Committee discusses draft data‑sharing policy; members seek stronger limits and clearer justification for student data requests

The committee reviewed draft policy materials on data sharing (policy 35.20.13 in draft form) intended to govern how vendors, researchers and partners may access district data. Members described the draft as largely patterned on the C.A.V.E. model policy but discussed specific changes and operational concerns. Doctor Yarbrough and other committee members said they want stronger written limits that require vendors to request and receive the minimum amount of student data necessary and to justify any request for identifiable information. “My request is that people have to use the minimum amount of data necessary to do the job. And anything above a certain amount, they really have to justify it and the district has to agree,” Yarbrough said. District counsel and staff described edits from the model policy and the addition of district application materials and a standard data‑sharing agreement as appendices; staff said the packet also includes materials for research proposals and review procedures. IT and security staff (Mr. Simeone) said district IT already scrutinizes data requests for personally identifiable information, encryption and storage practices before the district grants access. Assistant Superintendent RedHannons noted some operational challenges: de‑identifying data can limit the district’s ability to use tools and intervention programs that require student‑level identifiers for day‑one screening and intervention. Committee members asked to clarify how the policy would work in practice, request stronger language about minimizing identifiable data, and suggested using the cover memo and brief description sections in procurement materials to list the exact data fields requested and the business or instructional justification for sharing them. Staff said time‑sensitive assessment and intervention contracts are expected to come before the committee at the next meeting; members encouraged bringing those agreements forward and requested more explicit minimum‑necessary language to guide staff review. Why it matters: student data sharing touches privacy, instructional efficacy and vendor capabilities. Committee members balanced the district’s need for actionable assessment data with the community’s interest in minimizing exposure of personally identifiable information. Next steps: staff will refine the draft policy language to emphasize minimum necessary data, add language to require justification for requests beyond de‑identified fields, and use cover memos to document data fields and justifications when agreements come before the committee.