Reprinted with permission from LDACA: LA
COMMON CORE
Education without Representation
State Office of Education Operating Database to Track Individuals
Without Authority
The following
letter is reposted with permission from Libertas Institute, a Utah-based
conservative think-tank. It was given to members of the
Utah legislature two weeks ago.
It concerns the
State
Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) which was
implemented in
Utah
–and in every state, thanks to federal bribery– just a few years ago.
Each
SLDS runs according to federal specs and
is interoperable. Thus, the fifty
SLDS systems function together as a “de facto” federal stalking system on children,
college students, and the members of the
U.S. workforce. Every state’s
“voluntary”
SLDS feeds its data about citizens
to the
federal
EdFacts data exchange.
Libertas Institute points out that
SLDS was created
and is being used without voter approval or representation; there was no
legislative knowledge or debate, and there has been no effort to promote
parental knowledge or to acquire parental/student consent for this
massive, lifelong data mining project.
Action step:
after you read this letter, please contact your legislators (here is contact
info for Utah legislators,
the governor and D.C.
legislators) to put them on the task of creating, at the very
least, an immediate, definite, parental-opt-out bill.
————————————————————————–
September 28, 2015
To: Members of the Administrative Rules Review Committee
Senators and Representatives,
The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) will be in your meeting tomorrow,
among other things, to explain the Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)—a large
database that stores a lengthy list of data points on each child in
Utah’s public schools. We are concerned with how this database was set up and how it’s being used; as we are unable
to attend the meeting, we wish to briefly outline key concerns for your consideration.
We allege that USOE created, and now operates, this database without any
legislative authorization or oversight. Further, the federal funding USOE has obtained
in order to build and operate the database has required them to make certain policy
commitments, as you’ll see below, that exceed their authority and circumvented any public
discussion on the matter.
This letter outlines three actions of which you should be aware:
1. The “Four Assurances” promised by Governor Huntsman
2. A grant received by USOE to build the federally compliant SLDS
3. The 2015 grant announced just last week to further develop and utilize
the SLDS
The “Four Assurances” promised by Governor Huntsman
On April 15, 2009, Governor Jon Huntsman signed an Application for Initial
Funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program, submitted to the U.S.
Department of Education. The purpose of this application was to obtain federal “stimulus” dollars;
here is the explanation from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE):
The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program is a new one-time
appropriation of $53.6 billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA). Of the amount appropriated, the U. S. Department of Education will
award governors approximately $48.6 billion by formula under the SFSF program
in exchange for a commitment to advance essential education reforms…
Without legislative authorization or guarantee, the Governor made four
assurances to the USDOE—a required step in order to receive any many. Those assurances were as
follows:
1. The State of
Utah
will take actions to “improve teacher effectiveness” and “address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers between high- and
low-poverty schools”
2. The State of Utah will “establish a longitudinal data system”
3. The State will –
1. Enhance the quality of the academic assessments it administers…
2. Comply with the requirements… related to the inclusion of children with disabilities and limited English proficient students in State assessments,
the development of valid and reliable assessments for those students, and the provision of accommodations that enable their participation in State
assessments; (Inclusion Assurance) and
3. Take steps to improve State academic content standards and student
academic achievement standards consistent with section 6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the
America COMPETES Act. (Improving Standards Assurance)
4. The State will ensure compliance with the requirements of section
1116(b)(7)(C)(iv) and section 1116(b)(8)(B) of the ESEA with respect to schools identified under
these sections. (Supporting Struggling Schools Assurance)
Thus, without any legislation to back it up, the federal government was
promised significant policy reforms in the state: common education standards (“Common Core”), new assessments, teacher evaluations, school grading, and a comprehensive data
collection system.
All of this was done in pursuit of money; less than a year later, U.S.
Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan announced that Utah had been showered
with $741,979,396 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Utah
lawmakers—and thus the public at large—were left out of the loop.
A grant received by USOE to build the federally compliant SLDS
Under the same Recovery (“stimulus”) Act,
USOE was given a grant of
$9.6 million to create the Utah Data Alliance—a longitudinal database that was fully compliant with
USDOE requirements. While data systems had obviously existed previous to this
grant, this one was geared, as USOE wrote, primarily towards satisfying questions and
requirements “asked by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Institute of Educational
Sciences (IES), SLDS grants program; the ARRA, Race to the Top (RttT); and the State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) assurances”—all federal mandates tied to funding
USOE desired.
The Utah legislature did not authorize the creation of the SLDS,
to our knowledge. The only
statutory references we have been able to identify refer to the
already-existing database. For example, Senate Bill 82 in 2013 (which passed and was signed into law) had
this language:
(e) “Utah Student Record Store” means
a repository of student data collected from LEAs as part of the state’s longitudinal data
system that is:
(i) managed by the Utah State Office of Education;
(ii) cloud-based; and
(iii) accessible via a web browser to authorized LEA users.
(2) (a) The State Board of Education
shall use the robust,
comprehensive data collection system maintained by the Utah State Onnce of
Education…According to USOE, a statewide longitudinal database—mostly complaint with
federal standards—had been in operation since 2005.
The 2015 grant announced just last week to further develop and
utilize the SLDS
On September 17, 2015, the
Institute
of
Education Sciences—a project housed
within the
U.S.
Department of Education—announced that
Utah was awarded a grant under the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System Grant Program
in the amount of _____AMOUNT______, along
with potential continuation grants to provide more funding in the years
ahead.
USOE’s application for this grant , obtained through an open records
request, sheds light on the alarming nature of this project. In order to suggest legislative
authorization for the SLDS and Utah Data Alliance, USOE argues that “The Utah State Legislature awarded
UDA partners [individual state agencies] ongoing appropriations to support
sustainability of the original infrastructure (e.g., database, researchers, technicians, project
director, and technical contracts), which demonstrates the state’s commitment to the work and mission of the UDA data warehouse.” In other words, narrow appropriations
for data projects in state agencies is being interpreted as blanket authority for, and support
of, the overall SLDS project. We feel this a misguided and unreasonable inference. Further, USDOE’s Request for Applications
document
specifies that “a successful data system rests upon a governance structure involving both State and local
stakeholders in the system’s design and implementation.” However, USOE’s application admits that only “A
memorandum of understanding governs the partnership. A governance plan
documents the policies of the partnership and is continuously updated and refined to address emerging
governance issues.” An MOU, which can continuously evolve free from vetted processes and public
input, is insufficient to govern the requirements of such a large database—one that
has significant privacy and security implications.
There are many disconcerting statements and policy priorities outlined in
USOE’s application, but our main concern here is that the real “stakeholders” have
been completely left out of the loop. From information we have gathered, the State Board of
Education was unaware of this grant application. No vote was taken on the issue. No
legislative authorization was given to compile this information on every child, make the
information available to state government agencies (including “individual-level data in
the UDA data warehouse”), or provide data to third parties. Most importantly, the true
stakeholders are almost totally unaware that this database even exists;
Utah law recognizes that “the state’s role is secondary and supportive to the primary role of a parent.”
You may be aware that Libertas Institute organized a lawsuit late last year
against the State Board of Education over its rushed adoption of Common Core, done in to obtain federal money under the Race to the Top grant. (A hearing is scheduled in a
few weeks.) We feel that a pattern exists within USOE, whereby education policy is dictated
not with input from parents and teachers, or even legislators or the State Board of
Education, but by USOE’s seemingly insatiable appetite for federal grants, which inevitably come with
significant strings.
If “strings” are to exist, then they must be openly discussed, debated, and
authorized—not agreed upon behind closed doors with the unscrutinized stroke of a pen. You as legislators have been circumvented and deemed largely irrelevant on
this issue. Significant education policies are being adopted and implemented without
public input. We encourage you to take an active interest in this issue and bring
transparency and scrutiny to USOE grant applications and the policies that necessarily follow.
Sincerely,
Connor Boyack
President, Libertas Institute
785 E. 200 S.,
Suite
2,
Lehi, UT 84043
801.901.0310
LibertasUtah.org
DOCUMENT SOURCES
1 Application for Initial Funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund Program, http://
www2.
ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/stateapps/ut-sub.pdf
“State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,” U.S. Department of Education, March 7,
2009, http://
2 www2.
ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html
“UTAH STUDENT RECORDS EXCHANGE,”
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/pdf/
3
Utahabstract.pdf
“INFORMATION RELATED TO FY15 GRANTS,”
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/
4
grant_information.asp
“Enhancing
Utah
Data Alliance
College and Career and
Evaluation and Research Capabilities
5 through Web Technology,”
http://libertasutah.org/drop/slds_2015.pdf
Related
Posted October 9, 2015 by
Christel Swasey in
How
the Common Core Initiative Hurts Kids, Teachers, and Taxpayers
Tagged with
All
states have one,
Data
Privacy Matters,
federal bribe,
get
rid of the federal slds interoperability,
get
rid of the state longitudinal database systems,
hurtful
to children,
Libertas
Institute,
Open
Letter,
slds,
State
Longitudinal Database System,
USOE
operates database without permission,
Utah
Board of Education,
Utah
Legislature,
Utah
Office of Education,
We
need an opt out bill for SLDS
· Recent Posts
