The National Pulse: Grading the GOP’s Latest Education Bill: Needs Improvement (on Data Privacy)

by Dr. Karen Effrem, MD

The House Education and Workforce Committee completed their mark-up last week of HR 4508, which they have named the Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform (PROSPER) Act. Here is an update on the data privacy implications of this bill.

The good news is that the ban on a student unit-record system is still in place. The previously proposed College Transparency Act would have allowed non-consensual tracking of personally identifiable information from college through the workforce by monitoring individual data from the colleges and universities, the IRS, and the military. (See also here and here for more details.) Committee chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) deserves great thanks and kudos for authoring that ban in the last version of the Higher Education Act and for keeping it in place in PROSPER.  https://thenationalpulse.com/commentary/grading-gop-latest-education-bill-needs-improvement-data-privacy/

The National Pulse: Invasive Plan to Data Mine Preschoolers Globally Draws International Criticism

by Dr. Karen Effrem, MD

Back in February, both Education Liberty Watch and American Principles Project warned about and submitted comments to The Federal Register opposing U.S. participation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) latest ill-advised and invasive International Early Learning Study (IELS). This is a new scheme to extend international standardized testing, social-emotional profiling, and data mining via tablets.   See the full article at: Invasive Plan to Data Mine Preschoolers Globally Draws International Criticism

The National Pulse: Guess What? Congress Wants to Collect Even More Sensitive Student Data

Dr. Effrem discusses the new version of The Student Right to Know Before You Go Act by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Mark Warner (VA). While improved on the basis of data security, the bill still allows the collection of way too much data without student knowledge or consent, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizens and the government. Read the full article HERE.

Executive Summary of Rebuttal to House “Myths & Facts” on FEPA

House Majority Staff has issued a two-page response[1] to various points made in opposition[2] to the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, or FEPA (HR 4174),[3] which the House passed last week by voice vote without significant hearings or debate. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal of Majority Staff’s claims. This page is an executive summary of that rebuttal.[4]

Claim: FEPA doesn’t create a centralized data repository.
Rebuttal: FEPA moves toward the recommendation of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (Commission) to create a “National Secure Data Service” by 1) requiring each agency to create an evidence-building plan; 2) requiring the OMB Director to unify those plans across the entire federal government; 3) creating a “federal data catalog” and a “national data inventory”; and 4) requiring various councils to recommend how to vastly increase data linking and sharing among federal agencies, with states, and with public and private research entities.

Claim: FEPA doesn’t authorize any new data collection or data analysis.
Rebuttal: Regardless of whether FEPA expressly authorizes new data collection, it 1) incentivizes agency heads to expand, not maintain or minimize, data collection; 2) creates new sources of data for agencies by allowing unfettered access to other agencies’ data; 3) creates a process whereby public and private organizations can access non-public government data; 4) allows the OMB Director to expand the universe of statistical agencies and units; and 5) allows one person, the OMB director, to decide via post-enactment “guidance” what if any data will be exempt from sharing as too private or confidential.

Claim: FEPA “does not overturn an existing student unit record ban, which prohibits the establishment of a database with data on all students,” so parents need not worry about their children’s personally identifiable information (PII).
Rebuttal: FEPA doesn’t overturn this ban – that will almost certainly come later. But its extensive data-linking and data-sharing mandates create a de facto national database, whereby the data stays “housed” within the collecting agency but can be accessed by all. Title III specifically authorizes data “accessed” by federal agencies to be shared. This will threaten the security of not only the student data already maintained by the U.S. Department of Education (USED), but also the data in the states’ longitudinal data systems.

Claim: FEPA doesn’t repeal CIPSEA but rather strengthens it.
Rebuttal: FEPA strengthens nothing. It merely reiterates the same penalties (fine and jail term) in existence since 2002 that have rarely or never been enforced. Worse, FEPA increases threats to privacy and data security by mandating increased access to confidential data and metadata and encouraging unlimited data-swapping with no provisions for data security.

Claim: FEPA “does not respond to the Commission’s recommendations to repeal any ban on the collection or consolidation of data.”
Rebuttal: FEPA directs agency heads to identify and report “any statutory or other restrictions to accessing relevant data . . . ” Because the entire thrust of the bill is to use more and more data for “evidence-building,” the inevitable next step will be to implement the Commission’s recommendation of repealing these pesky statutory obstacles to acquiring “relevant” data.

Claim: FEPA will make better use of existing data.
Rebuttal: The federal government has reams of data showing the uselessness or harm of existing programs. When the government continues to fund those programs despite this data (see Head Start and manifestly ineffective programs under ESEA), there’s no reason – none – to assume it will change its behavior with even more data. And FEPA doesn’t even mention what is considered the gold standard of evaluation – the random-assignment model that would develop more unbiased data to provide better evidence. The bill thus initiates an Orwellian data structure for no apparent purpose.

[1] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7epgdVXe0gKamNsTHhFN0RMX1FRSVVwSTh0QkdsLTVyTFRF

[2] http://missourieducationwatchdog.com/congress-suspending-the-rules-to-rush-through-bill-for-national-citizen-data-system-hr4174/ & https://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/CEP-one-pager-final-Nov-10.pdf

[3] http://tinyurl.com/ycxf68dh

[4] See full rebuttal at: http://bit.ly/2jo6icn