Statement of Explanation on SB 302 – Education Saving Account

An ESA Grant shall[1]be awarded to a qualified public school student whose parent enters into a written agreement with the State Treasurer[2]. This will be an ESA Grant “Opt-in Child”[3] and is not a homeschooled child[4]. The approved “participating entity”[5] from which the Opt-in Child will receive instruction[6] may be one or a combination[7] of the following:

  1. A “Grant School”, including;
    1. A licensed or exempt private school in this state[8];
    2. A private college or university, a state college or university, or a community college in this state[9];
    3. On-line schools that are not operated by the public school or the DOE[10];
  2. A “Grant Tutor”, which can be either a tutor or tutoring facility that is accredited[11]; or
  3. A “Grant Parent”
    1. Who has submitted to the school district or charter school in which the child was enrolled a Notice that the child is an approved ESA Grant Opt-in Child[12], and
    2. Complies with the requirements in SB 302 Section 12, Subsection 1, including ensuring that the child takes either a norm-referenced exam or an exam pursuant to NRS 389 in math and English language arts.

[1] SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 2

[2] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 1

[3] SB 302 Sec. 15.1, Subsection 5 and Sec. 16.7, Subsection 1(c)

[4] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 10 and Sec. 15.1, Subsection 3

[5] SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1

[6] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 1(a)

[7] SB 302 Sec. 7, Subsection 10; Sec. 8, Subsection 3; Sec. 9, Subsection 1(j); Sec. 11, Subsection 4; Sec. 15.1, Subsection 5

[8] SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(a)

[9] SB 302 Sec.11, Subsection 1(b) and Sec. 3.5, Subsections 1 and 2

[10]SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(c)

[11]SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(d)

[12]SB 302 Sec. 11, Subsection 1(e) and Sec. 16.4, Subsection 1

UPDATE

SB 228 did have a work session in the Senate Education Committee on Friday. However, due to the “complexities” of the bill it was not going to pass, so at our request, Section 1, subsections 1 and 2b were amended into SB 463, another student data bill.

We wish to thank Senators Gustavson and Denis for finding a way to get a pupil’s constitutional right to privacy regarding their student records hopefully put into statute. These are the two sections from which a new amendment will be written,

Section 1. Chapter 392 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:
1. The legislature hereby declares that all personally identifiable information as well as the
education record of a pupil is protected as a right to privacy under the Constitution of Nevada and the Constitution of the United States. This act shall be called The Pupil Information Privacy Protection Act of 2015.

2. (b) Be deemed the property of the pupil who is the subject of that information if the pupil
is 18 years old or is under the age of 18 and is legally emancipated from the pupil’s parents, or the parent or guardian of the pupil if the pupil is under the age of 18.


SB 463 received a unanimous “Do Pass” and goes to the Senate floor for a vote. That may take a few days since the LCB is backlogged on adding amendments to bill.

We’ll do our best to keep you informed as quickly as possible on the progress of this bill as moves through the process.

Barbara Dragon

Full Court Press

Thank you to those who called or emailed on Thursday regarding SB 228 (notice put out on NV-Alert)! But we need to keep up the full court press.

If you have not already called or email Senate Education Committee members, about SB 228, please do so on MONDAY! We met with all committee members, except Senators Segerblom and Lipparelli (their schedules didn’t allow) on Thursday regarding asking Chairwoman Becky Harris to give SB 228 a work session THIS WEEK. If the bill is not passed out of committee by Friday it will die. All committee members were responsive to our meetings and said they’d speak to the Committee Chair.

Please take a moment tonight to email committee members or call/email tomorrow.
See the HSLDA E-lert for contact information. http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/elertarchive.aspx?7473

We must protect student privacy rights!

Barbara Dragon
ParentalRights.org/NEVADA Legislative Liaison

AB221

Nevada Assembly
Legislative Building
Assembly Education Committee, Room 4114
401 S. Carson St., Carson City, NV 89701

RE: AB221

Dear Chair Woodbury, V-Chair Stewart, Members: Armstrong, Dooling, Edwards, Gardner, Hickey, Shelton, Anderson, Diaz, Flores, Joiner, Munford, and Swank,

By way of introduction, ParentalRights.org/NEVADA is a group dedicated to preserving the right of parents to make decisions for their children. We are writing today with regards to AB221, scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Education Committee on Monday, March 23, 2015.

Parentalrights.org/NEVADA opposes AB 221 as written for several reasons, all of which underscore the fact that this bill will not protect pupils and their families. AB221 does not acknowledge the privacy rights of students nor does it restore control and protection of student data back to the pupil and his or her parents or guardians.

Two bills – AB221 and SB228 – are being discussed this session as solutions to student data privacy concerns, but in reality they are not the same. While AB221 focuses on protecting student data from unauthorized use and illuminates what data is collected and used for, it does nothing to address the enumerated points below, failing to limit government use and release of data for purposes other than the education of the child.
1. AB221 relies on FERPA for privacy protection. It is precisely the changes to FERPA in both 2008 and 2011 that allow a broader collection and sharing of data that require the state of Nevada to now address student privacy. FERPA is no longer effective in providing protection due to recent changes and as such, requires Nevada to define privacy laws to protect our children’s data.
2. AB221 allows sharing of data beyond the local school and district, including directory information and personally identifiable information. We believe student data should be collected, managed, stored, and maintained at the local level and should not be released or shared beyond school officials of the local school or district without written consent of the parent or legal guardian, or pupil if 18 years of age. Student information should never go beyond the local level without affirmative, informed parental/guardian consent with the exception of aggregate student data needed for funding purposes by the state.
3. AB221 does not address or acknowledge that the parent/guardian of a pupil owns and controls both the data and/or the release of data until a pupil reaches 18, at which time the pupil owns their data. This leaves an ambiguous void and allows room for privacy intrusion.
4. AB221 does not limit or restrict the type of data that may be collected. While it requires the data elements to be published, there are no limitations on what type of data may be included. Data collection should be restricted to purposes that facilitate the function of education.
While we appreciate the introduction of AB221, and its intent to protect data and privacy, the bill, in its entirety, falls short in addressing the root causes for data privacy concerns. If AB221 could be amended to comply with SB228, sponsored by Senator Gustavson, we would be in support of AB221, providing real protection for pupils and families.
AB221 is a non-partisan issue – we should all take the privacy and protection of Nevada children’s data seriously. We appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns and are willing to help with amending language as needed to address concerns. Please feel free to contact any of the ParentalRights.org/NEVADA Legislative Liaisons should you have further questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,

Barbara Dragon
Elissa Wahl
Frank Schnorbus
Kelley Millard Radow
Ray Poole
Legislative Liaisons for ParentalRights.org/NEVADA