U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–995 PDF 2018

EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN 

EDUCATION RESEARCH WHILE PROTECTING 

STUDENT PRIVACY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 28, 2017 

Serial No. 115–21 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Ron Estes, Kansas 

Karen Handel, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Brandon Renz, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND 

SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

David Brat, Virginia 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Karen Handel, Georgia 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 28, 2017 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Polis, Hon. Jared, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education ....................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Schwartz, Dr. Nathaniel, Chief, Research and Strategy Officer, Tennessee 

Department of Education ............................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Stickland, Ms. Rachael, Co-Founder and Co-Chair, Parent Coalition for 

Student Privacy ............................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Whitehurst, Dr. Grover J. ‘‘Russ’’, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, 

Center on Children and Families, the Brookings Institution ................... 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Whitmore Schanzenbach, Dr. Diane, Director, The Hamilton Project, The 

Brookings Institution .................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Polis: 

Letter dated May 8, 2014, from the U.S. Department of Justice .......... 47 

Submission for the record ......................................................................... 51 

Information on the Rights of All Children to Enroll in School: Questions and Answers for States, School Districts and Parents .............. 53 

Chairman Rokita: 

Letter dated June 27, 2017, from the Electronic Privacy Information 

Center ..................................................................................................... 60 

Ms. Stickland: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Roe, Hon. David P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee ..................................................................................... 67, 69, 71 

Responses to questions submitted for the record to: 

Dr. Schanzenbach ...................................................................................... 73 

Dr. Schwartz .............................................................................................. 74 

Dr. Whitehurst .......................................................................................... 81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES TO 

STRENGTHEN EDUCATION RESEARCH 

WHILE PROTECTING STUDENT PRIVACY 

Wednesday, June 28, 2017 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Thompson, Messer, Polis, and 

Bonamici. 

Also Present: Representatives Foxx, Handel, and Scott. 

Staff Present: Courtney Butcher, Director of Member Services 

and Coalitions; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human 

Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Jake Middlebrooks, 

Legislative Assistant; James Mullen, Director of Information Technology; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Lauren Reddington, Deputy Press Secretary; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Michael Woeste, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority 

Press Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Director of Education 

Policy; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; Alexander 

Payne, Minority Education Policy Advisor; and Veronique Pluviose, 

Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman ROKITA. Good morning, everyone. I first want to take 

a moment to take care of one housekeeping item. Yesterday, Representative Karen Handel of the Sixth District of Georgia was appointed to the Committee on Education and Workforce. And while 

her subcommittee assignments are not yet final, I do want to welcome the Congresswoman to the committee. 

I’ve known Karen personally for years because we served as secretaries of State together. Her masterful leadership creating commonsense election reforms in Georgia led to models for the rest of 

the Nation to follow. She has showed tremendous leadership for the 

people of the entire State of Georgia, and I look forward to seeing 

that leadership here on the committee. 

So, Karen, welcome. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Mrs. HANDEL. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROKITA. There is no denying the fact that we live in 

a data-driven society. Information sharing is connecting and changing almost every industry. And, of course, our education system is 

no different. 

In 2002, the Education Sciences Reform Act, ESRA, was enacted 

to update and improve how we could leverage education research 

to better serve our Nation’s schools. And while ESRA was necessary to reform education research to better inform what is working in schools, the law may not be working as well as Congress 

wanted or intended. In fact, a 2013 Government Accountability Office study found weaknesses in the law, specifically significant 

delays in the distribution of research available to educators. 

States and local school districts rely on timely education research 

to identify best practices from across the country in order to build 

a better learning environment. And we need to ensure this research is delivering results for our schools in need. The data collected by schools is essential for understanding what is working, 

and it allows for a more open conversation between schools and 

parents about strategies that work for our students. 

Now, while technology has allowed information to be at our fingertips and has made our lives certainly more connected, if not 

easier, such a change comes with significant privacy concerns that 

we in this committee need to address. 

Americans are apprehensive——and with good reason——that 

personal information, such as personal finances and medical 

records are susceptible to hacking. We hear it in the news almost 

on a daily basis. And our students’ educational information covers 

not only all of those areas, but even more, and it is vital that we 

do all that we can to keep this information safe. 

So when we think of educational information, we may only think 

of grades, test scores, course lists, but there is so much more that 

is associated with a student’s personal record. Individual education 

records may contain sensitive information, such as Social Security 

numbers, physical and mental health records, family issues, and 

student loan and other personal finance data. As a father of two 

young boys, I understand firsthand the importance of keeping our 

children’s records safe and secure. 

So when Congress passed the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act, FERPA, as we call it, way back in 1974 to protect student privacy, the internet, of course, didn’t even exist. As we continue to see technology play a key role in how we conduct educational research, it is time for Congress to have a serious discussion on whether or not FERPA is keeping all student information 

safe, and how we can update it for——and, if so, how——or, if not, 

how we can update it for a 21st century world. 

Our hearing today will focus on how we can strike the right balance between leveraging education research for our students, while 

ensuring their information is private and secure. We have gathered 

a diverse group of witnesses, some of whom I’ve met already, who 

will give us their own perspectives on the effectiveness of both the 

ESRA and FERPA, and we look forward to hearing their stories. 

Education research can be a powerful tool to help our students, 

but that information should not come at the cost of a student’s priCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

vate and personal information. And I think we can thread that needle here in the 21st century. I look forward to our discussions of 

these issues today. 

And now I yield to Ranking Member Jared Polis for his opening 

statement. 

[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. I’d like to thank our 

panel of witnesses and my colleagues for joining today’s important discussion on 

education research and student privacy. 

I also want to welcome Congresswoman Karen Handel to the subcommittee. I’ve 

known Karen personally for years because we served as Secretaries of State together. Her masterful leadership creating common sense election reforms in Georgia 

led to models for the rest of the nation to follow. She showed tremendous leadership 

for the entire state of Georgia and I look forward to seeing it here on the committee. 

There is no denying the fact we live in a data-driven society. Information sharing 

is connecting and changing almost every industry, and our education system is no 

exception. 

In 2002, the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) was enacted to update and 

improve how we could leverage education research to better serve our nation’s 

schools. 

While ESRA was necessary to reform education research to better inform what 

is working in schools, the law may not be working as well as Congress wanted or 

intended. 

In fact, a 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found weaknesses 

in the law, specifically significant delays in the distribution of research available to 

educators. 

States and local school districts rely on timely education research to identify best 

practices from across the country in order to build a better learning environment, 

and we need to ensure this research is delivering the results our schools need. 

The data collected by schools is essential for understanding what is working, and 

it allows for a more open conversation between schools and parents about strategies 

that work for our students. 

While technology has allowed information to be at our fingertips, and has made 

our lives more connected, such a change comes with significant privacy concerns. 

Americans are apprehensive, with good reason, that personal information such as 

personal finances and medical records are susceptible to hacking. Our students’ educational information covers all of these areas and more, and it is vital that we do 

all that we can to keep this information safe. 

When we think of educational information, we may only think of grades, test 

scores, and course lists, but there is so much more that is associated with a student’s personal record. 

Individual education records may contain sensitive information such as social security numbers, physical and mental health records, family issues, and student loan 

and other personal finance information. 

As a father of two young boys, I understand first hand the importance of keeping 

our children’s records safe and secure. 

When Congress passed the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 

in 1974 to protect student privacy, the Internet didn’t exist. 

As we continue to see technology play a key role in how we conduct educational 

research, it is time for Congress to have a serious discussion on whether or not 

FERPA is keeping all student information safe. 

Our hearing today will focus on how we can strike the right balance between 

leveraging education research for our students, while ensuring their information is 

private and secure. 

We have gathered a diverse group of witnesses who will give us their own perspectives on the effectiveness of both ESRA and FERPA, and we look forward to 

hearing their stories. 

Education research can be a powerful tool to help our students, but that information should not come at the cost of a student’s private and personal information. I 

look forward to our discussion of these issues today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, for holding this hearing 

on this very important topic this morning. I want to thank all four 

of our witnesses for joining us. 

Education research and student data privacy are both very important, both to us as members of this committee as well as to our 

constituents. Fortunately, both education research and data privacy are thoroughly bipartisan issues, and members of this committee have a history of working together on bipartisan legislation 

and oversight to protect privacy and to utilize data to improve educational opportunities for children across our country. 

For example, the Success in Education Through Research Act 

would have updated current education research law. The Student 

Privacy Protection Act would have updated current law addressing 

educational rights and privacies for the internet era. 

Additionally, I, along with my colleague, Congressman Messer, 

introduced the Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act 

last Congress, which would create new privacy protections for students by prohibiting ed-tech vendors from selling student data or 

using it for commercial gain. The bill also helps reinforce a bipartisan belief that ed-tech providers have a responsibility in guaranteeing that student data is private and secure and that reasonable 

precautions are taken, just as it would be for yours or my credit 

card or personal financial information. 

It’s important to acknowledge the support and the role that education research plays in helping achieve equity of opportunity 

amongst all students, and the promise of continued progress towards individualized education using educational technology. The 

importance of data is even more crucial as States begin to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act, passed by this Congress, 

which ensures that schools and districts are held accountable for 

the education they provide to their students and for all kinds of 

students, even though States have broader flexibilities under the 

law and how they can meet those requirements. 

ESSA contains an important privacy safeguard by requiring 

States to set a minimum sample size for reporting disaggregated 

group-level data so that individual data cannot be inferred from the 

group data, commonly referred to as the n-size. The statute requires States to ensure the minimum number does not reveal any 

personally identifiable information. 

One of the challenges I look forward to addressing here in this 

hearing is the need to strike a balance between student data privacy laws with very strong protections, while still allowing students, teachers, districts, and families to benefit from research 

findings, from State data systems, from optimized and personalized 

educational technologies, and the promise of ed-tech innovation. 

I want to thank our witnesses for participating in this hearing. 

I’m very much looking forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Polis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Education research and student data privacy are topics important to my constituents and me. Both are also bipartisan issues, and members of this committee have 

a history of working together to introduce bipartisan legislation to reauthorize eduCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

cation data and privacy laws. For example, the Success in Education Through Research Act (SETRA) would have updated current education research law. And the 

Student Privacy Protection Act would have updated current law addressing educational rights and privacy. 

Additionally, I, along with my colleague Congressman Messer, introduced the Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act last Congress, which would create new 

privacy protections for students by prohibiting ed tech vendors from selling student 

data or using it for commercial gain. The bill also helps reinforce a bipartisan belief 

that ed tech providers have a responsibility in guaranteeing student data is private 

and secure. I look forward to continuing to work with Congressman Messer on this 

issue and re-introducing our student data privacy bill this year. 

While education rights and privacy are essential, and we want to make sure federal law does not hinder any state efforts that attempt to raise the bar in protecting 

student privacy, it is also important to acknowledge and support the role education 

research plays in helping achieve equity of opportunity amongst all students. 

Reliable de-identified data plays a constructive role in identifying gaps in public 

education, and longitudinal data systems help state and local leaders identify strategies for intervention and improvement of poorly performing schools. 

The importance of data is even more crucial as states begin to implement the 

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which still ensures schools and districts are 

held accountable for the education they provide to their students even though states 

have broader flexibilities and responsibilities under the law. ESSA also contains an 

important privacy safeguard by requiring states to set a minimum sample size for 

reporting disaggregated group-level data. Commonly referred to as the ‘‘n-size;’’ the 

statute requires states to ensure that the minimum number does not reveal any personally identifiable information. 

One of the challenges I look forward to addressing in this hearing is the need to 

strike a balance between student data privacy laws with strong protections, while 

still allowing students, teachers, districts, and families to benefit from research findings, state data systems, and the promise of ed tech innovations, like personalized 

learning platforms. 

Thank you again to the witnesses for participating in this hearing, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record. And, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for 

the official hearing record. 

I’d now like to turn to the introduction of our distinguished witnesses, and I recognize, again, the ranking member to introduce 

the first witness. 

Mr. POLIS. We have a Coloradan on our panel today. I’m excited 

to welcome back Rachael Stickland, who is a parent from Jefferson 

County, Colorado, which I represent a part of. She is the founder 

of Privacy Matters and the co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. Along with her coalition co-founder, they’ve organized 

a national coalition of parents and advocates to support student 

privacy and advocate for State and Federal legislation with strong 

student data privacy protections. I’m thrilled to welcome Jefferson 

County resident Rachael Stickland. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. Welcome. 

I’ll resume with our introductions. 

Dr. Nathaniel Schwartz is the chief research and strategy officer 

for the Tennessee Department of Education. 

Welcome, sir. 

Dr. Diane Schanzenbach—— 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. I’m used to it. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

Chairman ROKITA. I’ll look into your digital record, ma’am——is 

the director of The Hamilton Project and a senior fellow at the 

Brookings Institution. 

Dr.—— 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Schanzenbach. 

Chairman ROKITA.——Schanzenbach, welcome. Thank you. 

Dr. Russ Whitehurst is a senior fellow in the Center on Children 

and Families in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings 

Institution. 

Dr. Whitehurst, welcome as well. 

I now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman ROKITA. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Thank you. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. And this is a reminder for us up here 

as much as it is for you. You’ll each have 5 minutes to present your 

testimony. And when you begin, the light in front of you will, of 

course, be green. With 1 minute left, it will be yellow. And with a 

red light, I’ll start hitting on the gavel. So at that point, I’ll ask 

you to wrap up your remarks as best you’re able. And, remember, 

all this will come into the record, including any written testimony 

you’ve given us. And then members, under that same lighting system, will each have 5 minutes to ask questions. 

So, with that, Ms. Stickland, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF RACHAEL STICKLAND, CO-FOUNDER AND COCHAIR, PARENT COALITION FOR STUDENT PRIVACY 

Ms. STICKLAND. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member 

Polis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, for inviting 

me to testify today on behalf of parents concerned about student 

privacy. My name is Rachael Stickland. I am a parent of two public 

school children in Colorado and a co-founder and co-chair of the 

Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. 

Today, I’d like to focus my testimony on the need to consider the 

broad implications to privacy when student data are collected and 

disclosed for various purposes, including research. 

The first topic I would like to address is data security. In the last 

18 months alone, K through 12 public schools in the U.S. experienced at least 147 separate cybersecurity-related incidents, some 

resulting in identity theft. Last year, 13 percent of all higher education institutions experienced a ransomware attack. This is the 

first time that the education sector outpaced the government, retail, and healthcare industries in this type of threat. 

But these incidences aren’t——excuse me——incidents aren’t 

limited to K-12 schools and colleges. The U.S. Department of Education has been found to have especially weak security standards 

as reported in a 2015 audit by the Department’s Inspector General. 

According to the audit, staff in the Inspector’s Office hacked into 

the Department’s main IT system, gained unfettered access to personal data without anyone noticing. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

In May 2016, the government scorecard created to assess how 

well Federal agencies were implementing data security measures 

awarded the Education Department an overall grade of D. 

Earlier this year, the IRS disabled the FAFSA data retrieval tool 

on the Education Department’s website until extra security protections could be added. The IRS later reported that the personal data 

of as many as 100,000 taxpayers may have been compromised 

through this tool. My family, in fact, fell victim to this attack. In 

a series of letters sent by the IRS, we learned someone likely obtained my husband’s tax data through the FAFSA application and 

then filed a joint return on our behalf. The IRS has since provided 

1 year of identity theft protection for my husband, but nothing for 

me or our children. 

So whether at the State, local, or Federal level, student information is vulnerable to breaches and hacks such as these in large part 

because the Federal student privacy law known as FERPA has no 

baseline security requirements. Until the law is updated to address 

data security in the 21st century, students will continue to be at 

risk long into their adulthood. 

Another issue we urge you to consider is the use and disclosure 

of student data stored in statewide longitudinal data systems, or 

SLDSs, or any Federal data repository. While parents generally 

support research to drive decision-making in education, most believe that education should be in the control of their local community and that a student’s data should remain within the school or 

district. 

When State or Federal agencies gain access to identifiable student data without parental consent, many parents perceive this action as government overreach. Other parents are concerned that 

data collected on individuals, even when limited to certain elements and collected for one purpose, could be expanded in scope 

and subjected to mission creep. K through 12 student data currently maintained by most States in their SLDS contain upwards 

of 700 highly sensitive data elements, including disciplinary 

records, disabilities, and immigration status. The comprehensive 

nature of these data sets creates lifelong dossiers on individuals 

and could quickly become a go-to repository for other State agencies, institutions, or the Federal Government. 

Frankly, it’s not difficult to imagine how this gold mine of data 

could be repurposed for political or ideological gain, which is one 

reason our coalition supports maintaining the Higher Education 

Act’s ban on a Federal student unit-record system. 

FERPA became law at a time when students’ files were held in 

the principal’s office, for the most part, never left the school. Many 

parents believe this is still the case and are shocked to learn that 

troves of electronic student data are collected by schools and their 

contractors, stored online, and digitally disclosed to private companies and to State and Federal agencies without their consent. 

We believe the disconnect stems, in part, from FERPA’s lack of 

important transparency requirements or fair information practices. 

At a minimum, parents should know who has their students’ 

data——excuse me, their children’s data, and for what purpose, 

how it is secured, how to access and correct it, and when it will 

be destroyed. Optimally, parents should be notified in advance of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

any disclosure outside of the school district and given the opportunity to opt out and delete information not necessary to the child’s 

transcript. 

FERPA is long overdue for an update. It must be modernized to 

assure students that their information will be protected from unauthorized access and misuse. Until then, our coalition strongly urges 

policymakers not to enable new or expanded data collections for research or any other purposes. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to share our coalition’s 

concerns with you today and for your consideration of my testimony. 

[The statement of Ms. Stickland follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 25995.001
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 25995.002
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 25995.003
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 25995.004
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 25995.005
14 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Ms. Stickland. 

Dr. Schwartz, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. NATHANIEL SCHWARTZ, CHIEF RESEARCH 

AND STRATEGY OFFICER, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

During my 5 years with the Tennessee Department of Education, 

our agency has received four grants from the Institute of Education 

Sciences, or IES, and we have joined with Vanderbilt University to 

create the Tennessee Education Research Alliance, one of the first 

research-practice partnerships aimed directly at State policy in K12 education. 

We’re quite proud in Tennessee about the major improvements 

we have seen in student achievement recently, with our States’ 

scores in the National Assessment of Education Progress rising 

faster over the last 5 years than any other States. And we ascribe 

some of this progress to the ways that we anchor our work in a system of continuous research and evidence-driven improvements. 

State departments of education like mine need rigorous and 

meaningful research in order to function effectively. In Tennessee, 

we rely on Federally supported research to determine our State’s 

greatest needs, to identify and improve levers of change, and to 

evaluate program effectiveness. 

In my written testimony, I describe the way our State used an 

IES continuous improvement grant to develop a model for coaching 

teachers that we hope will contribute to rapid reading gains for our 

State’s neediest students. This kind of innovation on a highly relevant problem directly aligns with the aims of our Federally supported research system. But making this type of research the norm 

requires several key elements, not all of which are consistently 

available. 

First and foremost, the work in Tennessee depends on the presence of a strong internal research team. For nearly every major research study that our State has conducted, including multiple goldstandard, randomized trials that are now influencing national conversations in areas ranging from preschool to early postsecondary, 

our in-house researchers identified the opportunities and facilitated 

the work. Although vital, this sort of State research office receives 

little direct support or explicit encouragement from the Federal 

Government. 

Second, our work depends on IES support for long-term partnerships between our State department and independent research 

partners. Just as we need strong internal research teams, we also 

need a consistent set of knowledgeable partners who can provide 

an independent voice and ties to the larger research community. 

Currently, the grants that IES provides supporting partnerships 

between researchers and State agencies make up only about 12 

percent of the total IES portfolio. 

Lastly, we need secure systems that let us confidently conduct 

research while ensuring student privacy. Our partnership with the 

Tennessee Education Research Alliance has created systems to consolidate department data and allow this data, with student names 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

15 

and IDs removed, to be used within a secure environment by approved education researchers. 

These points lead to several recommendations. First, I ask that 

you preserve the Federal role in supporting research. The quality 

of our education in our country depends on decisions made at the 

State and local level. We need these decisions to be made with 

strong evidence and information. 

Second, I’d encourage you to provide support for internal research teams within State departments of education. Strong, applied research work depends on the presence of local researchers 

inside education agencies who have the knowledge and expertise to 

conduct analyses, to seed new research, and to act on research findings. The Federal Government could take several steps to help 

build these offices both by offering direct financial support or by offering IES support for training programs designed specifically to 

develop the pool of researchers with the skills and desire to serve 

within State and local agencies. 

Third, I’d invite you to build the emphasis within IES on longterm, rigorous research partnerships that will produce tangible 

State and district-level improvements and innovations. In particular, IES could do more to support long-term organizations like 

the Tennessee Education Research Alliance that build expertise, 

knowledge, and data security at the local level. 

Fourth, I ask that you explicitly encourage the secure use of educational data for research purposes and that you clarify Federal 

guidance on certain issues. In my written testimony, I note some 

specific areas where the Federal Government could clear up uncertainty about the use of data that crosses administrative agencies. 

And here I agree, in many ways, with my colleague, Ms. Stickland. 

The last point here gets a little down in the weeds as I near the 

end of my 5 minutes. And so I’d be happy to answer questions on 

this topic or refer you to my written testimony. 

I thank you, once again, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues, and I look forward to answering whatever questions 

you might have. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 25995.006
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 25995.007
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 25995.008
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 25995.009
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 25995.010
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 25995.011
22 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Schanzenbach, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DIANE WHITMORE SCHANZENBACH, DIRECTOR, THE HAMILTON PROJECT, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Thank you. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss opportunities to strengthen education research while also protecting student privacy. I’m Dr. Diane Schanzenbach. I’m the director of the Hamilton Project and a senior fellow in Economic Studies 

at the Brookings Institution. I’m also a professor of Education and 

Social Policy at Northwestern University, where I direct a 

predoctoral training program funded by the Federal Institute of 

Education Sciences. 

Our education system must continue to adapt and improve to ensure that our Nation’s citizens are prepared for the jobs of the future and we make careful and efficient use of public resources. Rigorous and relevant education research is a critical component of an 

education system dedicated to continuous improvement. 

As a researcher who has three children attending public elementary schools in Illinois, my husband and I both share concerns 

about the student privacy and data confidentiality. Any time a student’s data are shared outside of school walls, for example with researchers such as myself, there are risks that are important to 

manage and minimize through appropriate protocols and procedures. At the same time, there are also large benefits that can be 

derived from researchers’ access to data. The key is to ensure that 

we mitigate any potential risks without foregoing the desperately 

needed progress and benefits that research can have on the education system. 

Fortunately, I know firsthand, from my experience as a researcher and a parent, that individual students’ data can be appropriately safeguarded, while simultaneously being productively used 

to assess and improve education. I’m optimistic that, during today’s 

hearing, we’ll be able to address some of the key misconceptions regarding what data are made available to researchers and how the 

data are used. I’m going to speak briefly to how researchers doing 

work with secure student-level data must handle the data by law. 

Before access to data is granted, there are detailed written agreements between the researcher and the district or State partner. 

These always include instructions on who may use the data and 

how the data may be used. For example, with one partner, I can 

only access their dataset on a stand-alone desktop computer with 

no access to the internet that I keep in my office. That computer 

has to be kept in a locked safe when it’s not in use. Of course, I 

may only use the data for a specific approved project, and I no 

longer have access to the data once that project is complete. 

While these datasets have information about individual students, 

the research itself is never about individual students. While researchers need access to individual-level data to conduct the analysis, the point is never to hone in on one individual, but instead 

to use a large number of individuals’ data to understand broader 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

trends. In fact, I’m not permitted to publish results that might inadvertently identify any individual. 

In my experience, when data from State or district longitudinal 

data systems are shared with external researchers, they do not 

contain identifying information such as names or addresses and oftentimes contain anonymized student numbers. 

The emphasis on rigorous and relevant research and an increasing access to administrative datasets has led to a dramatic expansion of valuable insights. While there are many, many success stories, I’ll highlight a few recent studies that have already yielded 

demonstrable results and significant impact. Researchers have 

measured the diversity of impacts of charter schools on student 

achievement. It also measured the spillover benefits of school 

voucher programs on the children who stay behind in regular public schools. 

One of my favorite examples is from Chicago. Leveraging longitudinal data, researchers discovered early-warning indicators that 

predict high school dropout. Based on this research, they developed 

a simple Freshmen On-Track indicator based on ninth grade credit 

completion and course failures. Armed with this new information 

from research about what to look for, individual schools now monitor their own students’ progress on this measure and can intervene early to get specific ninth and tenth graders at high risk of 

dropping out back on track to improve their likelihood of graduating from high school. School districts all across the country have 

adopted this approach to improve their graduation rates as well. 

While there are many more success stories, one factor remains 

constant: Investments in data systems that support cutting-edge 

research, offer an impactful mechanism to improve our education 

system and the skills of millions of American students. We’ve seen 

significant improvements in education policy and practice, spurred 

by rigorous and relevant research. To be economically competitive 

in a rapidly evolving world market, it is imperative that we continue to improve the U.S. education system and increase the system’s return on investment. Additional research will be key to driving these needed improvements. Along with the strong benefits of 

research, however, comes the need to protect student privacy and 

data confidentiality. Both goals can be achieved by helping States 

adopt best practices to protect confidentiality while still partnering 

with researchers. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Schanzenbach follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 25995.012
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 25995.013
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 25995.014
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 25995.015
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 25995.016
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 25995.017
30 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Whitehurst, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. GROVER J. ‘‘RUSS’’ WHITEHURST, SENIOR 

FELLOW IN ECONOMIC STUDIES, CENTER ON CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Thank you. 

As someone who’s been an active researcher and user of privacyprotected student data, and as someone who’s the founding director 

of the Institute of Education Sciences, I’m very appreciative for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

For those of you not familiar with it, the mission of the Institute 

of Education Sciences, IES, is to report statistics on the condition 

of education in the U.S., to fund research on educational programs 

and practices that support student learning, and to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal and other education programs. 

The Federal Education Research Enterprise was established by 

the Cooperative Research Act of 1954. And I believe it was a failure 

prior to the establishment of IES in 2002. Books have been written 

about this. I will summarize with a quote from the National Academies of Sciences. They did a report on the immediate predecessor 

to IES. That was the Office of Education Research and Improvement. They cataloged a litany of problems with that agency and 

concluded with, quote, ‘‘OERI needs to be rebuilt.’’ 

Congress did that with the Education Sciences Reform Act of 

2002. Here’s what the Office of Management and Budget said 7 

years later about IES: Quote, ‘‘Since its creation by the Education 

Sciences Reform Act, IES has transformed the quality and rigor of 

education research within the Department of Education and increased the demand for scientifically based evidence of effectiveness 

in the education field as a whole.’’ I would refer to the previous two 

witnesses as evidence in point to that. 

This leads me to the first of four points and recommendations. 

First, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. 

The operational success of IES for the last 15 years has spent too 

long serving directors, several leaders delegated the responsibility 

of the director, and three different Presidential administrations. 

The stability and performance across variations in leadership is 

due to the legislation itself. The legislation includes clear——gives 

IES a clear and focused mission, statutory independence from political interference, highly qualified staff, and strong internal controls 

for quality. 

So I recommend that as you take up reauthorization of IES, you 

retain the core components of the Education Sciences Reform Act 

and focus on the ways to add to functions of IES that will make 

it more useful. 

The second point is follow the money. IES operates with an annual budget of a little more than $600 million. This is a small 

amount in relative terms, only about 1 percent of the Department’s 

discretionary budget. On the bright side, the IES budget has risen 

over the years, and it has not whipsawed. That’s very important. 

My immediate concern here today is not so much the line item 

program budget, but the budget for salaries and expenses. That 

budget is drawn from the Department’s omnibus budget for adminCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

istration. It’s at the discretion of the Secretary. IES has substantial 

and absolutely essential independent authority to carry out its 

work. But it would be easy for an administration that is displeased 

with certain products because they’re off message or simply has 

other priorities for its administrative budget, to cripple IES 

through reductions in funding for its salaries and expenses. The 

danger is evident in the Department’s present plans for an acrossthe-board reduction in force that may cut IES staff, already small 

in number and operating with high efficiency, to the bone. 

Thus, I recommend that in reauthorizing IES, this committee 

provide for a specific budget for the administration of IES. 

Third point is that time is of the essence. The yield in terms of 

useable products from individual IES investments typically takes 

years to emerge. Research——a research firm gets a contract. They 

give you the results 4 years later. That’s important work. There’s 

a natural timeline to it. At the same time, a lot of education policy 

occurs in timeframes measured in months, not in years, and that 

decision-making often occurs bereft of any real insights from the 

research that already may exist. 

Consider, for example, the Trump administration’s fiscal year 

2018 budget proposal to cut funding to colleges and universities for 

the Federal Work-Study Program. This Congress will need to consider that proposal. Wouldn’t it be nice if IES were funding a program activity that, in a matter of months, could generate an objective report on what we know and don’t know about Federal Work 

Study, how it’s performing, who it serves, and what the consequences would be for changing it? 

I recommend, thus, that you authorize a budget for IES to generate independent, quick turnaround reports on high-impact policy 

issues that arise in education policy at the Federal and State levels. 

Finally, point four speaks to the privacy issues we are talking 

about today. There’s invaluable information to improve education 

in large administrative databases of student records. Mining that 

data has risks that must be acknowledged and eliminated. The 

computational analysis of large administrative datasets can reveal 

patterns, trends, and associations that provide very important insights about how to improve education. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, Doctor. The 

time’s expired. You’ll have to take care of it in questioning. I’m 

sure you’ll get those points in. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. All right. 

[The statement of Mr. Whitehurst follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 25995.018
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 25995.019
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 25995.020
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 25995.021
36 

Chairman ROKITA. At this time, I’m going to recognize members 

for member questioning. And instead of recognizing myself, I’m 

going to reserve and instead recognize the chairman of the full 

committee, Chairwoman Dr. Foxx. You’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank our panelists for being here today. We appreciate your making the time to come. 

Ms. Stickland, I’m sorry to hear about what happened to your 

family with the DRT. We’ve had a whole hearing on that issue, as 

you may know. But it, unfortunately, highlights concerns parents 

have about the collection of valuable information of students. 

When you hear accomplished researchers like Dr. Whitehurst 

talk about how they protect the data they get so there’s not as 

great a risk with sharing that data, does that give you peace of 

mind about sharing student data? 

Ms. STICKLAND. Thank you for the question. Parents aren’t opposed to research or evidence used in making decisions for education. But I think what the FAFSA situation did reveal is that no 

data is completely safe. When it’s linked to other agency data, it 

becomes especially vulnerable, and that linkage is a disclosure. So 

while we understand and appreciate that researchers are very cautious with data and there are measures to take to try and 

deidentify data and keep it confidential, it still poses a very significant risk. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. 

Dr. Schwartz, you’ve heard what Ms. Stickland has said about 

the breaches. What more do you believe your State could do to 

limit the data collected in the first place? And of the data collected, 

is there more the State could do to limit what is shared with outside entities without compromising meaningful feedback on school 

and program effectiveness? 

And I think the example given about helping students complete 

school and working within the school is a great example. But there 

was no need for that information to be shared with anybody else 

for the school to make the——work with those students, it seems 

to me. But please——please respond. 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. It is critical——thank you. It is critical that we 

protect student privacy while also conducting research. And I think 

that we in our State have spent a lot of time thinking about how 

we can——how we can have these two things live together within 

our States. So we have a number of State laws on the books that 

require us to make public and transparent every data element that 

gets collected at the State level and to make public the ways that 

this data is being used for research purposes. 

So this isn’t something being done behind closed doors. This is 

something that we want to disclose and make very clear what we’re 

doing and why we’re doing it. Because, as Ms. Stickland points out, 

I think there are clear, clear benefits to doing this right. I would 

also argue that there are clear benefits to, at times, linking data 

across agencies. 

So our——our strategic plan in Tennessee asks us to think about 

where students go beyond high school. For many years, the goal of 

bringing students to——of having students pass through our K-12 

education system was high school graduation. But that’s not 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

enough. And one of the things we’ve been able to look at by linking 

data is to understand, so what happens to students who leave our 

high schools with only a high school degree and enter the workforce 

in Tennessee? The answer is that they are annually making a salary of somewhere around $10,000. 

We couldn’t answer those questions without linking data. What 

I think we need are the secure systems for when that data is 

linked being absolutely sure that data is completely secure and ensures student privacy. And I entirely agree with Ms. Stickland’s 

points about revamping some of our laws to make sure that is the 

case. 

Ms. FOXX. Dr. Whitehurst, you talk about the need for IES to 

support quick turnaround reports on high-impact policy issues. But 

is the problem the lack of quick turnaround capability or is the 

problem a lack of truly relevant research within existing research 

projects? Why would we need a quick turnaround study on a Federal program that might be impacted by a budget proposal? Would 

not that program have been evaluated already? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, in some cases, programs have been or 

components of programs have been evaluated already. But nobody’s 

in a position, through Federal funding now, to synthesize that research, gather it together, and make reasonable conclusions about 

what we know going forward. On Federal Work-Study, for example, 

there is a body of research on it. It’s spread over a number of years, 

a number of research teams, a number of universities. Somebody 

has to be responsible for gathering that together, drawing conclusions that are objective, not pushed by political point of view, and 

that can be expected to do that in a trustworthy fashion. I think 

IES has a role in doing that. It’s not currently fulfilling that role 

because there is no budget or particular authority to do so. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THOMPSON. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back. 

I now recognize Mr. Scott from Virginia, the ranking member of 

the full Education and Workforce Committee. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for convening this hearing. 

First, Ms. Schanzenbach, one of the sensitive data points would 

be immigration status. It’s my understanding that schools can’t 

even ask about immigration status. So would that not be missing 

from the data? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. I don’t know about that legally. But I know 

that, as a researcher, I’ve never had access to anyone’s legal status. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned studies in Chicago predicting dropouts. What were the conclusions and how would you target——how 

would they help you target money to maximize cost benefit of investments? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Sure. So they——the researchers there 

looked to see what sort of factors predict high school dropout rates 

and what we can figure out, early-on, so we can intervene with 

kids, you know, in eighth grade or ninth grade or tenth grade. And 

they looked at a whole range of different potential triggers that 

then later on predict. So we really needed the solid research, you 

know, that they were able to do with that longitudinal data system. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

What they found was ninth grade credit attainment, and some 

other factors that were observable in ninth grade, were really good 

predictors of later high school graduation. So then they told that 

to schools. The schools were able to target kids who were sort of 

dropping off pace that way, get them sort of course-corrected back 

in ninth grade, maybe tenth grade. And so then they’ve seen their 

high school graduation rates increase. And lots of other cities have 

adopted the same program. I think it’s a real success of research. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Schwartz, you indicated research on what happened to people after high school. I assume that one of the factors you looked 

into is what predictors there would be. How did you use that research to help students finish high school and get on the way to 

additional education? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Sure. Many of the things we’ve looked at in Tennessee, actually, mirror the work from Chicago that Dr. 

Schanzenbach is referring to. And the new ESSA law has actually 

allowed us to think about how we integrate that into the day-today work of our schools. 

So one of the things that ESSA asks States to do as they set up 

their State-level accountability systems is to think about——think 

about indicators other than test scores that could be used to hold 

schools accountable for the progress that students are making 

along the way. 

One of the things the Chicago work has found, and that we’ve 

also found looking at data in Tennessee, is that chronic absenteeism in those early years matters a lot toward how students succeed 

both across the course of high school, but then also what they do 

following high school. And so we have added to our accountability 

policies an indicator on chronic absenteeism that we will use to 

monitor school progress over the years. 

Mr. SCOTT. And has that action produced results? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. We are in year one. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And, Dr. Whitehurst, you had an interesting 

idea that we ought to make our decisions based on research. That’s 

a fairly unknown concept around here, so I appreciate it. 

But how are research projects now identified and how are the researchers selected? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. The researchers are selected through a competitive process much like that that would occur at the National Institutes of Health as people are seeking grants to do health research. 

The topics themselves are broad topics, like a focus on teacher 

quality or dropout prevention, are really the responsibility of the 

director of IES to propose. It goes through the Board of Education 

Sciences. There’s an annual report. There’s input from a variety of 

people. And that’s a process that needs to be quite sensitive to 

changing——changing priorities, education policies, and political 

policy. Things happen. You need to do research on those things, 

and it’s the responsibility of the agency to be responsive to those 

needs. 

Mr. SCOTT. And after you’ve done the research, how does the 

public benefit from the results? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, it can benefit from——in a number of 

ways. We’ve heard, for example, through the testimony of Dr. 

Schwartz, how citizens of Tennessee have benefited from research 

done there, or in the case of Dr. Schanzenbach, how students in 

Chicago benefit. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can the rest of the country benefit from what goes 

on in Tennessee? Do you disseminate it around the country? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. The IES has a signature product called What 

Works Clearinghouse that examines research on what works, including issues such as high school completion and dropout prevention. And that evidence is widely used. It produces practice guides 

that combine evidence that provides suggestions to teachers or 

school administrators about how to put research into practice. 

It’s always a challenge to get knowledge into the field to have it 

utilized. There are weaker pressures to do this in education than 

in fields like health. And so there needs to be an active effort—— 

I think a more active effort than we have now to get the information out, to see that it’s available for people who want to use it. 

It would be easier if IES were a business. You could be paying 

for ads and other things to get the message out. We have some constraints. But I think that is a challenge going forward and one that 

the agency needs to do a better job of. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I’ll take the liberty of the next 5 minutes. 

Ms. Stickland, in your testimony you laid out some compelling 

reasons we should be concerned about limiting what personally 

identifiable information is collected by schools and States. But you 

also said you support accountability and research to determine 

what works in education. 

Do you believe we can protect student privacy while also helping 

educators learn what works and what does not so our children can 

have the best education possible? 

Ms. STICKLAND. Thank you for the question. I would suggest 

that, yes, parents do support research, again. But I think there 

needs to be some transparency and fair information practices 

around what schools and States are collecting and disclosing to others. I think the more that parents know and understand, the more 

they will trust. And trust is a huge issue when it comes to, you 

know, children being in a school system. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Dr. Schwartz, you talked about the need for an emphasis on research and program evaluation within State departments of education. Do local school districts view this as a valuable role for the 

State departments? And, if so, what is the value to them? And, if 

not, what can States do to better help school districts understand 

and experience the benefit? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you. That’s a really important question. 

And we view districts as our primary clients. And they are actually 

our——both our partners in getting the research done, but the primary source of demand for this research. So I think much of the 

demand for strong research comes from our districts. But school 

districts also face just a deluge of voices offering advice and direction. And if research isn’t clearly applicable to their situation, they 

will quickly move on. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

Too often, I think, even when State departments engage in highquality research, what comes back feels overly narrow and very 

much tailored to a specific program that if you aren’t running in 

your district, you have trouble figuring out how to use that research. And that’s why these long-term partnerships that I mentioned are key. Ideally, though, it will allow you to focus on learning beyond a single study, just what Dr. Whitehurst was talking 

about, and create an engine for disseminating data and analysis in 

ways that speak directly to practitioners. 

So we’re hoping that with the Tennessee Education Research Alliance what we’ll get is an organization that can take learning 

across the many studies that are happening in a single area in 

Tennessee and think about, what is that telling us about a State 

or district strategy, and how can practitioners at the school and 

district level use this to improve. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Dr. Whitehurst, how important is it——I believe in——good public policy comes from being data driven, good research. How important is it to have transparency when an agency makes policy decisions or directions, to provide transparency to the research that 

is——that those conclusions are based upon? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. It would be wonderful if that happened—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. It would be. 

Mr. WHITEHURST.——wouldn’t it? And it would be wonderful, 

when it happened, if there wasn’t kind of manifest cherry-picking 

of evidence to support the decision. That’s why I think the availability of an objective source for evidence that bears on public decision-making, that’s free from political influence, is terrifically important. Because absent that kind of break, you find a lot of narrative and hand waving about using evidence, but it’s more misused than it is used. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah. And I don’t have a specific criticism within 

the realm of jurisdiction of this committee with education. But 

some of my other responsibilities, bumping up against other agencies who have refused to reveal the research that they’ve utilized 

to make their decisions, that’s not helpful as a policymaker. And 

I don’t think it’s helpful for the community as a whole. 

Dr. Whitehurst, you talked about the need to ensure IES has an 

independent administration budget. Are there other ways that Congress could strengthen the IES’ independence? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, the current legislation is really quite 

good. It’s viewed as a model by the other research and evaluation 

Federal agencies. They envy it. So I would say Congress has done 

a very good job there. And if I had specific recommendations for 

areas in which I thought the legislation was lacking, I would have 

given it to you. 

So, really, it’s the budget to do the work in terms of hiring staff 

and having an office to sit in that’s still subject to political control 

in the one area where I think Congress could fix an important 

issue. 

Mr. THOMPSON. In the few seconds I have left, are there other 

areas——you were recommending in a previous response to a question with the chairman, recommendations that you might have and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

you weren’t able to get through those, or anything additional you 

wanted to list at this point? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, I just wanted to make the point with regard to the sharing of data. And I think what we need is an investment at the State level so that they have the capacity to protect 

the privacy of their data. And we need to figure out——and we 

have the capacity but not the funding to do this——how to make 

data available to the research community that does not have personally identifiable elements. 

So you can do the analysis to your heart’s content, little Suzy’s 

data are in there, but you can never figure out who little Suzy is. 

There’s the capacity to do that. We just don’t have that capacity at 

the State-level, uniformly, to make sure that data are shared in 

ways that don’t have any threats with regard to individually identifiable data. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Please recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

First, we value accuracy on the committee. And I wanted to bring 

Ms. Stickland’s attention to one of her comments that I believe to 

be inaccurate, and I want to give her the chance to either correct 

that or give our committee an example. 

You cite that K-12 student data currently maintained by States 

in their SLDS contains upwards of 700 highly sensitive personal 

data elements. I’m certainly not going to dispute the overall number. It probably depends on how you define an element and the 

granularity, and a separate discussion. But among the examples 

you cite, including student disciplinary records, homelessness data, 

you include immigration status. 

I wanted to give you the chance to either retract that, because 

it is illegal under the Plyler precedent to collect, no less include it 

in a State database, immigration. Or, if it is correct, if you could 

tell us what State is doing that so we can further investigate this 

violation of our law. 

Ms. STICKLAND. Sure. Thank you for the question. For instance, 

in Colorado, there is a data field called migrant, yes or no. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. So that does not relate to immigration status. 

That would be for specific funding that comes through the migrant 

worker program. Their immigration, that is a separate——immigrants are not migrant workers. They’re different. 

Ms. STICKLAND. Oh, I think——I think the reference to that in 

my testimony——and I’m sorry that you find it inaccurate. I think 

the purpose of that is that whether it’s a migrant——you know, if 

the data field says migrant, yes or no, that could——that information could be used in the future in ways that maybe it wasn’t initially intended for the Federal reporting. 

Mr. POLIS. Would you like us to perhaps change immigration status to migrant workers——migrant worker information? 

Ms. STICKLAND. Migrant status would be fine. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. 

Ms. STICKLAND. Thank you for the clarification. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. It’s whether they are part of our——we have 

Federal funding that goes to our migrant programs. And these are 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

highly mobile students that tend to work seasonally in certain 

areas. It’s a very small subset of immigrants, both documented and 

not, and it has nothing to do with their immigration status. 

Ms. STICKLAND. Well, I understand that, sir. 

Mr. POLIS. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. 

Ms. STICKLAND. But I just wanted to clarify that that’s the reason why we’re concerned about a data field such as that, is that 

it’s intended now for a certain purpose. But that doesn’t mean it 

will be limited to that purpose in the future. And that’s the same 

with any other data field in a data system. 

Mr. POLIS. Yes. But the immigration status is not collected, no 

less included in a database, so I just wanted to be clear, under the 

Plyler decision. 

Ms. STICKLAND. Thank you. 

Mr. POLIS. I want to go to Mr. Whitehurst. You said of the 

Strengthening Education Through Research Act, is your quote: I 

strongly support the bill as passed by the House and amended by 

the HELP committee. As you know, the bill ultimately failed both 

chambers, did not make it through. 

In your expert opinion, as a leading educational researcher and 

former head of the Institute for Education and Science, should Congress maintain the bipartisan agreement in SETRA and move to 

pass the bill to strengthen the independence of IES, streamline administrative functions, and improve the relevant and usefulness of 

education research? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Schwartz, as we continue the conversation about data privacy, one of my concerns is that policies could create additional paperwork for districts, more work for districts and teachers. What 

I hear from educators in the classroom, that’s the last thing we 

need. In my district, many teachers feel they’re required to do more 

and more year after year. 

There should be a baseline level of privacy that everybody has 

to comply with so schools have that privacy assurance as soon as 

they start using a product rather than put additional burden onto 

the educators. Of course, the other side is that districts and schools 

need to develop strong local data policies as well around both protection and privacy. 

Can you talk about what Congress should do in a FERPA reauthorization to give States like Tennessee or Colorado the assistance 

they need to develop these policies? 

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I think additional guidance for local-level policies 

around privacy would be enormously useful. Because I do think 

that there are areas of FERPA, specifically around things like the 

ways that data needs to be suppressed——the n-size comments 

that you made earlier get at some of this——but that are interpreted very, very differently jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And having 

some guidance on what that looks like and balancing——I think 

there always will be and is a balance, and some tension, between 

wanting data to be used for research purposes and understanding 

that security is at a premium and that we need schools and districts to do what they can to keep data safe. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

Mr. POLIS. And the final question, Dr. Schanzenbach, we can talk 

about this endlessly, but in 30 seconds, can you talk about why the 

data is so important in determining how to allocate our limited dollars to have the optimal results? How can data better guide us having the best positive educational impact with the limited resources 

we have? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. We need the research to tell us, you know, 

what works and what doesn’t work, and, you know, redistribute to 

things that do work the things that don’t. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you, Ranking Member Polis, for having this hearing. And thank 

you to all of the witnesses. This has been a very good and important conversation, and I’m glad there’s agreement among all of us 

that we benefit from research and we also need privacy. So we’re 

starting out with that agreement. 

I want to thank Mr. Polis for clarifying the record on immigration status. As someone who’s very concerned about the, perhaps, 

eroding trust, if we sent the message that was collected information. We have already a lot of students who are fearful and families 

who are concerned about increased efforts to enforce. And when we 

have families not participating in parent-student conferences, for 

example, and kids are afraid to go to school because they don’t 

know if their parents will be there when they get home, we don’t 

want to send that message. We want students to attend school and 

feel safe there and be safe there. And our Supreme Court has held 

that they’re entitled to go to public education without regard to 

their status. 

So schools and families in Oregon benefit from rigorous and relevant research that’s supported by the Institute of Education 

Sciences and the State’s longitudinal data system. My alma mater, 

University of Oregon, has used funding from IES to develop evidence-based reading interventions that are in practice in schools 

today and are improving student outcomes. 

For example, Durham Elementary School in Tigard, they’re making some great gains in reading by using these interventions. And 

that was made possible by data collected about students. 

Beaverton School District, which is where my kids went to 

school, collects extensive data on discipline in schools. And it’s 

partnered with the area’s regional educational laboratory, which is 

also funded through IES, to compare data with other school systems and develop best practices. And they have seen a 40 percent 

drop in exclusionary discipline from doing that research and that 

work. 

So, by all means, we must protect student data. But we also need 

to promote robust protections while furthering research that really 

helps with student success. And I think a good example of this balance can be found in Oregon’s longitudinal data system. We use 

multiple layers of protection, including encryption, deidentify student data, all while supporting important research. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

So, Dr. Schanzenbach, Oregon has dedicated extensive time and 

resources to develop that data system, and by gathering data that 

allowed the States to do the longitudinal analysis versus just year 

by year, Oregon’s been able to support student achievement. We 

found that the year a student becomes proficient in English matters a great deal. Non-native speakers who achieve proficiency in 

English by the eighth grade graduate at a higher rate than native 

English speakers. And those who achieve proficiency by the ninth 

grade have graduation rates below average. So Oregon’s been able 

to direct ELL funding and policy to support earlier interventions. 

So can you speak of other examples of how State longitudinal 

data systems can support student achievement and also benefit 

professional development, assessment literacy, and data-driven decision making? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. There are so many examples of this. I’ll go 

into one, but I can answer, you know, more. I can talk about this 

all day, unfortunately. 

So we have a partnership with Evanston Township High School, 

with Northwestern, that was funded by IES. And we have worked 

together with them to answer some research questions that they 

have that they just don’t have the internal capacity to answer. So, 

for example, they were interested in trying to understand what 

would happen if they expanded access to advanced placement biology classes. So are those kids who are qualified to either take advanced placement or regular biology, are they better served by getting pushed into the AP class? 

What we found for them was, yeah, the answer is yes. So let’s 

challenge kids to take AP. They do better. They take more AP 

classes. There’s just lots of spillover benefits. It doesn’t hurt the 

kids who are already in the AP to have a couple of, you know, students who are sort of more on the margin. So that’s an example. 

Our graduate students at Northwestern got to answer that question. So it was really important for them to help learn, you know, 

how to do research and how to interact, you know, asking rigorous, 

relevant questions. I think that’s just another example of really 

good research that helps kids. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. 

And Oregon passed, a couple years ago, the Oregon Student Information Protection Act at the State level. It prevents ed-tech 

companies from selling student information and targeting advertising to students using specific information to send ads or creating 

a profile about a student unless it’s for school purposes. They also 

require companies to have reasonable security measures in place, 

delete student information when the school asks them to delete it, 

and then clarifies where and when they can use student information. 

So can you talk about the relative threat posed by the storage 

of information in a statewide data system versus that of the students’ increasing use of technology in the classroom? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. I can say, as a parent, I’m much more concerned about what my kid is doing on the internet than this secure 

data being made accessible to researchers. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

And I see my time has expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I want to thank our witnesses for taking time to testify before 

the subcommittee today. Your time and your expertise is very 

much appreciated. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Polis for any closing remarks 

that he may have. 

Mr. POLIS. Are we doing a second round of questions or are we 

just doing closing remarks? 

Okay. Let me see here. 

Okay. Well, I want to thank all four of our witnesses for coming. 

From our discussion today, I think it’s clear that supporting privacy is paramount to our work, along with supporting education 

data research. And that’s an area I expect we’ll have continued bipartisan support. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act contains key civil rights provisions that will help ensure that every student receives a great education and that schools are held accountable for performance and 

school districts as well. And, of course, one of the key ways we 

know how schools are performing is we look at data. 

We also need to know what programs are working and which 

ones are not, particularly as we look for wasteful spending so that 

we can cut that. Using reliable, de-identified, protected data is a 

key part of identifying what works and what doesn’t work. 

We’ve had some great testimony about experience using data to 

help improve our education system, the value smart data can provide. At the same time, our data privacy laws have to keep up with 

innovations in technology. And educational technology can and 

should and is and will be a force for good in closing the achievement gap and opening doors for personalized education. And, at the 

same time, we need smart privacy laws that parents and students 

and teachers can feel good about, protect their privacy, and can 

have confidence that companies or States or districts won’t be 

using student data irresponsibly or failing to protect student data. 

In a bipartisan fashion, I hope this committee continues its work 

with teachers, with parents, with privacy advocates, with educational technology companies, with school districts, with States to 

reauthorize FERPA and SETRA, and pass a new law to provide 

smart privacy guardrails for the increasingly important educational 

technologies that are already deployed in our schools and those 

that will be deployed. 

I look forward to continuing this work on a bipartisan basis. This 

hearing is an excellent first step. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The gentleman yields back, and I thank him for 

his leadership. 

I now recognize myself for closing comments. 

You know, the Education Science Reform Act was created to update and improve efforts to support education research to improve 

schools, but the law may not be meeting, obviously, all of its goals. 

The 2013 Government Accountability Office report found several 

weaknesses in the law that have to be addressed, and that’s why 

we reauthorize and a chance to make things right going forward. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

Congress passed the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act in 

1974, by my calculations, about 43 years ago, to protect student 

privacy. Quite frankly, most of our staff were not alive at that 

point, and a significant number of our colleagues were not alive at 

that point. It’s time, it is certainly beyond time. 

You know, the purpose of this hearing today was to learn from 

States, parents, stakeholders how they protect student privacy and 

utilize education research, including suggestions on how to reform 

the Education Science Reform Act and update the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. I think we’ve really——once again, 

I want to thank the panel that we had here today. You got us a 

great start on that journey. It is a journey, and we have a lot more 

work to do. But thank you for your contributions today. It’s appreciated. 

Without objection, there being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Polis follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 25995.022
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 25995.023
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 25995.024
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 25995.025
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 25995.026
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 25995.027
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 25995.031
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 25995.032
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 25995.033
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 25995.034
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 25995.035
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 25995.036
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 25995.037
60 

[Additional submission by Chairman Rokita follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 25995.038
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 25995.039
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 25995.040
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 25995.041
64 

[Additional submission by Ms. Stickland follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 25995.028
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 25995.029
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 25995.030
67 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 25995.042
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 25995.043
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 25995.044
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 25995.045
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 25995.046
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 25995.047
73 

[Dr. Schanzenbach responses to questions submitted for the 

record follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 25995.048
74 

[Dr. Schwartz responses to questions submitted for the record follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 25995.050
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 25995.051
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 25995.052
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 25995.053
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 25995.054
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 25995.055
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 25995.056
81 

[Dr. Whitehurst responses to questions submitted for the record 

follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 25995.057
82 

[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 25995.058