Ludlow case leaves in place First Circuit ruling for the district

Screenshot of Monday's orders, highlighting the relevant line
Yes, that is all that they send out!

Unless you were watching for it, you may have missed it, but on Monday, the Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari (or "denied cert") in the Foote v. Ludlow case. That means the First Circuit decision from last February, which found in favor of the district, which I noted here, stays in place.

To quote again what I quoted from that then: 

As  this  opinion  has endeavored to illuminate,  we acknowledge the fundamental importance of the rights asserted by the Parents to be informed of, and to direct, significant aspects of their child's life--including their socialization, education, and health.  Be that as it may--as this opinion has also made effort to explicate --parental rights are not unlimited.  Parents may  not  invoke  the  Due  Process  Clause  to  create  a  preferred educational experience for their child in public school.  As per our  understanding  of  Supreme  Court  precedent,  our  pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children. And the Protocol of nondisclosure as to a student's at-school  gender expression without  the  student's consent does not restrict parental rights in a way courts have recognized  as  a  violation  of  the  guarantees  of  substantive  due process. All told, the Parents have failed to state a claim that Ludlow's  Protocol  as  applied  to  their  family  violated  their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child.

GLAD Law, which filed a friend-of-court brief, noted the decision here. Note that among the other briefs filed was one from the Massachusetts Attorney General, along with 15 others.

No, I don't know how this aligns with the recent shadow docket decision from California, save maybe it wasn't a state law, but I don't know that we should be looking for consistency among the majority. 
UPDATE: Looks like I'm not alone in being confused.

 

of note from San Francisco on AI

 San Francisco Unified signed a contract with OpenAI before putting it before their school board, where it appears on their consent agenda. 

As the San Francisco Public Press notes in their coverage: 

Even if students do not have direct access, data such as school work, academic records, behavioral information and digital interactions can be especially sensitive, since minors have special legal protections. Once shared with vendors, student information can be stored, analyzed or reused beyond public view.

Artificial intelligence chatbots can present privacy problems for schools, said Lee Tien, legislative director at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, which scrutinizes how many public institutions, including schools, use technology and collect private data.

The timing and handling of the agreement raised questions about how San Francisco school administrators evaluate and approve technology tools, and whether meaningful oversight occurs, Tien said. When procurement decisions come in advance of review by accountable leadership, public discussions about surveillance and transparency can be shortchanged. “It’s simply rubber-stamping decisions that were being made, and you don’t know why they were being made,” Tien said.

Such a procurement decision, unless it exceeded five years, wouldn't even need to come to the school committee in Massachusetts at all.  

What are we doing here, Worcester?

 I am of course posting this after the Worcester School Committee meeting at which this was discussed. This is partly because this isn't intended as anything other than my thoughts, but it's also rather been a bleak week. It's a hard week to pull together the through line to write. 

AI and violating student civil rights

 Remember how one of the last things done by the Office of Civil Rights under the Biden administration was to send out guidance on the dangers of AI use around protecting student civil rights?

And remember how I noted that we seemed to be barreling right along in that direction back at the beginning of the school year?

A recently-released brief reports at 61% of special education teachers report using AI to write IEPs or 504s last year. You'll note that this was specifically warned against in the OCR guidance above. Among the issues this can create, in addition to massive student privacy rights issues:

IDEA requires each IEP to be unique and tailored to each students’ disabilities, goals and process for achieving their goals. An AI tool that develops IEPs based on little student-specific information and that is not significantly reviewed and edited by a teacher likely would not meet these IDEA requirements, said the CDT paper.

What should districts do? 

I'm going to argue with the article here and say MAKE THIS SOMETHING THAT IS BARRED.  

on schools and social media

 (see, there are tech in schools things to talk about besides AI!)

have a little fall photo to break this up

Earlier this month, I got the National Education Policy Center's update on Vermont's passing a law that barred schools from using social media to communicate with students. While the headlines talked about Vermont "falling in line" with other states on cell phones in schools bans, the law added something different: 

Act 72 goes a step further than other state laws, and includes a provision barring schools from using social media platforms to communicate with students, and from otherwise requiring students to have social media accounts to engage in academic and extracurricular activities.

NEPC's newsletter outlined some reasons why this was done, and I want to call your attention to the first two:

• Student pictures on social media can end up in the hands of pedophiles.
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other government agencies use social media for the purposes of surveillance

We need to talk about facial recognition technology in schools

Some schools are doing it.
And the research is clear on the biases in the system:

The systems falsely identified African-American and Asian faces 10 times to 100 times more than Caucasian faces, the National Institute of Standards and Technology reported on Thursday. Among a database of photos used by law enforcement agencies in the United States, the highest error rates came in identifying Native Americans, the study found.
The technology also had more difficulty identifying women than men. And it falsely identified older adults up to 10 times more than middle-aged adults.

Another group it isn't good at? Children. 

The Doherty draft Preferred Schematic Design

All 864 pages of it are online here, and this is what will be voted on tomorrow evening. I should also note that I was not at the last building committee meeting (postponed meetings due to snow), so I can't vouch for what was and wasn't said then, let alone what has come up in other places.
I'll say that the thing that really concerns me about this is it continues to be framed--including by the district itself, in repeated phone calls to families--that this is a vote on the preferred site.
It is much much more than that. It is a vote on the preferred design of the school, including what's included in what is being requested.

As you'd expect in 864 pages, there's a lot there (this is a report that could do with both page numbers and internal hyperlinks).

NSBA '19: Federal Student Privacy Update

I'm at the National School Boards Convention in Philadelphia this weekend; periodic blogging as warranted. This morning, I'm at the Council of School Attorneys' section with an update on FERPA
with Michael Hawes, Director, Student Privacy Policy Office, US DoE
"there's been so much change over the past few months in the Department over the past few months that my bio has changed I think three times since I submitted it"

Update on MCAS 2.0: May Board of Ed meeting

The backup is here
Sagan: will do as a review of the assessment committee meeting
"very interesting time"
coming to the end of statewide testing this year and we just got the deadline for the RFP for the next test
on schedule, but it's a very aggressive one
"fewer issues this year than last year" with online testing
also had fewer schools taking it online this year than last year
any change in test refusal? No change
still appears to be a very small number
70% PARCC 30% MCAS
"won't be a state number" as a one time thing
"nothing we can do about it"
Two bids for next text: one from AIR, one from Measured Progress
update of curriculum frameworks : 300 applicants to be on the committee
seems to be going extremely well
"how do we manage the level in the next generation test?"
will hear what you're changing, what you're not changing
district technology preparedness
too early to be alarmed at responses to E-rate (MA districts have requested a total of $48.6M)
Sagan: need to think of summer schedule

Wulfson: would be remiss if didn't express appreciation to educators across the state in working through test and standards
budget for assessment: Legislature level funded
"is not going to be sufficient to do everything we want it to do in a high quality way"
wait until after vendor selection and come up with a hard contract

Sagan: parallel negotiation with PARCC regarding rights
Stewart: intellectual property component (see here for why this is relevant)
Commissioner has said it will allow us to retain control over material
Wulfson passes to someone else...intellectual property
exist right now collectively among the member states in the consortium
has been established through the life of the consortium
there are layers to it: materials that were developed through Race to the Top funding: those questions will be available and available publicly
some questions developed with each state's contract with Pearson
"it would be difficult for states to individually police questions"
as we move out of consortium this will change
need to develop a licensing agreement
will be buying content from PARCC; want to be sure that we are developing questions
"a little nuanced"
Wulfson: use of intellectual property, and logistical use
costs associated with all of that as well
Stewart: I understood that it was phasing out
Wulfson: PARCC consortium continues to exist, there are member states who want to be full-fledged members who want to offer full test
separately, states are discussing what kind of governance they want to have going forward
and how will they deal with affiliated members like us who may not want to take the full test
PARCC, Inc: serves as project manager: each state has a contract with PARCC, Inc
both contracts will be expiring the end of this testing cycle
will have a direct relationship with the PARCC vendor contractor
will be subsumed in the licensing agreement that all affiliated states will negotiate
Stewart: state data privacy : anything changing?
anything state can do to help districts with this?
Chester: we insist on industry standards
provide technical assistance and standards to districts
districts ultimately house a lot of data
Wulfson: section on student data privacy in last week's Commissioner's update
Sagan: industry standard isn't always good enough in this day and age
"let's come back to this"
Sagan now polling Board on how they want to handle this over the summer
Chester suggests an assessment subcommittee this summer
Chester "confident" we'll be able to have test ready for next year

What's in the Every Student Succeeds Act?

Okay, we're going to do this as the act itself actually reads; as always, h/t to EdWeek that keeps up with this all the time.Other than that, the below is entirely my work, page by page. 

Waivers: NCLB waivers expire August 1, 2016, however the plans dealing with lowest performing schools and subgroup achievement gaps are still in play until new plans are submitted for the 2017-18 school year. Those are "needs improvement, corrective action, or restructuring" schools and "priority or focus" schools.

Title I:  (for a numbers rundown, see this from the American Association of School Administrators) Most of the sections of Title I are level funded through FY20, with "the sense of Congress" being that this would revised if discretionary spending levels are adjusted. Note also that School Improvement Grants are no longer a separate program; they are folded into Title I, with the specification that the current 4% of Title I set aside for school improvement is increased to 7% of their Title I funding (of that, 95% of it needs to go to districts directly). As before, such funding may only supplement, not supplant, funding the district is otherwise receiving.

State plans: States are still required to submit plans to the U.S. DoE. There remains a peer review process, and states can appeal a rejection of their plan (but it's to the Secretary, so I'm not sure how that helps). As part of that, states must "provide assurance" that they have adopted "challenging academic achievement standards," but they are not required to submit those standards to the Secretary (this is how they're resolving the question of federal requirements and the Common Core). States must have state standards for "mathematics, reading or language arts, and science" and have English language proficiency standards; they may have standards in other subjects.

...and just in case we were unclear on the Secretary's authority:

FEDERAL CONTROL.—The Secretary shall not have the authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards adopted or implemented by a State.

Testing: In their plans, the states have to demonstrate that they have "in consultation with local educational agencies,...implemented a set of high-quality student academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science." Emphasis there mine; has anyone been consulted? The tests must (and I'm pulling the language here, because I think this is going to come up):

(ii) be aligned with the challenging State academic standards, and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards and whether the student is performing at the student’s grade level; (iii) be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical testing standards, objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge, and skills, and be tests that do not evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose personally identifiable information; (iv) be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under this Act and consistent with the requirements of this section, the evidence of which shall be made public, including on the website of the State educational agency...

Students must be tested in math and ELA one a year in grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-11, and in science once in grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 10-12. Schools still need to have a 95% participation rate in testing, but what happens to the schools that don't is up to the state.
The tests also must:

(vi) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks; (viii) at the State’s discretion— ‘‘(I) be administered through a single summative assessment; or ‘‘(II) be administered through multiple statewide interim assessments during the course of the academic year that result in a single summative score that provides valid, reliable, and transparent information on student achievement or growth;

States are required to provide individual "interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic" student reports with information that allows "parents, teachers, principals, and other school leaders to understand and address the specific academic needs of students" and they have to do so in a timely fashion. There are parallel reporting requirements for reporting out on subgroups (and no "supersubgroups" as in the waivers; each needs to be broken out, so long as it's of a statistically significant size).The test items are "(xiii) be developed, to the extent practicable, using the principles of universal design for learning."
All ELL students must be annually assessed in their English proficiency. The states have a few options on what to do with newly arrived students (in the U.S. for less than 12 months) on the other tests; they can have the student not take the tests, or they can exclude their results from accountability (but report them).
Local districts can choose a different "nationally-recognized high school academic assessment" with state approval. Regarding opting out:

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.

In other words, they kicked this one back to the states.

More on state plans: They have to include four indicators, of which three are state testing proficiency rates, ELL student proficiency, another subgroup proficiency and one more; high schools get five, adding graduation rate. The other options include student engagement, educator engagement, access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school climate/safety, or something else. For those working on other ways assessing schools, this is a crack in the door that should be pushed on! States are still required to identify lowest 5% of performing (how we get there is going to look a little different) plus high schools failing to graduate one-third or more of their students AND other schools at the state's discretion. What exactly they do with those schools is up to the states.

Interestingly, if a district has only had a student for less than half the year, the student's test score can't count against the school's accountability level. Likewise, a student who doesn't graduate counts for the high school that has had that student for the majority of high school.

Schools indentified as underperforming still need to submit school improvment plans, and the process looks fairly parallel to now (group of stakeholders analyzing local data, plan has to include "evidence-based interventions" and consider resources, and has to be approved locally and monitored by the state). The state has to establish exit criteria for this. The state is also to analyze resource allocation and provide technical assistance for any district having a significant number of schools falling into underperforming.

The bill is also speaks at length, forbidding the Secretary to specify quite a number of things, including the evaluation methods of teachers and other school professionals and forbidding data collection beyond what already happens in other sections of federal law.
States are also required to specify how they will assist local districts in increasing early childhood education; ensure that disadvantaged students are not served by inexperienced teachers, reduce bullying, reduce out-of-school suspension, reach all students, stabilize the education of students in foster care, and support homeless students. And if that sounds like a hodgepodge, that's because it is! Likewise, there are a list of assurances the states are required to submit (starts on page 109, if you're interested).
Both states and local districts must issue annual report cards.
Districts need to have annual school improvement plans as well (and what needs to be included starts on page 134). As part of that plan, districts:

shall notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the local educational agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments mandated by section 1111(b)(2) and by the State or local educational agency, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable.

"where applicable"...hm...
Districts are also required to post on their website what assessments are used, where it comes from, how long it will take, what it will test, and when they'll have results available.
As they're still talking about "low income," the bill offers the following for how to measure that:

a local educational agency shall use the same measure of poverty, which measure shall be the number of children aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary, the number of children eligible for a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the number of children in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, or the number of children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid Program, or a composite of such indicators, with respect to all school attendance areas in the local educational agency

Secondary school calculations may be based off estimates from the elementary schools.
Federal funds are still required to supplement not supplant local (and state) spending; it also retains the "hold harmless" provision on funding (page 199; note that it isn't entirely harmless), and the requirement of state's maintenance of effort (states have to keep funding education themselves in order to received federal funds).

Innovative assessments: As part of the Title I B assessment grants, the bill provides for "innovative assessments" in up to seven states for the first three years of the law. Those have to report out, and at the end of that time, the Secretary may extend that "demonstration authority" further.

There's a provision for local districts to enter an agreement with the Secretary for a local weighed per-pupil funding system, allowing for substantially more funding to go to their neediest student bodies. Districts can bundle their Title I, Title II, Title III, and parts of Title IV and V to do so.

Title IIA: (teacher development) There's a list of provisions for which these funds may be used starting on page 336. It does allow for pay-for-performance, but it also allows the funds to be used to reduce class size. Several mentions in this section of "human capital management"

21st Century Learning grants are in, but not for any substantial boost back up in funding.

Charter schools and magnet schools: For those who like to compare these things, the grant to expand charter schools is funded at a higher level that the grant to fund magnet schools ($270M rising to $300M versus $94M rising to $108M).

Promise Neighborhoods are in, but funding isn't specified; the same is true of community schools.

National readers note that there is a substantial section on Native American education, including a requirement that the Secretary of Education report on student suicides.

Federal impact aid is level funded until FY2020.

Speaking of definitions that might be useful, here's ESSA's definition of a "well-rounded education" (from Title VIII, page 807):

(52) WELL-ROUNDED EDUCATION.—The term ‘well-rounded education’ means courses, activities,and programming in subjects such as English, reading or language arts, writing, science, technology,engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography,computer science, music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and any other subject, as determined by the State or local educational agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to an enriched curriculum and educational experience.’’

Title VIII also requires the Secretary of Education to figure out how many federal employees worked on programs that no longer exist under this renewal and to cut the department by that many positions (page 813).

Waivers of federal provisions: Both schools and districts can request waivers of the provisions within the law (the schools request of the district, which turns to the state; the district requests of the state which turns to the federal department) (page 816 and following).

"Prohibition against federal mandates" speaks for itself:

IN GENERAL.—No officer or employee of the Federal Government shall, through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements, mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments,curricula, or program of instruction developed and implemented to meet the requirements of this Act (including any requirement, direction, or mandate to adopt the Common Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative, any other academic standards common to a significant number of States, or any assessment, instructional content, or curriculum aligned to such standards), nor shall anything in this Act be construed to authorize such officer or employee to do so.

Likewise, the federal government can't require local or state funds be directed particular ways. Also nothing in the act shall:

require the distribution of scientifically or medically false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the distribution of scientifically or medically true or accurate materials

Military recruiter opt-in: Districts are required to provide military recruiters with student information unless the parents specifically have directed the district to not provide it. Districts creating instead an "opt in" provision is not allowed. This came in as part of NCLB.

Free-range kids: The federal government can't make laws regarding parent-permitted school travel, but, then, they also can't limit the abilities of local or state authorities to do so.

Student privacy: There is a "sense of Congress" section requesting that the Secretary review all applicable provisions and ensure student data is protected. As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, there's no teeth in this; on the other hand, it isn't here by accident.

Regarding the First Amendment:

It is the sense of Congress that a student, teacher, school administrator, or other school employee of an elementary school or secondary school retains the individual’s rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States during the school day or while on the grounds of an elementary school or secondary school. 

Posthumous pardon for Jack Johnson (starts on page 914)

Reports: Congress is asking for reports on dropouts, subgroup sample size, access to digital learning resources, and the Title I formula (that's like FBRC federally!). 

Preschool development grants which are being administered through Health and Human Services (as Head Start is).

"Highly qualified" is over.

and, whew! That's it.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

The Worcester School Committee meets Thursday; you can find the agenda here.

The report of the Superintendent is an update on North High's safety plan. I suspect that the three items Ms. Ramirez has submitted on North--requesting a mediation specialist and creating a stakeholder group as well as asking about cameras--will be taken at the same time, as well as any testimony related to that.

Finance and Operations is reporting back; notes on auditors' reports, on the second quarter (including transfers), on facilities, on transportation. They'll be three votes on this beyond accepting the report: quarterly transfers, the bus contract, and MSBA submissions.

We have some new appointments (including a librarian!).
We have a reponse back from administration on bringing the energy management back in house. Short version? It's saving us money and giving us better service.
We have a response back from administration regarding the use of WRTA bus passes.
We have a number of congratulations coming through: dancers, artists, writers, good citizens!
In honor of Sunshine Week, I'm asking the City Solicitor to give us a legal opinion on the use of personal email for public business.
Mr. O'Connell is asking about some classifications he says were stricken from SAGE on student suspension.
Mr. Monfredo is starting his annual book drive for "Worcester: The City that Reads." Collection locations to come!
In relation to articles like this, I'm asking that administration clarify the use of student information in online apps.
Mr. O'Connell is asking to review both the Elm Park report from the state (which went to the stakeholder group for them to do their work on the already-approved Level 4 turnaround plan) and the Jacob Hiatt extended learning time report.
He is further asking around opting out of PARCC.
I'm requesting an update from administration on MCAS and PARCC.
Miss Biancheria is asking the role of the chief academic officer in school suspensions.
She's further asking for the difference between an internal document and a public document.
She's also asking about summer programs.

We have no executive session tomorrow night, so starting right with regular public session at 7!

Where does the information in the app your kid is using at school go?

And has anyone checked?
Great article in the NY Times today on the growing use of apps at schools, and the lack of tracking where the information goes. While the article focuses on behavioral apps--which, as an aside? I find appalling--this certainly carries through for about anything where your child signs into a website and does anything: reads an online book and takes a quiz, practices math problems, checks test results.
While teachers have to agree to a user agreement upon setting up the site for their classes, I suspect that the experience of many is like that of the teacher in the article: they just click agree.
On a local note: there is guidance on this coming from downtown in Worcester, as part of a larger "data managment" memo (which will deal with data walls, too). I'll make sure we get it around so that everyone knows what's supposed to be happening. In the meantime? Parents, ask!

InBloom SHUT DOWN!

Folks, it's over:

After months caught in the crosshairs of parents, advocates, and educators concerned about student-data privacy, controversial nonprofit inBloom announced Monday that it will close its doors.

As per usual with this crowd, their press release blamed parents and teachers and missed the point:

 It is a shame that the progress of this important innovation has been stalled because of generalized public concerns about data misuse, even though inBloom has world-class security and privacy protections that have raised the bar for school districts and the industry as a whole.

No, no, you haven't. What you have done is raise awareness of how much money there is to be made in data controlled by school districts and how aware parents, teachers, and data privacy mavens need to be of the ridiculous ends to which some will go to get it.

No inBloom for Massachusetts

Odd way to get the information, but we'll take it!

See the below exchange from Twitter this afternoon:

(I suppose we can parse "are not" vs. "are and will not" but we'll take the "No" for certain!)

Senator Markey introducing legislation on student privacy!

Hey, more good signs from the Massachusetts junior senator:

 Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today announced plans to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to ensure that safeguards are in place for students data shared with third parties. Recent changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) have allowed for the increased sharing and use of student data in the private sector...

“Putting students’ sensitive information in private hands raises a number of concerns about the privacy rights of parents and their kids, some who may be as young as five years old,” said Senator Markey, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. “The time to act is now, before parents lose control of their children’s personal information. Parents, not private companies, have the right to control personal information about their children. We should help student scholars make the grade, not help companies make a sale. I look forward to working with my colleagues to introduce and pass this important and timely legislation.”

You can see Markey's remarks here.
Glad I complimented him on his actions on this at the city inauguration! 

Accountability

Ms. Biancheria reading the report of Accountability
with items on PARCC and on student privacy

Speaking of student privacy, Senator Markey gets it

Nice one from our new(est) Massachusetts senator, Edward Markey, who recently sent a letter to Secretary Duncan, expressing concerns regarding the sharing of student information. He's sent them twelve questions, and asks for a response back by November 12.
As noted by EdWeek:

A former, longtime member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Markey's been a player in attempting to craft policies to protect student data for year. He was a co-author of the  Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, which became law in 1998.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one.

On sharing student information

Perda: obtain written permission from parents prior to sharing information about students
practice is to use a letter
this is the practice when this falls outside those who already have consent to see and use student data
Those are:

• school officials with legitimate educational interest
• other schools to which a student is transferring
• specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes
• appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student
• organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school
• accrediting organizations
• to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena
• appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies
• state and local authorities within the juvenile justice system

MOTION: request that administration come back with opt out language on parents opting out on student information sharing with outside vendors after consultation with legal that's mine
O'Connell suggests to discuss with MASC
Colorio: unclear on if we know what was allowed under change in FERPA
Novick: suggest that we add to previous item on Friday letter

 

201 CMR 17.00 compliance

Perda: "student privacy around records is something that the district takes very seriously."
both the right thing to do and the legal thing to do
"responsibility of my office to ensure compliance with these laws"
developed data sharing agreement with city solicitor's office
not all vendors are cooperative
some companies feel a statement that they will comply with FERPA is sufficient
opinion of the district that it is not enough, that vendor is responsible for complying with same laws (including state laws) as the district does
in virtually all cases, district makes an attempt to withhold student name
protection of student information
must be concerned beyond that, as cross data could ID students
Novick: request referral of this item to Governance to update student handbook around student rights under FERPA
request also list online of who has access to student information
item filed: list of vendors to be posted (and in Friday letter), policy sent to Governance