We're from the government and we're here to help....

@firefly,

So what happens if the teachers and school system are indeed dedicated to students' privacy and a parent demands to see their child's entire record including the survey? Does the school system have any ability at all to say no? Not according to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

From the Parents' Guide to FERPA.

Quote:

Schools must honor your request to review your child's education records within 45 days of receiving the request. Some states have laws similar to FERPA that require schools to provide access within a shorter period of time. FERPA requires that schools provide parents with an opportunity to inspect and review education records, but not to receive copies, except in limited circumstances.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I'm not sure whether the survey is an "education record". Why are you asking me this?

I think the survey questionnaire is probably much more general than really personal and specific, and aimed at getting a general indication of the child's perceptions, reactions, emotions, behaviors, social satisfaction, etc., based on answers to multiple choice questions, because there is really no other way of doing these massive group surveys. And I can't imagine that the original survey sheet the child marked is even retained by the school. The BIMAS is scored by yielding scales, which indicate no individual test responses, and what the school has, or gets back from MHS, is likely the analyzed final report of the child's SEL functioning, with strengths and risk factors indicated by variation in scaled scores.

The child's responses are compared to SEL norms for that age, and grade level. The BIMAS is designed to measure and monitor progress in SEL areas, to compare groups, like different grades, to each other, to monitor the progress of students over time, and to indicate where the school should make systemic interventions in teaching SEL or programs for SEL, and to identify those students who might be at risk and in need of supportive services. It's mainly a very large amount of collated group data that can be looked at in a variety of ways.

When the school finds the survey indicates significant risk factors for a particular child, they call the parent in. They need to inform the parent about those issues, discuss possible interventions, whatever needs to be done to address whatever the child's risk factors are. They can't exclude the parent from this--these are things the parent must address as well.

There are limits to the privacy rights that a child has where the parent is concerned. The parent has a right to certain information about their child that others would not be entitled to.

What's your concern about any of this?

.

1 Reply

This is an example of what a BIMAS test report on an individual child looks like--it bears little resemblance to what most of you are talking about, or envisioning, with this survey.

http://downloads.mhs.com/bimas/Individual-Student-Assessment.pdf

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

I know loads of teachers, one former school superintendent, and several school psychologists and social workers, quite well, and they're all citizens, just like you and me.

so was every member of the Gestapo, just regular people trying to do a job....

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

This is an example of what a BIMAS test report on an individual child looks like--it bears little resemblance to what most of you are talking about, or envisioning, with this survey.

http://downloads.mhs.com/bimas/Individual-Student-Assessment.pdf

you are really out to lunch if you think that the government, who has the power to destroy our lives and are not afraid to use it, keeping this close tabs on us is not a problem...It looks like something I might find in North Korea, it is not something that should have a "made in America" label outside of our prisons.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I'm not sure whether the survey is an "education record". Why are you asking me this?

I ask because it shows that there is no privacy for the student in this survey even if the school system has the best of intentions. The parents always have full access.

firefly wrote:

I think the survey questionnaire is probably much more general than really personal and specific, and aimed at getting a general indication of the child's perceptions, reactions, emotions, behaviors, social satisfaction, etc., based on answers to multiple choice questions, because there is really no other way of doing these massive group surveys.

Of course there is. You can do it anonymously. The teacher's concern here was all about the lack of anonymity.

firefly wrote:

And I can't imagine that the original survey sheet the child marked is even retained by the school. The BIMAS is scored by yielding scales, which indicate no individual test responses, and what the school has, or gets back from MHS, is likely the analyzed final report of the child's SEL functioning, with strengths and risk factors indicated by variation in scaled scores.

The the students' names are associated with the marks and the scores and can be retrieved. Even if the school desired to protect the students' responses, they cannot refuse a FERPA request. There is no guarantee of confidence. That is what the teacher warned about.

firefly wrote:

The child's responses are compared to SEL norms for that age, and grade level. The BIMAS is designed to measure and monitor progress in SEL areas, to compare groups, like different grades, to each other, to monitor the progress of students over time, and to indicate where the school should make systemic interventions in teaching SEL or programs for SEL, and to identify those students who might be at risk and in need of supportive services. It's mainly a very large amount of collated group data that can be looked at in a variety of ways.

All that is an excellent argument for anonymous surveys. Since that is not what we have here, it's not relevant to the issue of whether the teacher was wrong in warning the students against self incrimination.

firefly wrote:

When the school finds the survey indicates significant risk factors for a particular child, they call the parent in.

So much for student privacy concerns.

firefly wrote:

What's your concern about any of this?

A teacher made a very common sense recommendation to students and was reprimanded for it. Isn't that what we are discussing? I think the teacher was in the right to inform students of the optional nature of participation and of the dangers of revealing too much personal information in a world where information is readily transferred electronically.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Normally, it's the possession of the controlled substance that's criminalized.

But how can you smoke pot if you don't possess it first? Logically, saying you smoked it has to imply that you possessed it.

I think the point is that saying you have smoked (and possessed) pot is insufficient evidence to convict you on. Case in point: A few months ago, I indulged a guilty pleasure by watching a series called Moonshiners on the Discovery Channel. In episode after episode, about 10 people didn't just say they were brewing moonshine; they were filmed doing it. None of them got arrested. That's because the police, in order to do that, can't just rely on what somebody says in the normal course of life. They have to catch the person with actual, non-taxed alcohol in their cars, or barns, or whatever. And that's why the students would not have incriminated themselves in that survey.

1 Reply

Quote:

http://downloads.mhs.com/bimas/Individual-Student-Assessment.pdf

That survey report certainly doesn't make me feel any better about it.

As the parent of a 12 year old boy I can tell you that last week he would have scored "high risk" in at least one of those categories and this week he wouldn't. That report gives you no idea of the nature of the problem, no context, and doesn't even tell you what "risk" they might pose.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Quote:

That report gives you no idea of the nature of the problem, no context, and doesn't even tell you what "risk" they might pose.

That's my point. It's not revealing of sensitive personal info at all--it's not supposed to be.

This type of testing is designed to indicate degree of risk in those three areas. This is a mass assessment instrument, to measure, monitor, and compare, group changes in those areas over time. It's mainly for the evaluation of the school's systemic SEL requirements and goals.

But, because it can also yield data on each student in the group, in terms of those three dimension, it can indicate who is significantly at risk, and in which area.

I would guess that, if a student is significantly at risk in one of those areas, and student services follows up with that student, then they focus in on the nature of the problem for that specific student. I would also guess that, in most cases, they were already aware of the risk factor--particularly in behavioral and cognitive areas--and were already addressing it. The main benefit would be if it identified a very high risk dimension for a student that they hadn't been aware of, or a very significant change for a student from one year to the next.

Quote:

As the parent of a 12 year old boy I can tell you that last week he would have scored "high risk" in at least one of those categories and this week he wouldn't

How do you know that? I think you'd really need to know more about what the scores are based on, and the group norms, for this particular test, for his age group, and for his educational placement.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

A teacher made a very common sense recommendation to students and was reprimanded for it.

He didn't make a common sense recommendation--he gave legal advice, using the specific legal terminology a lawyer might give to a client who is a criminal suspect--he warned them about incriminating themselves, as though there was a threat of their being legally incriminated by their test responses--meaning the school system might use the information against them in a legal proceeding or allow it to be used that way. That's a warning that they shouldn't trust his employer. And there was no actual threat of legal incrimination in this situation.

Quote:

I think the teacher was in the right to inform students of the optional nature of participation and of the dangers of revealing too much personal information

Had he just informed them of the optional nature of participation that would have been fine. He wouldn't have been reprimanded. Participation was optional.

Of course there are dangers about revealing too much personal information--which is why you must consider the trustworthiness of the person, or organization, you are giving the information to, and the circumstances, and the reasons you are asked to disclose the information. In this situation, the teacher would be indicating a danger from revealing it to his employer--he'd be communicating mistrust of his employer, and their motives in seeking the information, and telling his students they should do the same.

And, finally, he went beyond all of that and told them he wouldn't answer the questions honestly. That's a terrific role model, as a teacher--he encourages dishonesty.

I have no problem understanding why this teacher was reprimanded, or in feeling it was a very justified reprimand. If you feel otherwise, fine.

3 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
As the parent of a 12 year old boy I can tell you that last week he would have scored "high risk" in at least one of those categories and this week he wouldn't

How do you know that?

Without presuming to speak for Boomerang, I know that Boomerang is speaking from ample previous experience with the school system's "experts" on psychological problems and how to deal with them. She may not know about this particular test, but she did have lots of encounters with those people and knows how they tick.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

He didn't make a common sense recommendation--he gave legal advice, using the specific legal terminology a lawyer might give to a client who is a criminal suspect--

Just to clarify: What terminology would have been acceptable in your opinion?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

you are really out to lunch if you think that the government, who has the power to destroy our lives and are not afraid to use it, keeping this close tabs on us is not a problem...It looks like something I might find in North Korea, it is not something that should have a "made in America" label outside of our prisons.

You think this SEL assessment report indicates that?
http://downloads.mhs.com/bimas/Individual-Student-Assessment.pdf

Let me know when you get back from lunch.

I don't disagree with your basic concerns about privacy rights, or government abuses, or civil liberties violations--I share those concerns.

But I don't see this particular situation, with this particular survey at Batavia High School, as indicative of such abuses or a cause for great alarm.

The whole controversy there was related to whether the teacher should have been disciplined for the way he behaved with his students and what he communicated to them. It had very little to do with the survey itself, or why it was being done--it's probably been discussed considerably more in this thread than it was in Batavia. I don't think the people in Batavia think the sky is falling, Chicken Little.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Just to clarify: What terminology would have been acceptable in your opinion?

I think he should have told them that participation was optional.

The teachers were given a handout sheet to use as the test instructions--so there would be some uniformity in how it was presented.

He seems to have implanted the idea of legal "self-incrimination" and 5th Amendment protections before it was raised by the students--he began talking about it 2 periods before they even saw the questions--so he wasn't apparently addressing issues or questions the students spontaneously raised when they saw the questionnaire. He was generating the concern over what the school might do with the info, and suggesting the survey results might be used for other than the intended purpose that had been given to the parents and the students in the school's public statement.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
A teacher made a very common sense recommendation to students and was reprimanded for it.

He didn't make a common sense recommendation--he gave legal advice, using the specific legal terminology a lawyer might give to a client who is a criminal suspect--he warned them about incriminating themselves, as though there was a threat of their being legally incriminated by their test responses--meaning the school system might use the information against them in a legal proceeding or allow it to be used that way.

You are kidding here, right? Because he mentioned the fifth amendment and the word incriminate he is giving legal advice and using "specific legal terminology"? If this were a problem, the Internet would have been shut down years ago. I understand what you are saying. The guy is an authority figure standing in front of students warning them about self incrimination. But no one is going to think this guy is a lawyer.

firefly wrote:

That's a warning that they shouldn't trust his employer. And there was no actual threat of legal incrimination in this situation.

This is where I most disagree with you. He never said or even implied that they shouldn't trust the school system, only that they have the right and should be very leery of revealing illegal conduct. To me, that is exactly on track. He never said the school board would sell them out. He never said the authorities were less than honorable. But the teacher understood that the ability of the school system to keep such information private is limited and he relayed that to the students. It is a real leap to take that as a slam of the school system. That's not what he said.

firefly wrote:

Quote:
I think the teacher was in the right to inform students of the optional nature of participation and of the dangers of revealing too much personal information

Had he just informed them of the optional nature of participation that would have been fine. He wouldn't have been reprimanded. Participation was optional.

But that is all he did. Was he a bit over the top? Maybe, I wasn't there. Saying "I wouldn't take it" and "you have the right not to incriminate yourself" are both true statements and information that the students need to know IMO.

firefly wrote:

Of course there are dangers about revealing too much personal information--which is why you must consider the trustworthiness of the person, or organization, you are giving the information to, and the circumstances, and the reasons you are asked to disclose the information.

In today's environment, there is no such thing as safe personal information. That was the teacher's message and it is right on the money. There in no person or organization that has the ability to safeguard your private information so think twice about admitting to engaging in criminal activity. That is not a slam on the school board, just a reality check for the digital age.

firefly wrote:

And, finally, he went beyond all of that and told them he wouldn't answer the questions honestly. That's a terrific role model, as a teacher--he encourages dishonesty.

He encourages dishonestly as a form of civil disobedience. Not saying he is Gandi or Martin Luther King, but there are worse role models out there.

2 Replies

@firefly,

when did you prove that the school did not keep the answers to the 34 questions?

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

firefly wrote:
That's a warning that they shouldn't trust his employer. And there was no actual threat of legal incrimination in this situation.

This is where I most disagree with you. He never said or even implied that they shouldn't trust the school system, only that they have the right and should be very leery of revealing illegal conduct.

I have to agree with you here. Life is full of unintended consequences. Even if self-incrimination is a possible consequence of filling out that form with your name on it, that doesn't mean the school intended that. Dreyden did not say anything about the school's intentions, only about consequences.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

You are kidding here, right? Because he mentioned the fifth amendment and the word incriminate he is giving legal advice and using "specific legal terminology"?

I'm not kidding, and neither was the Board of Education.

Did you read the actual letter they sent to him, documenting his behavior and their reasons for reprimanding him? I posted the link to it in this thread, more than once I believe.

Your disagreement is really with them, not with me. I read what they actually sent to the teacher, and I think they made their case against him. I suggest you read it too.

Quote:

so think twice about admitting to engaging in criminal activity...

If you're a criminal suspect under investigation, that's good advice from a lawyer.

Better advice from a teacher, to his high school students, might have been, "Don't engage in criminal activities."

2 Replies

@Thomas,

lets talk about unintended consequences of letting the state pilfer through psyche's looking for stuff it does not like.....with names attatched of course so that it can go back and correct the defectives, which it renames as "helping".

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

when did you prove that the school did not keep the answers to the 34 questions?

I don't have to prove anything.

I can't imagine why they'd need the raw test data, each student's original answered questionnaire--they were interested in the collated analyzed results, mainly group results, on three demensions.

If it interests you, contact that school system and ask them.

1 Reply

We're from the government and we're here to help....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know