Information and Resources about Common Core Standards
Colorado Academic Standards Resources (P-12) | CDE
The Colorado Academic Standards (CAS) include 10 content areas for preschool through 12th grade (comprehensive health; dance; drama and theater arts; mathematics; music; physical education; reading, writing and communicating; science; social studies; visual arts; and world languages) and incorporate the Common Core State Standards for reading, writing and communicating and mathematics.
The updated standards are constructed backwards, starting with the competencies of prepared high school graduates to create learning expectations for what students should understand, know and be able to do at each grade level and content area. They provide clear understanding of the concepts and skills students need to master to help ensure they are successful in college, careers and life. For additional information and context regarding the CAS please visit our Colorado Academic Standards Fast Facts and FAQs page.
Concerns about Assessments and Accountability
National PTA has developed an assessment resources page to help parents understand what is happening with assessments in each state. It is important to emphasize National PTAs position statement on assessments:
National PTA believes that valid assessment does not consist of only a single test score, and that at no time should a single test be considered the sole determinant of a student’s academic or work future.
Policy alternatives to social promotion and grade retention must be established.
The National PTA supports nationally agreed upon voluntary standards if they are derived by consensus at the state and local levels. Parents must be involved in this process.
National PTA opposes federal legislation and/or regulations that mandate standardized testing or would lead to such testing, as well as federal policies that mandate comparisons of states, school districts, or individual schools and student retention based on a single test or sole criterion and the practice of social promotion.
Standardized multiple-choice tests and school readiness tests should never be used with preschool and early elementary children for any purpose.
Concerns About Data
DQC released the executive summary of their Parent Poll, conducted in November 2015, which surveyed 1,093 US parents with children ages 5–17 about their attitudes toward data collection and data use in schools. DQC also released fantastic new recommendations about making data work for students,available here.
The Foundation for Excellence in Education has released a Student Data Privacy Communications Toolkit.
The Future of Privacy Forum released an awesome and very helpful “Visual Guide to Practical Data De-Identification,” available here.
The White House just released its new big data report, focused on algorithmic discrimination. Pages 16-18 specifically discuss big data and higher education.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) released a set of principles (and related handouts) on “Privacy and Classroom Video Recordings for Teacher Preparation.” NASBE helped to write these principles.
iKeepSafe just released resources and videos to help train K-12 teachers and administrators on student data privacy. iKeepSafe and BrightBytes also just released a new tool, the Digital Privacy, Safety, & Security module, to help users “access research-based content and exemplars from across the country to help fulfill their privacy and safety responsibilities.”
Access4Learning’s Student Data Privacy Consortium is seeking partners. This is a really interesting effort and, even if you don’t want to join, you should definitely know about it. Find out more here.
More Data Privacy Resources from NASBE
Other News and New Releases
- I presented yesterday at the Pennsylvania DaEta Summit on creating student privacy training for teachers and administrators. As part of that presentation, I put together this list of training resources districts and states can use.
- The Future of Privacy Forum and ConnectSafely released an awesome Educator’s Guide to Student Data Privacy this week.
- Common Sense Media released their Privacy Evaluation Questions, which they will use to evaluate privacy practices of commonly used educational technology apps.
- The Washington Post reported on school data walls, including some of the privacy implications.
- EdWeek had an article asking whether student privacy concerns are holding “hostage” SETRA, a major education research bill.
- An article on Common Sense Media’s Graphite blog discusses filtering digital content and some of the privacy implications in “Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy.”
- Brenda Leong of the Future of Privacy Forum wrote a great article for Brookings on “Student data privacy: Moving from fear to responsible use.”
- Also from the Future of Privacy Forum, a write-up of the privacy implications in the new federal government guidance on transgender student rights.
- The National Education Policy Center released a report on “Surveillance Culture at School,” part of their annual series on schoolhouse commercializing trends. There were many problematic assertions in the report, some of which were addressed in this blog from SIIA.
- A new GAO report found that “Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination.”
- The Washington Times published a great article by a teacher on “Improving education with data.”
- NCSL’s April 2016 State Legislatures Magazine had an article on “Schools’ Data Dilemma,” discussing many of the trends in student data privacy over the past couple years.
- The Institute for Higher Education Policy, as part of their expert working group created to develop recommendations for improving the national postsecondary data infrastructure, released 11 great policy papers, including “Understanding Information Security and Privacy in Postsecondary Education Data Systems.”
- EdWeek’s Benjamin Herold wrote two interesting articles on ed tech: “One-to-One Laptop Initiatives Boost Student Scores, Researchers Find” and “Popularity of Ed Tech Not Necessarily Linked to Products’ Impact.”