Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee presses staff for legal review of proposed student‑data sharing agreements
Summary
Committee members asked district staff to seek legal review and clearer protections before approving three vendor research agreements (I‑Ready, McGraw/Hill, Scholastic/Achieve3000), urged deidentification where possible, and asked for sample reports and timelines for time‑sensitive items.
Committee members on the New Haven School District committee urged staff on Wednesday to get a legal review and clearer data safeguards before moving forward with several vendor research agreements that request student and staff data.
At a hearing of the committee, staff described three memoranda of understanding that would allow vendors to analyze district data to evaluate effectiveness of products such as I‑Ready, McGraw/Hill materials and Scholastic’s Achieve3000. President Yarmo said the board needs to know whether proposed agreements create ongoing costs and how those costs should be disclosed to the board and budget planners. “Can the district say that the data has to be deidentified?” Yarmo asked, pressing staff to explore deidentification and to ensure end reports demonstrate value to the district.
Dr. Negron and other members said their priority is return on investment and protection of student‑identifiable information. “I want to see how kids are performing as it relates to that particular usage,” Dr. Negron said, urging staff to obtain examples of vendor end reports and to limit demographic fields where possible. Staff replied that the companies sometimes offer small stipends to teachers for participation and that the district can request deidentified data or push back on demographic elements it does not deem necessary.
Staff additionally flagged two items (Achieve3000 and Scholastic) as time‑sensitive because baseline student participation and data collection need to begin soon. Board members and staff agreed to ask the district attorney to review exhibit language (including proposed changes vendors made to the district’s standard data‑sharing template) and to return to the committee with clarifications before the full board posting. The committee voted to move the package of items to the full board with a request that legal review and the requested clarifications be provided in time for the board packet.
What happens next: staff will request legal review of the exhibits, ask vendors for sample end reports, and report back to the committee before the full board posting. If legal review finds material policy changes, the committee suggested treating future vendor edits to the district’s standard agreement as a standing discussion item.
Provenance: Topic introduced at SEG 295 and the committee continued discussion through SEG 741.
