Home Education Magazine

May-June 2004 - Articles and Columns

Taking Charge - Larry and Susan Kaseman

Let's Keep Homeschoolers Out Of Public School ID Systems

This column will discuss reasons the ID numbers and databases are being established, problems with them, and what we can do to help ensure that we homeschoolers are not drawn into them.

New Systems for Collecting and Using Data on Students

A major federal education act called No Child Left Behind was passed in 2001. It extended federal funding for some education programs already in existence and added new elements, including requirements that states greatly increase testing of public school students and that states report much more detailed data on students. The reports are supposedly designed to show whether federal goals in education are being met and whether federal tax dollars are being well spent. (Of course, many questions are being raised about whether state-mandated standardized tests and complex reporting systems actually show what children have learned and are at all effective in making sensible decisions about children's educations.)

It is worth noting that the U. S. Constitution does not give the federal government authority over education. Since the Constitution also states that any power not given to the federal government goes to the states, in the past most statutes pertaining to education have been state statutes, not federal. However, in recent years the federal government has been increasing its power and authority in education by offering federal tax dollars to states that are willing to comply with requirements set by the federal government. In the case of No Child Left Behind, the federal government does not have the authority to directly require testing or reporting, but it can refuse to give money to states that do not follow federal guidelines for testing and reporting. Here is an example of how accepting money from the government leads to increased government control. In addition, the only way to avoid this testing and reporting would be for a whole state to decide to refuse federal dollars for education.

To comply with the increased reporting required by No Child Left Behind, state departments of education in conjunction with local public school districts are changing the way information on public school students is collected and reported. In the past, school districts typically conducted school censuses that included all the children in the district. (Many homeschoolers have participated in such school censuses, often by giving the census takers the information they had already submitted to the state or their local school district in compliance with homeschooling statutes or regulations.) School districts would typically total or "aggregate" census information and send the numerical results to the state department of education. They usually did not report personal details about individual students.

However, No Child Left Behind requires reports that supposedly show whether students, schools, and local districts are progressing. (Those that do not measure up to No Child Left Behind standards may lose federal dollars and standing.) Among the data to be reported on each student are: gender, race, primary disability, grade, economic status, and English proficiency status. This leads to an astonishing number of subpopulations, such as 780 for graduates and 3,120 for dropouts!

Many state departments of education have decided that a new system is needed to collect and report data required by No Child Left Behind. Among the reasons:

? It is easier and more efficient for the state to aggregate the data than to train personnel in each district to do so. The complexity of aggregating data into all the new subpopulations would be a burden for districts, especially since they are already feeling the crunch of budget cuts.

? As students move from one district to another, it is difficult to keep track of which district is counting which students. With a statewide system, each student will only be counted once (assuming, of course, that the system works the way it is supposed to).

? Data for No Child Left Behind has to be clearly defined and consistent throughout the state. Again, it is easier and more efficient for the state department of education to handle all the data than to make sure that all districts are being consistent.

? Sometimes data has to be linked to specific individuals to determine whether federal standards are being met. For example, suppose a school district reports that it has 4 students with low proficiency in English in sixth grade at the beginning of a given school year and 4 at the end. Without knowing the names or some other identifying information about each of these students, it is impossible to tell whether the same 4 students still have low proficiency or whether all 4 made remarkable progress and then moved out of the district while 4 new students with low English proficiency moved in, or something in between.

? Sometimes data has to be disaggregated. For example, data about graduation is aggregated so what is reported is the total rather than a list of the names of students who graduated. However, No Child Left Behind also requires that the number of graduates be reported by gender, race, disability, economic status, etc. So the date has to be disaggregated or broken down into subpopulations, which further complicates the reporting process.

Therefore, many state departments of education are initiating new systems for collecting data on students. Specifics vary from state to state. Wisconsin's system will be used here as a specific example. To find out details about your state's system, visit the web site of your state department of education.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WI DPI) explains that "Wisconsin's Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) is an electronic data collection system that will be used to follow the movements and progress of student groups as measured by such indicators as attendance, graduation, acquisition of English proficiency, and achievement on statewide tests."

Before July, 2004, school districts will be required to send the WI DPI a list of the following data for all their students: Student's first and last name, birth date, gender, and race/ethnicity. During the 2004-05 school year, parent(s)/guardian(s)'s names, school enrollment date, and school exit/withdrawal data will also be required. Information that will be optional indefinitely includes: Student's middle name or initial and suffix; student's former names, nicknames, and aliases; parent(s)'s middle name or initial; student's place of birth; and local student ID number. However, the WI DPI states that, "Districts are strongly encouraged to provide BOTH required and (if available) optional data. The more data that are available for WSN [Wisconsin Student Number] assignment purposes, the more efficiently the process will operate for your district and other districts." [Italics in original]

Once the data is received, the DPI will assign a Wisconsin Student Number (WSN) to each student in the state. This number will stay with each student throughout their school years. The DPI will tell each district the numbers assigned to its students. Beginning in September, 2004, districts will use these numbers to send the DPI information required by No Child Left Behind. This means that for the first time, the state department of education will receive specific information about individual students that it can identify. It will have much more information about students and their families than it did in the past.

It is essential that we homeschoolers understand our rights regarding such student ID systems. No Child Left Behind only requires information about students attending schools that receive federal education dollars authorized under this act. Clearly, homeschoolers as homeschoolers do not receive such federal money and therefore should not be included in such systems. However, there will inevitably be pressure to include private school students in the new systems, especially if they receive federal education money directly or indirectly. Officials may also argue that all children should be included because some private school students eventually enter the public schools.

Problems with Student ID Numbers

The use of student ID numbers raises a number of serious concerns.

? The idea of assigning children a number and collecting, storing, sorting, and using data on them is troublesome to many people who object to the depersonalization and the having the state track what they are doing, record it, and make children and their families an open book to officials looking for scapegoats.

? Parents and students become accustomed to revealing information as though they owed it to the state so that if they are doing something the state does not like, corrective measures can be taken, especially since computers make it frighteningly easy to locate people with a given characteristic or experience and to identify people who have two or more "suspicious" entries in their records. It is then very easy to blame problems on students or parents or families and overlook factors such as schools, poverty, the educational establishment's interest in protecting itself, etc.

? The use of student ID numbers undermines privacy. Both the state and local school districts will have specific information about individual students that only local school districts used to have. The more people who have access to data, the less secure it is and the greater the likelihood that it will be misused. The WI DPI itself states: "Care should be taken to ensure that student data are not inappropriately shared outside DPI. Do we need to revise state law?" It also promotes the new system by claiming that, "This system will allow educators to (1) better account for students who move or are highly mobile, (2) more readily exchange student records among school districts, and (3) respond more quickly to student needs." Clearly the WI DPI plans to use the data for more than reporting for No Child Left Behind!

? Once student ID numbers have been assigned, it will be very easy to add more data about individual students. Recall the statement quoted above strongly encouraging school districts to submit optional as well as required information. The potential for the types and amount of information that could be collected, stored, sorted and used is mind-boggling. When the state develops databases that have a lot of information about citizens, it has a lot more power and control over them.

? The amount of information collected and stored about each student increases the potential for errors. It is not clear whether or how individuals will be able to check their records for accuracy and correct them if they are inaccurate.

What We Can Do

? We can be aware of the problems associated with the use of student ID numbers. We can follow the development of such ID systems in our state by visiting the web site of our state department of education. We can inform others through informal conversations, support group meetings, etc.

? We can make sure that our own children are not assigned student ID numbers and entered into the new systems and encourage other parents to do the same, so the precedent is not set of allowing student ID numbers to be assigned to homeschoolers. It is especially important to be alert if children are participating in public school courses or activities. School officials may not realize that homeschoolers are not required to participate in the system and may automatically enter them.

? We can be alert for attempts by our state department of education, the legislature, and/or our local school district to include private school students, including homeschoolers, in student ID systems.

Conclusion

New database systems are being initiated by state departments of education to enable them to complete the reports required to receive federal dollars through No Child Left Behind. These systems increase state control of education and undermine the privacy of students and their families. Since we homeschoolers do not receive federal funds, we should not be required to participate in these systems. However, we need to be alert to avoid being drawn into the systems either by overzealous school officials or by proponents of the systems who want them expanded to include all children, regardless of where they attend school.

© 2004 Larry and Susan Kaseman

Top

May-June 2004 - Articles and Columns

HEM General Information

Subscribe to HEM