Parents and board members press district on PowerSchool data privacy as contract renewal comes up
Loading...
Summary
Speakers at the July 2 meeting raised concerns about PowerSchool's record of a December 2024 data breach and the company's data‑monetization practices; board members asked district staff for the district’s Data Sharing Agreement and paused on final internal concurrence until they reviewed legal protections in the contract.
Multiple speakers and several board members raised questions July 2 about the district’s proposed multi‑year renewal with PowerSchool, a student information and data platform, urging the district to ensure student privacy and prohibit monetization of student data.
Emily Cherkin, a parent and consultant on educational technology, urged the board to remove item 11 (PowerSchool contract) from the consent agenda and to renegotiate. Cherkin told the board that a December 2024 breach of PowerSchool exposed data for millions of students and teachers and that she has filed litigation alleging the company collects and monetizes student information. "PowerSchool does not keep our students data safe," Cherkin said in public comment, and she urged the district to demand contract language that ensures student data are "safe, secure, and unmonetized."
During the consent‑agenda discussion later in the meeting, board members removed the PowerSchool renewal from consent for discussion. Assistant Superintendent of Technology Carlos Tavalles told the board that the district hosts student data locally and uses Data Sharing Agreements (DSAs) to control external access. "We host all the data here internally," Tavalles said. He agreed to provide the board with the district’s DSA for review.
Vice President Briggs and other board members asked for clarity about whether the DSA contains explicit prohibitions on monetization and how the district would be notified in the event of a breach; staff responded that those provisions exist in the agreements and that the district’s hosting and privacy protections differ from other districts that experienced breaches. Board members requested copies of the DSA and additional legal details before completing final approvals.
The board then conducted a recorded roll‑call on the PowerSchool authorization motion. The roll call recorded Director Clark and Director Hersey as abstentions, Director Mizrahi, Director Rankin and President Toph as yea votes, and Director Sarju voting no. After a legal clarification that abstentions are not counted as no votes under district policy, staff recorded the motion as passing by a 3–2 vote (three yes, two no; two abstentions were reported). The board also requested the DSA and related contract documents be made available for review.
District staff did not immediately change procurement steps in public during the meeting; board members said they would review the DSA and consider whether to seek contract revisions or additional legal safeguards.
