Commercial Activities in Schools: Use of Student Data is Limited and Additional Dissemination of Guidance Could Help Districts Develop Policies
Published: 2004-08-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congress has continuing interest in commercial activities in U.S. public schools. These include product sales, advertising, market research, and the commercial use of personal data about students (such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers) by schools. To update information about commercial activities in schools, Congress asked us to answer the following questions: (1) Since 2000, what statutes and regulations have states enacted and proposed to govern commercial activities in schools? (2) To what extent have districts developed policies implementing amended provisions of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) in the No Child Left Behind Act on the use of student data for commercial purposes? (3) What guidance has the Department of Education (Education) disseminated? To answer these questions, we researched state laws, surveyed a national sample of school districts, analyzed policies provided by districts, interviewed officials at Education, and examined its guidance. In addition, we updated findings from the districts we visited in 2000.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since we reported on commercial activities in 2000, 13 states have established laws addressing commercial activities in public schools, and at least 25 states are considering such legislation. Of the states establishing new laws, 6 established laws affecting market research by addressing the use of student data for commercial activities. Almost all of the proposed bills target the sale of food and beverages. Prior to 2000, 28 states established laws addressing commercial activities, particularly product sales and advertising. At that time, only 1 state passed a provision affecting market research. PPRA provisions required districts to implement policies on the collection, disclosure, or use of student data for marketing and selling purposes, and we estimate that about two-thirds of the districts in the nation believe they are developing or have developed such policies. However, of the 61 districts that sent us policies, only 19 policies addressed these issues. No district reported having collected student data for commercial purposes. Only a few reported disclosing student information for these purposes, and all had done so for school-related purposes such as graduation pictures. Education has undertaken several activities, such as sending guidance to state education agencies and school district superintendents and posting information on its Web page, to inform districts about the student information provisions of PPRA, but many districts appear not to understand the new requirements. Some districts told us that they relied on their state school boards association to develop policies for them because state school boards associations address federal and state laws. School districts in one state sent us policies that addressed commercial activities that had been developed by their state school boards association. Education was not required to disseminate guidance to associations of local school boards in each state and has not done so.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the past decade, public schools and businesses have been forging  new types of relationships to help each other achieve their educational  and business-related goals. In some of these relationships, business’  apparent focus is on improving teaching and learning, but in others, the  apparent focus is on developing product loyalty and increasing sales. In  recent years, Congress and the public at large have become increasingly  interested in the mixing of school activities with commercial enterprise.  Some parties have wanted to limit such relationships by restricting  product sales, advertising, market research, and the commercial use of  personal data about students (such as names, addresses, and telephone  numbers) by schools. However, others have promoted business  relationships with schools as a desirable and necessary way to generate  additional funding and resources for students.
We first reported on product sales, direct and indirect advertising, and  market research in schools in 2000. At that time, we found state laws and  district school board policies governing commercial activities were not  comprehensive, and in most states, local school officials were responsible  for making decisions about commercial activities. In addition, we found  that the visibility and profitability of commercial activities varied widely  and the high schools we visited had more commercial activities than the  middle or elementary schools.
Since then, some changes related to these commercial activities have  occurred. Schools are facing even greater needs for funds; the use of the  Internet as a marketing tool has expanded; and through the No Child Left  Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, Congress has legislated new protections  regarding the collection, disclosure, and use of student data for marketing  or selling purposes. For decades, federal law has safeguarded the release  of student education records and has allowed parents some control over  the use of information about their children. For example, federal law has  prohibited districts from releasing students’ Social Security numbers  without parental approval. However, NCLBA established new safeguards  about the use of student data for marketing or selling purposes.  Specifically, NCLBA amended the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment  (PPRA) of 1994 addressing pupil privacy by requiring school districts to  develop a policy on the collection, disclosure, and use of personal data  about students for commercial purposes that includes requirements for  parental notification and permission. Finally, there has been growing  concern about childhood obesity and whether the sale of beverages and  food outside those offered by school breakfast and lunch programs might  contribute to this problem.
In view of these developments, you asked us to examine efforts by states  to regulate a broad range of commercial activities in public schools and  determine how districts have followed through with the PPRA provisions  about the collection, disclosure, or use of student data for marketing and  selling purposes. We conducted research to answer the following  questions: (1) Since 2000, what statutes and regulations have states  enacted to govern commercial activities in schools and what proposed  legislation are states considering? (2) To what extent have districts  developed policies implementing the PPRA provisions in NCLBA on the  use of student data for commercial purposes? (3) What is the Department  of Education (Education) doing to help districts implement the new  provisions on the use of student data for commercial purposes?
To answer these questions, we reviewed state laws and regulations in all  50 states and Washington, D.C., as of May 2004. Also, we reviewed  proposed legislation that had been introduced between January 1, 2003,  and February 2004 to obtain a snapshot description of possible future state  legislative activities. We conducted a national sample survey of school  districts to determine if their policies were consistent with the PPRA  provisions on the use of student data for commercial activities and asked  them to report on any activities in which they engaged that used student  data for commercial purposes. We obtained an 87 percent weighted  response rate. We also asked superintendents in the districts we surveyed  to send us copies of their policies that govern activities involving the use  of student information for marketing and selling purposes. We evaluated  the extent to which these policies implemented PPRA requirements by  examining whether they covered the collection, disclosure, and use of  student data for commercial purposes. To discern changes in commercial  activities in the seven school districts we visited in 2000, we interviewed  district and school officials in those districts by telephone. We had  selected these seven districts, located in California, Michigan, and New  Mexico, to illustrate a range of commercial activities in states identified as  having legal frameworks generally supportive of such activities as well as  a range of geographic, economic, and demographic characteristics.  Finally, we interviewed officials at Education and examined its guidance  and initiatives on PPRA’s commercial provisions. See appendix I for a  detailed explanation of our scope and methodology. We conducted our  work between November 2003 and August 2004 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: As we reported in 2000, commercial activities in school can generally be  classified in four categories—product sales, direct advertising, indirect  advertising, and market research—although each category encompasses a  wide range of activities. For example, advertising activities could range  from selling advertisements for a high school football game to selling  naming rights to a school. Although this report synthesizes statutes,  regulations, and proposed legislation addressing all four categories, our  discussions of school district policies and Education’s activities focus on  the fourth category, market research, because of the amendments made by  NCLBA that place requirements on districts that deal with the collection,  disclosure, and use of student data for marketing and selling. (See table 1.)
In recent years, the growth of the Internet has had a large impact on  commercial activities, particularly market research, by enabling marketers  to elicit aggregated and personally identifiable information directly from  large numbers of students. For example, some Web filtering systems used  in schools that block student access to certain Web sites also allow the  company that maintains that software to measure and analyze how  children use the Internet by tracking which Web sites they visit and how  long they stay there. Although this information is aggregated and does not  identify particular children, this information, especially when used with  demographic data, can help businesses develop advertising plans that  target particular audiences if districts allow the installation of the  software. Also, Web sites directly elicit the participation of students in  market research panels by offering them cash or prizes in exchange for  information about themselves and their preferences. This makes it  possible for companies to engage large-scale customized panels of  students to test out marketing strategies and provide data to develop  product lines and product loyalty without relying on schools.
subsections: section_title: NCLBA Amends Statutory Safeguards on the Use of Student Data for Marketing and Selling Purposes
paragraphs: NCLBA addresses some concerns about commercial activities and student  data by amending and expanding certain student data safeguards that  were established in PPRA. Prior to NCLBA, PPRA generally prohibited  requiring students to submit to a survey concerning certain personal issues  without prior written parental consent. As amended, PPRA for the first  time requires districts to develop and adopt new policies, in consultation  with parents, for collecting, disclosing, and using student data for  marketing or selling purposes. Districts are also required to directly notify  parents of these policies and provide parents an opportunity to opt their  child out of participation in such activities. Furthermore, districts are  required to notify parents of specific activities involving the collection,  disclosure, and use of student information for marketing or selling  purposes and to provide parents with an opportunity to review the  collection instruments. PPRA did not contain deadlines for districts to  develop policies. Also, PPRA requires Education to annually inform each  state education agency and local school districts of their new obligations  under PPRA. Finally, PPRA continues to require Education to investigate,  process, and adjudicate violations of the section.
section_title: FERPA and PPRA Safeguards Address Different Student Privacy Issues
paragraphs: For the past 30 years, student and parent privacy rights related to students’  education records have been protected primarily under the Family  Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which was passed in 1974.  FERPA protects the privacy of students’ education records by generally  requiring written permission from parents before records are released.  FERPA also allows districts to classify categories of information as  publicly releasable directory information so long as the district has  provided public notice of what will constitute directory information items  and has allowed parents a reasonable period of time to advise the district  that directory information pertaining to their child cannot be released  without consent. Under FERPA, directory information may include a  student’s name, telephone number, place and date of birth, honors and  awards, and athletic statistics. Unlike PPRA, FERPA does not address the  participation of students in surveys or the collection, disclosure, or use of  student data for marketing or selling purposes. (See table 2.) As a result of  the NCLBA amendments, Education is required to annually inform each  state and local education agency of the educational agency’s obligations  on PPRA and FERPA.
section_title: School District Policies Are Set at the Local Level under State Laws
paragraphs: State education laws are enacted by state legislatures and administered by  each state’s department of education, which is led by the state’s chief state  school officer. The Council of Chief State School Officers represents  states’ education interests in Washington, D.C., and acts as a conduit of  information between the federal government and the states regarding  federal education laws. Each state department of education provides  guidance and regulations on state education laws to each school district.
School district policies are generally set by local school boards according  to the authority granted to them by state legislatures. The policies are then  administered by the school district’s superintendent and other school  district staff. Local school boards in each state have come together to form  a state school boards association. They provide a variety of services to  their members including help on keeping their local school board policies  current. For example, a partial list of services offered by one school board  association includes policy development services, advocacy, legislative  updates, legal services, executive search services, conferences and  training, and business and risk management services.
section_title: Since 2000, Most States Have Enacted Laws and Proposed Legislation That Affect Commercial Activities in Schools
paragraphs: Since 2000, 13 states have established statutes, regulations, or both that  address one or several categories of commercial activities in schools. Six  of these states established provisions addressing market research by  restricting the use of student data for commercial activities and for  surveys. Other states passed statutes or issued regulations addressing  product sales and advertising. In addition, as of February 2004, at least 25  states are considering proposed legislation that would affect commercial  activities. Most of these proposals would affect product sales, particularly  the sale of food and beverages. Prior to 2000, 28 states had passed  provisions addressing commercial activities. At that time, most provisions  addressed direct advertising and product sales. The seven districts we  visited in 2000 continued to conduct a variety of commercial activities,  particularly product sales, and three districts reported that they have  increased the level of activities with local businesses. However, the types  of activities in these districts have not substantially changed since our  visit.
subsections: section_title: State Statutes and Regulations Vary Widely in Purpose and Scope
paragraphs: Since our previous report in 2000, 13 states have enacted 15 statutory  provisions and issued 3 regulatory provisions addressing one or more  types of commercial activities in schools. Six states passed legislation  affecting marketing research. Three of these 6 passed laws restricting the  disclosure or use of student data for commercial purposes, and another 3  placed restrictions on students’ participation in surveys. For example, an  Illinois statute prohibited the disclosure of student data to businesses  issuing credit or debit cards, and a New Mexico regulation prohibited the  sale of student data for commercial reasons without the consent of the  student’s parent. Laws in Arizona, Arkansas, and Colorado prohibited  student participation in surveys without the consent of their parents. Five  states passed new provisions affecting product sales. In most cases, these  laws targeted the sale of soft drinks and snack food. Other new provisions  addressed direct and indirect advertising.
Prior to 2000, 28 states had established one or more statutes or regulations  that affected commercial activities in schools. Twenty-five states  established provisions addressing advertising—in 19 states, measures  affected direct advertising and in 6, indirect advertising. Sixteen states  established provisions addressing product sales. Only 1 state established a  measure that addressed market research. See appendix II for a state-by- state listing of provisions addressing commercial activities.
section_title: Most Proposed Legislation Affecting Commercial Activities Regards Food and Nutrition
paragraphs: Legislatures in 25 states have recently considered one or more bills that  affect commercial activities in schools, with most having a particular focus  on child nutrition. These bills are intended to improve child nutrition and  reduce obesity, and to achieve this intention, place limitations,  restrictions, or disincentives on the sale of beverages and food of limited  nutritional value. Legislatures in 24 of the 25 states recently considered  bills that restrict or ban the sale of beverages and food of limited  nutritional value in schools. For example, a bill in New York would  prohibit vending machines from selling food and drinks of minimal  nutritional value. Additionally, legislatures in several states have  considered bills that restrict the hours when students can buy products of  limited nutritional value. For example, bills in Alaska and Ohio would  restrict the sale of soft drinks during certain hours. Finally, pending  legislation in Maryland would require schools to sell food of limited  nutritional value at higher prices than nutritious food.
Legislatures in seven states have recently proposed bills that focus on  other aspects of commercial activities in schools. In three states— Connecticut, Minnesota, and North Carolina—bills would restrict the  ability of schools to enter into exclusive contracts with beverage and food  venders. In two statesNew Jersey and North Carolinabills would place  limits on the ability of schools to release or collect personal information  about students, such as prohibiting the release of data from the student- testing program to any marketing organization without the written  permission of the parent or guardian. Other proposed bills addressed a  variety of issues, such as allowing schools to sell advertising and accept  supplies bearing logos or other corporate images or requiring school  boards to disclose the portion of proceeds from fundraising activities that  is contributed to the school activity fund. See appendix III for a state-by- state listing of legislative proposals.
section_title: Commercial Activities in the Seven Districts We Visited in 2000 Have Not Generally Changed
paragraphs: In updating the site visit information we collected in 2000, we found only  slight changes in commercial activities in all seven school districts. All  districts reported they continued to engage in product sales and display  advertising. As we found earlier, most commercial activities, particularly  product sales and advertising, occurred in high schools. All the high  schools we visited in 2000 still sold soft drinks, and most sold snack or fast  food. To varying degrees, all displayed corporate advertising. High schools  continued to report the receipt of unsolicited samples, such as toiletries,  gum, razors, and candy, that they did not distribute to students. In  contrast, the elementary schools we contacted did not sell carbonated soft  drinks to students or display corporate advertising. Grocery and  department store rebate programs continued to operate in almost all  schools, but coupon redemption programs were largely an elementary  school enterprise. As we found before, none of the districts reported using  corporate-sponsored educational materials or engaging in market research  for commercial purposes.
Officials did report some changes in commercial activities. Three of these  districts reported stronger ties with local businesses, and three schools in  two districts reported they now sell healthier soft drinks. One district  reported a new relationship with a computer firm headquartered in its area  that provided tutors as well as cash donations to schools in the district.  Under this relationship, company employees tutored students who were at  risk of failing, and the company donated $20 to schools for each 10 hours  of tutoring that its employees provided. A principal in this district reported  that many students in her school benefit substantially from this  relationship and her school earned between $6,000 and $9,000 per year in  donations. Another district reported it had entered into a new contract  with a local advertising agency to raise revenue to renovate sport  concession stands, and a third had organized a new effort to sell  advertisements to fund construction on the district’s baseball field. Three  principals told us that vending machines in their schools now offer a  different mix of beverages—for example, more juice, milk, and water and  fewer carbonated beverages—than they did when we visited in 2000.
section_title: Districts Are Beginning to Implement Provisions on Student Data, and Few Use Student Data for Commercial Purposes
paragraphs: We estimate that about two-thirds of the districts in the nation were either  developing or had developed policies addressing the new provisions on  the use of student data for commercial purposes. However, only 19 of the  61 districts that provided us copies of their policies specifically addressed  these provisions. Very few school districts reported releasing student data  for marketing and selling, and all these releases were for student-related  purposes. Of the seven districts we visited in 2000, three adopted new  policies on the use of student data since our visit, and only one released  data and that was for graduation pictures.
Although districts reported they had developed policies, many of the  policies they sent us did not fully address PPRA requirements. On the  basis of the results of our surveys, we estimate about a third of districts  were developing policies regarding the use of student data for commercial  purposes; another third had developed policies; and about another third  had not yet developed policies. However, when we analyzed policies that  61 districts sent to us, we found only 19 had policies that specifically  addressed marketing and selling of student information. Of these, 11  policies addressed the collection, release, and use of student information  for commercial purposes. Eight policies partially addressed the provisions  by prohibiting the release of student data for these purposes. Policies in  the 42 remaining districts did not address the new PPRA provisions. Many  of these districts provided us policies concerning FERPA requirements.
We telephoned all districts in our sample that reported they release data  for commercial purposes and a subsample of districts that reported they  had not. Of the 17 districts that released data for commercial purposes, all  reported that they released data only for school-related purposes. For  example, all 17 released students’ names to photographers for graduation  or class pictures. Two of these districts also released student data to  vendors who supplied graduation announcements, class rings, and other  graduation-related products, and another two districts released student  information to parent-teacher organization officials who produced school  directories that they sold to students’ parents. Of the 16 districts that  reported they did not release student data, one actually did release student  data. As in the other cases, that district released it to a school  photographer.
Of the seven districts we visited in 2000, three adopted new policies on the  use of student data. One of the districts we visited adopted new policies  that incorporated PPRA provisions on the use of student data for  commercial purposes. Two adopted policies with blanket prohibitions  against some uses of student data for marketing and selling. In one of  these districts, policies prohibited the release of students’ data for any  survey, marketing activity, or solicitation, and policies in the other banned  the use of students to support any commercial activity. Officials in all  seven districts reported that their district did not collect student data for  marketing or selling purposes, and several expressed surprise or disbelief  that this practice did in fact occur. However, a high school in one district  reported that it disclosed information on seniors to vendors selected by  the district to sell senior pictures, school rings, and graduation  announcements.
section_title: Education Developed and Disseminated Guidance, but Many Districts’ Policies Did Not Address Requirements
paragraphs: As required by NCLBA, Education has developed guidance and notified  every school district superintendent and chief state school officer in the  country of the new required student information protections and policies,  and has charged the Family Policy Compliance Office to hear complaints  on PPRA. Education issued guidance about the collection, disclosure, and  use of student data for commercial purposes as part of its general  guidance on FERPA and PPRA in 2003 and 2004. In addition, although not  required by statute to do so, Education provided superintendents with  model notification information that districts could use to inform parents of  their rights, included information about PPRA in some of its training  activities, and posted its guidance and other PPRA-related material  prominently on its Web site. Education has charged its Family Policy  Compliance Office to hear complaints and otherwise help districts  implement the new student data requirements. Although the office has  received some complaints about other provisions related to student  privacy, as of June 2004, officials from that office reported they have  received no complaints regarding the commercial uses of student data.
Many districts did not appear to understand the new requirements, as  shown by our analysis of the 61 policies sent to us by districts in our  sample. Although we asked districts to send us their policies that  addressed these new provisions, only 11 districts sent policies that  addressed these new provisions comprehensively, and 8 sent policies that  covered these provisions partially. The 42 remaining districts sent policies  that did not contain specific language addressing the collection, release, or  use of student data for commercial purposes, although districts sent them  to us as documentation that the districts had developed such policies.  Most of these policies contained only general prohibitions about the  release of student records and concerned FERPA.
Although Education is not required to issue its guidance to state school  boards associations, four districts in two states in our survey offered  unsolicited information that they relied on state school boards  associations to develop policies for their consideration and adoption. Two  districts in a third state that sent us policies used policies developed by  their state school boards association to address commercial activities in  schools. However, Education did not distribute its guidance to these  associations.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although state laws both limit and support commercial activities in  schools, many state legislatures have chosen to pass laws addressing only  specific activities such as permitting or restricting advertising on school  buses. In addition, many states have not enacted legislation concerning  commercial activities or have passed the authority to regulate these  activities to local districts, thus allowing district school boards,  superintendents, or principals to determine the nature and extent of  commercial activities at the local level. Not only do commercial  activitiesproduct sales, direct advertising, indirect advertising, and  market researchencompass a broad spectrum of activities, but also the  levels of these activities and the levels of controversy attached to them  vary substantially. For example, few would equate selling advertisements  for a high school football program with selling the naming rights to a  school, although both are examples of direct advertising. Because of these  differences, as well as philosophical differences among districts and  communities, it is probably not surprising that states legislatures have  taken various approaches toward the regulation of commercial activities.
Perhaps because providing student information for commercial purposes  may have serious implications, few districts do so. In fact, some school  officials said they were skeptical that schools would allow the use of  student data for this purpose. In the past, marketers may have approached  schools to survey students about commercial products or services. Today,  however, technology, particularly the proliferation and availability of the  Internet, provides marketers with quick and inexpensive access to very  large numbers of children without involving the cooperation of schools. As  Internet users, children often submit information about themselves and  their personal product preferences in exchange for cash or prizes. Because  of the disinclination of school officials to sell student data and the ability  of marketers to get data directly from students without involving schools,  it may be understandable that relatively few districts as yet have actually  adopted policies that specifically address the selling and marketing  provisions of PPRA. On the other hand, few would argue against the need  to protect students’ personal information. Many businesses, particularly  local businesses catering to youth markets, might still profit from  acquiring student information from schools. Although we found districts  did not use student data for purposes generally viewed as offensive, this  does not mean such use would not happen in the future in the absence of  safeguards.
It appears that some superintendents may not be aware of the new PPRA  requirements or have not understood Education’s guidance because many  thought their district’s policies reflected the latest federal requirements on  use of student data when, in fact, they did not. Also, several districts told  us that they relied on state school boards associations to develop policies.  Unlike models or guidance that reflect only federal law, policies developed  by these groups may be most useful to districts because they correspond  to both federal and state requirements. These associations are not on  Education’s guidance dissemination list.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Education take additional action to  assist districts in understanding that they are required to have specific  policies in place for the collection, disclosure, and use of student  information for marketing and selling purposes by disseminating its  guidance to state school boards associations.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for  review and comment. Education concurred with our recommendation.  Education’s comments are reproduced in appendix V. Education also  provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further  distribution until 30 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will  send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, appropriate  congressional committees, and others who are interested. We will also  make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you  or your staff have any questions, or wish to discuss this material further,  please call me on (202) 512-7215. Other contacts and staff  acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To conduct our work, we reviewed state statutes, regulations, and  proposed legislation; received mail questionnaires from 219 school  districts selected on the basis of a national stratified probability sample  design; conducted additional brief telephone interviews with 36 of these  districts; analyzed policies voluntarily provided by 61 districts; interviewed  officials at Education; and examined guidance issued by the department.  In addition, we conducted telephone interviews with district and school  officials in the 7 districts that we visited in 2000 for our previous study on  commercial activities in schools to update our previous findings.
subsections: section_title: Review of State Legislation
paragraphs: To update our compilation of state statutes and regulation contained in  our 2000 report, we researched legal databases, including Westlaw and  Lexis, to identify laws passed between January 2000 and May 2004. To  identify pending laws, we researched information available on databases  maintained by state legislatures or followed links provided by these  databases to identify bills introduced between January 2003 and February  2004. However, there are inherent limitations in any global legal search,  particularly when—as is the case here—different states use different  terms or classifications to refer to commercial activities in schools.
section_title: Survey of School Districts
subsections: section_title: Sample
paragraphs: We selected a national probability sample of districts, taken from school  districts contained in the Department of Education’s Common Core of  Data (CCD) Local Education Agency (LEA) file for the 2000-2001 school  year. After removing districts from this list that were administered by state  or federal authorities, we identified a population of 14,553 school districts.  In the course of our study, we learned that some special education and  other units in this list do not have legal authority to establish formal  policies. As a result, we estimate that our study population consists of  13,866 districts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The sample  design for the survey consisted of a stratified random probability sample  design: 271 districts were drawn from the three strata shown in table 3.  The strata were designed to draw relatively large numbers of districts from  states likely to include districts that had engaged in or planned to engage  in one or more specific activities involving the collection, disclosure, or  use of student information for the purposes of marketing or selling or  providing information to others for these purposes. Because we thought  the activities of interest were low incidence activities, we wanted to  maximize our ability to examine situations involving the use of student  data for commercial purposes. The expected high-activity strata were  defined as states that we identified as having laws that permitted  commercial activities when we performed our work in 2000. As shown in  table 4, the response rates were 76 percent, 83 percent, and 88 percent in  the three sampling strata. The overall estimated response rate was 87  percent.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections,  our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have  drawn. Since each sample might have provided different estimates, we  express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results  as a 95 percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 9  percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual  population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a  result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in  this report will include the true values in the study population.
section_title: Survey Errors Procedures
paragraphs: The practical difficulties of conducting any survey introduce nonsampling  errors. For example, errors could be made in keying questionnaire data,  some people may be more likely than others to respond, or questions may  be misinterpreted. To minimize data-handling errors, data entry and  programs were independently verified. To reduce the possibility of  misinterpreting questions, we pretested the questionnaire in four districts.  The full questionnaire is reproduced in appendix IV. We took additional  steps to check answers for a subsample of respondents because of  concerns about misinterpretation. We were concerned about possible  misinterpretation of a question about implementing the law (question 1)  because we discovered during our pretest that there was confusion  between a narrow and (probably) little used portion of a student privacy  law (PPRA) regarding selling and marketing of student data and a more  familiar older law (FERPA) concerning student records. We were also  concerned that there could be an underreporting of commercial activities  because our question did not specify the activities (“During school year  2003-2004, did your LEA, or any school in your LEA, engage or plan to  engage in one or more activity regarding the collection, disclosure, or use  of student information for the purposes of marketing or selling or  providing the information to others for these purposes?”) and because  very few schools reported using student information for commercial  purposes. Further, our pretesting indicated a potential problem with  respondents suggesting they would be hesitant to report commercial  activities. Moreover, because 86 percent of our respondents answered “no”  to question 2, a higher rate than expected, there was some question in our  minds whether our respondents who answered no had really considered  all the possible ways in which student information could be used for  commercial purposes when formulating their answers.
We attempted to verify the answers to our question about commercial  practices by telephoning 36 districts, the 20 districts that reported using  student data for commercial purposes, and the 16 randomly selected  districts from among the districts that reported not using student data for  commercial purposes. Three of the 20 districts originally reporting the use  of student data were found not to be using the data for commercial  purposes because they were supplying the data to military organizations  or for scholarships, allowed uses. For the 16 sampled districts reporting  not using students’ data for commercial purposes, we asked the  superintendent or other knowledgeable person in the district detailed  questions about 20 possible commercial activities. We asked whether the  school provides student addresses or phone numbers for specific activities  (student pictures, letter jackets, any types of school uniforms, yearbooks,  class rings, tuxedo rentals for prom, corsages for prom, musical  instrument rentals, caps and gowns for commencement, preparation for  Scholastic Aptitude Test or other tests, any other type of tutoring,  transportation for school field trips, or travel for other trips such as spring  break or ski trips), or to outside organizations for students to serve on an  Internet or study panel, answer questionnaires, test or try out a product, or  receive mailings from or talk with representatives of outside organizations  who are selling services or products. One of these 16 districts was found to  be using the data for commercial purposes in connection with  photographers for school pictures. As a result of these telephone calls, we  corrected the three incorrect records but did not make further  adjustments for districts that were not contacted.
section_title: Analysis of District Policies
paragraphs: We attempted to verify the answers about the development of policies by  examining policies that were voluntarily submitted by districts in our  sample. Sixty-one districts complied with our request to submit a copy of  their policy. We analyzed these policies to determine if they specifically  referred to marketing or commercial activities. We found 11 districts  submitted policies that addressed these provisions and an additional 8  submitted policies that partially addressed the provisions in that they  prohibited the release of student data for commercial purposes but did not  address the collection or use of such data. Therefore, our questionnaire  gathered relevant data about districts’ perceptions of the extent to which  they thought they were implementing the provision, rather than the extent  to which these policies actually did so. This probably reflects confusion in  interpreting the provision or lack of awareness of its existence.
section_title: Contacts at Education
paragraphs: We interviewed officials at Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office  and the Office of the General Counsel. We examined in detail the guidance  issued by the department to assist schools in implementing PPRA  provisions on use of student data for marketing and selling purposes.
section_title: Follow-up Telephone Interviews with the Seven Districts We Visited in 2000
paragraphs: We conducted telephone interviews with district and school officials in the  seven districts we visited to collect information for Public Education:  Commercial Activities in Schools (GAO-00-156), a report we issued in  2000, to discern changes in commercial activities in these districts. (See  table 5.) We selected these districts because they engaged in a variety of  commercial activities, served diverse populations—ranging from large  numbers of poor students to children from affluent families—and varied in  terms of geography and urbanicity. In updating that information for this  report, we interviewed district-level officials, including superintendents  and business managers, and elementary, middle school, and high school  principals.
section_title: Appendix II: State Statutes and Regulations Addressing Commercial Activities in Schools
paragraphs: This appendix lists state statutory and regulatory provisions relating to  commercial activities as of May 2004. Shaded entries were enacted  since 2000. This updated table identifies 15 new statutes and 3 new  regulations and also includes state laws pertaining to the sale of  competitive food in schools. In addition, the table includes several laws  that were not identified in our previous report.
Requires school  committee to  establish a travel  policy that addresses  expectations for  fundraising by  students  .
section_title: Appendix III: Legislative Proposals Addressing Commercial Activities in Schools, February 2004
paragraphs: This appendix lists proposals addressing commercial activities in schools  that have been introduced by some state legislatures between January  2003 and February 2004. The data are taken from the Web sites maintained  by state legislatures. Many of these sites are revised only periodically, and  information on some is limited to the current legislative session. Therefore  this information should be viewed as a rough snapshot, rather than a  comprehensive analysis.
Would establish nutrition  standards for beverages  sold to students in public  schools    Would require food and drink  items in public school  vending machines to comply  with board of education  standards  standards for vending  machine food and drink  items  vending machines that are  not within the cafeteria to be  used exclusively for physical  education and nutrition  education  and candy from being  dispensed to students by  school vending machines.
section_title: Appendix IV: Questionnaire: GAO Study on the Marketing and Selling of Student Data
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those names above, the following people made significant  contributions to this report: Susan Bernstein, Carolyn Blocker, Richard  Burkard, Jim Fields, Behn Kelly, James Rebbe, and Jay Smale.