See our PCSP/NYSAPE memo in opposition to a new bill in the NY State Legislature , S. 6624/ A. 7421 that would amend NY State’s landmark student privacy law and create a new loophole for the College Board and ACT. This would allow these two companies to continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars, selling the personal information of students, including their score ranges, with questionable benefits to them. If you agree this is wrong, please send a letter to your legislators now!PSCP-NYSAPE memo of opposition to sale student data
Endorsed by Access Living, ACLU of Illinois, Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Children’s Screen Time Action Network, Civitas ChildLaw Center, Hartlieb & Horste, LLC, Illinois Families for Public Schools, Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, Raise Your Hand for Illinois Public Education
Many US public schools have been operating remotely since March, either full-time or part-time as a result of the Covid pandemic. And with infection rates steeply increasing in the US, the timing of any return to fully in-person schooling remains uncertain.
The use of technology was widespread even before this spring. Now its use is nearly universal. But tech use should not impinge on students’ right to privacy and access to schooling.
In a recent national survey, 60% of educators said students would face negative consequences for having cameras off. However, students should never be forced to choose between maintaining their privacy and receiving an education . Moreover, surveillance does not equal safety.
Surveillance can be especially stressful for disadvantaged students, students of color; those with disabilities; undocumented students; students in temporary living situations and/or those from low-income families, living in crowded homes or apartments.
There are many other ways teachers can check if students are paying attention, such as calling on them verbally, asking them to use the chat function or polling function.
We have assembled a set of best practice policy recommendations on tech use during remote learning:
- Camera-on requirements: Students should always be permitted to participate in class without turning on video. And if live-video streaming is used during synchronous learning, schools should obtain written consent from parents explaining the risks and benefits of their children opting in to having their cameras on.
- Recording video conference sessions: Recording should never be obligatory for students, including for one-on-one sessions of a sensitive nature, e.g. counseling and therapy. Families must receive clear information about their rights to inspect, correct, receive copies of and, for children 13 and under, delete recordings.
- Observers in the virtual classroom: Schools/districts should issue clear guidelines to allow parents, guardians or other participants, for example childcare workers or family members, to assist their child in participating and/or to observe live video-conference sessions.
- Use of surveillance software to monitor devices: Students and families should be informed of the role of any browser in monitoring online activity and physical location, especially for the use of non-school owned devices. No third party provider of a computer hardware or software should be able to collect, use, generate or retain student data without explicit parental “opt in” permission.
- Use of surveillance software for proctoring tests remotely: Rather than subjecting students to highly invasive monitoring in pursuit of test security, schools and teachers should implement methods of assessment during remote learning that do not require surveillance spyware.
- Policy transparency for families: Schools should not only establish clear policies for tech use and privacy, but also make information about these policies accessible to all families (e.g. providing paper copies, translating all documents).
These recommendations are intended as a resource to assist students and families, teachers, administrators, and school board members, whether they are writing, revising or advocating for improvement of policies covering the role of tech in students’ remote learning experiences. Technology is crucial to accessing education during remote learning, but policy makers must be thoughtful in addressing its potential risks as well.
Much thanks for Cassie Creswell of IFPS for taking the lead on drafting this guidance.
Class Size Matters, NY Allies for Public Education, and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy would like to know which online apps or programs are being employed by schools throughout New York state, and whether they are sufficiently protective of children’s privacy. We are asking parents and teachers to take our survey here, to let us know what apps or programs your schools are using.
Since the pandemic hit, districts across New York State have purchased many commercially-produced online apps and digital programs to implement remote learning. Even before last spring, schools had been using a large number of programs, many of which collect and use personal student information. In NYC alone, more than 75 commercially available online programs have been acquired for teachers to assign to their students, and “The DOE has informed schools that for SY 2020-21, they must have a shared, inclusive and digital curriculum in all core subject areas,” according to the UFT.
Many of these digital apps collect and use personal student data in ways we do not understand. In some cases, the publicly available privacy policies of these vendors are NOT sufficiently protective and do not comply with the NY state student privacy law, Education Law 2D, which was passed in 2014.
Among other things, this law and its regulations adopted in Jan. 2020 require that every contract with a vendor with access to personal student data must have a separate Parent Bill of Rights [PBOR], which specifies how the data will be protected and how parents can access the data and challenge it if necessary.
Each of these separate Parent Bill of Rights are supposed to be posted on the district website, along with other important information, including your district’s overall data privacy protection policy, and how you can contact the district data privacy officer in charge of ensuring these protections. Links to the Education Law 2D, the regulations, and a summary of some of their most important provisions are here and below.
Please take a few minutes to fill out our online survey to let us know what online apps and/or digital programs are being used in your schools, and whether the district has provided the necessary information about the ways in which that data is being protected from breach and abuse.
Thanks!NYS Student Privacy Regulations Summary (Final)
In addition, the full law and regulations are available at the following links:
The following is by Carrie McLaren, a Brooklyn parent. If others have similar experiences with Chromebooks, please let us know at firstname.lastname@example.org
A couple of years ago, my then-4th grade son started watching YouTube videos about Magic, a trading card game. These were snoozy, lo-tech commentaries that struck me as quasi-educational. But I soon noticed that YouTube’s algorithm would start recommending more and more “engaging” videos — a video of white gamer known for dropping the N-word, for instance.
A close friend noticed the same thing happening with her teen. The boy watches videos about American history and started slowly being fed conspiratorial, alt.right nonsense. The racism was not intended on Google’s part. It’s simply the formula we’ve seen all over media platforms: big emotions + edgy content = more engagement. YouTube is in the center of the attention economy, after all, and YouTube’s goal is to keep users watching YouTube.
This economic imperative doesn’t end with Google Classroom. Classroom is just another piece of Google’s data-mining machine. Why school districts are so eager to jump on board the platform is hard to fathom were it not so cheap and convenient. But as anyone with a passing familiarity with Big Tech knows, you get what you pay for. When the tech is free, you are the product.
Prior to distance learning, my son had a Chromebook that he could log into via his gmail account, which we could monitor via Google’s parent controls, Family Link. Once we started distance learning, he needed to login via his school’s gmail. But these Classroom accounts are not subject to Google’s parent control. So, thanks to Google Classroom, my son could log into his Chromebook using his school account and potentially access porn sites, spend the day watching YouTube and ads hawking age-inappropriate games, or do pretty much anything else on the internet, unguarded.
Odd, yes? Chromebooks are often sold as the ideal student laptop. When I contacted Google about this (6/17/20), the customer service rep said it’s the school’s responsibility to limit adult sites and other distractions, not Google’s. But schools can only limit devices linked to their individual network; they cannot do this when students are working from home.
When I expressed concern about limitless YouTube during the home/school day, the Google customer service rep told me not to worry: “Students can’t use YouTube via their school account.”
I laughed at this because my son’s YouTube use amped up dramatically when he started relying on his school gmail account. Google’s subterfuge here runs deep. It’s true that a student cannot “like” or comment on YouTube videos via a student account. Nor can they view their watch history. But they can watch as many YouTube videos as they like. And just because they can’t view their own watch history doesn’t mean Google isn’t tracking that watch history! Whenever my kid would open a YouTube browser, the home page would be highly tailored to his interests, luring him down a rabbit hole expertly tuned to keep him hooked.
If I want to limit my son’s internet access during distance learning, I need to get rid of the Chromebook and use a different laptop (Apple and Microsoft have parental controls that can function with Classroom).
Or invest in expensive network-based parent controls, such as Circle. Or, I suppose, I can stop using Google Classroom and give up on school.
Is anyone at the NYC Department of Education thinking about this? Anyone at all?
– – – Parents, one trick I’ve fallen back on is go into settings and delete my son’s Watch History, Search History, and turn off targeted Advertising. I then turned off Watch & Search history by putting them on Pause. These changes make the site a little less addicting and more diverse.
The following was written by a concerned stakeholder who prefers to stay anonymous. One wonders if the budget savings involved in DOE’s decision to cut the only part-time staff assistant vetting research proposals is worth risking student privacy.
NYC public school students are diverse demographically, culturally, linguistically, and academically and there are a wide variety of programs established to meet their needs. The NYC Department of Education Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews over 500 research proposals every year, many of which aim to evaluate these programs and test new curriculums. A large portion of these proposals target the most vulnerable NYC DOE students and families.
An IRB is an administrative body that is formally designated to review human subject research proposals, to protect the rights of those individuals who are recruited to participate in research activities. For most people, the mention of an IRB conjures images of drug trials or medical treatment research. However, IRBs don’t solely exist for biomedical research. Social science research that collects personal information about participants is also subject to IRB review, and education research is no exception.
Historically, the NYC DOE IRB Board has been supported by only one full-time Director and only one part-time consultant who are tasked with initial review of all submitted proposals, communication with the research community, as well as oversight and compliance monitoring. In addition, there are two Boards made of up 30 volunteers who vet the proposals after the initial review by staff. Comparable institutions reviewing the same volume and type of research normally have between 3-5 full-time administrative support staff to perform initial reviews and support Board members (aahrpp.org).
Faced with a projected deficit in the billions of dollars, the NYC DOE has opted to eliminate the one part-time IRB assistant position, which will reduce the DOE’s ability to thoroughly review the research studies being proposed and could open the doors to a whole host of privacy and confidentiality breaches.
Proposed studies submitted to the NYC DOE IRB may ask questions regarding family immigration status, financial hardship, experiences with abuse or neglect, sexual practices of children, drug and alcohol use and abuse, and physical or learning disabilities or challenges or more. Researchers also frequently request extensive FERPA-protected student records including disciplinary and suspension data. The NYC DOE IRB is the sole DOE body that reviews these requests and ensures that inappropriate questions – including immigration status — are removed before the study is approved and introduced to students and families.
In reviewing these proposals, the IRB ensures, among other things, that:
- The risks to students and families are minimized by using procedures that do not unnecessarily expose the research participants to risk.
- The selection of students and families for research participation is equitable.
- Research participants are adequately informed of the risks that will be involved in the research.
- The research plan, when appropriate, makes adequate provisions for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of the subjects.
- There are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of the research subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of the data.
- Appropriate additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects who are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence (e.g., children, non-English speakers, undocumented, economically or educationally disadvantaged persons).
Absent NYC DOE IRB review and oversight, many of these research studies could move forward with limited safeguards for NYC DOE students and families.
The NYC DOE IRB’s historic commitment to student privacy and ethical research must be preserved. Due to COVID-19 and the shift to online learning, access to students is now being sought via telecommunication platforms such as Zoom and Google Meets, and online classroom platforms such as Google Classroom. Much sensitive data detailed previously are now being collected using these platforms.
Faced with an avalanche of research proposals focused on the impact the pandemic and the shift to remote learning, the NYC DOE IRB is needed now more than ever to combat against big data research and the exploitation of public school students for profit. It is with these concerns in mind that this institutional cornerstone requires a revamp involving an influx of resources, and support.
Those who care about student privacy should be outraged with the NYC DOE’s shortsighted and nonchalant decision to cut staff from an institutional entity whose mission is to protect 1.1+ million students’ privacy.
It is with this dire call to action that we hope the NYC DOE will reconsider the elimination of the IRB assistant and do everything in their power to promote the mission of the IRB, make strides to advance its current means and abilities, and safeguard it from future crises. Appeals can be sent to the Office of the Chancellor (NYCChancellor@schools.nyc.gov ) and the office of the Chief Academic Officer, Linda P. Chen (LChen39@schools.nyc.gov).