Longitudinal Databases in Balt City - Abell Policy Award Paper 030510 (ID) v3

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW
2010
Improving Educational
Outcomes in Baltimore
City with Integrated
Data Systems
Leveraging Contemporary Education
Reform Efforts to Build Robust Student-
Level Data Systems
Bill Ferguson
2 0 1 0 A B E L L A W A R D I N U R B A N P O L I C Y R E F O R M
IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES IN BALTIMORE CITY WITH INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEMS
2010

- 2 -

I. Statement of the Policy Problem: Baltimore City Public SchoolsInsuIIicicntData
Infrastructure

After the 2008-schooIyearlheMaryIandSlaleDearlmenlofIducalionMSDI
reported that the aIlimore Cily IubIic SchooIs Cily SchooIs dislricl-wide high school
graduation rate was 62.69%.
1
Hovever for lhis same year lhe Cily SchooIs Chief
Accountability Officer, Ben Feldman, explained during a one-on-one interview that the City
SchooIs IocaI anaIyses shoved a rale four lo five ercenlage oinls higher lhan MSDIs
reported rate.
2
The difference is not inconsequential; in fact, the discrepancy equals roughly
200-300 students. On this most fundamental education statistic one that officials tie heavily to
public education funding and reform success the two key agencies responsible for City
SchooIs sludenls educalionaI oulcomes disagree When asked vhelher IeIdmans research
office could produce a graduation class cohort analysis basing the statistic on the percent of
students who entered high school four years prior to the 2009 graduation, as compared to actual
graduates four years later Feldman responded that such a report, if possible, would take as
long as three weeks to complete.
3

In discussing education innovation or reform policies, the fundamentals are key. For
MaryIandandaIlimoreCilysubIiceducalionreformendeavorslhosefundamenlaIs being
able to make fully informed data-driven decisions about what is best for students are lacking,
significantly.
Since Congressional assage of lhe No ChiId Lefl ehind Acl of NCL
4

momentum in public education reform has centered on student achievement outcomes. NCLB
sel recedenls for lying high slakes funding and schooIs oeralionaI freedom lo sludenl
assessment outcomes. As a result, federal accountability has heightened states incenlives lo
Iace a higher vaIue on educalionaI dala To faciIilale NCLs shifl in educalionaI reform
priorities, many education agencies at all levels of government have attempted to refine and
enhance student-level longitudinal data systems.
a,5

a
IorlheurosesoflhisaerlhelermIongiludinaIdalasyslemsreferslocenlraIizedubIicIy-
maintained databases that allow users to collect, process, track, maintain, and/or analyze student-level
datasets. ThelermsdalasyslemsanddalavarehousesareinlerchangeabIeandreresenllhesame
2010

- 3 -

Al firsl gIance lhe quaIilyof an educalion agencys sludenl-level databases may seem
exceedingly tangential to the heart of public education reform. Many public education
advocates focus greater attention on more traditional transformational measures, such as
diversifying classroom experiences,
6
providing better teachers,
7
attracting more capable
administrators,
8
providing more financial resources to school districts,
9
and/or offering better
curricula.
10

While each of these independent reform efforts certainly may affect positive student
gains, each depends on accurate and reliable student data to determine whether the reform
effort actually works. Without effective data systems, states and local school districts rely on
potentially flawed decision points. Further, quality data systems allow districts to effectively
define an educational problem, develop a theory of action, design an intervention strategy, and,
mosl imorlanlIy evaIuale lhe slralegys effecliveness
11
An educalion agencys abiIily lo
collect, maintain, and analyze student data effectively is critical to lheagencysmainlenceof a
sustainable education reform agenda. Unfortunately, student-level longitudinal database
infrastructures across the country, particularly those data systems in Maryland and Baltimore
City, often are substandard and disorganized at best, completely unavailable at worst.
12

This paper focuses on longitudinal data warehouse issues specific to the City Schools.
The analysis pays particular attention to the City SchooIs dala varehousing effecliveness
vhichreIiessubslanliaIIyonlheMSDIsslalevideinilialivesandcoordinalionWhiIelheCily
Schools has made impressive student achievement gains over the past two years, the local

key idea throughout the paper. These system or warehouse datasets may include individualized student
information, such as educational history and testing outcomes, and may include more robust
characteristics, such as post-secondary studies or workforce participation data. ThelermIongiludinaI
refersloadalasyslemsabiIilylorovidecomrehensiveorgrealer-than-one-year, information about a
student. States and researchers generally prefer longitudinal databases over static databases because
longitudinal database reports offer dynamic, year-by-year growth outcomes. Less desirable static, or
non-longitudinal, databases only have the capability of providing detailed reports about students given a
single point in time. Though dynamic, longitudinal databases produce higher quality reporting
measures, states implementing dynamic data warehouses must dedicate significantly greater resources to
create, maintain, and provide training for operations.
2010

- 4 -

educalion agency LIA
b
falters from a severely deficient statewide longitudinal data
warehouse. Even though external organizations like the Baltimore Education Research
Consorlium IRC
c
have attempted to provide timely, relevant data to school officials, the
City Schools requires its own integrated student-level database. This database must leverage
cooperation from statewide initiatives through MSDE, as MSDE serves as the most capable
institution to coordinate integration of state agency juvenile data.
13

While efficient data systems may serve as a useful tool for state and educational officials,
data warehousing efforts have not garnered universal approval. Those opposed to robust
student-level data warehousing express concerns related to breaches of juvenile privacy rights,
unlawful data disclosures, and data integrity inconsistencies. The paper attempts to present
lheseoonenls argumenlsfrom lheoIicy and oIilicaIerseclives andsuggeslsolenliaI
strategies for alleviating some of these concerns. Admittedly, though, more focused research is
needed around each concern to ensure full appreciation for the myriad of roadblocks that may
hamper data warehouse development.
At the outset, the paper progresses by providing background information about data
warehouses in general, Maryland state efforts at creating a data warehouse, and the City
Schools need for a unified and robust data system. The paper follows by examining the state of
affairs of legal, political, and policy concerns that may infIuence MaryIands dala varehouse
development. The paper concludes that timely attention to creating a robust juvenile data
warehouse in Baltimore City is strongly warranted. Most importantly, the paper surmises that

b
IorlheurosesoflhisaerLIAviIIreferloanindividuaIschooIdislriclsuchaslheaIlimore
City Public Schools. Typically, LEAs operate independently from state educational agencies, such as
MSDE, but LEAs traditionally depend on state funding for large-scale reform projects.
c
BERC operates as a partner to the City Schools, and brings together City Schools central office staff with
third-arlyresearchersfrom}ohnsHokinsUniversilyMorganSlaleUniversilyandolhercivicand
communityorganizalionsloanaIyzedalaaboulubIic education in Baltimore City (Mission, Baltimore
Education Research Consortium, accessed at baltimore-berc.org/mission/index.shtml on November 25,
2009). BERC organized and first began research in 2007. Currently, the organization is providing City
SchooIsofficiaIsvilhslralegicdalaanaIysisandcoIIeclionreIaledlokeeingon-level students on
track to educational success . . . and decreasing the dropout rate (Baltimore Education Research
Consortium (2008). On Track and On Time: Baltimore Education Research Consortium Core Analytic Projects
July 2008 July 2011. Accessed at baltimore-berc.org/pdfs/On_Track_and_On_Time.pdf on November 28,
2009KerrKerriIxeculiveSummaryBERC Strategic Plan 2009-2014, 2. Baltimore, MD:
Baltimore Education Research Consortium).
2010

- 5 -

City Schools students, who have faced historic disadvantages related to the racially-based
academic achievement gap,
14
could benefit significantly from a city-state coordinated data
integration effort.

II. Contextual Background
Longitudinal data systems among various states and local districts range significantly in
the breadth of information available for research or analysis, and vary diversely in the level of
database integration between state or local agencies.
15
States such as Florida have long histories
of student-level data sharing amongst all state agencies, and these robust data warehouses
allow state officials to incorporate data-driven decision making into regular practice.
16
States
such as Maryland, however, have struggled to navigate privacy and infrastructure issues
related to juvenile data warehousing. Local agencies in these states must spend limited
resources on maintaining duplicative district-specific systems.
17

To further develop the contextual background and possibilities for data warehouse
reform in Baltimore City, the paper progresses by explaining the key issues related to: (a)
longitudinal data systems in general, (b) the importance of such systems, and (c) the currently
ripe landscape for improving data systems statewide and within Baltimore City.
A. Longitudinal Data System Basics
Student-level data systems exist in a wide variety of forms.
18
The most basic state
education data systems narrowly accumulate data from local education districts/agencies to
comply with NCLB reporting requirements. Regulars within the field refer to these types of
databases generaIIyasK-dalabasesK-12 databases produce snap-shot reports of student
performance on statewide or postsecondary entrance assessments. More detailed reporting is
available in aggregated summaries by race, special education status, and a dislricls overall
status of yearly student performance by grade level, postsecondary entrance testing rates,
graduation rates, teacher certification, and dropout rates. Several states, including Maryland,
publish these statistics in the form of a yearIy Reorl Card
19
Ivenls or singIe eriodsin
lime lend lo organize lhe dala avaiIabIe in lhese syslems and dala fIovs uslream from
LEAs to state education agencies to federal oversight offices.
20
State data reports are useful for
2010

- 6 -

yearly views, but they fail to offer longitudinal student-level reports and most often do not
include juvenile data from non-educational state agencies. Thus, state officials are unable to use
data in these reports to determine how individual students are progressing over time, and are
unable to disaggregate student information for non-education characteristics (i.e. students
having had interaction with juvenile services, foster care students, etc.).
21

More comprehensive, yet strictly educational, data systems expand on the levels and
years of data agencies maintain. Regulars in the field generally refer to these databases asI-
16/P- dalabases
22
P-16/P-20 databases maintain student-specific information starting from
the pre-school level into the postsecondary years, potentially including college-level records.
The majority of P-16/P-dalabasesreIyonaslalewide idenlificalionnumbersuchlhaleach
student links to a unique number or coding. More advanced systems in this category have the
capability of adding longitudinal reports about individual students. Officials can then highlight
one unique identification number over several years to perform dynamic cohort analyses.
23
The
longitudinal aspects of these databases make derivative reports more attractive, but P-20
databases focus strictly on educational data and often do not include juvenile data from non-
education agencies. Currently, Maryland is in the process of moving from at PK-12 database to
a more expansive and longitudinal P-20 database.
d,24,25

The most useful longitudinal databases incorporate the P-20 framework but match and
combine juvenile data from public, non-education agencies. These robust systems match
student-specific data from juvenile services, social services, foster care, child welfare,
employment, and/or workforce development among others.
26
The most successful models of
lhese robusl IongiludinaI dala syslems funclion on a slale IeveI in IIorida and on a IocaI
agency level in San Diego, CA.
27

In Florida, generally seen as the leading state in the juvenile data warehousing
movement, a distinct state department houses and maintains longitudinal data for nearly every
state agency. Such an infrastructure allows Florida officials to create and act upon reports in
expansive areas as: workforce estimations, follow-up program evaluations, social costs of

d
However, MSDE is not placing emphasis on inter-agency database development at this time.
2010

- 7 -

student drop out, post-secondary educational access, high school feedback, P-20 accountability,
P-20 pipelines, teacher pipelines, teacher effectiveness, and externally sponsored research.
28

The Dala QuaIily Camaign DQC is lhe Ieading advocacy and research grou on
matters related to national efforts to develop robust longitudinal data systems in all states. The
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation established the institution in 2005 to romolelheavaiIabiIily
and use of high-quaIily educalion dala
29
The institution has created the IssenliaI
IIemenlframevorkforevaIualingslalessludenl-level data systems. An ideal state database
includes all 10 of the following characteristics:
(1) Statewide Student Identifier; (2) Student-Level Enrollment Data; (3) Student-
Level Test Data; (4) Information on Untested Students; (5) Statewide Teacher
Identifier with a Teacher-Student Match; (6) Student-Level Course Completion
(Transcript) Data; (7) Student-Level SAT, ACT, and Advanced Level Placement
Exam Data; (8) Student-Level Graduation and Dropout Data; (9) Ability to Match
Student-Level P-12 and Higher Education Data; [and] (10) A State Data Audit
System.
30

Additionally, the institution evaluates whether the state officials link a statewide student
identifier to student information from non-education agencies secificaIIy Iabor heaIlh
departments, human services, child protective services, foster care, court systems, corrections,
and olher
31

Within any data warehouse structure, many intricacies exist for the means and purpose
of maintaining data integrity.
32
Fordham Law School professors Joel Reidenberg and Jamela
DebeIakrecenlIyreIeasedanOcloberreorllhalassessedslalesabiIiliesloroleclrivale
student information through data warehouse infrastructures. In doing so, the professors
offered an intricate analysis of the various internal processes and systems that state officials use
across the country to maintain student-level data.
In general, the authors found that most states did not develop systems with sufficient
protective barriers in place to avoid unlawful data disclosures.
33
Specifically, the authors
concluded that: (1) states collected unnecessary data about students in excess to state and
federal education reporting requirements; (2) databases offered weak security processes; and (3)
many states lacked a coherent and systemic plan for protecting the privacy of student records.
34

2010

- 8 -

The most pertinent database findings to Maryland and Baltimore City officials revolve around
lhe rofessors recommendalions for agencies or slales engaging in data warehouse
development. The paper explains these internal database procedures further below in the
context of potential concerns around student-level data warehouse development.
B. Importance of Longitudinal Data Systems
AslaleorIocaIagencys maintenance of a robust longitudinal data system has immense
benefits for a collection of stakeholders, including students & parents; classroom teachers;
school leaders; district leaders; state policymakers & education agencies; federal agencies; and
community, business, & industry leaders.
35
National education reform think tanks, such as
Learning Point Associates and the DQC, have produced an array of reports that demonstrate
the positive links between robust data systems and diverse stakeholder benefits.
Focusing on academic achievement reform purposes, Learning Point Associates has
reported that longitudinal student data allows for teachers and administrators to more
effectively test and evaluate school and instructional effectiveness, tying student performance to
individual schools and teachers.
36
Robust data reporting also benefits policymakers who may
usedynamicreorlslodelerminevhelherleachersanddislriclsareaddingvaIuelosludenls
academic achievement goals. Such a determination leads to state school officials more equitably
funding support initiatives for districts most in need and for local districts to target support to
the most at-risk students.
37
A link between student data, funding, and accountability is
foundational to improving student performance over the long-term. Evidence from the
NalionaI Assessmenl of IducalionaI Irogress NAII found lhal slales vilh slronger
accounlabiIilysyslemsshovedgrealerimrovemenlinsludenlerformanceoverlime
38

When data systems link student-level information and characteristics across education
and non-education agencies, the public benefits are even greater. The DQC has found that
public schools face a growing need to grasp a more comprehensive understanding of an at-risk
sludenlsnon-educalionsilualioninorderlobeginloraidIyaddresslhesludenlseducalionaI
deficiencies.
39
For non-education agencies, the ability to link social service and juvenile
delinquency data with education data opens the possibilities for state officials to provide
2010

- 9 -

tailored and targeted intervention services.
e
,
40
Further, interoperability between public sectors
ermilsslaleandIocaIeducalionagenciesloreachlhelyeofsynlhesislhalaclsasacalaIysl
to the kind of organizational improvements . . . that many private-sector businesses undertook a
decadeormoreago
41
When schools and other public agencies are able to access and analyze
accurate data about individual students, the public benefits.
The negative symptoms of Maryland and Baltimore Cilys Iagging dala syslems are
severe Take for examIe aIlimore Cilys exerience vilh coIIecling informalion aboul lhe
dislricls Iov-income student population. The lack of a robust longitudinal and inter-agency
database causes the City Schools to potentially forego millions of federal grant dollars
earmarked for low-income students.
f,42
The City Schools receives a block federal supplemental
grant for all impoverished students in the district. City Schools distributes these dollars on the
basis of FARMs distribution statistics. To create an accurate FARMs federal submission list,
each year at the end of summer the City Schools receives an Excel file from the Maryland
Dearlmenl of SociaI Services DSS lhal rovides names addresses and birlhdates of
directly certified FARMS students. Direct certification refers to those students that do not have
to complete a FARMS application to receive benefits, as previous service provisions through
DSS qualify them automatically. The file, though, includes incorrectly identified information,
does not match City Schools student records, and remains static from the date DSS sends the file
to the City Schools in the early summer.
43
Lacking integration of data between agencies creates
a situation where the City Schools is unable to directly FARMS certify upwards of several
thousands of students who likely should have qualified. The result: An inefficient misallocation
of resources that school officials must dedicate to tracking down each low-income student

e
Smith, S. (2009) highlights that UlahssuccessfuIefforlloaddressfoslercaresludenlssociaIand
educational needs serves as a prime example of the potential benefits resulting from robust, integrated
longitudinal data systems. By accurately reviewing longitudinal data about foster care students in the
slaleofficiaIsfromUlahsHumanServices Department indentified common trends among children who
aged out of foster care programs. These officials identified individuals within the at-risk cohort,
determined the most common negative outcomes, and created targeted interventions and preventative
programs, such as job referral and educational job training. This efficient allocation of state resources
vouIdnolhavebeenossibIevilhoulUlahsinler-agency, student-level longitudinal data systems.
f
Generally, qualifying for Free and ReducedLunchMeaIsIARMSservesaslheroxyanddala
collection point to classify students of lesser economic means.
2010

- 10 -

individually.
g,44
Such a misallocation of resources perpetuates educational inequality in high-
risk school districts.
While the theoretical benefits of integrated data systems may be vast, student-level data
varehouses olenliaIIy ose a risk lo sludenls rivacy rights. When state or local agencies
design insecure systems or too easily release protected student information, individual privacy
rights may fall victim to harmful unforeseen consequences of well-intentioned public initiatives.
Fordham Law School professors Reidenberg and Debelak explained these concerns in detail.
h45

Hovever lhe reorls aulhors uIlimaleIy exressed suorl for lhe benefils of robusl and
linked data systems when proper protections and procedures exist within a state or local
agencysdalavarehouse
46

C. Contemporary Landscape of Education Reform
Iven lhough MaryIands ubIic educalion syslem ranks as lhe mosl effeclive in lhe
country,
47
lheSlalesIongiludinaIsludenl-level data systems lag significantly behind other U.S.
states.
48
According to the DQC, Maryland is one of two states with educational data systems
that rank as the least comprehensive and least effective in the nation.
49
MaryIandsslalevide
dala syslem onIy incororales lhree of lhe DQCs IssenliaI IIemenls This IackIusler
ranking, in a state with clear income and educational disparities, should raise public concern.
Recent MSDE efforts indicate that state education officials recognize the deficiency.
These State officials have taken steps to improve MaryIands current student-data warehouse.
50

In fact, a DQC November 2009 report noted that during the 2008 2009 school year, Maryland
made the greatest strides among all states in improving its statewide data systems.
51

MaryIandscurrenlIack of a robusl sludenl dala syslem hovever disadvanlages IocaI schooI
districts that could be leveraging an existing system to improve instruction, provide more

g
Furthermore, the City Schools student population is highly transient. Tracking down each student
individually to complete a boilerplate form consumes immense resources that otherwise officials could
allocate towards student achievement.
h
The Reidenberg, J. (2009) report highlights five of the most common causes of insecure data warehouses:
(1) ill-defined user access roles; (2) unclear purposes behind collection of certain sensitive data fields; (3)
lacking confidentiality agreements between agencies; (4) non-existent data retention and purge policies;
and (5) public availability of student and family rights under federal and state privacy laws.
2010

- 11 -

targeted interventions to at-risk youth, and more effectively evaluate the teaching and learning
that occurs in classrooms every day.
Baltimore City Schools officials also have indicated a desire to upgrade and improve
data systems at a local level. In October 2009, the City Schools issued a Request for Proposal
RIIforavhoIesaIerenovalionoflheLIAsdalamanagemenlsyslem
52
While much of the
proposal focuses on integrating already-existing databases, the recent effort demonstrates the
dislricls molivalion lo tackle the problems resulting from non-linked student and employee
data.
The Cily SchooIs lhough suffers significanlIy from MSDIs Iack of an exisling
IongiludinaI dala varehouse Under lhe Ieadershiof Cily SchooIs recenlIy aoinled CIO
Dr. Andrs Alonso, City Schools students have demonstrated significant academic
imrovemenl as measured by slalevide assessmenls and No ChiId Lefl ehind NCL
indicators.
53
In comparing Baltimore City to the State as a whole, however, the City Schools has
much room for improvement.
Illustrative of the increased need for intervention, Baltimore City historically has
exemIified lhe slark inequilies inherenl lo lhe counlrys raciaIIy and economicaIIy-based
academic achievement gap.
i,54
An Americas Iromise AIIiance national report comparing
graduation rates between Baltimore City students and peers attending schools in the six
countywide districts surrounding Baltimore City all of which being significantly wealthier
and majority white
55
(see Tables 1 & 2 below) found lhal aIlimore Cilys urban-suburban
graduation gap was nearly the most disparate in the country.
56
Specifically, the Baltimore City
graduation rate fell below averages of all six surrounding countywide school districts by at least
35%.
57

i
The Swanson, C. (2009) reorldemonslraledlhalvhencomaredlolhesurroundingsuburbandislricls
gradualionraleaIlimoreCilysgradualiongavasnearIylhehigheslinlhecounlry The Baltimore
City rate on average was 35% below that of all six surrounding countywide school districts.
2010

- 12 -

Even worse, when Baltimore City students are academically successful in their K-12
educations, a Stanford University study found that disconnected data systems, like the systems
inaIlimoreCilyconlribulesignificanlIylolhesehighschooIgradualesinability to succeed in
college.
58
Thus, in a school district where low-income, minority students face significant
barriers to reaching high school graduation, lacking data systems may further hamper even the
highest achievers. The occasion to address this critical infrastructure deficiency, though, has
never been more ideal.
WilhlheaoinlmenlofUniledSlaledDearlmenlofIducalionUSDOISecrelary
Arne Duncan on January 20, 2009,
59
a philosophical shift in education reform priorities began
lhalshouIdinfIuenceMSDIsaroachlosludenl-level data usage. Those priorities leveraged
grant dollars for school districts willing to improve their ability to effectively accumulate,
analyze, and make decisions based upon student-level data. Access to the historic federal
education grants, though, has required states and local education agencies to demonstrate
strong investment in innovative and data-driven education reform efforts or initiatives.
60
The
table below details of the three most promising federal USDOE grants that may bolster
aIlimoreCilyofficiaIsefforls
TABLE 3: KEY FEDERAL GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION REFORM INITIATIVES &
MARYLAND STATE & LOCAL DATA WAREHOUSING EFFORTS

Common
Grant Name
Funds
Available
Explanation Potential Applicant
Race to the
Top
$5 billion
in total
The Race the Top grant has effectively
heightened the importance of student-level data
MSDE in consultation
with the City Schools
88.9
40.0
22.7
20.9 19.9
7.6
49.9
67.1
58.6
73.2
0
25
50
75
100
Baltimore
City
Baltimore
County
Anne
Arundel
County
Howard
County
Harford
County
Table 1: School Dist. Student Population by
Race
% African American % White
53720
18614
4295 1207 3077
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
Baltimore
City
Baltimore
County
Anne
Arundel
County
Howard
County
Harford
County
Table 2: School Dist. Population by Low-
Income Status
No. of Low-Income Students
2010

- 13 -

Competitive
Grant as part
of the
American
Recovery and
Reinvestment
Act of 2009
61,62

ARRA
for all
applicants
management for educational agencies across the
country. Grant dollars will flow to state-
applicants that are able to demonstrate a sincere
commitment to educational reform. Successful
state-applicants are required to revise state
education laws to facilitate certain education
reform priorities. Additionally, states must
develop comprehensive reform plans with their
local education agencies that utilize progressive
initiatives to bolster student achievement. The
USDOE has set forth an application scoring
rubric that places nearly 20% of review points on
lheslalesmainlenanceandusagequaIilyof
student-level longitudinal data systems.
63

Additionally, the grant application rubric
extends additional points for states that link
teacher evaluations to student growth data.
64

and other Maryland
LEAs. MSDE has
indicated that the
agency intends to delay
MaryIandsgranl
application to June
2010, allowing time for
inclusion of lheSlales
creation of a robust
data warehouse.
65

Investing in
Innovation
Fund i
$650
million to
successful
applicants
An additional $650 million exists under ARRA
for the USDOE Secretary to distribute to school
districts and non-rofilsloexandlhe
implementation of, and investment in,
innovative and evidence-basedraclices
66

A key priority of the grant will be to fund
InnovalionsThalImrovelheUseofDala
67
in
districts with large populations of high-poverty,
at-risk students. Successful i3 grant applications
very likely must include development and/or
expansion of longitudinal data systems.
City Schools in
partnership with
relevant and interested
non-profits.
The Recovery
ActsGrant
Program for
Statewide
Longitudinal
Data Systems
$65
million to
successful
applicants
USDOE has dedicated another $65 million under
ARRAarorialionsloenabIeSlale
educational agencies to design, develop, and
implement statewide, longitudinal data systems
to efficiently and accurately manage, analyze,
disaggregate and use individual student dala
68

MSDE in consultation
with local education
agencies and non-
education state agencies
handling juvenile data.

Although Maryland and Baltimore City school officials may find themselves faced with
deficient data systems at the moment, the USDOE under the Obama Administration has offered
a nev oening lo dala syslem reform The Recovery Acls federaI granl rograms design a
reform agenda around data-driven outcomes, and these heightened monetary incentives should
increaseMaryIandofficiaIsavareness around the importance of developing longitudinal data
warehouses.
III. Analysis
2010

- 14 -

(A) Privacy Law Issues
Both actual and perceived beliefs about the complex array of laws governing juvenile
privacy rights often contribute to public agency stand-still when state and local officials
consider developing robust student databases.
69
A generalized fear of violatingsludenlsrighls
often causes many education and non-education agency officials to embargo juvenile data by
default.
70

In Maryland, such apprehension and standstill are no different.
71
To examine the
sludenlrivacyIavuzzIeinlheconlexlofaIlimoreCilysfulureefforlslheaerrovidesa
separate analysis of relevant federal and Maryland state governing provisions.
(1) Relevant Federal Laws
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C.S 1232 (2006)
In lhe conlexloffederaIIavs lhal govern lhe rivacyofsludenls educalionaI records
the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974
72
IIRIA is aramounl Many
scholarly and informational resources exist that fully distinguish the extensive intricacies of
IIRIAs aIicalion. The paper, though, highlights the critical FERPA provisions and recent
regulatory revisions that may most directly affect Baltimore City officiaIs efforls lo buiId a
robust data warehouse.
j
Additionally, the table available as Appendix I provides a
comprehensive overview of scenarios that Baltimore City officials may confront in the
development and implementation of a robust data warehouse.
IIRIAfunclionsasnearIyeveryeducalionaIenlilysguideoslvhenmakingdecisions
involving the collection, storage, disclosure, and analysis of student-level data.
73
Any
educational institution that receives federal funds in the form of grant, cooperative agreement,
conlracl subgranl or subconlracl musl comIy vilh IIRIAs rivacy reguIalions
74
An
educalionaI enlilys faiIure lo adhere lo IIRIAs adminislralive reguIalions may Iead lo an
USDOE investigation that ultimately may result in the discontinuation of federal funds.
75

j
WhiIeIIRIAsimorlanceinlheoslsecondaryeducalionfieIdiscrilicaIlolhedeveIomenlofafuIIy
IKIongiludinaIdalasyslemlhisaerIimilsdiscussionloIIRIAsaffeclonaIlimore City student-
level data, thereby highlighting K-12 applicability.
2010

- 15 -

IIRIAs adminislralive reguIalions have deveIoed over lhirly years lo rovide
educational agencies with more tangible means of ensuring agency compliance. The USDOE
regularly revises IIRIAs adminislralive reguIalions as a result of continual changes in
technology and the growing importance of maintaining student-level data.
76

Two notions an educalion record and a discIosure serve as IIRIAs basic
building blocks. An education record
77
generaIIyreferslorecords that are: (1) [d]irectly related
to a student; and [m]aintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for
lhe agency or inslilulion
78
EducalionaI agency mainlained maleriaIs may incIude reorl
cards, surveys and assessments, health unit records, special education records, and
corresondencebelveenlheschooIandolherenliliesregardingsludenls
79
Any information
that an educational agency creates or receives about a student that the agency includes in the
sludenls schooI-based cumulative file likely qualifies as an education record under FERPA.
80

Most LEA legal departments set a bright-line rule: once a file or document formally or
informally becomesconnecledloasludenlscumuIalivefiIelhedistrict treats it as an education
record.
81
Further, public agency juvenile data, including non-education data, that enters an
agencysdalasyslemand links to an individual student also may quaIifyasarlofasludenls
education record. Once a part of the education record, FERPA would apply.
The concel of discIosure guides IIRIAs oIicies for agencys appropriate use of
education records. A disclosure occurs when an education agency in any way releases
personally identifiable student information to any party.
82,83
While some FERPA disclosures
require notification to parents and the student before release, other disclosures are permissible
without such recordation and notice. Generally, parental notice hinges on the type of
information released and the extent to which the information is personally identifiable. Release
of unidentified information or cumulative statistics about a cohort of non-identifiable students
would not qualify as a disclosure, as disclosures imply observable links between records and
student identities.
Overall, two types of disclosures exist lawful disclosures and unlawful disclosures.
Lawful disclosures abide by FERPA provisions and are the framework for legal student data
2010

- 16 -

warehouses and broad data-sharing initiatives. Unlawful disclosures or redisclosures
k
define
whether an education agency may be in violation of FERPA.
Within the concepts of education records and disclosures, FERPA places a great deal of
emhasis on vhelher dala is in lhe form of direclory informalion or de-identified
information. Directory information includes standard, personally identifiable information, such
as student name, address, telephone number, and birth date.
84
When a data release includes
directory information and clearly links the data to the student, FERPA places a heightened
responsibility on education agencies to prevent breaches ofsludenlsrivacylhroughunIavfuI
data disclosures.
85
The USDOE emphasizes lhe imorlance of rolecling sludenls direclory
informalion by exressIy rohibiling educalion agencies incIusion of sociaI securily numbers
SSNindirecloryinformalionreIeases
l,86

In any use or disclosure of education records, education agencies ultimately seek to
avoid liability under FERPA. Private rights of action under FERPA, though, are unavailable.
87

Inslead IIRIA reIieson USDOIs adminislralive IamiIy IoIicy ComIiance Office IICO
to investigate and enforce violations. The USDOIs revisions lo lhe reguIalions bolh
cIarified and slrenglhened lhe IICOs enforcemenl guideIines SecificaIIy lhe revised
regulations permitted the FPCO to open investigation on an alleged violation through reports
provided by students, parents, media publications, or any other third party.
88,89
Also, reports of
an agencys violation no longer must demonstrate a policy of habitual violation, and single
instances of unlawful disclosure may permit FPCO to open an investigatory case.
90

As a remedy for violating FERPA, the USDOE may cut off all federal education funding
assistance to an education agency that the FPCO finds to have a practice of consistently

k
ThelermrediscIosuresimIymeanslhalanagencyorinslilulionlhalreceivedrecordsfroman
education agency has disclosed that information or related education record information to a third party.
RediscIosuresgeneraIIyaresecondaryreorlsIinkedloindividuaIsludenlseducalionrecordslhallhe
receiving party provides to another institution or to the public.
l
Generally, education agencies have greater leeway in disclosing directory information among students
in the education setting (i.e. class lists). To protect sensitive privacy information, the USDOE clarified the
ban on SSN disclosures without prior student consent. Along these lines, the USDOE permitted the use
of student ID numbers in directory information disclosures. The USDOE clarified, however, that
educalionagenciesmuslencrylsludenlIDssuchlhallhirdarliesdonolhavelheabiIilyloIinklheID
loasludenlseducalionrecords
2010

- 17 -

violating disclosure rules.
91
Prior to such an extreme consequence, an FPCO finding of fault
necessilales an educalion agencies deveIomenl of a voIunlary comIiance consenl
agreement.
92
The USDOE will not immediately withhold funding until the FPCO finds that the
agency under consent agreement fails to meet the voluntary rehabilitation conditions.
No Child Left Behind
FERPA functions as the most germane privacy protection tool for student education
records, but the more recent congressional passage of the NCLB
93
often enters into
consideration in efforts to build robust student-level databases. The law created a means for
slalesloreceivefederaIfundingforeducalionlocrealemainlainandsubmilsecified
categories of anonymous data to the U.S. Department ofIducalion
94
However, the law itself
does not set forth specific criteria or policies by which states should abide in their processing or
collecting such data.
95
Rather, NCLB only specifically prohibits states from creating a
nalionvidedalabaseofersonaIIyidenlifiabIeinformalion
96
and sets forth specific student-
level data sharing provisions for states seeking additional funding for migratory students.
97

NCLB has effectively pushed states towards collecting greater amounts of information
about sludenlsbullheslalulesiII-defined procedures for protecting data do not offer much
guidance in database development.
98
Thus, creating a robust student-level data warehouse at
lheslaleorIocaIIeveIshouIdconcenlralemoredireclIyonmeelingIIRIAs regulations, as
FERPA sets the predominant standard for student record protection.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
WhiIe IIRIA resenls lhe mosl obvious reguIalory roleclions for sludenls rivacy
rights, many education agencies reference the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996
99
HIIAAasarivacy law that may affect development of a federally compliant
dalavarehouseGeneraIIyHIIAAcoversroleclion ofindividuaIseIeclronicheaIlhrecords
for the purposes of creating a more efficient national health care system. HIPAA provides
similar data usage standards for health care institutions as FERPA does for education agencies.
The HIPAA Privacy Rule, though, focuses on electronic data exchange of health records
belveencoveredenlilieslhalengageincoveredlransaclions
100
A covered entity includes
health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that transmit health
2010

- 18 -

information in electronic form in connection with covered transactions.
101
Covered
transactions are routine course of business electronic data exchanges between health care
providers and health plan administrators.
102

There are almost no occasions when a K-12 education agency would qualify as a covered
entity under HIPAA. HIPAA does not consider schools as covered entities, even if schools
maintain student health records electronically (i.e. immunization records).
103
Additionally,
HIPAA regulations include an express exception that defers to FERPA in cases where
educalionaI agencies mainlain or slore sludenls heaIlh records lhal lradilionaIIy vouId come
under HIPAA Privacy Rule protections.
104,105
InfaclHIIAAsdeferenceloIIRIAs|urisdiclion
in medically-related education records extends so far as to apply FERPA regulations to health
care providers that service juveniles in school settings, so long as those providers are operating
vilhinlheeducalionagencysscoeofconlroI
106

MaryIand educalion officiaIs reference lo lhe HIIAA Irivacy RuIe in dala varehouse
development discussions demonstrates the type of confusion that may have led to Maryland
and aIlimore Cilys inlegraled dala varehousing inaclion During an interview with MSDE
Deputy Superintendent Leslie Wilson, the high-ranking state education official referenced the
HIPAA compliance burdens as justifying MSDIs inaction in integrating lhe Slales sludenl-
level longitudinal databases across agencies.
107
Similarly, public health officials who may be
familiar with HIPAA regulations, yet unversed in FERPA protocols, may allow regulatory
misperceptions to persuade them into operating within public silos.
A 2008 DQC report (Smith, S., 2008) illustrates the legal misperception phenomenon that
hampers inter-agency collaboration. The reorl suggesls lhal IIRIAs exlensive education
record coverage often discourages non-education agencies from entering into agreements with
IocaIschooIdislriclsAvoidanceofIIRIAsregulations thus causes non-education agencies to
view FERPA as merely an education-based regulation too complicated to navigate. Further,
legal misperceptions may cause default reactions where agencies, including education
agencieserronlhesideofrestricting access to education records, even in cases in which child
welfare or other social service agencies are entitled to access [records] under and authorized
disclosure under the law.
108

2010

- 19 -

By examining each of the most pertinent federal laws in the context of agency
integration, a well-designed robust data warehouse with clear operational protocols and data
disclosure systems should operate with few legal roadblocks so long as FERPA serves as the
overarching legal guidepost.
(2) Maryland State Laws
WhiIe foIIoving IIRIA rovides for a dala varehouses broad comIiance vilh
sludenlsfederaIrivacyroleclionsMaryIandandaIlimoreCilyofficiaIsaIsomuslconcern
themselves with state and local guidelines related to student data privacy.
MaryIandseducalionaIrecordsroleclionreguIalionsmirrorlhoseofIIRIAThrough
MaryIands adminislralive code
109
the Maryland State Board of Education incorporates
IIRIAs educalion record roleclions The adminislralive code aIso adols lhe Maryland
Student Records System Manual 2008 MDManuaIloreguIaleeducalionaIdalacoIIeclionand
management. The MD Manual expressly requires local education agencies to reference FERPA
to comply with student record confidentiality rules.
110

Creating a robust inter-agency data warehouse, though, would require state and local
officials to collect and link juvenile data that resides in non-educalionagenciesdalabasesThe
integrated data warehouse then would have to comply with state laws that govern disclosure of
non-education juvenile data. The chart available as Appendix II outlines the most pertinent and
relevant state laws that Maryland and Baltimore City policymakers would have to consider in
developing an integrated database.
As the appendix indicates, most agencies have specific statutory prohibitions on sharing
individualized information about children. Specifically, the Maryland Department of Juvenile
Services, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Public Safety, and the Maryland
Courts must comply with expressed laws related to juvenile data maintenance. While this
could pose a barrier for a wholesale release of information, agencies are permitted to enter into
agency-to-agency data-sharing agreements for the purposes of serving children many do so
already with the City Schools in an informal fashion, such as through the FARMS certification
process.
111,112
Thus, to comply with Maryland privacy law protections, Maryland state and City
Schools officials must either follow one of two paths: (1) enter into individualized sharing
2010

- 20 -

agreements with each public agency, or (2) support state legislation that would eliminate
barriers to data-sharing at the state and local levels for data warehouse development purposes.
(B) Political Considerations
TheeffecliveuseofdalaisnolanevconcelloMaryIandoraIlimoreCilyTheslales
currenl governorGovMarlinOMaIIeygainednalionaInolorielyasMayorofaIlimoreCily
for his implementation of the CitiStat program in 2001.
113
The concepts behind CitiStat (now
implemented on the state level through StateStat) strongly correlate with the effective usage of a
robust student-level longitudinal data warehouse to improve student outcomes. CitiStat relied
on the foundational theory of action that by collecting comprehensive data about public
dearlmenlsroduclivilyofficiaIscouIdanaIyzeandacluondalalrendslomakeinformed
decisions.
114
A successful inter-agency student-level data warehouse would operate under the
same premise, focusing efficiency measures on leachers and rograms vaIue-added effect on
student achievement.
With a sympathetic Maryland governor in office and an education reform atmosphere
tied to the use of student data, creating a robust, integrated educational data warehouse in
Maryland could appear as an easily obtainable goal. When dealing with juvenile data,
however, clear political paths to database development may quickly become impasses.
MaryIands slricl slale Iavs againsl |uveniIe dala-sharing suggest that public agencies
maintenance, usage, and disclosure of juvenile data likely could face harsh political opposition.
While all potential opponents likely would not become clear until educational data
warehousing were already underway, two groups likely would stand at the forefront of the
causeloIimilcerlainaseclsofdalavarehousedeveIomenllheMaryIandsleachersunions
andrivacyadvocacygroussuchaslheAmericanCiviILiberliesUnionofMaryIandACLU-
MD
Teachers Unions
On the national scene many leachers unions have baIked al Secrelary of USDOI
DuncansreformrioriliesSecificaIIyleachersunionshaveinsisledlhal if data warehousing
has the capacity to link student-level growth data to teacher evaluation and performance, such
linking may undermine successful long-term education reform. Politico recently reported on
2010

- 21 -

the gulf growing between Secretary Duncan and national teacher union leaders over USDOE
efforls lo exand slales sludenl dalabase infraslruclures
115
Randi Weingarten, national
IresidenloflheAmericanIederalionofTeachersAITcommenledDalaisimorlanl
bul if il ends u |usl becoming measuremenl lhals nol ubIic educalion The Politico
report also pointed to the National Educators Associations NIA letter in opposition to
proposed requirements of the Race to the Top grant competition: [Priorities encouraging
student-level database development are] ignoring slales righls lo enacl lheir ovn Iavs and
conslilulions
In Maryland, the national perspective influences local politics. Superintendent Leslie
WiIson suggesled lhal leacher unions oIilicaI infIuence in lhe MaryIand slale IegisIalure
potentially played a past roIe in MSDI officiaIs unviIIingness lo ush for a statewide data
warehouse that could link teacher performance to student outcomes.
116
Teacher union
opponents generally view student growth measurement as an inaccurate measure of teacher
effectiveness. Further, these organizations argue that comprehensive student databases could
misalign district priorities for reform and reduce creativity in classrooms in Maryland.
117

Another anecdotal example of potential Maryland teacher union opposition occurred
during the 2009 General Assembly session. State House Delegate Anne Kaiser introduced
legislation on behalf of MSDE that would enable the State to create teacher identification
numbers for inclusion in the student-level longitudinal data warehouse. Although H.B. 587
passed, teacher union negotiations with MSDI rior lo lhe biIIs inlroduclion Ied lo slalulory
language that prevented local agencies from tying student performance through the teacher
identification number to teacher evaluations.
118

Recent education coverage of the collective bargaining negotiations in New Haven, CT,
lhough suggesls lhal lhe aIlimore Teachers Union TU an AIT affiIiale may be more
willing to support a considered data warehousing effort if education officials include union
input early in the decision-making process. The local New Haven AFT-affiliated teachers union
and the New Haven Public Schools came to agreement on progressive contract terms that
included expanded use of data; teacher performance pay based on student achievement growth;
greater emphasis on testing; and school-based operational freedom.
119
Union support largely
2010

- 22 -

slemmed from lhe schooI dislricls viIIingness lo eslabIishcoIIaboralive vorkgrous belveen
union reresenlalives and dislricl adminislralors lo decide on lhe conlracls crilicaI
implementation details.
120
By investing the union at the front-end of policy development, New
Haven teachers and administrators may have presented an ideal framework for Maryland and
aIlimoreCilysdalavarehouseadvocalesshouIdadvocates soon seek to improve the City and
Staleseducaliondalainfraslruclure
Privacy Advocacy Groups
Privacy watch groups likely would raise sound and reasoned concern over some aspects
of robust inter-agency data warehouse development. Collecting and centralizing juvenile data
from agencies across the public spectrum could place a wealth of information at the hands of
government officials. Further, through illegal or negligent actions, an insecure database could
expose sensitive information about students to non-government or ill-intentioned entities.
While the ACLU-MD has praised Baltimore City efforts to address root causes of at-risk City
SchooIssludenlshabiluaIlruancyissuesanddisciIinaryvioIalionssuorlfordalaanaIysis
likely would only go so far should the data warehouse fail to include proper safeguards.
Take, for example, media coverage in Anne Arudel County, Maryland, where police and
school officials are entering the data integration discussion on the basis of identifying gang
activity.
121
Governmenl officiaIs collection of juvenile data allows for immense reporting
capabilities. But, advocacy groups may suggest that positive intentions in data warehouse
creation could result in harmful outcomes, such as socioeconomic-based law enforcement
largelinginMaryIandsubIic schools.
122

Similarly, the ACLU-MD could point to the July 2008 Baltimore Sun series that exposed a
Maryland State Police undercover investigation of peace activists and anti-death penalty
groups.
123
In the State Police spying controversy, misinterpretation of available data about
Maryland peace advocacy groups led to a highly secretive and intrusive covert police operation.
Thus, whenever government officials have access to sensitive personal information, groups
such as ACLU-MD may have good reason for advocating against a robust student-level
database if proper protections are not in place.
2010

- 23 -

MaryIand rivacy and sludenls righls advocacy grous are slrongIy avare of and
acliveaboulubIicagenciesefforlslosharedala
124
Groups such as Legal Aid and ACLU-MD
often track FERPA compliance vigilantly, and these groups regularly communicate with state
and local education officials to ensure data protection.
125
Evidence of this active oversight is
evident in communications from ACLU-MDseducalionseciaIisl
It would be important [for ACLU-MD] to consult with privacy technology
officers who can provide the detailed planning assistance based on the
technology the school is going to use and the goals of the programthe issues
arise because of poor implementation of principles as much as with not thinking
through the broad policy itself.
126

During a phone interview, Cindy Boersma, ACLU-MDsLegisIaliveDireclordiscussed
severaIolherolenliaIrisksindalavarehousedeveIomenlandnoledlhallheACLUs
national office has taken interest in state and local efforts to build such databases.
127

Some of these foreseeable threats include: (1) the potential consequences of centralizing
information in one place so as to localize all sensitive information for interested parties;
(2) the effect data warehousing has on degrading the nolionofconsenlinanindividuaIs
release of personal data; (3) the difficulty around minimization only collecting necessary
data when more data may be available; (4) avoiding technology creep collecting data
from various sources unnecessarily because the technology allows officials to do so; (5)
data-sharing creep the difficulty in preventing release of information to other public
agencies once another agency has already collected the information; (6) data accuracy
and data-purging insufficiencies; (7) problems in disclosures that fail to de-identify
individuaIs eilher acliveIy or assiveIy and minimizing agency officiaIs access lo
data when roles of authority are unclear.
128

Successfully navigating MaryIandadvocacygrousdisagreemenlslhoughisossibIe
In 2006, the Maryland General Assembly overrode then-Governor IhrIichs velo of H
ChiIdren Records Access by lhe aIlimore Cily HeaIlh Dearlmenl
129
HB 900 revised
nearIy every seclion of MaryIands slalulory code relating to the privacy of juvenile records,
other than those records maintained by the public schools. Specifically, the bill permitted the
BCHD lo access an exlensive range of slale agencies personal data tied to at-risk juveniles.
2010

- 24 -

Access lhe |uveniIe dala hinged on CHDs efforls lo develop programs to reduce youth
violence in Baltimore. Through H s assage lhe BCHD gained regulated access to
protected juvenile data at unprecedented levels.
130
Thus, developing innovative and
progressive ways to integrate juvenile data is not unprecedented, and crafting state legislation
to initiatives aimed at helping at-risk youth may be successful.
Ultimately, overcoming data warehouse opposition will come through education
officiaIs inlenlionaI allemls lo bring slakehoIders logelher as earIy as ossibIe in lhe
development and planning stages of the warehousing process. By including potential
adversaries at the front-end of development, Maryland and Baltimore City officials may be able
lo creale a more effeclive syslem lhal baIances aII arlies inleresls Iurlhermore dala
varehouse advocales musl manage aII arlies execlalions aIong lhe vay of deveIomenl
These advocates must continually return to basic principles and motivations behind the data
warehousing effort to ensure that the final infrastructure achieves educational goals while
avoiding unnecessary data collection and disclosure.
131

IV. Recommendations & Conclusions
Maryland and Baltimore Citys insufficienl dala infraslruclures hamer Cily SchooIs
sludenls by reducing educalors abiIilies lo largel inlervenlions roacliveIy and lo aIIocale
resources efficiently. Unavailable robust student data reports also may deny the City Schools
the ability to link teacher performance to student growth, and may contribute to a prevalence of
unquaIified or unfil leachers in lhe Cilys cIassrooms The currenl almoshere of educalion
reform and federal funding under USDOE Secretary Duncan, however, sets the stage for
MaryIandandaIlimoreCilysoorlunilylobridgelhedalabasega
To take advantage of the distinctive chance at acquiring unprecedented federal
education dollars, Maryland and Baltimore City policymakers must consider important legal,
political, and policy implications. These spheres of influence will govern whether successful
data infrastructure revitalization will be possible.
To frame the discussion, policymakers must recognize that robust student-level data
systems necessitate government collection of massive amounts of potentially sensitive and
personal information about students. City and State policymakers, therefore, must navigate
2010

- 25 -

oonenlsconcernsaslheyreIalelofederaIandslaleIavsgoverningsludenlsrivacyrighls
Second, accessing and utilizing student data has the potential to raise serious concerns amongst
someofMaryIandsslrongesloIilicaIadvocacygrousMaryIandandaIlimoreCilyofficiaIs
therefore, must maneuver delicately through hesitations derived from potential political and
budgetary landmines.
m
The following summary recommendations attempt to provide a
generalized guide for lheCilyandSlalesdata warehouse proponents to move forward:
RccnmmcndatinnFncusnnBa!timnrcCitysDataWarchnuscDevelopment. Rather
than immediately looking towards creating a statewide data warehouse, Baltimore City officials
should use the current RFP data management system process to integrate data from non-
education public agencies working with juveniles. Ultimately, MSDE officials do not need the
more sensitive information about students to comply with most reporting tasks. Officials
working at the local level are most able to affect student achievement, and data warehousing at
the local level should be the focus point for integrated data-sharing efforts.
132

Recommendation 2: Convene a Stakeholder Workgroup of State and Local Officials
and Advocacy Groups. The Baltimore City Council or the Maryland General Assembly should
pass legislation to provide the opportunily for MaryIands educalion oIicymakers
stakeholders to convene for the purposes of discussing juvenile data integration amongst the
Slalesagencies The workgroup should consist of representatives from MSDE, the City Schools
(and additional school dislriclsasnecessaryDSSD}SDLLRDHRleachersunionsrivacy
advocacy groups, technology specialists, state and local politicians, parent associations, and
representatives from the legal community. With this initial gathering, the workgroup should
determine all other potential stakeholders that may have an interest in the data warehouse
development to ensure broad front-end investment. Secondary invitations should follow the
gathering of the most obvious constituents. Ultimately, the workgroup would be charged with

m
Given this aersuroselhefollowing section focuses heavily on legal and policy issues. Full
consideration of technological integration issues related to a student database will be critical for
MaryIandandCilySchooIsoIicymakerslosuccessfuIIydeveIoarobuslIongiludinaIdata warehouse.
However, the paper recognizes that further, specialized studies will be necessary to fully encompass all
factors that may influence effective database programming.
2010

- 26 -

determining the tiered need for improving data infrastructures based on the priorities outlined
by the DQC.
Recommendation 3: Provide the Workgroup with Specific Expected Outcomes.
Relevant legislation should charge the workgroup with making recommendations about the
following areas of inter-agency, data-sharing decision points. (a) Prioritized outcomes that the
successful City or State robust longitudinal databases would offer to facilitate backward
planning of the development process; (b) design plans for operational structures; (c) an
oeralionaIIanlhalcIarifiesagenciesroIesinanefforlloabidebyIIRIAandslalerivacy
law provisions; (d) a series of plans that address issues of initial and continual training on the
collection, storage, and use of juvenile data; (e) a list of agencies or groups that would
contribute data and information to the warehouse; (f) a list of agencies and organizations that
would have an interest in obtaining reports or raw data from the robust student-level data
system; (g) data protection and encryption plans that would become standardized across
participating agencies; and (h) a tiered, estimated cost-out of initial development plans for
recommended work moving forward.
n,133

Recommendation 4: Develop Standardized Inter-Agency Data-Sharing
Confidentiality Agreements. Presuming the workgroup ultimately advocates a need to
imrove MaryIands educalionaI andinler-agency data infrastructures, the workgroup should
outline and sponsor enabling data-sharing legislation at the state level and/or develop
slandardized Memorandums of Underslanding MOU. These agreements must permit
broader juvenile data-sharing while maintaining privacy protections at all levels and within all
participating agencies. Given the strict privacy laws in Maryland around juvenile data, the
workgroup should look towards the efforts of the BCHD to determine if such an expansive
data-sharing legislative effort would be feasible. Additionally, the workgroup should look
towards other state or local data-sharing agencies outside of Maryland, and specialized think

n
A critical component of creating a robust data system is establishing buy-in from needed
agenciesandcoIIaboralivearlnersThereviIIoflenbeanissueaslovhichagencyovnslhe
data or is responsible for reporting out data for necessary reports.
2010

- 27 -

tanks that may be able to offer best-practice agreements or statutory language that effectively
facilitates data integration.
134

2010

- 28 -

- APPENDICES -

2010

- 29 -

Appendix I: FERPA Detailed Overview Table by Disclosure Examples

Type of
Information
Release
Type of
Disclosure
Explanation Authority
Relevance to State/Local Data
Warehousing
LEA release of
aggregated,
unidentified
student data to
third party or
public
Not a
Disclosure
Although the data includes information
about students, and likely aggregates
individuaIsludenlseducalionrecords
no disclosure occurs because third
parties are unable to link data to
individual students.
34 C.F.R.
99.3 (2009)
Unidentified data reports about
schools and school districts are
permissible.
135
This allowable
action permits states to publish
yearly report cards about student
performance, and may allow
dynamic databases to produce
more comprehensive aggregated
reports.
LEA release of
education
records to
teacher or school
officials within
local district
Lawful
Disclosure
Local districts may freely share
sludenlseducalionrecordsloofficiaIs
within the same district, so long as
sharingoccursforIegilimale
educalionaIinleresls
20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)
(A)

20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(3)(C)
(xii)
Under FERPA, locally maintained
data systems are less subject to
violations. Thus, creating a local
dalavarehouseIimilsadislricls
liability exposure.
LEA release of
education
records to state
agency for
evaluation or
audit of local
programs, or for
accountability
purposes
Lawful
Disclosure
FERPA expressly permits disclosure of
LIAseducalionrecordsloslale
education agencies for evaluative
purposes. However, the state agency
may not redisclose the personally
identifiable education records, and
must destroy the records after
evaluation is complete.
20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)
(C), (b)(3),
(b)(5) (West
2009)
FERPA recognizes the
organizational relationships
between state and local education
agencies. As new FERPA
regulations indicate, such data-
sharing is expected and advised.
136

LEA release of
sludenls
assessment,
enrollment, and
graduation data
for purposes of
NCLB
Lawful
Disclosure
NCLB requires local districts to provide
individual student data for
accountability purposes. While states
and federal agencies must protect this
personally identifiable data about
students, the disclosure is lawful.
No Child Left
Behind Act of
2001, 20
U.S.C. 6311
(b)(3)(B)
Greater amounts of federal
funding for local education
agencies increases the likelihood
that federal offices will hold local
school districts accountable for
reform efforts. Statewide, or
robust local data warehouses,
provide such an infrastructure for
federal reporting.
LEA release of
individual
sludenls
education
records to a
contractor that
maintains a
database on an
LIAsbehaIf
Lawful
Disclosure
FERPA recognizes the resource and
technological restraints that many LEAs
face. Thus, the law permits districts to
contract out database services when the
terms of the data-sharing are expressly
outlined. The LEA or state agency must
havedireclconlroIoverlheconlraclors
operations. Contractors must exercise
the same heightened security around
sludenlseducation records as the
disclosing LEA would have.
34 C.F.R.
99.31(a)(1)(i)
(B) (West
2009)

34 C.F.R.
99.33(a) (West
2009)

34 C.F.R.
99.35 (West
IIRIAsudaledreguIalions
clarified this type of disclosure
between public agencies and
contractors. The clearer language
likely permits a third party
contractor the ability to maintain
andoeraleaLIAsdala
warehouse, so long as the LEA
clearly defines the scope of the
sharing agreements.
2010

- 30 -

Type of
Information
Release
Type of
Disclosure
Explanation Authority
Warehousing
Contractors also may not use the data
for purposes other than those outlined
in initial disclosure agreement.
Importantly, disclosing education
agenciesareIiabIeforanyconlraclors
FERPA violation.
2009)

LEA release of
education
records to
police, parents,
or other parties
to prevent
generalized
threat to
students
Unlawful
Disclosure
LEAs may only release education
records to such parties for health and
safety reasons when the data release is
necessaryloroleclagainsla
significant and articulable threat to
heaIlhorsafelyofanolhersludenl
137

or another party. USDOE violation
investigators will review a data release
under these conditions by a totality of
the circumstances standard.
34 C.F.R.
99.36(a) (West
2009)
While a robust longitudinal
student database may maintain
inter-agency juvenile data, release
of this data is impermissible unless
a clear emergency exists.
LEA or state
release of
education
records for
purpose of a
longitudinal
data system
Lawful
Disclosure
2008 revised FERPA regulations
expressly permit release of education
records for maintenance within a
statewide data system.
34 C.F.R.
99.35(b) (West
2009)
With this recent revision, the
USDOE expressed a clear
commitment to providing
incentives for states to expand
educational databases.
138

Third party
breaches LEAs
records to obtain
education
records
Likely
Unlawful
Disclosure
The revised FERPA guidelines set
standards that education agencies must
factor when establishing technological
safeguarding protocols. If an education
agencydoesnolmeelIIRIAs
encryption guidelines, the agency may
be liable for an unlawful disclosure.
34 C.F.R.
99.62, .64, .65,
.66 (West
2009)
In establishing a robust student
data warehouse, state or local
officials must exercise great care in
establishing technological
infrastructures.
LEA release to
non-public or
research
agencies that
conduct
educational
studies
Likely
Lawful
Disclosure
2008 revised FERPA guidelines
included language within the
regulation to clarify the role that
outside parties may play in obtaining
education records for research
purposes. The regulations highlight the
need to de-identify information prior to
release, and provide methods for
permissible de-identification (i.e.
stripping potentially identifiable
information about a student from
linked educational statistics). The
revised regulations also provide factors
that LEAs or state education agencies
should consider in determining what
education record data to provide, and
in what means agencies should about
providing it.
139

34 C.F.R.
99.31(a)(6)
(West 2009)
With the creation of a robust
educational data warehouse, a
local or state agency likely will
find researchers who desire access
to student data files for research
purposes. Even though
regulations include a potential 5
year access ban for organizations
that violate the use of disclosed
research data, LEAs and states
should craft clearly articulated
agreements when permitting third
parties to use education record
data for purposes not directly
related to the LEA or state.

2010

- 31 -

2010

- 32 -

Appendix II: Maryland Laws Related to State/Local Inter-Agency Data-Sharing

Maryland
Agency
Governing
Authority
Explanation
Warehousing
Dept. of
Juvenile
Services
D}S
MD. CODE
ANN., CTS. &
JUD. PROC.
3-8A-27
(2009)
The law prohibits the Department from distributing a
juvenile police record to any party, except in select
circumslancesOblaininga|uveniIesoIicerecord
including notice of arrests, generally requires a judicial
order for disclosure. Two significant exceptions exist: (1)
lheaIlimoreCilyHeaIlhDearlmenlCHDmay
access juvenile records in connection to treatment or to
develop anti-violence programming in Baltimore City,
and (2) law enforcement authorities may release specific
criminal offense information to Maryland school
superintendents and principals (see below, MD. CODE
ANN., EDUC. 7-303).
Adding juvenile arrest records to
any comprehensive student-level
database would be highly
problematic. Unless clear
guidance existed in the data-
sharing agreement, pursuing
education agency data integration
on an individual student-level
with DJS seems unlikely.
DJS
MD. CODE
ANN., HUM.
SERV. 9-219
(2009)
While DJS may produce studies and research reports
related to juveniles under its authority, the law prohibits
discIosureofindividuaIconfidenliaIresearchrecords
The law allows for publication of aggregated statistics and
information, so long as data does not link to individual
juveniles. The law permits the BCHD to access individual
|uveniIesdalaforlheuroseofrovidinglrealmenlor
anti-violence programming in Baltimore City.
The Human Services article
provides an avenue for juvenile
data integration. If DJS data flows
to a statewide education database
in an aggregated form, collection
of data may be possible.
Multi-
Agency
Cooperation
(DJS)
MD. CODE
ANN., HUM.
SERV. 9-219
(2009)
Law requires DJS to work cooperatively with MSDE,
Dept. of General Service, Dept. of Health & Mental
HygieneDHMHDelofHumanResources, Dept. of
LaborLicensingandReguIalionDLLRandDelof
Public Safety and Correctional Services.
The express mandate for DJS to
work cooperatively with other
state departments provides a ripe
framework for discussions around
developing a robust student-level
data warehouse.
Maryland
Education
Agencies
MD. CODE
ANN., EDUC.
7-303 (2009)
When law enforcement officers arrest a juvenile in
connection to a gang-related crime, the law enforcement
agencyisrequiredlonolifylhesludenlsrincial or
district superintendent of the offense.
140
However, the
law expressly prohibits including this notice in the
sludenlseducalionaIrecord
This section breaches the gap of
including juvenile delinquency
data in an education database.
The express denial of inclusion of
the offense in an education record,
though, further solidifies the
difficulty of integrating such data.
Dept. of
Hum. Res.
MD. ANN.
CODE art. 88A
(2009)
Prohibits all disclosure of juvenile records related to child
abuse or neglect. DHR maydiscIoseachiIdsinformalion
upon request of the local education agency. There is no
menlionofincIusioninlhechiIdseducalionrecordThe
IavermilslheCHDloaccessindividuaI|uveniIesdala
for the purpose of providing treatment or anti-violence
programming in Baltimore City.
The law allows local education
agencies to access sensitive
juvenile data on an individual
basis. Such information may be
inclusive in a statewide or local
robust data warehouse.
Maryland
Courts
MD. CODE
ANN., CTS. &
JUD. PROC.
3-827 (2009)
Section prohibits disclosure of juvenile court records
without court order. However, law permits the BCHD to
accessindividuaI|uveniIesdalaforlheuroseof
providing treatment or anti-violence programming in
Baltimore City.
Like other Maryland juvenile
privacy laws, the stringent
prohibition includes a narrow
exception for BCHD.
Dept. of Pub. MD. CODE Requires the Dept. of Pub. Safety to produce reports The section permits BCHD to
2010

- 33 -

Maryland
Agency
Governing
Authority
Explanation
Warehousing
Safety ANN., PUB.
SAFETY 2-
307 (2009)
about statewide incidences of crime. Orders the
Department to publish certain reports. The law permits
the BCHD to access individual juvenile victim data for the
purpose of providing treatment or anti-violence
programming in Baltimore City.
collect juvenile crime victim data.

2010

- 34 -

1. Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) (2009). Maryland Report Card, Graduation: Baltimore
City, obtained from MSDE Report Card website at mdreportcard.org on November 25, 2009.
2. Feldman, Benjamin (2009). Personal interview with Benjamin Feldman, Chief Achievement &
Accountability Officer, Baltimore City Public Schools, October 25, 2009.
3. Ibid.
4. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (2002), Pub. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (codified as amended in
scattered sections of 20 U.S.C.).
5. Palaich, Robert M., Gixie G. Good, and Arie van der Ploeg (2004). State Education Data Systems That
Increase Learning and Improve AccountabilityPolicy Issues (June), p. 1. Naperville, IL: Learning Point
Associates.
6. Bifulco, Robert, Helen F. Ladd, and Stephen Ross Public School Choice: Evidence from Durham,
North Carolina, Working Paper, Vol. 14 (February) 3-4. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
7. Weisberg, Daniel, et al. IxeculiveSummaryThe Widget Effect, 2-3. New York, NY: The New
Teacher Project. Accessed at widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect_execsummary.pdf on
November 10, 2009.
8. Mazzeo, Christopher Improving Teaching and Learning by Improving School Leadership, Issue
Brief (September), 1, 6-7. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices.
Accessed at www.nga.org/cda/files/091203LEADERSHIP.pdf on September 10, 2009.
9. Keltner, Brent R. Funding Comprehensive School Reform, Issue Paper, 5. Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corporation. Accessed at http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP175/index2.html on
September 10, 2009.
10. Edutopia (2009). Big Ideas for Better Schools: Ten Ways to Improve Education. Accessed at
www.edutopia.org/big-ideas on November 25, 2009.
11. Childress, Stacey, and Geoff Marietta (2008). A Problem-Solving Approach to Designing and Implementing a
Strategy to Improve Performance, 1, 2-5. Boston, MA: Public Education Leadership Project, Harvard
University.
12. Center for American Progress (2009). Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational
Innovation, 12, 15. Accessed at www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/leaders_laggards/report.html
on November 15, 2009.
13. Plank, Stephen (2009). Telephone interview with Stephen Plank, Co-Director, Baltimore Education
Research Consortium on October 15, 2009.
2010

- 35 -

14. Anderson, Nick (2009). Black-White Achievement Gap Smaller in Va. Than Md., Washington Post, July
14, 2009.
15. Dougherty, Chrys (2002). AIoIicymakersGuidelolheVaIueofLongiludinaISludenlDala, Issue Brief
(September), 2. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
16. Smith, Nancy J., and Jane Armstrong (2006). Data Quality Campaign, Creating Longitudinal Data Systems
Lessons Learned by Leading States. Washington, D.C.: Data Quality Campaign.
17. Goldsboro, David (2009). Telephone interview with David Goldsboro, Manager IT Support Systems,
Baltimore City Public Schools on October 14, 2009.
18. Collins, Laurie, Michael Sessa, and Elizabeth Laird (2007). The Right Data to the Right People at the Right
TincHcu|nicrcpcra|i|iiqHc|psAncricasSiu!cnisSucccc!, 6. Washington, D.C.: Data Quality Campaign.
19. Maryland Department of Education (2009). 2009 Maryland Report Card. Accessed at
www.mdreportcard.org/index.aspx on October 15, 2009.
20. Palaich, R., op.cit.
21. Appendix Table 1.
22. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) (2009). State Policy Inventory Database
Online. Accessed at www.wiche.edu/spido/policy_issues_definitions on October 15, 2009.
23. Data Quality Campaign (DQC) (2009). 10 Essential Elements of a State Longitudinal Data System. Accessed at
www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/elements on October 16, 2009.
24. Wilson, Leslie (2009). Telephone interview with Leslie Wilson, Assistant Superintendent, Maryland State
Department of Education on October 15, 2009.
25. Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) (2009). MSDE Wins $6.5 Million Federal Grant to Upgrade
Data System, Press Release on March 31, 2009. Accessed at
www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/exeres/24A0CA71-5A99-4E41-B311-
4598E272EE29,frameless.htm?Year=2009&Month=3%%3E on October 15, 2009.
26. Smith, Susan, Deborah Staub, Mary Myslewicz, and Elizabeth Laird (2007). Linking Education and Social
Services Data to Improve Child Welfare, 8. Washington, D.C.: Data Quality Campaign.
27. Ibid., p. 8, 10-11, 13.
28. Ibid., p. 9.
29. Data Quality Campaign (DQC) (2009). About DQC. Accessed at www.dataqualitycampaign.org/about on
October 10, 2009).
30. DQC (2009), 10 Essential Elements, op.cit.
2010

- 36 -

31. Data Quality Campaign (DQC) (2009). Maryland (3 of 10 Essential Elements) Using Data Systems. Accessed
at www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states/MD/actions on October 17, 2009.
32. Reidenberg, Joel R., and Jamela Debelak (2009). Cni|!rcns|!ucaiicna||cccr!san!Pritacq. New York, NY:
Center for Law and Policy, Fordham Law School.
33. Ibid., p. 2.
34. Ibid.
35. Palaich, R., op.cit., p. 2-3.
36. Ibid., p. 1-2.
37. Ibid., p. 6.
38. Ibid., p. 8.
39. Smith, S., op.cit., p. 1-2.
40. Ibid., p. 5.
41. Collins, L., op.cit., p. 14.
42. Goldsboro, D., op.cit.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Reidenberg, J., op.cit., p. 37-52.
46. Ibid., p. 57.
47. Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) (2009). Marq|an!sSiaic|!ucaiicnSqsicn|anksNun|cr
One Overall, Press Release on January 7, 2009. Accessed at
www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/pressrelease_details/2009_01_07.htm on October 17, 2009.
48. Data Quality Campaign (DQC) (2008). 2008 Survey Results by State: Maryland. Accessed at
www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey/states/MD on October 10, 2009.
49. Data Quality Campaign (DQC) (2008). 2008 Survey Results by State. Accessed at
www.dataqualitycampaign.org on October 10, 2009.
50. MSDE (2009), Press Release, op.cit.
51. Bowie, Liz MdImrovesDalaCoIIeclionloTrackSludenlsIerformance, The Baltimore Sun,
November 28, 2009.
2010

- 37 -

52. Baltimore City Public Schools (2009). Request for Proposal Data Management System, RFP-10035 (on file with
author).
53. Baltimore City Public Schools (2009). City Schools Momentum Builds: MSA Gains Continue Across All Grades,
Siu!cniGrcupsNun|crcjSiu!cnisSccringA!tancc!Ocu||csOtcrTucYcarsSqsicn|xiisCcrrcciitc
AciicnSiaiusjcr|irsiTinc, Press Release on July 21, 2009. Accessed at
www.bcps.k12.md.us/News/PDF/MSA08_09PressReleaseFINAL.pdf on October 15, 2009.
54. Swanson, Christopher B. (2009). Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Graduation Gap, 16. New York, NY:
Education AmericasIromiseAIIiance.
55. Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) (2008). 2007-2008 Fact Book, 1. Accessed at
www.msde.maryland.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FCB60C1D-6CC2-4270-BDAA-
153D67247324/18996/FACT_BOOK_20072008_12309.pdf on October 25, 2009.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
58. Venezia, Andrea, Michael W. Kirst, and Anthony L. Antonio (2003). Betraying the College Dream: How
Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations. Stanford, CA: Bridge
Project, Stanford University.
59. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2009). Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
Biography. Accessed at www.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/duncan.html on October 15, 2009.
60. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2009). U.S. Secretary of Education Announces National
Competition to Invest in Innovation, Press Release on October 6, 2009. Accessed at
www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/10/10062009a.html on October 15, 2009.
61. Pub. L. 111-5, 14005-06, 123 Stat. 282-3 (2009).
62. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2009). Race to the Top Fund: Purpose. Accessed at
www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html on November 25, 2009.
63. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2009). Race to the Top Fund, Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 221,
59813, November 18, 2009 (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. subtitle B, chapter II).
64. Ibid.
65. ovieLizGrasmickCaIIsforTeacherChangesThe Baltimore Sun, December 11, 2009. Accessed
at www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.schools11dec11,0,4143916.story on December 20,
2009.
66. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2009). Investing in Innovation Fund. Accessed at
www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/factsheet.html on November 25, 2009.
2010

- 38 -

67. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2009). Investing in Education, 74 Fed. Reg. 195, 52218,
October 9, 2009.
68. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2009). Grant Program for Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems, 74 Fed. Reg. 144, 37873, July 29, 2009 (to be codified in 34 C.F.R. parts 77, 80, 81, 84, 85, 97, 98,
and 99).
69. Smith, S., op.cit., p. 1.
70. Ibid.
71. Wilson, L., op.cit.
72. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) (2009). 20 U.S.C.S 1232g, 34 C.F.R. part 99.
73. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (1997). Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act and Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs, 3. Accessed at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/43/95/3c.pdf on
October 15, 2009.
74. Family Educational Rights and Privacy, 34 C.F.R. 99.1(c) (2009).
75. 20 U.S.C.A. 1232g(B) (West 2009).
76. USDOE (1997), op.cit., p. 11.
77. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4) (2006).
78. FERPA, op.cit., 34 C.F.R. 99.3(a).
79. Ibid.
80. USDOE (1997), op.cit., p. 3.
81. Robinson, Sally (2009). Telephone interview with Sally Robinson, Deputy Counsel, Office of Legal
Affairs, Baltimore City Public Schools on October 5, 2009.
82. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(2) (2009).
83. FERPA, op.cit., 34 C.F.R. 99.3.
84. Ibid.
85. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2008). Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA)
Final Rule 34 CFR Part 99, Section-by-Section Analysis, 1-2. Accessed at
www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ht12-17-08-att.pdf on October 10, 2009.
86. Ibid.
2010

- 39 -

87. Gonzaga v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002).
88. FERPA (2009), op.cit., 34 C.F.R. 99.62.
89. USDOE (2008), op.cit., p. 14.
90. Ibid.
91. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a) (2009).
92. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(f) (2009).
93. 20 U.S.C. 6301-7916 (2002).
94. Reidenberg, J., op.cit., p. 11.
95. Ibid., p. 12.
96. 20 U.S.C. 7911 (2009).
98. Ibid., p. 13-15.
99. P.L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936.
100. United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2009). Standards for Privacy of
Individually Identifiable Health Information, Final Rule: 45 C.F.R. 160.163.
101. Ibid.
102. United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and United States Department of
Education (USDOE) (2008). Joint Guidance on the Application of the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act
(FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to Student Health
Records, 2. Accessed at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/doc/ferpa-hipaa-guidance.pdf on October 15,
2009.
103. Ibid., p. 1, 3.
104. 45 C.F.R. 160.103 (2009).
105. DHHS & USDOE (2008), op.cit., p. 4.
106. Ibid.
108. Smith, S., op.cit., p. 6.
2010

- 40 -

109. Code of Maryland Annotated Regulations (2009). MD. CODE. REGS. 13A.08.02.01.
110. Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) (2008). Maryland Student Records System Manual 2008,
A-2. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Education.
111. Plank, S., op.cit.
112. Brice, Jonathan (2009). Interview with Jonathan Brice, Executive Director, Office of Student Support,
Baltimore City Public Schools on November 15, 2009.
113. Office of the Maryland State Governor (2009). The Origins of StateStat. Accessed at
www.statestat.maryland.gov/history.asp on November 29, 2009.
114. Ibid.
115. Henderson, Nia-Malika (2009). TeachersUnionsUneasyvilhObama, Politico, October 17, 2009.
Accessed at www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28409.html on October 17, 2009.
117. SavchukSlehenNEA at Odds with Obama Team OverRacelolheToCrileriaEducation
Week, Sept. 2, 2009, 6.
118. Md. Code Ann., Educ. 6-115 (2009); H.B. 587, 2009 Leg., 426th Sess. (Md. 2009); Wilson, L., op.cit.
119. Orson, Diane (2009). New Haven Teacher Contract Hailed as National ModelWNPR Connecticut
Public Radio, Oct. 27, 2009. Accessed at www.cpbn.org/article/new-haven-teacher-contract-hailed-
national-model on November 15, 2009.
120. King}rNeiIObama Wins a BallIeasTeachersUnionShovsIIexibiIilyWall Street Journal, Oct.
17, 2009, A3.
121. HermannIelerWhat Information Can Police, Schools Share?The Baltimore Sun, November 5,
2009. Accessed at www.chicagotribune.com/topic/bal-md.hermann05nov05,0,2421373.story on November
15, 2009.
122. VerderyebeImaiIexchangevilhebeVerderyDireclorMaryIandsIducalionReform
Project, ACLU-MD on December 2, 2009 (on file with author).
123. MadiganNickSpying UncoveredThe Baltimore Sun, July 18, 2008, A1.
124. Diibor, Ike (2009). Telephone interview with Ike Diibor, Coordinator, Office of Accountability, Baltimore
City Public Schools on Oct. 10, 2009.
125. Ibid.
126. Verdery, B., op.cit.
2010

- 41 -

127. Boersma, Cindy (2009). Telephone interview with Cindy Boersma, Legislative Director, American Civil
Liberties Union Maryland on December 17, 2009.
128. Ibid.
129. H.B. 900, 421
st
Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2006).
130. MD. CODE ANN., art. 83C 2-115 (2009) (Juvenile Services); MD. CODE ANN., art. 88A 2-115 (2009)
(Department of Human Resources); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC 3-827, 3-8A-27 (2009) (Maryland
Juvenile Courts); MD. CODE ANN., PUB. SAFETY 2-307 (2009) (State & Local Police Authorities).
131. Smith, N., op.cit., p. 5.
133. Smith, N., op.cit., p. 4.
134. USDOE (1997), op.cit., p. 15, E-1, -2, -4.
135. Winnick, Steven, Scott R. Palmer, and Arthur L. Coleman (2006). State Longitudinal Data Systems and
Student Privacy Protections Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 11. Washington, D.C.:
Holland & Knight LLP. Accessed at www.educationcounsel.com/files/pub.pdf on November 15, 2009.
136. United States Department of Education (USDOE) (2008). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) Final Regulations, Dear Colleague Letter. Accessed at
www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht12-17-08.html on November 15, 2009.
137. Ibid.
138. Ibid.
139. USDOE (2008), op.cit., p. 7-8.
140. Maryland Annotated Code, Education Article 7-303(b) (2009).

Longitudinal Databases in Balt City - Abell Policy Award Paper 030510 (ID) v3

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Longitudinal Databases in Balt City - Abell Policy Award Paper 030510 (ID) v3

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW

También podría gustarte