Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions parental consent and data protections as district signs MOUs with outside programs
Summary
Committee members reviewed several data-sharing agreements—Teach For America, Connecticut Violence Intervention & Prevention (CTVIP), and McGraw Hill’s Achieve3000—asking for clarity on parental consent, data security and district notification practices.
Members of the Finance & Operations Committee probed agreements that would allow outside organizations to receive student or staff data, asking how parental consent and data protections are handled and who notifies families.
The committee reviewed a proposed data-sharing MOU with Connecticut Violence Intervention & Prevention (CTVIP). The committee sought assurance that data would be shared only after parent or guardian permission. Attorney Alexiadis pointed the committee to the draft agreement, noting, “Parental consent is, is in paragraph 8 on page 4 of the agreement attached to the memo. I just thought I would point that out.” District staff confirmed CTVIP must obtain family permission before receiving records and that CTVIP conducts intake work with families prior to data sharing.
Committee members asked similar questions about the district’s proposed data-sharing with Teach For America and with McGraw Hill for its Achieve3000 reading program. A district presenter said the agreements limit data to what is essential for program evaluation or delivery and that the district would handle parent notification: "McGraw Hill relies on the district to... write the parents to get parental rights to share data," a committee member summarized during discussion. School staff said they had not yet sent parent notices for Achieve3000 pending committee approval and that they planned to follow existing district procedures for notification and consent.
Committee members also raised broader concerns about the number of external vendors that hold district data and asked the administration to assemble a district-wide inventory of active data-sharing agreements and vendor connections so the board can evaluate whether the district is sharing the “minimum amount of data needed.” Administrators agreed to return with clarifying documentation, including the parental consent language used in agreements and the district’s process for notifying families.
No formal vote on the individual MOUs took place during the discussion; the committee approved sending the batch of agenda items to the full board as part of a single motion later in the meeting.
