shared Learning Environment platform, has been shut down by public outcry.  It is now unclear what tools/vendors will be used by school districts to facilitate the goals and concepts of a Shared Learning Environment.

Letter from the Illinois Dept. of Ed which describes participation in the ISLE and the state’s relationship with the now defunct inBloom vendor which stores and organizes the data HERE.

The Illinois Shared Learning Environment is a portal which allows computerized educational textbooks/games/materials and online testing to access student records and record performance data.  It also allows for student data, such as demographics, to be shared with these online educational applications so that the learning experience can be ‘customized’ for each student.  A school district official will be tasked with determining which educational applications have access to which student data.  

Illinois report regarding the integration of the “workforce” and career guidance into student data:  http://www.illinoisworknet.com/NR/rdonlyres/9F8294D6-2456-487F-AE8B-78A0AA1C423A/0/CompleteISLEFocusGroupReport_FINAL_Feb5_2013.pdf

OTHER GREAT ARTICLES & VIDEOS ABOUT STUDENT DATA 

Great comprehensive interview with ACLU regarding the student data collection, storage and sharing by inBloom (one of the many companies that school districts have contracted with to manage the student data and enable the functioning of the Shared Learning Environment.)

Audio testimony given by Emmett McGroarty to officials in Oklahoma.  Gives you a very good comprehensive overview of the concerns about the collection and sharing of student data under Common Core and other new education program Article which summarizes what you should be concerned about:  http://stopcommoncoreillinois.org/2013/08/13/childrens-privacy-at-risk-with-common-core-curriculum-standards-stopcommoncore/

Very good article about student data collection and sharing:  http://artvoice.com/issues/v12n29/letters_to_artvoice/goodbye_privacy

Article which summarizes what you should be concerned about:  http://stopcommoncoreillinois.org/2013/08/13/childrens-privacy-at-risk-with-common-core-curriculum-standards-stopcommoncore/

Very good article about student data collection and sharing:  http://artvoice.com/issues/v12n29/letters_to_artvoice/goodbye_privacy