Collection of Metadata: Pre-K through Age 20

Update: HJ Heistand of NEA hates this post.

HJ Heistand's thoughtless response to me on Twitter now increases my resistance to Common Core. He had a chance to try answering my question and present the positive aspects of this education reform, which I will concede, has some benefits. Instead, he told me I don't have any credibility, so he doesn't have to answer my question.

My mission is to ask CC advocates valid questions so they might see another side of the debate and at least understand the concerns of teachers and parents. I responded to Heistand's tweet assuring us that since Mike Huckabee likes Common Core, it "can't be all bad." I wasn't sure if he meant this sarcastically or not, so I read the linked article, which offered no supporting evidence that CC is better than our previous standards. So I tweeted a link to this post and politely asked him what he thought about data mining of children's private information and the necessary expenditure states would have to carry to comply with assessment requirements. I was truly hoping for an educated response, but I guess I'm a bit naïve because I have never contradicted anyone on Twitter. He only noted my solitary reference to Beck and Malkin, which in context you will notice does not advocate believing what Beck and Malkin say about Common Core. So Heistand proceeded to use an ad hominem attack instead of respecting me, a concerned teacher who has found a LOT of troubling information from dot gov and dot org sites. ALL of my evidence comes from official sites. I do not cite anything from Beck or Malkin or anyone else as evidence for my position.

 

Heistand hypocritically cited Huckabee's approval as his evidence, however. That's okay. He and his ilk can continue making weak arguments for their beliefs, and I will continue making well-documented posts that will actually bolster our side of the issue. I guess the other side should be pitied because they don't have much evidence to back up their claims.

 

Ahh...the sweet symphony of metadata!



http://www.pesc.org/library/docs/Common%20Data%20Standards/State%20Core%20Model%2011-17.pdf

"The State Core Model is a common technical reference model for states implementing state longitudinal data systems (SLDS). It was developed by CCSSO as part of the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) adoption work with funding from the Gates Foundation.

The Model includes early childhood (EC), elementary and secondary (K12), post-secondary (PS), and workforce (WF) elements, known collectively as “P20,” and establishes comparability between sectors and between states. The State Core Model will do for State Longitudinal Data Systems what the Common Core is doing for Curriculum Frameworks and the two assessment consortia" (The State Core Model page 2).

PESC.org (Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council)

"These initial findings are promising evidence of the cognitive plasticity and malleability of brain functioning for processes related to grit" (Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance page 62). ed.gov

IRS, NSA, FBI, FEMA: Acronyms that now trigger feelings of anger, repulsion and distrust. In light of today's FBI hearing, in which Director Mueller protested repeatedly, "I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that," and Rand Paul's valiant effort to hold our government accountable for its violation of the 4th amendment, the Common Core objective of collecting and storing personal metadata on every child seems all the more insidious.
I realize not everyone has time to excavate the Internet for the truth about Common Core. It's easier to listen to Glenn Beck's interpretations and read Michelle Malkin's warnings about this mysterious curriculum. These and other conservative commentators are aiding the effort to pull back the curtain of obscurity that the government has used to separate parents from their children. But hearing it from the horse's mouth is even better, because no one can accuse you of being a hysterical, paranoid conspiracy theorist. When you present Common Core advocates with facts, they will still call you nasty words like "Tea Partier/Bagger" and say you are anti-education and "on the fringe," but they cannot deny what the Department of Education and official Common Core sites have posted.
I want every parent with school-age children to know this about Common Core, if nothing else, because the collection of data of students should be enough to concern even the most staunch liberal.
My sources are not from conspiracy sites; I strongly urge you to at least skim over these to realize how authentic is the threat to your child's privacy:
1. Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/research/
2. The State Core Model http://www.pesc.org/library/docs/Common%20Data%20Standards/State%20Core%20Model%2011-17.pdf
Parents, you should be aware that data about your children has long been collected and disseminated via data systems in your school district. In my district, we have what is termed a "data dashboard" where we can quickly look at a summary of our students' scores on the state Benchmark tests and English language level (if applicable). Each teacher is privy to her students' data exclusively. We use this data to place students in remedial math and reading programs, design lesson plans for specific students, and organize collaborative groups. In my experience, it's an invaluable tool that doesn't raise my concerns about violating a student's privacy.
When Common Core is implemented and students begin the assessments in 2015, your child's data will be stored in a nationally accessible data base. And it will not include just test scores.
Again, from PESC.org:

"[The State Core Model] is designed to support dropout early warning intervention systems (DEWIS), positive behavior intervention systems (PBIS) and response to intervention (RTI), balanced scorecard performance management, and provide and extensible model capable of accommodating future needs."

 

In plain English, teachers and other observers will not only collect data from your child's tests, but will interpret your child's behavior and impose interventions. Skeptical?

I urge you to look at this Department of Education draft: Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance.

This brief defines grit, tenacity, and perseverance as non-academic characteristics that students must possess to be successful. Schools will now assess your child's character and implement strategies to change him/her. (Pages in parenthesis refer to the location in the Adobe document, not the page numbers on the document.)

 

"It is the responsibility of the educational community to design learning environments that promote these factors [grit, tenacity, and perseverance] so that students are prepared to meet 21st-century challenges" (page 7).

 

"This brief explores the possibility that grit, tenacity, and perseverance can be malleable and teachable, and discusses the potential of these factors to significantly increase success for all students" (page 8).

 

What would an assessment of your child's character look like? The draft provides a model for a character report card (page 57):
 

Teachers will observe students' behavior to complete charts like the example above.
The draft suggests various methods to collect this data: self report, informant reports, school records, and behavioral task performance (pages 11, 12). Self report and school records seem pretty innocuous, but what about informant reports and behavioral task performance?
"Informant reports," a label with connotations that evoke the practices of the KGB and Hitler Youth, are conducted by parents, teachers, and outside observers using observations, video and field notes.
Far more mysterious and unsettling are the methods used in "behavioral task performance." Brace yourself. Glenn Beck warned parents that schools will use advanced technology to collect biofeedback on your child. Here's the proof (page 62):

"The field of neuroscience also offers methods for insight into some of the psychological

resources associated with grit, especially effortful control. Using neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI, it is possible to examine which parts of the brain are active during times of anxiety or stress and the effects of some interventions" (pages 62, 63).
Using these sensors in schools is not sensible, the draft concedes, not because of privacy violation, but because of the cost of such devices (as if cost has been a consideration).
But don't despair; technology offers other means of collecting your child's biofeedback (page 63):

 

"While it is impractical to use fMRI in the classroom (i.e., it is a prohibitively expensive, room-sized machine), Ed Dieterle and Ash Vasudeva of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation point out that researchers such as Jon Gabrieli and Richard Davidson are beginning to use multiple methods to explore how specific brain activity is correlated with other cognitive and affective indicators that are practical to measure in school settings."

 

Assessment of your child will continue into adulthood, effectively violating his/her right to privacy. Of all the assessment and intervention plans, this one chills me the most. Note the Age Level column(page 69).

 

Post-secondary assessment and interventions will include such non-cognitive outcomes as "mindset interventions," "resiliency programs," and "character education." Again, I want to emphasize, this is after students have graduated high school, at which point they are adults with rights as U.S. citizens. The purpose of these interventions is to take advantage of  the "malleability" of young minds and reshape them according to a worldview promoted by the Gates Foundation and the other corporations that provide funding. If you think this worldview will be secular and neutral, consider their recommended approaches to "improving executive functions for children in the early school years" including

"Martial arts and mindfulness practices. An increasing number of studies suggest that

martial arts, which traditionally emphasize self-control and character development, can
significantly improve executive functions for 5- to 11-year-olds. Mindfulness training,
emphasizing regulating attention to focus in a nonjudgmental way on experiences in the
present moment, can significantly improve executive functions. There is some evidence that yoga may also have potential to increase these skills" (page 71).

Many adults find relief for joints and muscles using yoga stretches, and some choose to practice the Eastern meditation element of the exercise. Should children ages 5-11 be subjected to "mindfulness practices" i.e. meditation?
All of this brings me back to my initial statement, that the collected data about your children is entered into a national database accessible to an untold number of people. I did not choose the word "metadata" to refer to the information that will be collected about your child just because it now has a negative connotation. Here it is, a veritable celebration of metadata collection (The State Core Model page 4):

The Department of Education concedes that collecting this data may cause concerns about ethics but assures us the advantages gained with this data model far outweigh potential violations of privacy:

 

"Of course, privacy is always a concern, especially when leveraging data available in the 'cloud' that users may or may not be aware is being mined. However, another emergent concern is the consequences of using new types of personal data in new ways. Learners and educators have the potential to get forms of feedback about their behaviors, emotions, physiological responses, and cognitive processes that have never been available before. Measurement developers must carefully consider the impacts of releasing such data, sometimes of a sensitive nature, and incorporate feedback mechanisms that are valuable, respectful, and serve to support productive mindsets" (Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance page 66).

Nothing about this concession lowers my anxiety about how this personal information will be exploited; in fact this confirms that privacy and ethics will be violated, and the violators will demand that we sacrifice our rights for the common good. (The "common good" is a motif teachers are expected to inculcate into the minds of their malleable pupils according to the Common Core Curriculum Map lesson plans--but that's the topic for a future post.)
P20 is a "longitudinal data system" that aims to make student data accessible to "parents, students, teachers, principals, LEA leaders, community members, unions, researchers, and policymakers" ("Race to the Top" page 4). FERPA does not apply, regardless of their assurance that data collection will be legal--FERPA has been modified to allow all stakeholders, now including LEA leaders, community members, unions, researchers, and policymakers, unbridled access. Accepting the conditions of this system was one of the Race to the Top requirements. Use this government site to see whether your state accepted the grant in exchange for selling students' privacy rights: http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/stateinfo.asp .

I implore you to continue researching Common Core by visiting these and other dot gov and dot org sites--please cull information directly from the source because such efforts will enhance your understanding of the ultimate agenda and bolster your case when you educate others about this Orwellian takeover of education.