The Devil is in the Data - Issues with inBloom

"Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: 'Trust us. We won’t abuse the data we collect.' For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power."

President Obama, Jan 17, 2013

Our President's recent declaration regarding the government's place in data collection is in such direct opposition with the requirements outlined in the Race to the Top, that this post was necessary if not to simply try to wrap my head around the hypocrisy.  As outlined in my previous posts, the Race to the Top program was implemented at the beginning of the recession in order to entice states to sign on to its provisions, with the promise of $4B to be distributed among those who committed to the program the fastest. Not only is the swift implementation wrought with myriad problems with educational programs, curriculum, and testing, but its arrival in the dark of night without proper legislative and public review has left many citizens without sufficient understanding of the full implications. In an eerie instance of slight of hand, US Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan instituted changes to the FERPA law, which in its essence, strips parents of the right to withhold consent to data sharing in a new Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS). 

Let's break that down: 

Statewide - across all states. The argument for the SLDS is that up until now, school systems have used their own data systems, and if a student moves from one state to the other, the new school can access their records immediately. This is said to conjure images of schools awaiting a package of records to arrive cross-country via pony express. Any person who has been sentient within the 21st century knows that records can be transmitted digitally and received almost instantaneously - but the contrary advertising is quite strong. 

Longitudinal - over time. This should be the most disconcerting word of the phrase. The RttT verbiage reveals the intent to track students from P-20. Preschool through age TWENTY. How early is preschool anyway?  The mantra of the high-stakes testing crowd is that "parents should want to know if their children are on track to be college and career ready." How can anyone surmise whether an 8 year old, or even 13 year old, is "on track"? What is the end-game in tracking a student's performance data in such a way? Will we be directing students into programs more "suited" to their individual aptitudes and abilities? If a child scores poorly on the high-stakes testing I wrote of in an earlier post, will he or she be relegated to a "vocational track" ? And at what point in a child's schooling do we begin to determine their "college and career readiness"? Students change and grow in so many ways throughout their schooling. I can't even count how many students, who were ambivalent about their studies in the ninth grade, who have come back to visit me in their senior year to not only thank me for what I taught them (either about literature or life), but also to apologize for not taking their classes more seriously. Over the course of 4 years, these students learned, grew, changed, focused, and developed goals for their lives and themselves. How dare we, as a nation presume to track and pigeonhole students based on hollow points of data? 

"I look forward to the day when we can look a child in the
eye at age 9 or 10 and say: You are on track to  succeed
in college and careers."  - Arne Duncan

Even more concerning is the SLDS's similarity to the Federal Data Services Hub required through the Affordable Care Act. I can't help but wonder whether these two webs were envisioned and designed to dovetail each other. The implication would result in cradle to grave tracking of an individual. But how much information could they really have anyway?

Data - information. According to the inBloom website, states will be collecting up to 400 points of data to upload into the inBloom system https://www.inbloom.org/sites/default/files/docs-developer-1.0.68-20130118/ch-data_model-enums.html. These points include Personally Identifiable Information on students. Aside from grades and assessment scores, such as their names, addresses, phone numbers, religious affiliation, social security number, discipline records, ethnicity, disabilities and health issues. Although New York State Education Department officials have repeatedly indicated that "these types of data points have 'always' been provided to the state", they are being somewhat disingenuous. This information has always been provided in the AGGREGATE - meaning the information is not attached to individually identified students, but rather as a whole cohort. For example "there are 270 students classified as special education, 32 receive speech services, 120 receive a 3 on grade level assessment, etc.. "

inBloom information would look like this:

Johnny Appleseed, 32 Maple Lane, Birchwood Commons, NY (718) 555-6789, 

A history of the development of inBloom can be found here:
http://bit.ly/1aAWbEp

(insert race),  D.DO.B: 4/22/2001; 
receives free lunch, lives with grandmother, single parent home,

 receiving counseling 2x per week of Oppositional Defiance Disorder, ADHD

Currently placement:  Self-Contained Special Education

Assessment Scores Grade 6:  ELA - 1; Math - 2

Out of School suspension 3x in year 2014-2015, 
stabbed teacher with pen, set test on fire, punched lunch aide, 

Vocational Track, etc.

Now imagine this type of information following a child and being accessible to virtually ANYONE, including potential employers, colleges, law enforcement, etc. until the child turns 20 (or beyond, as parameters for data wipe have not been addressed). And remember, because of the changes to the FERPA law, parents cannot advocate for their children's right to privacy against this data being shared through the state education department to inBloom. Like it or not, the PII will be uploaded to the inBloom cloud.

 System - an institution. The proponents of the SLDS have indicated that this type of data accumulation and storage will "assist parents, teachers, and school administrators in identifying at-risk indicators and/or selecting programs tailored to individual student needs." This sales-pitch neglects the fact that schools (and teachers) have been doing this forever through their established community relationships. It is not clear how providing data for market-based consumption could improve the individualized instructional strategies cultivated through personalized attention and rapport within the existing student support systems. And better yet, having every one of the nation's children's personal and individually identifiable information in a data-cloud creates an almost irresistible target for identity thieves. 

It's also an irresistible marketplace for software developers, publishers, even pharmaceutical companies. In the 21st century, data is king. One needs only to look at how google's algorithms crawl your personal email and tailor advertisements to your "interests", or how the search engine monitors your internet queries and offers related ads. And this is actually the primary reason for the relentless push for the adoption of the provisions of Race to the Top. According to Bill Gates, the foremost proponent of the CCSS, in an address to the 2009 National Conference of State Legislators: "For the first time, there will be a large uniform base of customers eager to buy products."  In other words, the inBloom system is merely the largest lead-bucket in the history of direct marketing. Companies will not only have access to information driving the types of products that they need to develop, but they will also have all the information they need to directly contact the end-users. Imagine receiving the following email, produced through inBloom data mining: "Have a child with ADHD? Try our new stress-relief program designed specifically for parents!" 

Given the Target data breach, the subsequent revelation that Neiman Marcus and several other department stores were also hacked for consumer financial data, and instances of NSA and IRS over-reach, Americans' concerns with data security is at the forefront. This government, through its Race to the Top mandates, has no right to put our children's identity and future at risk.

Starve the Beast

New York is currently the ONLY state to still be considering uploading our children's data for corporations to sift through. There are a number of bills that have been offered for consideration during the current NYS legislative session.  Contact your state Senator and Representative to voice your concerns about this very important invasion of privacy and ask them to support the bill to WITHDRAW completely from inBloom.

Have your children refuse to take the High-Stakes tests that have no positive impact on their education. See the links on the right for more information.

  Fighting the federal intrusion into what should be a state and local matter has proven to be comparable to battling the Krakken. There are many more tentacles ( the intrusion of unqualified TFA ranks; privatization; etc…) that will be addressed in upcoming entries.