Common Core Part 6

Intrusive Monitoring Devices and Common Core

          I have decided to take a short tangent from my traversal of the old Arizona standards versus the new Common Core standards for English Language Arts to address a particularly troubling concept that I have seen addressed in every speech against Common Core that I have heard.  This has to do with the a large assortment of intrusive monitoring devices that are supposedly related to Common Core.  Claims I have heard range from iris scans on buses to brain wave readers on students to assess engagement to a pressure-sensitive computer mouse to gauge a student's pulse.  So I have decided to address these concerns at this time.
          Before I even get to the facts and my own opinions, I would like to lay some groundwork for this particular post.  I have heard vitriolic accusations from both sides of the aisle on this topic.  I have heard (and more often seen posted) name calling, aspersions about individuals' intelligence (or lack thereof) and a wide variety of other unproductive word vomit.  This post will contain none of those things.  This is about finding the facts and coming to personal conclusions based on those facts.  People who are passionate about educating the children of this country need to stop beating each other up, start listening to one another, and work together to improve public education.  Okay, enough with the soap box.  On to the facts ...

The Facts:

• Common Core is a set of academic standards for English Language Arts and Math.  This means it is a list of things students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade.  It is NOT a list of text books that should be used, instructions on how teachers should teach, or even a list of data that should be collected.
• Race to the Top and NCLB/ESEA Waivers (see posts 1 and 2) both included longitudinal data systems in their requirements.  However, this is a separate requirement from Common Core.
• Wikipedia defines a longitudinal data system as a "data system capable of tracking student information over multiple years in multiple schools." 
• Arizona received two grants from the federal government to develop a longitudinal data system.  These grants were received in 2007 and 2012.  The first grant was received long before the adoption of Common Core.
• According to ADE's (Arizona Department of Education) website the system is designed to provide "longitudinal student achievement, absences, enrollment, and withdrawal data at both the district and school levels compared to the state results. Teacher dashboards help teachers know more about their students to support classroom decisions and provides student-level details on AIMS, AZELLA, and ACT results." 
• In a draft form of a report written by the US Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology, entitled Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century, the authors discuss a method that has been used in an online tutoring system entitled Wayang Outpost.  This system uses a facial expression camera, a posture analysis seat, a pressure mouse, and a wireless skin conductance sensor to measure physiological responses during learning session.
• The methods used by Wayang Outpost are referred to in the report as being both impractical for classroom use and overly intrusive.  Other methods listed in the report, such as programs that monitor (based on time on task, use of hints and helps, and other such methods that help computer programs personalize instructions) are recommended for additional research and potential use.
• Common Core is listed twice in the document.  In both cases, it mentions the math standards which state that students must "Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them."  The authors purport that the inclusion of perseverance in the mathematics standards are an indication that professionals in the education sector recognize the need for one of the title attributes (perseverance) if students are to be successful. 
• The document lists high standards as a necessity for teaching grit, tenacity and perseverance, but also includes excess content standards as a barrier to teachers having time to teach these qualities.  It is unclear whether the report is more complementary or negative toward high standards (and by inference Common Core).
• A school district in Florida recently installed iris scanners on buses in an effort to enhance security.  Parents were not properly notified or given the opportunity to opt out before the pilot program began.  The local school board has since admitted and apologized for their mistake and put the program on hold.  This program was locally instituted by a local school board in an effort to enhance security.  The program had no relation to Common Core.

My Opinion:

          Data collection is a very touchy topic, especially with the recent federal abuses of some of that data.  Parents want to know their children's data is secure and not being used with nefarious intentions.  When children make mistakes (either academically or behaviorally), we want a system that can forgive and allow our children to move forward without those mistakes being an eternal weight to their progress.  But at the same time, we want individualized education.  We want our children challenged enough to reach their potential without overburdening them with problems that are beyond their present abilities.  We want problems (academic and behavior) detected early and appropriate interventions applied when necessary.  We certainly don't want them slipping through the cracks.  But all of these things require the use of data.
          Teachers cannot, through their own observations, provide all of these things for all of the students they teach.  And with all of the additional responsibilities that have been foisted onto them in recent years, they need systems that can analyze student data and help them respond in a timely manner.  I watched with amazement a few years ago as I observed a teacher utilizing a Smart Board.  The teacher had just finished teaching a concept and put a question on the board.  Students had "clickers" in their hands.  They selected the answers they thought were correct.  The teacher looked at the results as they came in and modified her teaching speed based on those answers.  She knew immediately which students were struggling and was able to give them extra help later in the class when students were working on assignments.  This kind of data use is incredibly powerful.
          Likewise, tracking students from school to school is vital to student success.  If a student is struggling with reading and transfers schools, the receiving school needs to begin supports or interventions immediately.  If they wait for a quarter to pass so that grades are available at the new school, they have lost valuable time to help that student.  Or if a student has had behavior problems, a receiving school may be able to put a behavior plan in place or establish clear boundaries, expectations, and supports to prevent similar problems.  If a student is changing schools because he has been bullied, the receiving school can use that information to alert teachers and playground aides or hall monitors to be on the lookout if they need to step in and prevent problems.  This information can also be provided by parents, but sometimes that doesn't happen.
          Aggregate data is also important to improving teaching and learning.  Aggregate data is data that lists information for groups of students but lacks individually identifying data.  What percent of students in a district or a school receive free or reduced lunch?  What percent of fourth grades meet or exceed the state's math standards?  What percent of English Language Learners (non-native English speakers) gain English proficiency in a given time span.  This kind of data can help educators determine which policies and procedures are working and which need to be reconsidered.  Aggregate data should not be the only determining factor in such decisions, but it is one valuable piece to the puzzle.
          Aggregate data is the only kind of data transferred to the federal government.  I know of no proposals to change this policy.  The federal government asks for averages and percentages.  They do not ask for individual student data.  (FERPA laws have recently been altered and I plan to research the changes for my next post.)
          The intrusive data monitoring devices referred to in the report Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century have nothing to do with Common Core, are not endorsed nor recommended by the US Department of Education, and would have to be selected by local school boards in order to be used in classrooms.  Maybe there is some wayward district out there considering the use of such devices.  The iris scan fiasco in Florida certainly proves that some school boards make unfortunate decisions without thoroughly considering the consequences of their actions.  If this is the case with your school board, stand up, complain, get involved, and get the instigators voted out of office.  This is a local decision (as it should be).
          In conclusion, I am not sure how data collection became such an integral part of the anti-Common Core movement.  The strings that tie their mention to Common Core are tenuous at best (or worst).  Appropriate data collection is, and has always been, an integral part of educating children.  In the past, data has been collected in students' files, teachers' grade books, and colleges' admissions offices.  Computerization of this data makes is both more accessible and more powerful (for good and bad).  Safety and privacy concerns must be addressed.  Data systems must be designed with the sensitivity of the data in mind.  Concerned individuals need to make sure their schools, districts, and states are meeting their expectations for the collection, use, security, and propagation of data.  However, liking or disliking data collection is no reason to pass judgment on Common Core.  Common Core is a statement of what a student should know and be able to do by the end of each grade, not a dictate on how or what data should be collected.