Education Committee


Bill No.:




Vote Date:


Vote Action:

Joint Favorable Substitute

PH Date:


File No.:


Education Committee


Lines 8&9, add “the State Board of Education or the Department of Education;”

Line 19, add “the State Board of Education or the Department of Education,”

Line 22&23 add, “the State Board of Education or the Department of Education,”

Line 32, change “but is not limited to” to, “but need not be limited to, the following;”

Line 44-46, strike prior language on Raised Bill to now read, “A description of the procedures by which a student, parent or legal guardian of a student may review personally identifiable information in the student record and correct erroneous information;”

Line 49-55, strike prior language on Raised Bill to now read, “(6) A description of the procedures for notifying a student, parent or legal guardian of a student and the local or regional board of education, the State Board of Education or the Department of Education as soon as practical, but not later than forty-eight hours after the contractor becomes aware of or suspects that any student record under the control of the contractor has been subject to unauthorized access or suspected unauthorized access;”

Line 58, strike prior language on Raised Bill to now read, “student parent or legal guardian of a student”

Line 79, add the following language to the end of the paragraph, “ or legal guardians of students;”

Line 82, strike the following language “who is younger than eighteen years to an operator in the course”

Line 110 replace the words “mirror students” and change to ,“covered students”

Line 116 add the words “Internet web”

Line 152, strike entire last paragraph of Raised Bill and add, “(b) Upon determination by a local or regional board of education that a request for directory information is related to school purposes, the local or regional board of education may disclose directory information to any person requesting such directory information. If the local or regional board of education determines that a request for directory information is not related to school purposes, the local or regional board of education shall not disclose such directory information.”


To protect students from their information being leaked to any outside, third party entities. To protect names of the individual student, protect student generated content and any student records.


Representative Mike Bocchino, 155th Assembly District: He is grateful that the Education Committee has raised this topic. Representative Bocchino notes concern upon learning that Connecticut had no privacy laws in place. Another area of concern is that the P20-WIN were not included in the language of the draft. He asks the committee to consider addressing some of the concerns of his constituents to add other measures in protecting Student Data Privacy and is in support of this Bill.


Raymond Rossomando, Connecticut Education Association: CEA supports the provisions in the bill, but believes they do not go far enough in protecting students. CEA believes there are stronger options that could be included such as “Restore and Improve Education Records Protection” and increase data use transparency and information available to parents. There were four main concerns that were outlined by CEA and those are; unprecedented ability to transfer PII in the click of a mouse, misuse of data for purposes detrimental to public education, obliteration of FERPA and deleting parental consent, and data breaches involving PII occurring frequently.

Mary Burnham, Southington Community YMCA: Mary Burnham commends the Education Committee for proposing this bill. However, she is deeply troubled that the P20-WIN is not addressed in this legislation. She does not think any government should be following and collecting data on people from preschool through age 20.

Maria Naughton: Maria Naughton is in support of this bill. She does believe however that some improvements need to be made to this bill so Connecticut will be more in with other states. In her testimony she has stressed that Student Data Privacy is extremely important and as opportunities increase for students, so does the risk. She believes that we must not compromise any current or future impact on the privacy of students.

Kristen Creighton, Thampson, Connecticut: Kristen Creighton has offered support for this bill. It has been noted that many schools are neglecting to follow important protections that are already in place such as FERPA, PPRA and COPPA. In closing while she believes that this bill is a great place to start, the P20-WIN should be regulated into law.

Dr. Kimberly Naughton: Dr. Naughton commends the Education Committee for beginning to tackle this issue by raising Bill 7017. It's been noted in her testimony that twenty states have now passed twenty eight student data privacy bills. For Connecticut parents, this bill starts important work of protecting children's education records and privacy.

Chris Simo-Kinzer, Terryville, Connecticut: Chris Simo-Kinzer states that this bill is a good start, however it does not address the privacy concerns of P20-WIN. He states there is no reason anyone should be collecting social security numbers, race, religious beliefs and political information. It is noted within the testimony that with online breaches such as Target, Home Depot, and others, damage that could be caused to someone's personal records is conceivably catastrophic.

Cheryl Hill, New Milford United For Kids: New Milford United for Kids thanks the Education Committee for raising the bill and supports it as well. Although the organization recognizes there is merit to data collecting and doing research, it does not believe in it when the safety of students and teachers is compromised. The need for data collection parameters are in part due to the use of tagged curriculum, effective instruments, loosening of FERPA in 2011, having no HIPPA protection and the formation of SLDS and CT's P20 WIN.

John Bestor, Sandy Hook, Connecticut: John Bestor is in support of the bill. He sees absolutely no need or purpose in disclosing student's private, personal and confidential information beyond the teachers, educators, students and parents. Although there is support of the bill in this testimony, Mr. Bestor believes the privacy bill should read “A STUDENT'S PRIVATE, PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ANY AGENCIES OUTSIDE THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND DISCLOSURE OF SUCH STUDENT INFORMATION WILL BE PROHIBITED BY LAW.”

Jason Bestor, Cheshire, Connecticut: Jason Bestor is in support of this bill. He believes that the amount of data being collected on his children is an outrageous intrusion on his Rights to Privacy as protected under the US Constitution. He believes the bill begins to address some of the data collection concerns, but it does not go far enough. He states that parents should be informed as to what student data is being collected, stored and who has the access to it. He also states the need to include the P20-WIN in this bill also.


Colleen Broden, Cheshire, Connecticut: Colleen Broden is not in support of this bill. Her view is that this bill does nothing to rectify any Student Data Privacy and feels that the bill is for online vendors only. She believes that legislation needs to be in place to guarantee the privacy of our students and the language from HB-6012 is the most effective way to do that.

Reported by: Michael P. Meadows

Date: April 10, 2015