Collecting Student Data
by Stephen M. Lilienthal

Bad ideas born in Federal office buildings resemble cats; both can have nine lives. Consider the desire by officials at the Department of Education (DOE) to collect individualized student “unit” data on every college student in the United States who studies at an institution of higher learning which receives Federal funds. Despite having had a stake driven through its heart by the House of Representatives, this idea has remerged.

When DOE – specifically, the National Center for Education Statistics - expressed interest in collecting data on every such college student an unusual coalition comprised of independent colleges and universities, privacy advocates, student groups, consumer groups, even conservative and libertarian organizations, challenged the proposal. The advocates discovered an ally in Representative John A. Boehner (R-OH), the current Majority Leader in the House of Representatives who, at the time, was Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and in Ranking Minority Member George Miller (D-CA). Thanks to help from Boehner, his successor on the Education Committee, Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), and Miller, the House in late March passed H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. Section 132 – “Databases Of Student Information Prohibited” – states opposition to “the design, development, creation, implementation, or maintenance of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information” aimed at tracking students in higher education. This compelling statement by the House has not prevented continued interest in forming such a database.

The Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, charged with developing “a comprehensive national strategy for postsecondary education,” issued its draft report on June 22, 2006, which contains a number of proposals. Some recommendations are to be welcomed, such as improving learning in mathematics and the sciences. On the issue of “a national student unit record tracking system,” the Commission chose to ignore the House of Representatives position. The draft of the Commission report calls for:

[the development of] a national student unit record tracking system, with appropriate privacy safeguards, which collects, analyzes and uses longitudinal data as a vital tool for accountability and policy-making. Such a system would provide an accurate measure of colleges’ retention and graduation rates, and their net tuition price. Collecting individual student records would give policymakers and institutions accurate information on all students, including the growing proportion of transfer students, and a better means to assess colleges’ performance.”

The statement may rely on reassuring phrases, such as “privacy safeguards,” but there are several reasons to challenge the need and practicality of such a system.

If the information is truly necessary, why is the data not anonymized to protect the identity of individuals? Why should the Federal Government want to track all individuals enrolled in a college or university, including those who are not collecting Federal financial aid. Earlier, DOE had thought it necessary to obtain Social Security numbers of students. It’s unclear whether SSNs are to be collected or some other form of identifier, perhaps a bar code, which also could be copied by identity thieves to obtain personal information. (H.R. 609 expressly prohibits the bar-code system.)

Boehner criticized the project in a June 1, 2005 commentary, “A Monster Database Is Not the Answer,” published in THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION: “If Big Brother has a dream, this [database] is it.” Boehner warned:

“A database containing students’ names and Social Security numbers and other information would, after all, be a marketer’s bonanza. While supporters of the proposed database insist the information collected would be permanently off-limits for anything other than strict academic tracking, it’s impossible to believe some organizations or agencies wouldn’t eventually seek the authority to plunder the system for other purposes.”

Claims that the data are needed to ensure more accountability over higher education defy credibility. More information about individual students would not improve higher education despite claims by officials, such as Charles Miller, Chairman of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, that there is a “serious records gap” because “untraditional” students, such as those taking part-time courses, are off the radar. “We lose out on a great part of data that’s pertinent,” Miller told INSIDE HIGHER ED. “If we don’t have information on when students enter and when they leave, our findings are incomplete.” Not surprisingly, Miller contends the tracking system should not only extend through a student’s higher education but also into one’s professional career. Nor should it be surprising that David Baime, Vice President for Government Relations of the American Association of Community Colleges, has proclaimed it “inevitable” that a centralized database be developed.

Senator James Buckley (R-NY) sponsored the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in the early 1970s to limit access of educational records to students, their parents (if the student were a minor) and officials of the educational institutions they attended. If the Commission prevails, colleges and universities would be required to transmit data on individual students to researchers affiliated with DOE. David E. Shi, President of Furman University, has remarked on how “ironic” it is that a conservative Presidential administration would require the collection of such data, imposing “an onerous burden on higher education.” The Commission already is concerned that institutions of higher education are saddled by too many laws and regulations. Resources could be better used directly by the colleges and universities to improve themselves.

A strength – often unappreciated – of the American system of higher education is the ability of institutions to innovate. Is it surprising that European countries are trying to emulate the innovativeness and responsiveness to needs of students and employers that represents American higher education at its best and which is often exemplified by our country’s independent colleges and universities?

There is a rightful concern that the increasing reliance on data by education officials in Washington will provide the beachhead for developing a “federalized” approach to higher education. This concern was expressed by Christopher Nelson, President of St. John’s College, the respected liberal arts institution in Annapolis, Maryland. “The beauty of higher education is we believe that nobody has all of the answers,” he commented during a news conference arranged by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, which opposes the individualized tracking system. “The more we try to bring about a single federalized way of looking at each unit, each piece of the labor force, the more we are headed toward a system that stifles innovation and competition,” Nelson was quoted in INSIDE HIGHER ED.

Collecting data and sending it to Washington is expensive. If the Commission really wants to promote improvement in higher education, including affordability, the requirement to have every college and university submit data on every student is unlikely to help much. Collecting, collating, transmitting and securing the data all costs money; more than likely colleges and universities would need to purchase special software to participate.

Major institutions have suffered data breaches in recent years, raising another significant concern. A letter to the Commission from Catholic University of America General Counsel Craig W. Parker and Margaret L. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel for Policy and Compliance, raises the issue of protecting privacy, suggesting that “a serious cost-benefit analysis” is needed on the value of collecting student data versus the damage resulting from its being lost or misused. Parker and O’Donnell warn: “[DOE] may be able to provide a high level of security to attempt to prevent unauthorized access to the data, but they cannot guarantee that there will not be added mandates for expanded data collection and for additional uses of the data that will threaten student privacy rights.”

The late Senator Barry M. Goldwater (R-AZ), whose 1964 Presidential campaign galvanized a rethinking by many Americans about centralized government, insisted, “A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.” In today’s data-driven age, a recasting of Goldwater’s thinking is in order. “A government that is big enough to collect information about you is big enough to lose or misuse that information or demand more and more.” Compiling government dossiers on all students represents exactly the Federal overreach that fueled conservative opposition to Big Government in the past. No matter how appealing the individual program or law, conservatives understood centralized government would more than likely continue to expand its hold over people’s lives in ways not anticipated.

The best way to prevent abuse of collected information is not to collect it in the first place. Once more the stake needs to be driven through the heart of the proposed Higher Ed Database.

Stephen M. Lilienthal is Director of the Center for Privacy and Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation.

E-mail the Editor