House Subcommittees Hold Joint Hearing on Data Mining and Student Privacy

Jun 25, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Francine E. Friedman, Matthew C. Thomas (Senior Public Policy Specialist)

A key issue at the hearing was a Fordham University study authored by witness Joel Reidenberg that found that a majority (95 percent) of school districts outsource some form of student data, and that only 7 percent of school districts had specific provisions in their vendor contracts that required third parties to keep student data secure and prohibited the sale or use of the data except for educational purposes. Reidenberg called for Congress to update privacy laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to apply to third-party vendors (currently the law only applies to educational institutions).

Mark McCarthy, Vice President of the Software & Information Industry Association, pushed back against Mr. Reidenberg’s assertions, and noted that the study found no actual evidence that student data was being abused by third parties, only that the school district contracts did not contain security provisions. McCarthy pointed out that under FERPA and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), student data is prohibited from being used or sold for non-educational purposes, and that if a third party wished to do so, they must obtain the parents’ permission. McCarthy told lawmakers that updates to existing law were unnecessary, especially given the recent FERPA guidance issued by the Department of Education. The other two witnesses. Chief Information Officer for the Idaho Department of Education Joyce Popp and State and District Digital Learning Director for the Alliance for Excellent Education Thomas Murray provided district-or administrator-level examples of what schools are doing currently to protect student data, and the beneficial nature of such data for educational purposes.

Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Pat Meehan (R-PA) asked several questions about the scope for potential misuse or sale of student data by third parties. Mr. Reidenberg explained that FERPA only covers certain types of data and cannot be used to prevent the misuse or sale of all types data. He also clarified (as Mr. McCarthy did) that his study found no evidence of abuse, only a lack of security-specific language or provisions in school contracts.

Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Yvette Clark (D-NY) asked a pointed question about what requirements should be placed on for-profit third-party vendors. Mr. Reidenberg answered that there are a variety of requirements such as data protection, breach notification, prohibition of sale to other parties, etc. that should be, but often are not, included in vendor contracts.

Education Subcommittee Chairman Todd Rokita (R-IN) asked several questions about the state of Idaho’s approach to student data privacy (based on witness Joyce Popp’s testimony), and indicated he believed that a state-by-state approach to privacy regulation was the most sensible.

Education Subcommittee Ranking Member Dave Loebsack (D-IA) asked what should be done to improve states’ and school districts’ contracting processes. Mr. Murray stated that there should, at a minimum, be annual contract reviews, annual audits of who has access to student data, and that a set of “best practices” should be developed and shared among states/districts.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.