Several tech companies promised not to compromise the privacy of student data. Advocates of student privacy were not reassured by their promises. See here and here and here. As Politico points out, neither Apple nor Google signed the pledge.
Here is a statement by leaders of the student privacy movement.
Parent Coalition for Student Privacy Not Satisfied with Tech Industry “pledge”
While parents and advocates involved defeating inBloom are appreciative that the voluntary pledge released by members of the software industry bars the selling of student data and its use for targeting ads, its provisions fall far short of what would be necessary to uphold the rights of parents to control access to their children’s personal information and protect their privacy. It appears that technology vendors and their supporters are trying to forestall stronger federal and state laws that would really hold them accountable.
The provisions do not include any parental consent or notification requirements before schools hand over the highly sensitive personal data of their children to vendors, and contain no specific security or enforcement standards for its collection, use or transmission. It would also allow for the infinite disclosure or sale of the data from one company to another, when the first one goes bankrupt, is merged or acquired by another corporation.
Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters based in NYC and co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, said: “We need legally enforceable provisions requiring parental notification and consent for the disclosure and redisclosure of personal student data, as well as rigorous security standards. This pledge will not achieve these goals, and will not satisfy most parents, deeply concerned about protecting their children from rampant data sharing, data-mining and data breaches.”
As Rachael Stickland, Colorado parent and co-chair of the Coalition pointed out, “The pledge explicitly allows for the use of student personal information for ‘adaptive learning.’ Parents are very worried that predictive analytics will lead to stereotyping, profiling and undermining their children’s future chance of success. At the least, industry leaders should support full disclosure of the specific student data elements employed for these purposes, and understand the need for informed parental consent.”
Said Melissa Westbrook, moderator of the Seattle Schools Community Forum and co-founder of Washington State’s Student Privacy Now, “This so-called pledge, filled with mumbo-jumbo, has one glaring item missing – legally enforceable punishment for K-12 service providers who don’t protect student data. Without that, students and their data have no real protections. ”
Concluded Josh Golin, Associate Director for the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, “Across industries, self-regulation has been proven inadequate when it comes to protecting children, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that students’ most sensitive information can be safeguarded through voluntary pledges. Only federal and state legislation that have clear enforcement mechanisms and penalties will give students the protections – and parents the peace of mind – they deserve. It’s disappointing the ed tech industry’s main takeaway from the inBloom fiasco is that they need better PR.”
Leonie Haimson, leonie@classsizematters.org; 917-435-9329
Rachael Stickland, info@studentprivacymatters.org; 303-204-1272
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Staff:
In October 2013, Senator Markey sent a request to Arne Duncan asking for clarification of the policies on privacy of student data. Arne Duncan’s letter took 3 months to come back and he was shallow and cavalier in the letter:
(a) putting the onus on the school board when they “outsource”;
this is usually done after the state has made a list of “vendors”?
or in this case chosen PARCC?j (see the reasoning that Kentucky is using in dropping out of PARC and re-issuing RFP for new vendors)
If the state has already issued an RFP and then an “award” the school board has very little choice ; how can they possibly oversee these complex interplay of technology and tests. This is purposely done to keep the cities and towns and the educational professionals out of the dialogue but then making them accountable and responsible for the messed up results
(b) Arne duncan said it was “flexibility” and that is certainly not true
because Arne Duncan held “a gun to the heads” and said if you want federal
money then you will march to these orders. I have repeatedly called to complain and I have repeatedly written to Governor Patrick about all of these intertwined issues.
It’s been a year and they get some fake promise from a corporate??????? I have no trust in any of this process.
Duncan’s a lost cause. Agnostics make lousy advocates.
He’ll take a neutral middle ground between the interests of public school children and interests of the companies that want to tap into what is a HUGE market, and it’s the best kind of market, it’s ALL publicly-funded. The onus shouldn’t be on us to accept the terms they “graciously” offered. The onus should be on them THEM to prove they’re responsible enough to bring their companies into public schools. They want OUR business, not vice versa.
We don’t need an agnostic. We need an advocate. We need someone who takes A SIDE. I don’t even think Duncan understands his basic job description. He seems to think he’s some kind of broker or mediator between the public and private contractors. I don’t need advice. I need an advocate.
I’m confident the tech industry will protect their interests. I don’t need lawmakers and administration people ALSO working for them. That’s not why we’re paying them.
Bravo jeanhaverill. Could not agree with you more. The corporate “ed reform” strategy is definitely to drain needed funds and then GIVE BACK UNDER VERY SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.. MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL “ED REFORM” out on what it truly is… “GOVERNMENT ROBBING HOOD” since it is our nation’s poorest who are being deprived of the right to a good education. The charters are part of the “robbing hood” plan!
Oh yes.. here is the quote by you SO WORTH REPEATING….
“b) Arne duncan said it was “flexibility” and that is certainly not true
because Arne Duncan held “a gun to the heads” and said if you want federal
money then you will march to these orders…”
Just so we’re clear, the SIIA is a trade organization:
“We introduce this Pledge as a clear industry commitment to safeguard the privacy and security of all student personal information,” said Mark Schneiderman, senior director of education policy, Software & Information Industry Association. “Current law provides extensive restrictions on the use of student information, and this industry pledge will build on and detail that protection to promote even greater confidence in the appropriate use of student data.”
And this is their mission:
“PRINCIPAL MISSION:
Promote the Industry: SIIA promotes the common interests of the software and digital content industry as a whole, as well as its component parts.
Protect the Industry: SIIA protects the intellectual property of member companies, and advocates a legal and regulatory environment that benefits the entire industry.
Inform the Industry: SIIA informs the industry and the broader public by serving as a resource on trends, technologies, policies and related issues that affect member firms and demonstrate the contribution of the industry to the broader economy.”
#1 is promote the industry, #2 is protect the industry, and # 3 is inform the industry.
They “advocate a legal and regulatory environment that benefits THE INDUSTRY”
http://www.siia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159&Itemid=6
I “smell a fox in the hen house” or more like a “rat in the garbage”. Two problems (probably more though) that I see. Here is the smaller of them… How many times are we told “your information is safe” vs. how many times do we hear on the news that “some large company was unknowingly hacked ” AND FOR MONTHS. And parents are supposed to be okay with a company like In-Bloom knowing their child has a size 12 shoe and the reason why a child visits Dr. X every Monday? The second problem which is much larger… just why should a parent be coerced into allowing EVERY aspect of their child’s privacy to be data-fied” by one organization like a “blank check” and with no options other than to say “yes”????? Do we buy a house from a seller because he/she tells us “this is a good house, I promise”? What exactly does a parent or child gain from this collection of data? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! How do we know this? WE SEE WHAT “ED REFORM” IS DOING TO PUBLIC EDUCATION LOUD AND CLEAR!!Parents must ask what the corporations stand to gain? Companies like Pearson have been “gaining” profit off of pseudo data for far too long. Data mining sounds like an invitation to invite more companies into the profit mill based on “child data”. And… oops… when this mined data is hacked and the information “accidentally gets out”… saying “we are sorry” is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The “accidental hacking” will probably be from companies warring for this “highly profitable” child data. I hope parents JUST SAY NO to this hideous “drug affliction called data mining”.
I’d also like to make a request that the US Department of Education stop selling product.
They could not be pushing this harder into low and middle income public schools. It’s cringe-worthy, it’s so blatant.
Maybe they could hold off working for these companies for the brief period they’re actually ON the public payroll and pretending to work for us.
If edtech is worthwhile, it will be integrated into schools. We don’t need a huge publicly-paid sales force in addition to the huge private sector sales force. They could also try being straight with people. Jeb Bush and the rest of the lobbyists for this say that we will have fewer teachers but BETTER teachers if we buy more screens. That’s the goal. They hope to save money, get more bang for the buck in test prep. Maybe we could discuss that goal honestly and publicly instead of insisting it isn’t a goal.
“Maybe we could discuss that goal honestly and publicly instead of insisting it isn’t a goal.” I hear what you are saying Chiara and I would normally think this way but it has gone beyond the point because they are pushing the “steam roller” through…. It is an effort where state level bureaucrats and politicians have teamed up with the Corporate because they believe it is for the best. Those of us who disagree will need further additional strategies…. Let’s keep the dialogue going…. Thanks, Chiara for your comments. It started for me about 1992 when the boss banged his fist on the table and said “don’t think like a teacher think like a business man” and the crew coming out of Harvard would say “remove all these books from the building shelves because we now have everything sewed up — it’s all computer” so we have lived through technology bubbles, mortgage foreclosures etc…. ad infinitum
what has happened to our democracy? The thinky tank types team up with the corporates and the state bureaucrats get quid pro quo, and the Chamber of Commerce links with them. This is a description of the bulldozer they use in pushing these so-called goals: when they “neglect the consequences of their theories; as elites they dominate in many places by restricting opposition. They develop specific strategies to exclude community participation from all stages of the development process seeking to eliminate all potential challengers from the moment the project begins.They push out the opinions of professional educators, parents , school boards or anyone who is in their path. Citizen participation is sharply curtailed by politicians and entrepreneurs committed to the “machine”. They create further inequalities with these strategies.
“quoting Logan and Molotch (I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing in a couple of spots
I am specifically referring to David Driscoll and NAEP, Andy Smarick at Bellwether, Fordham Institute where Checkers Finn works, where Paul Peterson works at PEPG etc. this week I was called anti-catholic but it has nothing to do with their religion it is their false logic and the ideology…. In fact I call him Shumpeter Peterson because he is ideologically wedded to a Viennese economist just like George Will (who once had a superior intellect?) is wedded to his ….
I do not understand why, at the very least, parents are not obligated to sign a permission slip before their underage children participate in any activity where their children’s data is being collected by a for-profit, private company. Before a student participates in a ‘compulsory’ activity like standardized testing, parents should be required to sign a waiver specifying the release of their children’s data to the data collection companies. This waiver would clearly stipulate what the companies can and cannot do with their child’s data upon signing.
In public schools, students are required to get permission to ride a bus, participate in sports, attend special presentations or a field trip. Students can reserve the right to refuse to be photographed or filmed. Why is it that our compulsory tests, can data-mine underage children without parental consent?
A commenter on Mercedes Schneider’s blog posted this link to Clever’s supposed non-data mining information up-load page:
Click to access clever-sftp.pdf
Yep, they’re coming for me, you, the schools, the kids, the teachers: everyone.