Board approves five‑year data agreement with Utah State University over board privacy concerns

The Utah State Board of Education approved an interagency agreement with Utah State University's Center for the School of the Future to share longitudinal student and teacher data, despite privacy concerns raised by several board members.

Why it matters: The agreement (USBE 250018 IAA) is structured as a multi‑year research relationship intended to support program evaluation and longitudinal studies. Board members and staff debated whether the data request had to include teacher Cactus IDs, whether the data sharing would be a one‑time upload or recurring on an annual basis, and whether de‑identified teacher identifiers could be used to reduce re‑identification risk.

Key points from the meeting: Katie Challis, USBE director of privacy, told the board the law does not require the use of the Cactus ID and said the requesting researchers were open to alternative identifiers. A follow‑up from staff noted that implementing a unique alternative identifier would be feasible but would require extra mapping steps and maintenance from USBE data staff.

The university’s Center sought student and teacher data for a planned five‑year research program. Board members asked whether students or teachers would be notified; staff said districts could elect to notify but that there was no statewide notification requirement tied to the agreement. Deputy Superintendent Newey and other staff said the program as written is likely to involve initial data pushes and recurring data pulls, and that USBE could consider issuing a de‑identified teacher identifier if the board prioritized that approach.

Board action: The interagency data‑sharing agreement passed by an 8–5–1 vote. Members in favor said the partnership could yield valuable evaluation data and long‑term evidence to inform policy. Members opposed raised privacy and governance concerns and said they wanted stronger guarantees that teacher and staff identifiers would be de‑identified at source.

Quote: “The bill does not require a Cactus ID,” Katie Challis said. “They are open to the idea that it be a different identifier.”

What’s next: Staff said they would continue discussing identifier options and report back on whether a de‑identification or alternate‑ID approach is feasible without significantly delaying research timelines. The board’s vote authorizes staff to finalize and sign the agreement as written; additional safeguards or modifications could be developed during implementation.

Ending: The vote showed a split among board members over data access and privacy tradeoffs, and staff will return with options to reduce re‑identification risk if feasible.