The Louisiana state chief鈥檚 decision to remove student data from a nonprofit group鈥檚 database is highlighting privacy concerns in an age when a growing number of K-12 officials and companies are interested in using data about students to change instruction.
69传媒 superintendent John White decided last month to withdraw student data from the Atlanta-based nonprofit organization inBloom, which had been storing it for the state, and to have discussions with parents about concerns for the confidentiality of data that included students鈥� age, sex, and grade level.
He did so not long after expressing support for the state鈥檚 work with inBloom.
鈥淲e鈥檙e going to go to our families and have a discussion about our data-storage practices, not having anything to do with inBloom,鈥� Mr. White said.
InBloom says it aims to improve classroom instruction by providing data on individual students to technology and content providers, allowing for more personalized learning.
It receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (Both philanthropies also help support Education Week鈥榮 coverage of business and K-12 innovation.)
Other Partners
School districts partnering with inBloom include New York City, two systems in Illinois, and one in North Carolina. The group鈥檚 website indicates that its only statewide partner, until recently, was Louisiana, with three other states (Delaware, Georgia, and Kentucky) slated to conduct inBloom pilot programs this year.
However, according to Reuters, New York has also reached a deal to work with inBloom on a statewide basis.
Verification Purposes
In Louisiana, Mr. White said, the state had been storing student data with inBloom so that vendors in the state鈥檚 Course Choice program could verify basic information, such as name, sex, and birth date, submitted by parents on applications. Course Choice allows students to enroll in academic and career education programs offered by institutions around the state.
Beyond being used for verification, Louisiana student data with inBloom didn鈥檛 migrate to any Course Choice providers, Mr. White said: 鈥淣o data are shared with any vendor.鈥�
Despite his previous support, Mr. White announced in April that Louisiana was removing its student data from inBloom. The decision came just a day after Mr. White reiterated his support for the state鈥檚 arrangement with inBloom to the state school board.
What prompted the change, Mr. White said, were public concerns about how student information was and wasn鈥檛 being used in the arrangement.
InBloom has a 鈥減rivacy commitment鈥� page intended to allay fears about violations of students鈥� privacy. It says, for example, that 鈥渘either inBloom nor any other participating agency or vendor may sell, assign, lease, or commercially exploit confidential student data,鈥� and that its financial backers don鈥檛 have access to such data.
Privacy Concerns Raised
But some groups remain concerned about student privacy.
For example, Class Size Matters, a New York City-based group that lobbies for small class sizes, said the arrangements could compromise privacy in spite of inBloom鈥檚 claims.
鈥淭he plan to share personally identifiable and highly confidential student data in such an unrestricted manner, in an open-ended time frame, without parental notification or consent,鈥� the group contends on its blog, 鈥渋s unprecedented in U.S. history, and would violate both [Federal Trade Commission] and [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] protections if they had authority over student records.鈥�
The privacy of student data was also a concern mentioned in the resolution adopted by the Republican National Committee in April officially opposing the Common Core State Standards. (InBloom says the common core will require new technology and data platforms of the kind inBloom will support.)
The privacy and security section of inBloom鈥檚 website states that 鈥渋nBloom Inc. cannot guarantee the security of the information stored in inBloom or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted.鈥�
Asked about that language, Mr. White said: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know. I鈥檓 not a lawyer, and I can鈥檛 speak for them.鈥�
Response From inBloom
In a letter that inBloom CEO Iwan Streichenberger sent last month to districts it was working with, he referred to Mr. White鈥檚 action as a 鈥減ause鈥� in the relationship, and said that inBloom supported the superintendent鈥檚 decision.
鈥淭he pause also supports Louisiana鈥檚 efforts to transition from using Social Security numbers (SSNs) to randomized student ID numbers, in keeping with inBloom鈥檚 requirements and with industry best practices,鈥� Mr. Streichenberger wrote.
Until recently, inBloom had allowed states and districts to apply for a waiver of the group鈥檚 policy in order to use student Social Security numbers for data purposes, but inBloom said it never granted such a waiver and will no longer consider granting any.
The superintendent previously had expressed confidence that no student data would be misused through Louisiana鈥檚 relationship with inBloom. He said the decision to withdraw data from inBloom did not contradict his earlier statements in support of the arrangement. He didn鈥檛 specify whether he鈥檇 be interested in re-establishing the prior relationship.
Mr. White noted that the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act would cover arrangements Louisiana would have with any vendor.
