Military Recruiting and Student Privacy Report Back 3: School Board Meeting May 28, 2009

Compromise proposal regarding military recruiting access to student data tabled and sent back to Policy Committee for more work. See related articles for ongoing organizing led by Students for a Democratic Society and Rochester Declaration of Peace <!--break--> First, there was a huge turnout of students, parents, musicians, artists and teachers protesting recent school budget cuts, which will be especially devastating to the arts. There were many people who spoke eloquently in favor of the board retaining its existing policy that protects student privacy with respect to military recruiters, with a single voice – the same man from the February meeting – arguing for the district to turn over student data without parental consent. Who’s counting, but this is the third school board meeting this year with recruiting on the agenda. Willa Powell led the discussion on the recruitment issue. A district lawyer stood at the speaker’s podium and responded partially to some board discussion. One change in Powell’s current proposal was the elimination of her earlier suggestion that students could fill out the form stating whether they wanted to share their information with the military. While she apparently realized this was legally problematic, the district lawyer stated this evening that students could fill out the form without parental involvement (which according to Powell contradicts one of the applicable federal laws). If this is confusing, it is because we are dealing with a bad law that contradicts other laws, as well as being unfair and unconstitutional. Powell’s proposal as reviewed by her consists of: 1. Underscores the importance of schools getting parental permission through letters/forms sent to parents with aggressive follow-up of non-responders. The form sent to parents would continue to seek parental instruction for the school regarding the release of information to colleges, scholarship sources and employers as well as to the military. 2. Makes explicit the requirement that each of the four categories listed above would have both a yes and a no check box. This is the system used by the Santa Cruz, CA school system with no negative consequences relating to the NCLB law. 3. The parent letter will state the consequences of not responding. The proposed language is the school “may be compelled to give over directory information for non-response.” 4. Clarifies that a family response remains in effect unless and until the family changes their wishes. The initial letter would be sent out in the beginning of grade 9. Board members began to discuss Powell’s proposal, with Van White immediately cutting to the chase – he asked what happens with non-responders – will the district give the military those students’ information or not? Powell evaded the question by redirecting to emphasize the district’s responsibility to ensure that every student has a completed form. She said that the statement about giving over data to recruiters as a consequence of not responding is intended to encourage parents to take the form seriously and send it back. White suggested sending a separate letter and form solely on the military issue to parents in order to emphasize the seriousness. Powell responded this would take the policy in an entirely new direction and de-link it from the other institutions referenced in NCLB (colleges, employers, etc). Alan Williams pressed the issue, asking “is this opt-in or opt-out”? He asserted that 100% response rates are unrealistic even with increased effort. He requested clarity on what happens with non-responders, the core of the problem before the board in his view. Powell was unable to answer directly, leading Williams to move to table the issue. Ultimately the issue was tabled, and sent back to the Policy Committee for more work. Board President Malik Evans was absent due to a honeymoon and Commissioner Cynthia Elliott was absent due to illness. She is the Chair of the Policy Committee and proponent of changing the existing policy to increase military access to student information even without parental consent. In my opinion, this month’s version of Powell’s proposal is problematic, most significantly #3. It leaves the door open for the district to hand over information to the military in cases where consent has not been determined. I believe we should fight for the protection of student privacy and minimize uninvited recruiter overtures – no information should be released without explicit, positive parental consent. It was not clear to me whether Powell’s proposal continues to link consent for release of information forms with the student emergency contact forms. She has advocated this as a way of ensuring a high response rate, but I am not sure if it is part of the current proposal. If yes, it would seem that the consequences of non-response would be clear to parents – if your child has a dire emergency, the school will be unable to let you know unless you return this form. Pursuing this line a little further, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported today that the district is facing higher insurance costs (presumably an excuse for slashing music and art and increasing class sizes) – it would seem fundamental that having emergency contact forms that are accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date would impact district liability expenses Regarding #4, this could increase military access to children’s information at an even earlier age, if they are now given information to children in 9th and 10th grade, as well as juniors and seniors. And also in #4, why does Powell refer to “family” decision rather than “parent” or “parent/guardian” decision? Once a parent says “no” will a child be persuaded by a visiting recruiter to have the school release his/her data? It no longer appears Powell’s proposal will be voted on at the June board meeting. It is also unclear to me when the Policy Committee will revisit the proposal since their June committee meeting already seemed to have a full agenda. It would be great if the Policy Committee could simply revisit the issue and determine that no change to the existing policy is warranted; rather, the district should improve its procedures for ensuring maximum compliance with the existing policy.

<p>Compromise proposal regarding military recruiting access to student data tabled and sent back to Policy Committee for more work. See related articles for ongoing organizing led by Students for a Democratic Society and Rochester Declaration of Peace</p> <!--break--><p>First, there was a huge turnout of students, parents, musicians, artists and teachers protesting recent school budget cuts, which will be especially devastating to the arts. </p> <p>There were many people who spoke eloquently in favor of the board retaining its existing policy that protects student privacy with respect to military recruiters, with a single voice – the same man from the February meeting – arguing for the district to turn over student data without parental consent. Who’s counting, but this is the third school board meeting this year with recruiting on the agenda. </p> <p>Willa Powell led the discussion on the recruitment issue. A district lawyer stood at the speaker’s podium and responded partially to some board discussion. One change in Powell’s current proposal was the elimination of her earlier suggestion that students could fill out the form stating whether they wanted to share their information with the military. While she apparently realized this was legally problematic, the district lawyer stated this evening that students could fill out the form without parental involvement (which according to Powell contradicts one of the applicable federal laws). </p> <p>If this is confusing, it is because we are dealing with a bad law that contradicts other laws, as well as being unfair and unconstitutional. </p> <p>Powell’s proposal as reviewed by her consists of:</p> <p>1. Underscores the importance of schools getting parental permission through letters/forms sent to parents with aggressive follow-up of non-responders. The form sent to parents would continue to seek parental instruction for the school regarding the release of information to colleges, scholarship sources and employers as well as to the military.</p> <p>2. Makes explicit the requirement that each of the four categories listed above would have both a yes and a no check box. This is the system used by the Santa Cruz, CA school system with no negative consequences relating to the NCLB law. </p> <p>3. The parent letter will state the consequences of not responding. The proposed language is the school “may be compelled to give over directory information for non-response.”</p> <p>4. Clarifies that a family response remains in effect unless and until the family changes their wishes. The initial letter would be sent out in the beginning of grade 9. </p> <p>Board members began to discuss Powell’s proposal, with Van White immediately cutting to the chase – he asked what happens with non-responders – will the district give the military those students’ information or not? Powell evaded the question by redirecting to emphasize the district’s responsibility to ensure that every student has a completed form. She said that the statement about giving over data to recruiters as a consequence of not responding is intended to encourage parents to take the form seriously and send it back. White suggested sending a separate letter and form solely on the military issue to parents in order to emphasize the seriousness. Powell responded this would take the policy in an entirely new direction and de-link it from the other institutions referenced in NCLB (colleges, employers, etc). </p> <p>Alan Williams pressed the issue, asking “is this opt-in or opt-out”? He asserted that 100% response rates are unrealistic even with increased effort. He requested clarity on what happens with non-responders, the core of the problem before the board in his view. Powell was unable to answer directly, leading Williams to move to table the issue. Ultimately the issue was tabled, and sent back to the Policy Committee for more work. </p> <p>Board President Malik Evans was absent due to a honeymoon and Commissioner Cynthia Elliott was absent due to illness. She is the Chair of the Policy Committee and proponent of changing the existing policy to increase military access to student information even without parental consent. </p> <p>In my opinion, this month’s version of Powell’s proposal is problematic, most significantly #3. It leaves the door open for the district to hand over information to the military in cases where consent has not been determined. I believe we should fight for the protection of student privacy and minimize uninvited recruiter overtures – no information should be released without explicit, positive parental consent. </p> <p>It was not clear to me whether Powell’s proposal continues to link consent for release of information forms with the student emergency contact forms. She has advocated this as a way of ensuring a high response rate, but I am not sure if it is part of the current proposal. If yes, it would seem that the consequences of non-response would be clear to parents – if your child has a dire emergency, the school will be unable to let you know unless you return this form. Pursuing this line a little further, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported today that the district is facing higher insurance costs (presumably an excuse for slashing music and art and increasing class sizes) – it would seem fundamental that having emergency contact forms that are accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date would impact district liability expenses</p> <p>Regarding #4, this could increase military access to children’s information at an even earlier age, if they are now given information to children in 9th and 10th grade, as well as juniors and seniors. And also in #4, why does Powell refer to “family” decision rather than “parent” or “parent/guardian” decision? Once a parent says “no” will a child be persuaded by a visiting recruiter to have the school release his/her data? </p> <p>It no longer appears Powell’s proposal will be voted on at the June board meeting. It is also unclear to me when the Policy Committee will revisit the proposal since their June committee meeting already seemed to have a full agenda. It would be great if the Policy Committee could simply revisit the issue and determine that no change to the existing policy is warranted; rather, the district should improve its procedures for ensuring maximum compliance with the existing policy.</p>