Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Data Sharing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah board approves interagency data‑sharing agreement with USU Center for School of the Future
Summary
The Utah State Board of Education approved an interagency data‑sharing agreement with Utah State University's Center for the School of the Future after brief discussion on teacher identifiers and data handling; the measure passed 8–5–1.
The Utah State Board of Education voted to approve an interagency data‑sharing agreement with Utah State University's Center for the School of the Future (USBE 250018 IAA) after a brief presentation and questions about identifiers and notification. Chair Sherry Hymas moved the approval and Member Lear seconded the motion; the board approved the agreement 8 in favor, 5 opposed and 1 abstention.
The agreement is intended to allow the center to receive student and educator records from the Utah State Board of Education for an evaluation described in the contract. Katie Challis, director of privacy for the Utah State Board of Education, told the board the enabling statute does not require use of the board's Cactus ID as the identifier. "The bill that passed and is now law does not specify that it needs to be Cactus ID," Challis said. She added the requesters are open to using a different identifier and that the state is moving toward a new 12‑digit UCIMS identifier that might be used in future exchanges.
Board member Bollinger asked whether teachers and students would be notified that their data were being shared. Challis responded that students would not be notified unless a district or charter chose to do so; she said educators in participating districts would likely be aware because sharing their data is part of the evaluation process. Challis also described operational details: the relationship is written as a five‑year program with an initial large data push followed by periodic (annual or perhaps semiannual) data pulls.
Member Bollinger had pressed staff on whether the board could supply a de‑identified alternate identifier instead of Cactus ID. Challis said staff could generate and maintain a separate matching identifier, but doing so would add complexity and require maintaining a crosswalk so future requests could be matched to prior submissions.
Vote and roll call: the board recorded eight votes in favor and five in opposition; Member Hall registered the sole abstention. Those listed in opposition in the meeting transcript were Member Brinton, Member Green, Vice Chair Wood, Member Lear and Member Boggess. The motion was announced as passing immediately after the vote tally.
The board did not take additional, separate formal action on notification procedures or on creating an alternate identifier during the meeting. Staff indicated the interagency agreement would be implemented under the terms presented and in compliance with the statute cited in the contract.
