For years, the Arizona Department of Education handed out students’ Personally Identifiable Data to nearly anyone who asked, now Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas is taking steps to protect data privacy.
Douglas, and the ADE’s data and privacy officers along with other experts have also been directly involved, developed a “series of improvements,” based on the feedback and concerns she heard from parents and other stakeholders while on the campaign trail and her two statewide tours.
“One of my top priorities is and always will be protecting the privacy of the student data that the Department is charged with maintaining,” said Superintendent Douglas. “I will ensure that it is used only in the interest of improving outcomes for children in our state and that all necessary measures are taken to safeguard the identity of individual students.
“When I first arrived at the Department, I had several serious concerns about the amount of student data being shared with the federal government and other third parties. I was pleased to see that there were several existing policies designed to protect student privacy, but I knew there were improvements to be made.”
One of the first steps taken by the Superintendent to ensure data protection was to examine the Department’s procedure that allows third parties to request personally identifiable student data. Such requests now go through an even more stringent review process before being approved, and must demonstrate that the intended use of the data will directly benefit Arizona schools and students.
Part I: ADE Agrees To Share Students’ Personally Identifiable Information
According to ADE spokesman Charles Tack, unlike past practices, which allowed various private groups access to student PII, the scenarios under which access would be granted are now very limited. The scenarios “can include county education service agencies and some of our close research partners like Arizona State University.” Tack also noted that “the data we send to the federal government as part of required reporting is aggregated and therefore not classified as PII. Additionally, for requests concerning PII, unique student identifiers are typically masked or if necessary random identifiers are generated.”
The Superintendent is also overseeing the development of a system by which any authorized third parties whose data requests are approved can securely access data. Originally outlined in her AZ Kids Can’t Afford to Wait! Plan, this system will be designed to ensure that student data never needs to leave ADE’s secure network.
Additionally, Superintendent Douglas is supervising the production of expanded resources for parents who are concerned about their rights related to data collection and sharing. Those resources will be added to a redesigned parent portal on the ADE website, which is scheduled to go live in the near future.
Parents have been concerned about the availability of their children’s PII to various entities. Many have expressed the desire to opt their children out of data sharing populations. According to Tack, “The viability of an opt-out clause is something we will be considering as part of this process.”
Yet, parents say the ADE should not be distributing PII ever. Lisa Hudson, one of the founders of the Mommy Lobby asserts that because none of data is academic in nature, it is not needed to improve academic outcomes. They believe that the ADE should deny anyone PII. They want an opt in rather than an opt out option for parents.
As for “existing policies” to which Douglas refers, some question whether the current “honor” system policy will remain in place. That system provides the ADE staff with no procedure to determine that data has been destroyed. It relies solely on the “honor” of third parties to destroy student data when no longer in use.
Arizona State Rep. Mark Finchem stated, “Parents and legislators recognize that the most secure data is that which is not collected. To that end, legislation has been drafted that will define “test,” “assessment” and “survey,” and there will be at least two bills introduced shortly that prohibit the collection of non-cognitive data and require informed consent by a parent or guardian for every instance where data collection is proposed. Opting out is no longer a sufficient safeguard, opting in – with penalties for those who chose to trample upon parental authority -read as rights- is becoming more necessary every day.
“The data belongs to the individual,” continued Finchem. “Contrary to the Arizona Attorney General’s opinion, under the constitutional view, which is the true law of the land, “permissions” are given by government -men- but “rights” are given by nature’s God and are inalienable.”
“It is not the place of government to usurp the authority and rights of the parent to achieve a means that benefits the government. Our children are the consumers of the service we call education.” Finchem concluded, “The bureaucracy ought to take great care to remember the key tenant of governance; we serve at the consent of the governed.”