This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-810
entitled 'Commercial Activities in Schools: Use of Student Data is
Limited and Additional Dissemination of Guidance Could Help Districts
Develop Policies' which was released on September 20, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2004:
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN SCHOOLS:
Use of Student Data is Limited and Additional Dissemination of Guidance
Could Help Districts Develop Policies:
GAO-04-810:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-810, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
District Policies Addressing the Commercial Use of Student Data (N =
61):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
We recommend that Education disseminate to state school boards
associations its guidance on the use of student data for marketing and
selling purposes. Education agreed with our recommendation.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-810. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Marnie Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Since 2000, Most States Have Enacted Laws and Proposed Legislation That
Affect Commercial Activities in Schools:
Districts Are Beginning to Implement Provisions on Student Data, and
Few Use Student Data for Commercial Purposes:
Education Developed and Disseminated Guidance, but Many Districts'
Policies Did Not Address Requirements:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Review of State Legislation:
Survey of School Districts:
Analysis of District Policies:
Contacts at Education:
Follow-up Telephone Interviews with the Seven Districts We Visited in
2000:
Appendix II: State Statutes and Regulations Addressing Commercial
Activities in Schools:
Appendix III: Legislative Proposals Addressing Commercial Activities in
Schools, February 2004:
Appendix IV: Questionnaire GAO Study on the Marketing and Selling of
Student Data:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Categories of Commercial Activities:
Table 2: Comparison of Selected PPRA and FERPA Provisions:
Table 3: Sample and Response Rates by Strata:
Table 4: Districts Contacted from Our Site Visits in 2000:
Abbreviations:
FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
PPRA: Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 20, 2004:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Children and Families:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
United States Senate:
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.[Footnote 1] 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.
Results in Brief:
Since our previous report in 2000, 13 states have enacted 15 statutory
provisions and issued 3 regulatory provisions that pertain to
commercial activities in public schools, and since January 1, 2003, we
identified 25 states in which legislators have proposed laws that
address commercial activities. Of the 13 states establishing new laws,
6 established provisions addressing the collection, disclosure, or use
of student information for marketing and selling purposes. For example,
Colorado enacted a law prohibiting student participation in any survey
without written parental consent. Other new provisions addressed
product sales and advertising. Most of the proposed bills targeted food
and beverage sales. Prior to 2000, 28 states had passed laws or
regulations pertaining to commercial activities. Almost all of these
provisions addressed direct advertising and product sales. At that
time, only one state had passed a provision relating to the use of
student data for commercial purposes. The seven districts we visited in
2000 continue to conduct a variety of commercial activities,
particularly product sales, and three districts told us that they have
increased the level of activities with local businesses. However, the
types of activities in these districts have not substantially changed.
Based on the responses to our survey, we estimated that about two-
thirds of the school districts in the nation had developed or were
developing policies addressing PPRA requirements concerning the
commercial use of student data. However, for the 61 districts that
voluntarily provided us policies they had developed, we concluded that
only 19 of these policies specifically addressed the commercial uses of
student data. Regardless, no district reported having collected student
data specifically for marketing purposes, and those we spoke to who had
released student names, addresses, or telephone numbers for marketing
or selling purposes said they did so for school-related purposes, such
as graduation pictures. Three of the seven districts we visited in 2000
reported that they had subsequently adopted new policies banning or
restricting the use of student data, although none collected student
data for commercial purposes. One of the seven released information in
order for seniors to obtain class pictures, class rings, and graduation
announcements.
Education has taken steps to inform districts about the added student
data safeguards included in PPRA, but many policies that districts
provided to us did not specifically address the collection, disclosure,
or use of student information for commercial purposes. Education has
issued guidance advising districts that if they do not already have
such a policy, they must develop and adopt one and notify parents. The
department also provided districts with model notification information
that districts could use to inform parents, posted relevant information
on its Web site, and covered the provision in some of its training
activities. However, only 19 of the 61 districts that responded to our
request sent policies that did address commercial activities. District
officials in several states reported that they relied on state school
boards associations for help in developing policies. In addition, two
districts in one state sent us policies that had been developed by
their state school boards association. Although Education has
disseminated its guidance to school districts and state education
agencies, it has not disseminated this guidance directly to the school
boards association in each state.
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 board associations. In commenting on a
draft of our report, Education agreed with our recommendation.
Background:
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.[Footnote 2] 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.)
Table 1: Categories of Commercial Activities:
Commercial activities: Product sales;
Examples:
* Product sales benefiting a school district, school, or student
activity, such as the sale of beverages or food within schools;
* Cash or credit rebate programs;
* Fundraising activities, such as the short-term sales of gift wrap,
cookie dough, or candy, to benefit a specific student population or
club.
Commercial activities: Direct advertising;
Examples:
* Signage and billboards in schools or school facilities, and on
school buses and shelters;
* Corporate logos or brand names on school equipment, such as
marquees, message boards, or scoreboards;
* Ads, corporate logos, or brand names on book covers, student
assignment books, or posters;
* Ads in school publications, such as newspapers or yearbooks;
* Media-based advertising, such as ads on Channel One or Internet
sites;
* Free samples, such as food or personal hygiene products.
Commercial activities: Indirect advertising;
Examples:
* Corporate- sponsored educational materials, teacher training,
contests, incentives, grants, or gifts.
Commercial activities: Market research;
Examples:
* Surveys or polls related to commercial activities;
* Internet surveys or polls asking for information related to
commercial activities;
* Tracking students' Internet behavior and responses to questions
calling for personal identification at one or more Web sites.
Source: GAO/HEHS-00-156.
[End of table]
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.
NCLBA Amends Statutory Safeguards on the Use of Student Data for
Marketing and Selling Purposes:
NCLBA addresses some concerns about commercial activities and student
data by amending and expanding certain student data safeguards that
were established in PPRA.[Footnote 3] 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[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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.
FERPA and PPRA Safeguards Address Different Student Privacy Issues:
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.[Footnote 6]
Table 2: Comparison of Selected PPRA and FERPA Provisions:
Provisions: Activities targeted;
PPRA: Collection, disclosure, or use of personal student data for
marketing or selling purposes; Survey, analysis, or evaluation
concerning political affiliations or beliefs; psychological problems;
sexual behavior or attitudes; self- incriminating behavior; critical
appraisal of individuals with whom respondents have close
relationships; privileged relationships; religious beliefs; or income
(other than that required by law to determine program eligibility);
Nonemergency invasive physical examinations of children;
FERPA: Disclosure of students' education records; Inspection, review,
and amendment of education records.
Provisions: Definitions of personal student data;
PPRA: Individually identifiable information including: Name; Address;
Telephone number; Social Security number[A];
FERPA: All student information contained in education records; Each
district can define a subset of information called "directory
information" that is generally not considered harmful or an invasion
of privacy to release, such as name, address, telephone number, height
and weight (if an athlete), and scholastic honors and awards[A].
Provisions: Notification;
PPRA: Districts must directly notify parents of policies regarding the
collection, release, or use of student data; Districts must give
parents an opportunity to exclude their child's participation in
specific activities or to prevent the release of information about
their child except for certain types of educational activities and for
the armed services;
FERPA: Districts must notify parents of the categories of information
it has designated as directory information; Districts are to notify
parents of students of their right to opt out of the disclosure of
directory information.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] There are restrictions on the use of Social Security numbers. See
GAO, Social Security Numbers: Use Is Widespread and Protections Vary,
GAO-04-768T (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2004). Consequently, districts
would not designate students' Social Security numbers as part of
directory information.
[End of table]
School District Policies Are Set at the Local Level under State Laws:
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.
Since 2000, Most States Have Enacted Laws and Proposed Legislation That
Affect Commercial Activities in Schools:
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.
State Statutes and Regulations Vary Widely in Purpose and Scope:
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.[Footnote 7] Other new provisions addressed
direct and indirect advertising.[Footnote 8]
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.
Most Proposed Legislation Affecting Commercial Activities Regards Food
and Nutrition:
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 statesæNew Jersey and North Carolinaæbills 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.
Commercial Activities in the Seven Districts We Visited in 2000 Have
Not Generally Changed:
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.
Districts Are Beginning to Implement Provisions on Student Data, and
Few Use Student Data for Commercial Purposes:
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.[Footnote 9]
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.
Education Developed and Disseminated Guidance, but Many Districts'
Policies Did Not Address Requirements:
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.
Conclusions:
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 activitiesæproduct sales, direct advertising, indirect
advertising, and market researchæencompass 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.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments:
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.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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.
Review of State Legislation:
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.
Survey of School Districts:
Sample:
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.
Table 3: Sample and Response Rates by Strata:
Stratum number: 1;
Stratum: States with laws that permitted commercial activities (Maine
and New Mexico);
Estimated population size (number of districts)[A]: 312;
Sample size (unweighted): 80;
Number of ineligible districts (unweighted): 0;
Number of returned surveys from eligible districts (unweighted): 61;
Weight: 3.900;
Weighted response rate: 76%[B].
Stratum number: 2;
Stratum: State with laws that permitted some types of commercial
activities (California, Florida, Louisiana, Kansas, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas);
Estimated population size (number of districts)[A]: 3,224;
Sample size (unweighted): 95;
Number of ineligible districts (unweighted): 1;
Number of returned surveys from eligible districts (unweighted): 78;
Weight: 34.294;
Weighted response rate: 83%.
Stratum number: 3;
Stratum: School districts in all other states;
Estimated population size (number of districts)[A]: 10,330;
Sample size (unweighted): 96;
Number of ineligible districts (unweighted): 5;
Number of returned surveys from eligible districts (unweighted): 80;
Weight: 113.520;
Weighted response rate: 88%.
Stratum number: Total estimated;
Estimated population size (number of districts)[A]: 13,866;
Sample size (unweighted): 271;
Number of ineligible districts (unweighted): 6;
Number of returned surveys from eligible districts (unweighted): 219;
Weighted response rate: 87%[C].
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Adjusted for ineligible units.
[B] The response rate for each stratum is calculated as the ratio of
the weighted number of eligible returned surveys to the weighted number
of all eligible surveys.
[C] The total response rate is calculated as the ratio of the weighted
number of eligible returned surveys over all strata to the weighted
number of all eligible surveys over all strata.
[End of table]
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.
Survey Errors Procedures:
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.
Analysis of District Policies:
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.[Footnote
10] 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.
Contacts at Education:
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.
Follow-up Telephone Interviews with the Seven Districts We Visited in
2000:
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.
Table 4: Districts Contacted from Our Site Visits in 2000:
State: California;
District: Long Beach Unified School District.
District: State: Oxnard School District (elementary and middle school).
District: StateMichigan: Oxnard Union High School District.
State: Michigan;
District: Grand Rapids Public Schools.
District: Ludington Area Schools.
State: New Mexico;
District: Albuquerque Public Schools.
District: Los Alamos Public Schools.
Source: GAO-00-156.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: State Statutes and Regulations Addressing Commercial
Activities in Schools:
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.
State: Alabama;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Prohibits requiring students to participate in school
fundraising.
State: Alaska;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Marketing or market research: Prohibits students from participating in
survey or questionnaire without parental consent.
State: Arizona;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Permits advertising on school buses under certain
restrictions.
State: Arkansas;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Prohibits vending machines in elementary schools;
Marketing or market research: Prohibits students from participating in
survey or questionnaire without parental consent.
State: California;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Restricts the type of individual food items sold at
elementary schools to those that comply with certain fat and sugar
content restrictions; Restricts the type of beverages sold at middle
and junior high schools during the school day to water, milk, fruit-
based drinks, and electrolyte replacement beverages meeting certain
restrictions; Restricts the type of beverages sold at elementary
schools during the school day to water, milk, 100 percent fruit juice,
and unsweetened fruit-based drinks containing at least 50 percent fruit
juice; Restricts school boards and schools from contracting for
carbonated beverages and non-nutritious foods;
Prohibits teachers, dentists, or optometrists from soliciting students
on school grounds;
Advertising: Direct: Prohibits schools from contracting for electronic
products or services that disseminate advertising to students unless
certain notice requirements are followed;
Prohibits advertising of tobacco products on any outdoor billboard
within 1,000 feet of any public (or private) school;
Advertising: Indirect: Prohibits states and local boards from adopting
basic instructional materials that provide unnecessary exposure to
brand names, products, or company logos.
State: Colorado;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits the operation of competitive food service
beginning one-half hour before and ending one-half hour after the
school's breakfast and lunch period;
Advertising: Direct: Student editors determine advertising content of
school-sponsored publications;
Marketing or market research: Prohibits student participation in any
survey without written parental consent.
State: Connecticut;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits sale of coffee, soft drinks, tea, and candy
one-half hour before, during, or after lunch or breakfast.
State: Florida;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Foods of minimal nutritional value can only be sold in
secondary schools for 1 hour after lunch.
State: Florida;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Permits school boards to establish fundraising policies; Advertising: Direct: Permits school boards to establish policies regarding advertising.
State: Georgia;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in
elementary schools until after lunch and in other schools during
mealtime in the dining, serving, and kitchen areas.
State: Hawaii;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Permits schools to have vending machines and concessions
if operated by the blind or individuals with visual handicaps;
Prohibits the sale of cigarettes from a lunch wagon engaging in any
sales activity within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school
grounds.
State: Illinois;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Marketing or market research: Prohibits the disclosure of a student's
name, address, telephone number, Social Security number, email address,
or other personal identifying information to a business organization or
financial institution that issues credit or debit cards.
State: Illinois;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Elementary schools participating in the National School
Lunch Program are prohibited from selling competitive food during
breakfast and lunch periods.
State: Illinois;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Prohibits solicitation of students by certain private
businesses or vocational schools unless approved by the superintendent;
Advertising: Direct: Prohibits certain private businesses or vocational
schools from advertising for student enrollees unless approved by the
superintendent.
State: Indiana;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Marketing or market research: Prohibits the disclosure of a list of
students enrolled in public school to a commercial entity where the
governing body has adopted a policy that prohibits disclosure for
commercial purposes or identifies categories or classes of commercial
entities to which the list may not be disclosed.
State: Kansas;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Permits student editors to determine advertising
content in student publications.
State: Kentucky;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits selling any food outside the National School
Breakfast or Lunch program until one-half hour after lunch period.
State: Louisiana;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits sale of competitive foods until the last 10
minutes of each lunch and in food service areas;
Advertising: Direct: Permits donor decals on school buses to
acknowledge donations of cellular telephone service.
State: Maine;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Permits school districts to fundraise for their
benefit.
State: Maryland;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Permits advertising on school bus shelters under
certain restrictions.
State: Massachusetts;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Requires school committee to establish a travel policy
that addresses expectations for fundraising by students.
State: Massachusetts;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Advertising: Direct: Prohibits outdoor advertising of cigarettes
within 1,000-foot radius of any school.
State: Minnesota;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Prohibits school boards from contracting for
computer or related equipment that requires advertising to be
disseminated to students unless parents are given the opportunity to
opt their child out of exposure to the advertising; A school board may
contract with advertisers or others to sell naming rights and
advertising rights to its school facilities; Permits advertising on
school buses under certain restrictions.
State: Mississippi;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits selling any food item for 1 hour before a
school meal.
State: Mississippi;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Permits commercial advertising on protective
textbook covers.
State: Mississippi;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Requires school boards to include a disclosure
statement advising that a portion of the proceeds of fundraising
activities, such as school pictures, cap and gown rentals, etc.,
authorized by a school board for which the board receives a
commission, rebate, or fee shall be contributed to the school activity
fund.
State: Nevada;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Permits advertising on and in school buses.
State: New Hampshire;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Permits advertising on school bus shelters.
State: New Hampshire;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Advertising: Direct: Prohibits advertising on school bus exterior
except for manufacturer's logo.
State: New Jersey;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits selling food items of minimal nutritional
value before the end of the last school lunch period;
Advertising: Direct: Prohibits advertising on the interior or exterior
of buses except for manufacturer's or vendor's trade name; Permits
advertising on school bus stop shelters subject to governmental
approval.
State: New Mexico;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute/; regulation;
Advertising: Direct: Commercial advertising permitted inside and on
sides of school buses.
State: New Mexico;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Marketing or market research: Prohibits sale or use of personally
identifiable information for marketing purposes unless parent consents
in writing for legitimate educational purposes.
State: New York;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Generally prohibits selling soft drinks and candy
during school day until the last scheduled meal period.
State: New York;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Advertising: Direct: Generally prohibits commercial promotional
activities on school premises except where commercial entity sponsors
a school activity which does not involve promoting the sponsor's
product or service.
State: North Carolina;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Permits school boards to adopt instructional
materials containing commercial advertising so long as the materials
relate to the academic curricula.
State: North Carolina;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits the individual, or "a la carte," sale of
foods of minimum nutritional value and limits the sale of individual
food items until after the established lunch hour has ended;
Advertising: Indirect: Requires local school boards to assure that
students are not regularly required to observe, listen to, or read
commercial advertising.
State: North Dakota;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Requires school boards to approve fundraising involving
students.
State: Rhode Island;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Product sales: Prohibits school officials from soliciting any pupil in
any public school, generally prohibits the sale of commercial goods or
services in schools, and requires school committee to issue rules
related to fundraising activities;
Advertising: Direct: Prohibits the distribution to students of
commercial materials unless approved by the local school committee.
State: Tennessee;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Advertising: Direct: Permits commercial advertising on school buses,
in accordance with policy established by local school board.
State: Tennessee;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Marketing or market research: Requires districts to develop a policy
setting forth the rights of parents and students and guidelines for
teachers and principals with respect to the administration of surveys,
analyses, or evaluations of students.
State: Texas;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Advertising: Indirect: Permits commercially sponsored high school
athletic programs.
State: Texas;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute/regulation;
Advertising: Direct: Permits advertising on the exterior of a school
bus, provided that it does not distract from the effectiveness of
required safety warning equipment.
State: Virginia;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Direct: Requires each school board to develop a policy on
commercial, promotional, and corporate partnerships and sponsorships
involving public schools;
Advertising: Indirect: Requires each school board to develop a policy
on commercial, promotional, and corporate partnerships and
sponsorships involving public schools.
State: Virginia;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Statute;
Advertising: Indirect: Permits school boards to contract with
commercial institutions for a telephone service or credit card that,
without endorsing the product, bears the name of the school board, and
provides a portion or percentage of the revenues to a fund established
for a public school purpose.
State: Virginia;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: All foods sold in school from 6:00 a.m. until after the
breakfast period must be of sound nutritional value.
State: West Virginia;
Statutory/regulatory provision: Regulation;
Product sales: Prohibits the sale of candy, soft drinks, chewing gum,
or flavored ice bars during the school day, except that county boards
may permit the sale of soft drinks in high schools except during the
breakfast and lunch periods.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Legislative Proposals Addressing Commercial Activities
in Schools, February 2004:
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.
State: Alabama;
Product sales:
* Would allow students to choose any photographer for yearbook
pictures;
* Would prohibit schools from preventing a picture taken by that
photographer from appearing in a yearbook if the picture meets the
specifications of the yearbook staff.
State: Alaska;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit the sale of soft drinks from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. in
public schools.
State: Connecticut;
Product sales:
* Would set up a pilot program in which participating schools would be
barred from allowing the sale of chewing gum and other specified foods
and beverages.
* Would require public hearings prior to the completion of contracts
between food vendors and public schools.
* Would call for a pilot school food nutrition program to test
restricting beverages sold to schoolchildren to fruit juices, water,
or milk and offer fruits and nonfried vegetables for sale at lower
prices than other food[A].
State: Georgia;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit the sale of soft drinks to students and consumption of
soft drinks by students in school buildings and on school grounds,
except in the school cafeteria, before and during school hours.
State: Hawaii;
Product sales:
* Would require vending machines in public schools to dispense only
water, milk, and 100 percent fruit juice;
Advertising: Direct:
* Would allow schools to sell advertising to companies and other
organizations, including selling advertising space at sports
competitions and other space on school campuses;
Advertising: Indirect:
* Would allow schools to accept donated supplies and equipment bearing
logos, trademarks, labels, or any other image or mark representing a
commercial or noncommercial organization.
Product sales:
* 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;
* Would provide minimum standards for vending machine food and drink
items.
State: Illinois;
Product sales:
* Would require revenue from vending machines that are not within the
cafeteria to be used exclusively for physical education and nutrition
education.
* Would prohibit soft drinks and candy from being dispensed to
students by school vending machines;
* Would require school boards to prohibit the sale of candy, soda pop,
and chips at school or on school grounds;
* Would set requirements for beverages and foods sold in school
vending machines and requires the State Board of Education to prepare
and distribute a list of products that meet the standards.
State: Kentucky;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit sales during the day through vending machines, school
stores, canteens, or fundraisers of chewing gum, water ices, foods that
contain more than 40 percent added sugar by weight, and foods that
contain more than 6 grams of fat per serving (except seeds and nuts);
* Would prohibit an elementary school from selling soda waters during
a school day; would require that at least 75 percent of the beverages
sold in middle and high schools be healthy beverages, and would
prohibit the sale of any beverage to students in competition with the
School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Program.
State: Maine;
Product sales:
* Would ban chewing gum, candy bars, food, or drinks that contain 35
percent or more sugar or other sweeteners; juices that are less than
100 percent real fruit juice; and foods with greater than 8 grams of
fat per serving. Would ban soft drinks from elementary and middle
schools and soft drinks containing caffeine from high schools.
State: Maryland;
Product sales:
* Would require county boards of education to develop and adopt
specific policies relating to vending machines in public schools and
requiring each school to install and use timing devices on every
vending machine;
* Would require that 50 percent of all food and drink options
available in vending machines be nutritious food and the price of
foods of minimal nutritional value sold in vending machines to be at
least 25 percent higher than the price of nutritious food.
* Would prohibit the sale of any beverages between the hours of 12:01
a.m. and the end of the last lunch period in public schools except
water, fruit juices with at least 50 percent fruit juice, isotonic
beverages that replenish electrolytes and do not contain more than 42
grams of added sweetener per 20 ounce serving, or milk;
* Would prohibit the sale of food (except for school lunches) between
the same hours if more than 35 percent of the total calories per
package are from fat, more than 10 percent of the total calories per
package are from saturated fat, or more than 35 percent of the total
calories per package are from sugar (except for fruits and vegetables).
State: Massachusetts;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit vending machines containing soda or soft drinks in
pubic school buildings or charter schools.
State: Michigan;
Product sales:
* Would require the number of milk vending machines to be at least
equal to the number of soda vending machines in school buildings.
Product sales: Minnesota:
* Would require the department of education to promulgate rules
providing healthy eating in schools that will apply to school meals,
vending machines, and other food sales and ban the sale of chewing
gum, candy bars, foods and drink containing more than 35 percent
sugar, food or drink containing more than 8 grams of fat per serving,
juice that is less than 100 percent real juice, and soft drinks in
elementary and middle schools;
* Would ban contracts that allow the exclusive sale of a particular
beverage brand, that prohibit the sale of a competing brand, include
sales incentives, or limit the ability of schools to control the number
and location of vending machines;
* Would prohibit the sale of nutritious beverages at a price per unit
volume higher than the price per unit volume of non-nutritional
beverages;
* Would require schools that sell packaged beverages to encourage
students to drink milk and other nutritional beverages.
State: New Jersey;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit the sale at public elementary or middle schools
during the school breakfast or lunch period any soft drink or juice
product that is less than 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice, candy
bars, hard candy or chewing gum, or any other food or drink that has
more than 35 percent sugar or other sweeteners, or has more than 8
grams of fat;
Marketing and market research:
* Would require schools to receive written informed consent from
parents or guardians and provide a document for reviewing before
permitting students to participate in surveys, assessments, or
evaluations that reveal certain types of personal information;
* Would permit students to participate in a voluntary survey if the
district sends prior written notification to student's parents.
State: New Mexico;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in the
food service areas during school lunch periods;
* Would prohibit beverages other than water and 100 percent fruit or
vegetable juices from being accessible to elementary school students
during the school day;
* Would require all vending machines located on school grounds to
feature graphics of only 100 percent fruit or vegetable juices, water
or educational programs.
State: New York;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit vending machines from selling certain foods and
drinks, such as foods of minimal nutritional value on public school
grounds or public school property.
State: North Carolina;
Product sales:
* Would call for a moratorium on soft drink contracts in schools;
Marketing and market research:
* Would prohibit the release of data from the student-testing program
to any marketing organization without the express written permission
of the parent or guardian;
* Would require schools to obtain written consent of the student's
parent or the adult student before administering surveys or
evaluations that collect certain personal information, and would
require local school boards and their employees to the anonymity and
confidentiality of students' responses to such instruments.
State: Ohio;
Product sales:
* Would restrict beverages sold to students in grades kindergarten
through 4 to milk and other specified beverages;
* Would restrict beverages sold to students in grade 5 to 12 from one-
half hour before school to one-half hour after the end of the school
day;
* Would permit the sale of other beverages that do not meet nutritional
standards if students are selling them as a fundraiser;
* Would restrict food sold to students in grades kindergarten to 4 to
food meeting certain minimal nutritional standards.
State: Oklahoma;
Product sales:
* Would require the board of education to bar access to vending
machines that contain food or soft drinks of low nutritional value by
students in grades K-5 and limits access by students in grades 6-12.
State: South Carolina;
Product sales:
* Would ban the sale of foods and drinks that do not comply with
federal standards;
* Would restrict the sale of foods to students outside of school meals
to whole grain products and other specified foods and beverages.
State: Tennessee;
Product sales:
* Would restrict the sale of food items from sources other than the
school cafeteria;
* Would require that drinks sold in elementary and secondary schools
be limited to water, milk, 100 percent fruit juice, or a minimum of 10
percent fruit- based drinks, and electrolyte replacement beverages;
* Would prohibit the sale of soft drinks in middle and high schools
until 1 hour after the last lunch period.
State: Texas;
Product sales:
* Would ban the sale of competitive foods and beverages in elementary
schools;
* Would restrict the sale of competitive foods at middle schools,
junior high schools, and high schools to certain times of day, and
would require food items to meet certain nutritional standards.
* Would ban the sale at elementary schools of any food or beverage not
offered for sale as part of the regular school meal program;
* Would impose nutritional requirements on food offered for sale in
secondary schools.
State: Utah;
Product sales:
* Would restrict products sold in vending machines in elementary
schools to only those meeting federal nutritional standards.
State: Vermont;
Product sales:
* Would prohibit the sale on school grounds from the time schools open
until the end of the last school lunch period of any beverage for
which any of the first two ingredients listed on the label are water
and any type of sweetener.
State: Virginia;
Product sales:
* Would require the board of education to establish rules regarding
vending machines in middle and high schools;
* Would ban schools from contracting for allowing or continuing to use
vending machines selling soft drinks or solid foods having empty
calories, high fat, high sodium, or high caffeine.
State: Washington;
Product sales:
* Would establish minimum nutritional standards for competitive foods
sold in schools;
* Would limit the types of beverages that may be sold to pupils;
* Would ban the sale of foods with minimal nutrition value on school
campuses during regular schools hours.
Source: GAO analysis of state legislature Web sites, February 2004.
[A] This provision was approved June 8, 2004, and became effective
July 1, 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Questionnaire: GAO Study on the Marketing and Selling of
Student Data:
[See PDF for image]
[End of image]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT:
THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY:
AUG 3 2004:
Ms. Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
Thank you for permitting the Department of Education to comment on the
draft report entitled "Commercial Activities in Schools: Use of Student
Data is Limited and Additional Dissemination of Guidance Could Help
Districts Develop Policies." The subject matter of the report relates
to amendments to the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) made
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In the draft report, GAO
recommends that the Department 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 board associations" I would like to provide
some comments on that recommendation.
As you note in the report, the Department's Family Policy Compliance
Office (FPCO) which is now in the Office of Innovation and Improvement;
is responsible for administering the provisions of PPRA. FPCO, as you
note, has taken a number of actions to ensure that school officials are
made aware of their responsibilities under PPRA and to assist them in
carrying out these responsibilities. Most notably, the office provides
compliance training on PPRA to assist elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary school officials around the country in understanding and
carrying out the mandated responsibilities of educational institutions
and agencies under three laws - PPRA, the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA), and the military recruiter provisions of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No
Child Left Behind Act. This training takes place at national and
regional association conferences, at Sate departments of education, and
at schools.
The report recommends that we disseminate our PPRA guidance to State
school board associations. We will comply with that recommendation. The
FPCO also stands ready to provide training to State school board
associations, as it did in September 2002 for the Kansas Association of
School Boards and in March 2002 for the North Carolina School Boards
Association. In addition, FPCO will provide training in October 2004 to
the National Council of State Education Attorneys (NCOSEA), an
affiliate of the National Association of State Boards of Education
(NASBE). Because NCOSEA will be holding its annual conference in
conjunction with NASBE, FPCO offered to also provide training at the
NASBE conference. However, because of the schedule for that conference,
NASBE is not able to accommodate FPCO training for the October meeting.
FPCO has also worked with the National School Boards Association (NSBA)
on several privacy-related issues. In September 2003, NSBA released a
document entitled "Guidance for School Districts on Student Education
Records, Directory Information, Health Information and Other Privacy
Provisions." The chapter on "Collection of Student Data for Marketing
Purposes" was based on information provided on FPCO's website. FPCO
plans to contact both NASBE and NSBA with updates to any guidance on
PPRA or FERPA that needs to be distributed to the States. FPCO will
also continue to offer training to State affiliates.
Thank you for undertaking a thorough analysis of this issue and for the
constructive recommendations you have provided to the Department. I am
also enclosing, with this letter, some technical comments on the
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Nina Shokraii Rees:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director (202) 512-7902 or
johnsone@gao.gov Kathleen D. White, Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-8512 or
whitek@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Public Education: Commercial Activities in Schools, GAO/HEHS-
00-156 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2000).
[2] GAO/HEHS-00-156.
[3] See 20 U.S.C.§1232h(c)(1)(E)(Supp. 2003).
[4] In this report we are not addressing other amendments to PPRA,
which established requirements for surveys unrelated to marketing and
selling and nonemergency invasive physical examinations.
[5] If a school district already had a policy in place on January 8,
2002, that addressed the collection, disclosure, or use of student data
for commercial purposes, the amendments do not require the district to
adopt a new policy. See U.S.C. §1232h(c)(3).
[6] See 20 U.S.C. §1232h(c)(5)(c)(Supp. 2003).
[7] For additional information on policies restricting the sale of
foods that compete with school meal programs, see GAO, School Meal
Programs: Competitive Foods Are Available in Many Schools; Actions
Taken to Restrict Them Differ by State and Locality, GAO-04-673
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2004).
[8] Some provisions addressed more than one activity. For example, a
provision in Virginia affected direct and indirect advertising.
[9] Because the survey is based on a sample, all estimates in this
report are subject to sampling error. Unless otherwise noted, the 95
percent confidence intervals for estimates in the report are less than
plus or minus 9 percentage points.
[10] Because of the self-selected nature of these 61 districts, we do
not consider them a probability sample and therefore results from this
analysis should not be generalized to the study population.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: