The College Transparency Act Must Be Rejected

“Transparency” is the new excuse for creating Orwellian tracking and surveillance systems. The federal government first takes over a function for which it has no constitutional authority – such as student loans – and then claims it must gather almost unlimited data on the citizens affected by that program to see how it’s working. The College Transparency Act (CTA) operates in this mold and must be rejected.

CTA would overturn the Higher Education Act’s ban on a student unit-record system, establishing a federal data system containing personally identifiable information (PII) about behavior in postsecondary education (enrollment patterns, progression, completion), post-collegiate outcomes (employment and earnings), and financial aid. This means that simply by enrolling in higher education, a student would be submitting – without notice or consent – to lifetime government tracking of his or her college, career, and financial trajectory.

CTA would require sharing of private student data among multiple federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid; the Departments of Treasury, Defense, and Veterans Affairs; the Social Security Administration; and the Census Bureau. (More may be added.) So an individual’s PII can be linked to his tax information, his military information, his Social Security records, and everything the Census knows about him. There are no limits on the purposes for which this data-matching can be used. The Administrative State will be able to compile a massive dossier on every American who enrolls in college.

Although collection of some sensitive data is currently prohibited, the Commissioner of Education Statistics is required to periodically review data elements and empowered to add more. Also, there is no specific prohibition against the collection of social emotional data.

This federal treasure trove of PII would be housed in a centralized database and routinely updated, throughout each subject’s life.

CTA violates many of the widely accepted Fair Information Practice Principles[1]: It takes data without subjects’ knowledge and consent; it contains no right to opt out, or to inspect or correct the data; it includes no mandate for data-minimization; and it has no limits on data-retention.

Although CTA requires that data given to researchers be de-identified, re-identification is far too simple when there are so many data points in the system.[2]

CTA mentions data security but requires no security audits, encryption, or protocols for detection and notification of breaches. And federal agencies have been notorious for data breaches.

CTA is unnecessary. Information about postsecondary outcomes can be compiled from student and alumni surveys,[3] and any legitimate institution of higher education is happy to share its statistics with the public.

[1] See http://www.lawpublish.com/ftc-fair-information-practice-principles.html.

[2] See https://www.wired.com/2012/06/wmw-arvind-narayanan/.

[3] See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/12/new-federal-higher-ed-outcome-measures-count-part-time-adult-students.

The Student Privacy Protection Act That Doesn’t Protect Student Privacy

The Student Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 3157 in the 114^th Congress) (SPPA) is an attempt to update the 1974 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and to repair at least some of the damage caused by the 2012 regulatory changes[1] that gutted many of FERPA’s protections for personally identifiable information (PII), in flagrant disregard of congressional intent.[2] While SPPA contains some positive changes, such as removing the language allowing data for “predictive testing” and improving data-security requirements, many gaps and other issues remain:

SPPA does nothing to stop the invasive expansion of the scope of data collected on children, especially including social emotional learning (SEL) assessments and surveys that were greatly expanded under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This is because SPPA allows nonconsensual data use for audits and evaluations of any federal, state or local education program, including those in ESSA.

Releasing PII without consent is an egregious violation of human research ethics.[3]

The list of exceptions to parental-consent requirements for researchers and government entities remains disturbingly large, with no good definition of “legitimate educational interest.” This allows anyone, including corporations and “volunteers” using those magic words, to gain access to the mother lode of student data without the inconvenience of obtaining parental consent.

SPPA grants no private right of action for students and families harmed by misconduct of researchers or corporations that misuse student data or are responsible for data breaches. Penalties for misconduct go to the federal government for “technical assistance” instead of to the aggrieved students and families whose privacy or lives can be and have been seriously harmed by this data free-for-all.[4]

Under the American system of limited government, student privacy and parental consent should always be considered pre-eminent over the research desires of the government or private sector, especially in the realm of psychological profiling.

The federal government should not be using any data — and especially SEL data — to “improve learning,” because the federal government has no constitutional authority whatsoever to be involved in education.

There is no need for continued data collection and invasion of privacy, because the research is already conclusive that federal education programs “protected” by FERPA are utterly ineffective. This is true of ESEA, Race to the Top/Common Core, Investing in Innovation, Head Start, and home visiting, to name just a few.[5] Federal involvement in education has been a disaster, and no amount of data will overcome institutional incompetence.

[1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-02/pdf/2011-30683.pdf

[2] https://epic.org/privacy/student/EPIC_FERPA_Comments.pdf

[3] https://epic.org/apa/ferpa/Public%20Comments%20Pt.%203.pdf – See page 4

[4] https://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Rachael_Stickland_Written_Testimony_-_FINAL.pdf

[5] References for these claims are compiled at: http://edlibertywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Final-Letter-to-Committee-chairs-7-17-.pdf

The National Pulse: DANGER! House GOP Leaders Prepare to Ram Through Privacy-Killing Bill

A Stern Warning from Dr. Karen Effrem:  We must ACT NOW!

Unless the public rises up, FEPA is about to be rammed through a House floor vote with little debate and no recorded vote this Wednesday — all orchestrated by Speaker Paul Ryan, the primary author of the House bill. Ryan’s maneuver is similar to his tactics with the 1,000-plus page conference report of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was released to members only two days before the final vote.

DANGER: House GOP Leaders Prepare to Ram Through Privacy-Killing Bill

The National Pulse: This GOP-Backed Bill Could Be the Next Step to a National Citizen Database

In a nutshell, Dr. Effrem sums up the frightening prospect of a National Data Base!

This means that they are supposed to list any of those pesky prohibitions on data collection or consent requirements that the CEP decried in their report so that the laws may be changed by statute or regulatory fiat.

All of these agencies are then supposed to give their data-mining plans to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget who is required to develop “a unified evidence-building plan” for the entire federal government. Although the public is supposed to be “consulted” and there is some lip service paid to issues of privacy and confidentiality of data, including the privacy danger of linking various pieces of anonymized data that would allow re-identification, these are only items to be considered, not actual prohibitions on proceeding with data collection.

This bill is clearly setting up a national database that will follow Americans throughout their lives. It is much more akin to Chinese efforts, not that of a constitutional republic.