Surprise! SBAC and CRESST stonewall public records request for their financial records

Say what you will about Achieve, PARCC, Fordham, CCSSO, and NGA— some of the organizations responsible for promoting the Common Core Initiative on us all. But, their financial records are publicly available.

Not so for some other organizations responsible for the same Common Core promotion. The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Center for Research on Educational Standards and Student Testing (CRESST) have absorbed many millions of taxpayer and foundation dollars over the years. But, their financial records have been hidden inside the vast, nebulous cocoon of the University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA). UCLA’s financial records, of course, are publicly available, but amounts there are aggregated at a level that subsumes thousands of separate, individual entities.

UCLA is a tax-supported state institution, however, and California has an open records law on the books. After some digging, I located the UCLA office responsible for records requests and wrote to them. Following is a summary of our correspondence to date:

 

July 5, 2017

Greetings:

I hope that you can help me. I have spent a considerable amount of time clicking around in search of financial reports for the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), both “housed” at UCLA (or, until just recently in SBAC’s case). Even after many hours of web searching, I still have no clue as to where these data might be found.

Both organizations are largely publicly funded through federal grants. I would like to obtain revenue and expenditure detail on the order of what a citizen would expect to see in a nonprofit organization’s Form 990. I would be happy to search through a larger data base that contains relevant financial details for all of UCLA, so long as the details for SBAC and CRESST are contained within and separately labeled.

I would like annual records spanning the lifetimes of each organization: SBAC only goes back several years, but CRESST goes back to the 1980s (in its early years, it was called the Center for the Study of Evaluation).

Please tell me what I need to do next.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best Wishes, Richard Phelps

 

July 6, 2017

RE: Acknowledgement of Public Records Request – PRR # 17-4854

Dear Mr. Phelps:

This letter is to acknowledge your request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) dated July 5, 2017, herein enclosed. Information Practices (IP) is notifying the appropriate UCLA offices of your request and will identify, review, and release all responsive documents in accordance with relevant law and University policy.

Under the CPRA, Cal. Gov’t Code Section 6253(b), UCLA may charge for reproduction costs and/or programming services. If the cost is anticipated to be greater than $50.00 or the amount you authorized in your original request, we will contact you to confirm your continued interest in receiving the records and your agreement to pay the charges. Payment is due prior to the release of the records.

As required under Cal. Gov’t Code Section 6253, UCLA will respond to your request no later than the close of business on July 14, 2017. Please note, though, that Section 6253 only requires a public agency to make a determination within 10 days as to whether or not a request is seeking records that are publicly disclosable and, if so, to provide the estimated date that the records will be made available. There is no requirement for a public agency to actually supply the records within 10 days of receiving a request, unless the requested records are readily available. Still, UCLA prides itself on always providing all publicly disclosable records in as timely a manner as possible.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 794-8741 or via email at pahill@finance.ucla.edu and reference the PRR number found above in the subject line.

Sincerely,

Paula Hill

Assistant Manager, Information Practices

 

July 14, 2017

RE: Public Records Request – PRR # 17-4854

Dear Mr. Phelps:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that UCLA Information Practices (IP) continues to work on your public records request dated July 5, 2017. As allowed pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code Section 6253(c), we require additional time to respond to your request, due to the following circumstance(s):

The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.

IP will respond to your request no later than the close of business on July 28, 2017 with an estimated date that responsive documents will be made available.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 794-8741 or via email at pahill@finance.ucla.edu and reference the PRR number found above in the subject line.

Sincerely,

Paula Hill

Assistant Manager, Information Practices

 

July 28, 2017

Dear Mr. Phelps,

Please know UCLA Information Practices continues to work on your public records request, attached for your reference. I will provide a further response regarding your request no later than August 18, 2017.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 794-8741 or via email and reference the PRR number found above in the subject line.

Kind regards,

Paula Hill

Assistant Manager

UCLA Information Practices

 

July 29, 2017

Thank you. RP

 

August 18, 2017

Re: Public Records Request – PRR # 17-4854

Dear Mr. Richard Phelps:

UCLA Information Practices (IP) continues to work on your public records request dated July 5, 2017. As required under Cal. Gov’t Code Section 6253, and as noted in our email communication with you on July 28, 2017, we are now able to provide you with the estimated date that responsive documents will be made available to you, which is September 29, 2017.

As the records are still being compiled and/or reviewed, we are not able at this time to provide you with any potential costs, so that information will be furnished in a subsequent communication as soon as it is known.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 794-8741 or via email at pahill@finance.ucla.edu and reference the PRR number found above in the subject line.

Sincerely,

Paula Hill

Assistant Manager, Information Practices

 

September 29, 2017

Dear Mr. Richard Phelps,

Unfortunately, we must revise the estimated availability date regarding your attached request as the requisite review has not yet been completed. We expect to provide a complete response by November 30, 2017. We apologize for the delay.

Should you have any questions, please contact our office at (310) 794-8741 or via email, and reference the PRR number found above in the subject line.

Best regards,

UCLA Information Practices

 

September 29, 2017

I believe that if you are leaving it up to CRESST and SBAC to voluntarily provide the information, they will not be ready Nov. 30 either. RP

Close all USED-funded research centers: Evaluation of existing regulations: My two bits

My comments below in response to the USED request for comments on existing USED regulations. To submit your own, follow the instructions at:  https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2017-OS-0074-0001

MEMORANDUM
To:  Hilary Malawer, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education
From:  Richard P. Phelps
Date:  July 8, 2017
Re:  Evaluation of Existing Regulations[1]

Greetings:

I encourage the US Education Department to eliminate from any current and future funding education research centers. Ostensibly, federally funded education research centers fill a “need” for more research to guide public policy on important topics. But, the research centers are almost entirely unregulated, so they can do whatever they please. And, what they please is too often the promotion of their own careers and the suppression or denigration of competing ideas and evidence.

Federal funding of education research centers concentrates far too much power in too few hands. And, that power is nearly unassailable. One USED funded research center, the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) blatantly and repeatedly misrepresented research I had conducted while at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in favor of their own small studies on the same topic. I was even denied attendance at public meetings where my research was misrepresented. Promises to correct the record were made, but not kept.

When I appealed to the USED project manager, he replied that he had nothing to say about “editorial” matters. In other words, a federally funded education research center can write and say anything that pleases, or benefits, the individuals inside.

Capturing a federally funded research center contract tends to boost the professional provenance of the winners stratospherically. In the case of CRESST, the principals assumed control of the National Research Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment, where they behaved typically—citing themselves and those who agree with them, and ignoring, or demonizing, the majority of the research that contradicted their work and policy recommendations.

Further, CRESST principals now seem to have undue influence on the assessment research of the international agency, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which, as if on cue, has published studies that promote the minority of the research sympathetic to CRESST doctrine while simply ignoring even the existence of the majority of the research that is not. The rot—the deliberate suppression of the majority of the relevant research–has spread worldwide, and the USED funded it.

In summary, the behavior of the several USED funded research centers I have followed over the years meet or exceed the following thresholds identified in the President’s Executive Order 13777:

(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;

(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;

(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;

(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility.

Below, I cite only relevant documents that I wrote myself, so as not to implicate anyone else. As the research center principals gain power, fewer and fewer of their professional compatriots are willing to disagree with them. The more power they amass, the more difficult it becomes for contrary evidence and points of view, no matter how compelling or true, to even get a hearing.

References:

Phelps, R. P. (2015, July). The Gauntlet: Think tanks and federally funded centers misrepresent and suppress other education research. New Educational Foundations, 4. http://www.newfoundations.com/NEFpubs/NEF4Announce.html

Phelps, R. P. (2014, October). Review of Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment (OECD, 2013), Assessment in Education: Principles, Policies, & Practices. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.921091 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0969594X.2014.921091#.VTKEA2aKJz1

Phelps, R. P. (2013, February 12). What Happened at the OECD? Education News.

Phelps, R. P. (2013, January 28). OECD Encourages World to Adopt Failed US Ed Programs. Education News.

Phelps, R. P. (2013). The rot spreads worldwide: The OECD – Taken in and taking sides. New Educational Foundations, 2(1). Preview: http://www.newfoundations.com/NEFpubs/NEFv2Announce.html

Phelps, R. P. (2012, June). Dismissive reviews: Academe’s Memory Hole. Academic Questions, 25(2), pp. 228–241. doi:10.1007/s12129-012-9289-4 https://www.nas.org/articles/dismissive_reviews_academes_memory_hole

Phelps, R. P. (2012). The effect of testing on student achievement, 1910–2010. International Journal of Testing, 12(1), 21–43. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15305058.2011.602920

Phelps, R. P. (2010, July). The source of Lake Wobegon [updated]. Nonpartisan Education Review / Articles, 1(2). http://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v6n3.htm

Phelps, R. P. (2000, December). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation, Book review, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 992–999. http://richardphelps.net/HighStakesReview.pdf

Phelps, R. P. (1999, April). Education establishment bias? A look at the National Research Council’s critique of test utility studies. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 36(4) 37–49. https://www.siop.org/TIP/backissues/Tipapr99/4Phelps.aspx

[1] In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” the Department of Education (Department) is seeking input on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.

Yes, President Trump can do something about Common Core

For starters, he can shut down the federal funding of organizations that have supplied the misinformation that begat and continues to propagandize Common Core. While the Gates Foundation gets the most attention, government-funded entities play their part. For example, our nation could be much improved if relieved of the burden of fuzzy research produced at the Center for Research on Educational Standards and Student Testing (CRESST), the Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA) at the National Research Council, and K-12 programs in the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Division of the National Science Foundation. All have been captured by education’s vested interests, and primarily serve them.

John Hopkins flawed report on Kentucky

It looks like a recent, very problematic report from Johns Hopkins University, “For All Kids, How Kentucky is Closing the High School Graduation Gap for Low-Income Students,” is likely to get pushed well beyond the Bluegrass State’s borders.

The publishers just announced a webinar on this report for August 30th.

Anyway, you need to get up to speed on why this report is build on a foundation of sand. You can do that fairly quickly by checking these blogs:

http://www.bipps.org/uneven-quality-kentuckys-high-school-diplomas/

http://www.bipps.org/quality-control-problems-kentuckys-high-school-diplomas-part-1/

A third blog will release at 8 am Eastern tomorrow. It will probably link at

http://www.bipps.org/quality-control-problems-kentuckys-high-school-diplomas-part-2/

I won’t know for sure until it releases, however.

Let me know if you have questions and especially if this Hopkins report starts making the rounds in your state.

101 Terms for Denigrating Others’ Research

In scholarly terms, a review of the literature or literature review is a summation of the previous research conducted on a particular topic. With a dismissive literature review, a researcher assures the public that no one has yet studied a topic or that very little has been done on it. Dismissive reviews can be accurate, for example with genuinely new scientific discoveries or technical inventions. But, often, and perhaps usually, they are not.

A recent article in the Nonpartisan Education Review includes hundreds of statements—dismissive reviews—of some prominent education policy researchers.* Most of their statements are inaccurate; perhaps all of them are misleading.

“Dismissive review”, however, is the general term. In the “type” column of the files linked to the article, a finer distinction is made among simply “dismissive”—meaning a claim that there is no or little previous research, “denigrating”—meaning a claim that previous research exists but is so inferior it is not worth even citing, and “firstness”—a claim to be the first in the history of the world to ever conduct such a study. Of course, not citing previous work has profound advantages, not least of which is freeing up the substantial amount of time that a proper literature review requires.

By way of illustrating the alacrity with which some researchers dismiss others’ research as not worth looking for, I list the many terms marshaled for the “denigration” effort in the table below. I suspect that in many cases, the dismissive researcher has not even bothered to look for previous research on the topic at hand, outside his or her small circle of colleagues.

Regardless, the effect of the dismissal, particularly when coming from a highly influential researcher, is to discourage searches for others’ work, and thus draw more attention to the dismisser. One might say that “the beauty” of a dismissive review is that rival researchers are not cited, referenced, or even identified, thus precluding the possibility of a time-consuming and potentially embarrassing debate.

Just among the bunch of high-profile researchers featured in the Nonpartisan Education Review article, one finds hundreds of denigrating terms employed to discourage the public, press, and policymakers from searching for the work done by others. Some in-context examples:

  • “The shortcomings of [earlier] studies make it difficult to determine…”
  • “What we don’t know: what is the net effect on student achievement?
    -Weak research designs, weaker data
    -Some evidence of inconsistent, modest effects
    Reason: grossly inadequate research and evaluation”
  • “Nearly 20 years later, the debate … remains much the same, consisting primarily of opinion and speculation…. A lack of solid empirical research has allowed the controversy to continue unchecked by evidence or experience…”

To consolidate the mass of verbiage somewhat, I group similar terms in the table below.

(Frequency)   Denigrating terms used for other research
(43)   [not] ‘systematic’; ‘aligned’; ‘detailed’; ‘comprehensive’; ‘large-scale’; ‘cross-state’; ‘sustained’; ‘thorough’
(31)    [not] ‘empirical’; ‘research-based’; ‘scholarly’
(29)   ‘limited’; ‘selective’; ‘oblique’; ‘mixed’; ‘unexplored’
(19)   ‘small’; ‘scant’; ‘sparse’; ‘narrow’; ‘scarce’; ‘thin’; ‘lack of’; ‘handful’; ‘little’; ‘meager’; ‘small set’; ‘narrow focus’
(15)   [not] ‘hard’; ‘solid’; ‘strong’; ‘serious’; ‘definitive’; ‘explicit’; ‘precise’
(14)   ‘weak’; ‘weaker’; ‘challenged’; ‘crude’; ‘flawed’; ‘futile’
(9)    ‘anecdotal’; ‘theoretical’; ‘journalistic’; ‘assumptions’; ‘guesswork’; ‘opinion’; ‘speculation’; ‘biased’; ‘exaggerated’
(8)    [not] ‘rigorous’
(8)    [not] ‘credible’; ‘compelling’; ‘adequate’; ‘reliable’; ‘convincing’; ‘consensus’; ‘verified’
(7)    ‘inadequate’; ‘poor’; ‘shortcomings’; ‘naïve’; ‘major deficiencies’; ‘futile’; ‘minimal standards of evidence’
(5)    [not] ‘careful’; ‘consistent’; ‘reliable’; ‘relevant’; ‘actual’
(4)    [not] ‘clear’; ‘direct’
(4)    [not] ‘high quality’; ‘acceptable quality’; ‘state of the art’
(4)    [not] ‘current’; ‘recent’; ‘up to date’; ‘kept pace’
(4)    ‘statistical shortcomings’; ‘methodological deficiencies’; ‘individual student data, followed school to school’; ‘distorted’
(2)    [not] ‘independent’; ‘diverse’

As well as illustrating the facility with which some researchers denigrate the work of rivals, the table summary also illustrates how easy it is. Hundreds of terms stand ready for dismissing entire research literatures. Moreover, if others’ research must satisfy the hundreds of sometimes-contradictory characteristics used above simply to merit acknowledgement, it is not surprising that so many of the studies undertaken by these influential researchers are touted as the first of a kind.

* Phelps, R.P. (2016). Dismissive reviews in education policy research: A list. Nonpartisan Education Review/Resources/DismissiveList.htm
http://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Resources/DismissiveList.htm