Looks Like Amplify May Be the Provider of Choice in SPS
Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.
I received a new group of public disclosure emails today. They were not in any way related to Amplify and yet, there were two items about Amplify. This was from the Assessment Development Program Manager, Shawn Cook.
In September 2015, principals were sent a notice to look for a "Beacon email" from Amplify.
"Please forward this and advise all teachers to look for this email. This is for ALL buildings, not just Amplify schools."
What was this about?
So Amplify is already well-established in SPS and if they have their Science curriculum adopted, it will be even more so.
As well, from the Journal on Transforming Education Thru Technology:
I received a new group of public disclosure emails today. They were not in any way related to Amplify and yet, there were two items about Amplify. This was from the Assessment Development Program Manager, Shawn Cook.
In September 2015, principals were sent a notice to look for a "Beacon email" from Amplify.
"Please forward this and advise all teachers to look for this email. This is for ALL buildings, not just Amplify schools."
What was this about?
This year, the district is making Quick Checks within the Amplify Beacon assessment platform available to ALL schools in the district for grades 2-9. Quick Checks are short (5-7 questions) formative assessments aligned with standards. These Quick Checks are available for both reading and math and can be given at any time throughout the school year.
Within the next week, all teachers who have rostered classes in PowerSchool for ELA and Math should receive an email directly from Amplify Beacon with their user name and temporary password. Please advise your teachers to look out for t his email (it will come from "mClasshome") and create their password as soon as possible. If they do not receive an email by Sept. 11, please have them email Amplify@seattleschools.org. and someone will promptly respond.
Anyone have their child take these assessments? Any thoughts?
We will be sending out more information specific to Quick Checks (how to administer, how to score,etc.) directly via email within the next two weeks.
So Amplify is already well-established in SPS and if they have their Science curriculum adopted, it will be even more so.
As well, from the Journal on Transforming Education Thru Technology:
Two education technology companies have worked on an integration intended to benefit districts following Next Generation Science Standards. Illuminate Education, which produces the Data & Assessment (DnA) platform, worked with Amplify, which has developed NGSS-aligned curriculum, on development of a new service to measure student progress for grades 3-8 against the Next Generation standards.
Expected shortly, Amplify's new NGSS Benchmark Assessments will enable educators using both Amplify Science and DnA to view not just Amplify test results but also related assessments and data for a broader view of the academic outlook.So if the adoption goes thru for Amplify, this will be the next thing to buy. And on and on.
Comments
To the best of my knowledge, Amplify was first introduced into SPS in 2014 as an assessment, called mClass Beacon. It was purchased in August 2014. The Board did not know about it or have the chance to review or approve it because the cost ($244,375) was just under the threshold that requires Board approval ($250k).
Here's some info: https://www.ourkidswa.com/many-schools-moving-to-new-assessment-system/
I was on the Board at the time, and served on the C&I Committee. The first I heard about mClass Beacon was from parents who told me their kids were being given a test, but the results were not being shared with them. Then I heard from a teacher who told me the kids were bombing the test, in part because it had no relation to what they were learning in school. Then I heard from some principals who had concerns about it also. So I brought all these concerns to staff at C&I. Staff explained they were trying to implement a formative test that could be used district wide, to prep kids for Common Core Standards.
They still had MAP but it wasn't being used in all schools. Staff acknowledged there were flaws with mClass Beacon and hoped to make it work somehow. I remember a staff member giving us a presentation that he was excited about that showed an interactive data dashboard that teachers would have for each student.
The district conducted a survey on Amplify and got mixed responses: https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/14-15agendas/061715agenda/20150617_Amplify_Survey.pdf
The one component of Amplify's mClass Beacon assessment that school staff said was helpful were the "Quick Checks." I believe these were short quizzes that didn't take up much time but gave some immediate info about what the students had learned. So I suggested that the district only use that component.
Despite the issues, staff came to the Board in June 2015 asking to expand Amplify Beacon to the whole district. This time the cost was $433,000 -- which now required Board approval. Because of all the issues associated with the product, a number of Directors (including me) voted against the expansion, so it did not pass.
The document you cite indicates an effort to expand Quick Checks into other schools in Sept. 2015, three months after the Board had voted against extending the contract. I can only assume some money remained in the original contract that allowed that to be an option. Otherwise, I don't know how that would have been paid for.
And that was the last I heard of Amplify until Nov 2017 when two of my colleagues on the Board told me they had just come from a C&I meeting and learned from staff that an unprecedented number of schools had been granted waivers to all use the same curricular product -- something called AmplifyScience. These Directors were alarmed by this seeming end-run around the Board, in what appeared to be a de facto curriculum adoption. I agreed with them.
By the way, I have heard that the assessment component of AmplifyScience is also problematic. I understand the adoption committees also acknowledged this weakness. Apparently that component is inflexible and teachers are unable to modify the assessment to meet their needs. I have also heard that some staff have proposed a workaround involving Schoology to make the Amplify assessment usable. But it will require more work from teachers. If this is accurate, that means that AmplifyScience fails to provide a necessary component that the District asked for in its Request for Proposals. That in turn begs the question, again, of why is Amplify being recommended as the best option for all of K-5 and 6-8?
-- Sue P.
The computer-based tests are designed to help teachers find out what students already know and what they need to learn early in the school year. These types of assessments are known as interim benchmarks because they “benchmark” student understanding periodically, which helps teachers adjust their teaching to their students’ needs.
This year, Seattle Public Schools contracted with a vendor to supply benchmarks – called mClass Beacon – that match the state’s Common Core college and career readiness standards. In the 53 participating schools, the MAP achievement tests will go away for students in Grades 3-9 in order to alleviate concerns about “overtesting.”
https://www.ourkidswa.com/many-schools-moving-to-new-assessment-system/
It is true that in 2017, the district provided unprecedented amounts of waivers. Geary should remember this incident.
https://www.amplify.com/privacy-security/
As providers of technology solutions to schools, our commitment to data privacy and security is essential to our organization. The following principles are at the heart of our data practices:
...
Transparency: School districts, parents, students, and teachers have the right to know what information is collected by school technology. Our contracts and privacy policies disclose the types of student information we store for our customers, how this information is used, and by whom.
Where's the Amplify Contract for Seattle Public Schools, SPS School Board?
Missing Contract
District 1 - Director Pinkham
1. Hazel Wolf K-8 (Amplify Waiver School, 2017-2018)
(A very successful school in teaching Low-Income Students undergoes
a 35% drop in State Science-Test Pass Rate, in 2018)
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 79%
2018 35%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 94%
2018 84%
2. John Rodgers Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 45%
2018 30%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 88%
2018 73%
3. Olympic Hills Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 60%
2018 33%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 91%
2018 64%
4. Viewlands Elementary School
(Viewlands shows a major drop in Science-Test Pass Rate for all students, in 2018)
Low-Income Students
2017 42%
2018 8%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 93%
2018 64%
Test Scores
That EXACTLY mirrors our experience being an unwitting and VERY UNWILLING, forced Amplify guinea pig.
Kid 1 went through JAMS just before Amplify, did well. Lots of hands on experiments, building machines and circuits, sampling water from the creek, testing towers against forces, etc.
Kid2, exactly the wrong time because last year & this, ONLY Amplify. Really great, caring teachers, they are NOT the problem, BUT AMPLIFY WAS/IS GARBAGE. Kid tuned out rather than watching dumb videos. And no real hands on anything. The “simulations” on the screen are suppose to take the place of hands on science. Stultifying beyond words. Watch water boil. Really. Wasn’t done. Didn’t bother turning in homework half the time. Simply couldn’t be bothered. Bombed tests. Because material was not learned as eyes glazed over and hands sat empty and idle. Brutal. Kid2 now HATES science but used to love it. Amplify slayed the learning, the joy, the wonder, the content as well as the class cohesion as now teams to solve lab problems were ever needed.
It is unconscionable on every level that this tripe is even considered.
We’ve already suffered through. So it’s not our problem anymore, but still we believe in an excellent education FOR ALL - that is what equity is, so yes, we’ve written the Board & gave them our experience. Did any of them get back to us? No. They seem intent to burn this district down to spare the ego of WELCH. But no worries, like Potter before her, if she’s broken the law, she will be going to jail. For while the Board may be kowed and or hoodwinked, guess what, the Assistant Attorney General of the State of Washington IS NOT on the SPS payroll and does have to deal with their intimidation or harassment (the way the teachers have to). So the clock is ticking. This is not just about a philosophical difference or a communication gap, a pedagogy clash, this is about the LAW, and it doesn’t bend to BS or get buried in 800 page reports that you have less than 24 hours to read and respond to.
Juneau may want to consider how Goodloe-Johnson got fired. And how unemployable she was after that. If Juneau is as politically ambitious as she is reported to be, she better act NOW while there’s still time for her to get in front of this.
Law & Order
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 1 - Director Pinkham
1. Jane Addams K-8 Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2017 46%
2018 36%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 90%
2018 87%
2. Hazel Wolf K-8 Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2017 57%
2018 52%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 91%
2018 66%
3. Whitman Middle School (Amplify Waivers School)
Low-Income Students
2017 46%
2018 26%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 86%
2018 73%
Test Scores
Please send these reports and findings to the School Board also. They will most certainly want to consider the data that has been reported, and then pause before they make any kind of decision to adopt this curriculum.
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 2 - Director Burke
1. B F Day Elementary School
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 71%
2018 44%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 91%
2018 57%
2. Daniel Bagley Elementary School
All Students
2017 85%
2018 74%
3. Greenwood Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 70%
2018 69%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 86%
2018 87%
4. John Stanford International School
All Students
2017 93%
2018 79%
5. Licton Springs K-8
All Students
2017 60%
2018 39%
6. McDonald International School
All Students
2017 94%
2018 92%
7. Olympic View Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 62%
2018 50%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 89%
2018 86%
8. Sacajawea Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2018 36%
Non Low-Income Students
2018 71%
9. Whittier Elementary School
All Students
2017 84%
2018 87%
Test Scores
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 2 - Director Burke
1. Eckstein Middle School Scores
(only Non-Amplify Middle School in District, 2017-2018)
Low-Income Students
2017 47% (34 students)
2018 51% (40 students)
Non Low-Income Students
2017 91% (276 students)
2018 80% (257 students)
2. Hamilton Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School, 2017-2018)
Low-Income Students
2017 44% (30 students)
2018 57% (30 students)
Non Low-Income Students
2017 88% (337 students)
2018 92% (280 students)
3. Licton Springs K-8
All Students
2017 80%
2018 42%
4. Robert Eagle Staff Middle School
All Students
Low-Income Students
2018 40%
Non Low-Income Students
2018 88%
Test Scores
District 7 - Director Patu
1. Beacon Hill International School
Low-Income Students
2017 64%
2018 50%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 76%
2018 82%
2. Dearborn Park Elementary School
All Students
2018 46%
3. Dunlap Elementary School
All Students
2017 18%
2018 32%
4. Emerson Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 29%
2018 27%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 55%
2018 30%
5. Graham Hill Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 29%
2018 22%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 36%
2018 71%
6. Hawthorne Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 39%
2018 44%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 87%
2018 79%
7. John Muir Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 23%
2018 26%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 84%
2018 82%
8. Kimball Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 50%
2018 33%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 65%
2018 70%
9. Maple Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 45%
2018 53%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 29%
2018 27%
10. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 25%
2018 38%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 18%
2018 8%
11. Orca K-8 Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 18%
2018 25%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 81%
2018 74%
12. Rainier View Elementary School
All Students
2017 71%
2018 66%
13. South Shore PK-8 School
Low-Income Students
2017 12%
2018 28%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 77%
2018 55%
14. Van Asselt Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 29%
2018 25%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 50%
2018 36%
15. Wing Luke Elementary School
All Students
2017 61%
2018 43%
Test Scores
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 7 - Director Patu
1. Aki Kurose Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2017 47%
2018 35%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 72%
2018 54%
2. Mercer Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
(the first SPS School to start using Amplify, 2016-2017 School Year)
Low-Income Students
2015 84%
2016 76%
2017 67%
2018 48%
Non Low-Income Students
2015 92%
2016 93%
2017 92%
2018 71%
3. Orca K-8 Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
All Students
2017 58%
2018 42%
4. South Shore PK-8 Scores School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2017 25%
2018 18%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 52%
2018 37%
Test Scores
Test Scores
Test Scores
District 6 - Director Harris
1. Alki Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 64%
2018 50%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 76%
2018 82%
2. Arbor Heights Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 64%
2018 50%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 76%
2018 82%
3. Concord International School
Low-Income Students
2017 64%
2018 50%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 76%
2018 82%
4. Fairmount Park Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2018 62%
Non Low-Income Students
2018 92%
5. Gatewood Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 40%
2018 35%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 83%
2018 73%
6. Genesee Hill/Schmitz Park (2015) School
Low-Income Students
2018 42 %
Non Low-Income Students
2017 80%
2018 %
7. Highline Park Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 40%
2018 25%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 79%
2018 55%
8. Lafayette Elementary School
All Students
2018 61%
9. Louisa Boren STEM K-8 School
Low-Income Students
2017 36%
2018 14%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 87%
2018 83%
10. Pathfinder K-8 School
All Students
2018 67%
11. Roxhill Elementary School (predominantly Low-Income Students)
All Students
2018 40%
12. Sanislo Elementary School (predominantly Low-Income Students)
All Students
2018 33%
13. West Seattle Elementary School
Low-Income Students (predominantly Low-Income Students)
2018 36%
Test Scores
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 6 - Director Harris
1. Denny Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 54%
2018 25%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 86%
2018 65%
2. Louisa Boren STEM K-8 Scores
Low-Income Students
2018 8%
Non Low-Income Students
2018 56%
3. Madison Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2017 53%
2018 34%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 88%
2018 69%
Test Scores
It looks like a few schools had a rise, but most had a drop for both low income and non low income students. When the difference is slight, eg just a few percentage points, it could be the case the sample is so small that just a few students could impact scores, and there can be cohort differences between classes. So a change either way of a few percentages might not be all that meaningful. What is striking is the major drops fow low income at Madison, Denny, and others of above half to about a quarter, and especially the decline each year at Mercer for low income.
WL
Test Scores
State Science Test Scores are irrelevant. Everyone knows that. They do not test 21st Century Skills, Technical Competency, and the ability to collaborate to solve complex engineering and science problems.
Amplify is not real science and engineering. That's why Boren rejected it. Come on people...are we really arguing about whether students should learn science and engineering at a computer screen? Any teacher worth their weight in potassium chloride will tell you that science and engineering is a contact sport predicated on experimental activities, collaboration, and project-based learning.
My Child is Happy
“Any teacher worth their weight in potassium chloride ...”
made me smile. Thanks for that.
This is a compilation of the history of Amplify. Seattle Public Schools was part of a National Grant funded from The National Education Department. The grant placed 5 Data Coaches in 5 schools. Spokane & Seattle were both part of this grant. I was one hired to be a Data Coach in Spokane. It was a two year grant. My concerns escalated throughout the grant period. The testing took a long time each cycle and more. I am contributing because I compiled the history of Amplify and sent it to my school board. It was completely dropped the following year. Epic Fail.
Compilation:
https://divinesparkignites.com/2015/05/23/amplify-a-modern-day-medusa-2/
Spokane School District did away with Amplify after one year? The Board needs to find out why.
Red Flag
Teresa
ALL elementary and middle schools in Seattle already have Carolina and Foss lab kits and have had them for the past 17 years. These kits are ALL hands-on and do not involve “memorizing definitions”. Nothing would be different with Amplify.
What they would get with Amplify would be almost NO lab materials since Amplify is 2/3rd either computer or reading based and 1/3rd activities. When asked at a meeting, the Amplify rep confirmed that there are no real “wet labs”, that they are mostly activities. As a middle school science teacher for 24 years, I know that students learn better by DOING science instead of READING about what someone else did. This does not mean that my students do not use computer simulations when they are called for. It just means that technology is used as PART of the process, instead of the WHOLE process.
This article makes it seem like Amplify is the only choice, however that is not true. The TCI curriculum (which was also piloted) is also aligned to the new standards and it is the opposite of Amplify- it is 2/3rd lab-based and only 1/3rd computer-based.
...If adopted, we will be RENTING Amplify for 9 years (pre-paid) and at the end of that time we will have nothing left. The last adoption was 17 years ago. What happens to Science if we go that long again? It’s my fear that it will be like it was when I first came to the district in 2001. I taught at Meany and there was literally nothing in my room. No lab kits, no books, no materials at all. If Amplify is adopted we could very well be that way again.
forewarned
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 5 - Director DeWolf
1. Madrona K-8 School Scores
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 40%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 82%
2. Meany Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2018 19%
Non Low-Income Students
2018 66%
3. Washington Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2015 30%
2016 52%
2017 41%
2018 32%
Non Low-Income Students
2015 80%
2016 90%
2017 87%
2018 84%
Test Scores
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 4 - Director Mack
1. Catharine Blaine K-8 Middle School (Amplify Waiver School)
All Students
2017 91%
2018 77%
2. McClure Middle School Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 50%
2018 44%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 91%
2018 83%
3. Salmon Bay K-8 (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2017 58%
2018 58%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 86%
2018 74%
Test Scores
So Amplify has been collecting data on our students for at least 4 years, and no one know where the agreement is? What the __?@!?
SPS 5th-Grade State Science-Test Pass Rates
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 5 - Director DeWolf
1. Bailey Gatzert Elementary School
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 32%
2018 24%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 54%
2018 36%
2. Leschi Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 29%
2018 32%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 74%
2018 82%
3. Lowell Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 33%
2018 34%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 58%
2018 46%
4. Madrona K-8 School
All Students
2017 39% (23 students)
2018 59% (22 students)
5. Stevens Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 32%
2018 31%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 83%
2018 74%
6. Thurgood Elementary School
All Students
2017 88%
2018 90%
Test Scores
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
(an unknown number of SPS Elementary Schools (possibly as many as 49) received Amplify Curriculum
in 2018-2019, without SPS Board Approval)
(only 9 Elementary Schools and K-8 Schools were given Curriculum Waivers by District Staff for the 2017-2018 School Year)
District 4 - Director Mack
1. Adams Elementary School
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 58%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 95%
2. Cascade Parent Partnership Program
All Students
2017 8% (12 Students)
2018 12% (17 Students)
3. Catharine Blaine K-8 School (Amplify Waiver School)
All Students
2017 87%
2018 81%
4. Frantz Coe Elementary School (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students
2018 62%
Non Low-Income Students
2018 86%
5. John Hay Elementary School
Low-Income Students
2017 73%
2018 64%
Non Low-Income Students
2017 93%
2018 86%
6. Lawton Elementary School
All Students
2017 92%
2018 89%
7. Queen Anne Elementary School
All Students
2017 66%
2018 71%
8. Salmon Bay K-8 School (Amplify Waiver School)
All Students
2017 81%
2018 77%
9. West Woodland Elementary School
All Students
2017 92%
2018 82%
Test Scores
No, I do not want my child to miss MS science. But I can't see any other way to get across to the district that I don't want to share my kid's academic performance data with a private company.
Yes, I understand Pearson, etc do this already - but there is a big difference between one test at the end of high school and daily data input. This scares me.
-NW
"...Google’s education marketing playbook: Woo school officials with easy-to-use, money-saving services. Then enlist schools to market to other schools, holding up early adopters as forward thinkers among their peers."
"Quickly, though, a data privacy and security issue emerged, exposing a culture clash between Google’s business practices and a major school district’s values."
"Some critics, though, contend that the equity argument for technology is itself a gimmick that promotes a self-serving Silicon Valley agenda: playing on educators’ altruism to get schools to buy into laptops and apps.
“It centers learning on technology, not students,” said Mr. Fitzgerald, the learning app analyst. “It is a very narrow lens on equity that leaves out things like student-teacher ratios.”
"(Mr. Casap said he would not advise school districts with deficiencies in areas like teaching or student support services to invest first in classroom technology.)"
“You can’t just hand out product and hope it will work in the classroom,” Ms. Hahn said. “You have to work with the districts to make sure that you are keeping the kids and the teachers safe.”
"Google’s ability to test its products on such a monumental scale has stoked concerns about whether the tech giant is exploiting public-school teachers and students for free labor. “It’s a private company very creatively using public resources — in this instance, teachers’ time and expertise — to build new markets at low cost,” said Patricia Burch, an associate professor of education at the University of Southern California."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromebooks-schools.html
nn
"in the event Amplify or its assets are acquired or transferred to another party, including in connection with any bankruptcy or similar proceedings, provided that such disclosure will be subject to this Policy and any successor to the relevant business will be required to comply with this Policy with respect to information collected under this Policy;"
"to work with third parties who conduct studies or assist us in providing and improving our products and services, such as platform, infrastructure, software and other types of service providers, agents, partners and researchers. We contractually bind such parties to protect personal information by, for example, not using the information for any purpose other than to carry out the services they are performing for Amplify;"
"and except as restricted by the contract with our School District or SEA customers, we may also share personal information collected or stored in Amplify systems with Amplify’s affiliated education companies, provided that such disclosure is solely for the purposes described in Section 4 and at all times is subject to this Policy."
https://www.amplify.com/customer-privacy/#types-of-information-collected
nn
https://k12cybersecure.com/blog/fbi-data-collection-and-unsecured-systems-could-pose-risks-to-students/
https://k12cybersecure.com/blog/fbi-this-week-education-technologies-could-pose-risks-to-students/
nn
https://blog.gutenberg-technology.com/en/gdpr-in-edtech-what-you-need-to-know
GDPR
(before and after Amplify Pilot-Program)
District 3 - Director Geary
1. Eckstein Middle School Scores
(the only SPS Middle School with No Amplify in 2017-2018)
(Low-Income Student Test Scores do not fall from 2017 to 2018)
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 47% (34 students) (without Amplify Curriculum)
2018 51% (40 students) (without Amplify Curriculum)
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 91% (276 students) (without Amplify Curriculum)
2018 80% (257 students) (without Amplify Curriculum)
2. Tops K-8 Scores (Amplify Waiver School)
Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 64%
2018 54%
Non Low-Income Students (Science-Test Pass Rates)
2017 79%
2018 86%
Test Scores
https://www.kuow.org/stories/tk-d622
Wayne Au, parent and professor of education, via Facebook & email:
"....I think it would be important to also acknowledge that, given Amplify's history here in Seattle and in other states, resisters are right to worry about student privacy, as well as too much focus on test preparation."
Professor Au, UW Bothell:
Dr. Au’s academic interests broadly encompass critical education theory and teaching for social justice. More specifically his research focuses on educational equity, high-stakes testing, curriculum theory, educational policy studies and social studies education.
https://www.uwb.edu/education/about/faculty/wayneau
Student Privacy
-Maple Parent
SE Pop