The Status of the Big Student Data Grab in the States

The Data Quality Campaign released its annual report on how states are doing at accomplishing their policy agenda for student data collection.

Their four policy “promises” are:

  • Measure what matters.
  • Make data use possible.
  • Be transparent and earn trust.
  • Guarantee access and protect privacy.

Talk of transparency and protecting privacy when student data is being collected without parental permission and knowledge is absolute hogwash.

This report is a call for more data mongering in every state. States need to scale back (better yet stop) the data collection they are doing and ignore the advice given in this report.

You can read their report below:

One thought on “The Status of the Big Student Data Grab in the States

  1. NGSS was adopted by New Hampshire in November 2016. Ms. Banfield’s letter correctly outlines several problems with NGSS, but at least two important points were not mentioned.

    First, the NGSS are meant to be basic science standards that essentially all students should be able to meet. NGSS claims it prepares students for “college, careers, and citizenship.” This may well be true if the student is not planning to work in a science, mathematics, or technology field. Students aiming for technical careers, however, should take more advanced (non-NGSS) courses in high school.

    Thus, NGSS high school standards in physics and chemistry are limited because they are designed for a general physical science course. Brighter students should skip the general course or supplement it with more advanced courses in physics and chemistry.

    The second issue is more critical in the long run, and it’s not mentioned at all in Ms. Banfield’s letter. This is the fact that the NGSS are based on “methodological naturalism” (MN), the assumption or doctrine that all explanations in science must be based on natural or material causes – that is, natural laws and chance. MN does not allow any teleological (intentional design) explanations of phenomena to be considered.

    The use of MN in standards dealing with past historical events is particularly disturbing. The NGSS assume that all past events can be explained by natural/material causes, when in fact most people believe that God (or some other intelligent agent) had something to do with the origin of the universe and the development of life. NGSS never mentions the teleological possibility, leaving students with the impression that naturalistic science can explain everything in nature.

    As a first step, high school classes should explain the use and effect of MN in science education. Students will hear the materialistic story from standards based on NGSS. But they should also be exposed to the considerable scientific evidence that infers teleological causation in nature. Then the individual students can decide which explanations, material or teleological, best fit the evidence.

Comments are closed.