Working drafts for the accelerator agreement. Every section has a Source pill in the right-hand column; hover or tap it to see where the language came from.
Luke's experienceConversationJames's collateralEmily's architectureFERPA / PPRA / state lawSDPC NDPADistrict agreements / district lensaf-dpa knowledge baseLuke's decisionDrafting choice
For discussion among the CHSS team and partner districts. Not legal advice; counsel reviews before anything is signed.
Syncing your Student Information System (SIS) with CHSS Navigator gives your ninth grade team timely, accurate data through clear visualizations and a dashboard that updates automatically. Your team can analyze, discuss, and intervene in minutes, without running reports, downloading files, and entering formulas. Most districts don't have a ninth grade dashboard like this, or the time and budget to build one. CHSS builds and maintains it for you.
Where this came from
James's collateral Built on James Arndt's "A 9th Grade Navigator (Dashboard) for Every School" (Oct 22, 2026). His headline, framing, and most of the first two sections are kept nearly verbatim.
Conversation Jonah (10/26): case-making goes up front, "we're having to sell ourselves more than some mega vendor," and it may be repeated inside the agreement's "what CHSS will do" section. Emily (10/26): lead with the case before the agreement.
The cost of doing it by hand
Where this came from
James's collateral Verbatim from James's draft, including the three-step routine and the 20-to-30-minute figure. His "no emails, no manual pulls, no file transfers" is reworded: SFTP is a file transfer, so the honest claim is that nothing is manual once the automated feed runs.
Conversation James (10/23): "we waste 20 minutes in every coaching session running the Synergy report, exporting, opening, entering a bunch of Excel formulas." Only 20 of 178 partner schools had submitted Q1 data as of 10/23.
James's collateral The Kid Talk figure is from James's 10/23 email: "Our own data shows us that when teams do a Kid Talk with fidelity they are 70%+ more likely to hit their on-track goal." Internal CHSS data; James to confirm it may be cited externally and how it was measured.
District lens A superintendent reading an earlier draft saw a credible value proposition and no evidence; one defensible result is what moves "fine" to "we want this."
Without an integration, almost every coaching session starts the same way:
The ninth grade lead runs a report from the SIS.
The report is exported to Excel.
The lead and coach add formulas to flag which students are failing one or two courses.
That routine eats 20 to 30 minutes of a 60-minute session. Half the hour goes to clerical work instead of kids, and the data is often a full grading period old by the time anyone acts on it.
District staff carry a burden too. Each quarter, CHSS asks a district data specialist to pull a large download and upload it to a secure location. That takes time from your most technical people, and the data is months old by the time it's used. Once your automated feed is running, none of that is manual: no emails, no one running reports for CHSS, no one handling files by hand.
This matters because the protocol depends on it. CHSS's own partner data shows that teams who run the Kid Talk protocol with fidelity are more than 70 percent more likely to hit their on-track goal, and a Kid Talk only works with current data in front of the team.
What SIS integration gives your team
Where this came from
James's collateral First five bullets are James's.
Conversation Last two bullets added from the 10/19 and 10/23 calls: Tara and Jonah on longitudinal tracking (on-track through CTE, dual credit, graduation) and on end-of-year data arriving in October today, which makes it "really hard to evaluate our staff, evaluate our impact, plan for the next school year."
Student data flows securely from your SIS into CHSS Navigator, where CHSS builds the ninth grade dashboards your team uses. Teams stop building the data and start using it.
Time back for kids. The 20 to 30 minutes once spent preparing data goes back to talking about students.
Current data. Friday's data for Tuesday's conversation, not last quarter's.
Accurate data. No manual exports or formulas means no copy errors or broken spreadsheets.
Faster action. Teams spot students failing one or two courses and plan support in the same meeting.
Visible progress. Teams can see whether each intervention is working and adjust before the next grading period.
A view past ninth grade. As your cohort moves on, Navigator keeps following it: on-track persistence in 10th grade, CTE course sequences, dual credit, graduation. You see whether the ninth grade work held, and so does your board.
End-of-year answers in June, not October. Automated feeds mean your on-track results are ready when you plan the next year, not after it has started.
What it gives your district
Where this came from
Conversation The "support you to do something" reframe from the 10/19 call. Jonah: "instead of being seen as 'we're asking you to pretty please do something,' we're actually offering support." Luke: the first question to any district is whether its SIS data lands in a warehouse it owns every night; most who do "are doing the fun stuff."
Luke's experience Setting up SchooLinks and other nightly feeds at AFUHSD: once automated, "I don't think about it at all anymore"; a failure notice arrives if the receiving server is down.
AFUHSD precedent The executed-copy promise comes from the ASU-Helios thread (Mar 2026), where neither the assistant superintendent, the deputy superintendent, finance, nor the data team could find the district's own signed DSA a few years on.
James's MOU draft Section Seven: "Year 0 and Year 1 services are fully subsidized; the amount due from District under this Agreement is $0." The strongest fact in the package, previously absent from the case.
District lens A superintendent's worry about an earlier draft: committing staff to "a technically demanding project that the case-making describes as nearly effortless." The staff-effort paragraph and "support until acceptance" answer that directly. "You own your data" was read as boilerplate; it is now a path, not a promise.
Conversation Jonah (10/26) on the start date: January "gives us the four or five months of let's get this set up before students start." Year 0 is readiness; live data begins with Year 1 in August 2027.
Most districts run reports by hand because nobody has had the time to set up the alternative. The integration work we do together changes that:
It costs your district nothing. The accelerator, the dashboard, and the integration work are fully subsidized for Year 0 and Year 1. The district's cost under the agreement is $0.
We set it up with you, and stay until it works. CHSS technical staff meet with your data team, map your SIS exports to the Navigator format, and set up the feed. We stay with it until the feed passes acceptance, and we come back when your SIS, grading scale, or term structure changes. Most districts need two to four working sessions over a few weeks; your data person runs the export, we handle the mapping and the monitoring.
A path to owning your data. If your district doesn't already keep a nightly copy of its SIS data in a place you control, the feed we build together is a first step, and we'll point you at the routes other districts have taken. Once you have it, every future partner, dashboard, and analysis gets easier, not just ours.
Nothing to remember. Once the feed runs, no one on your staff runs a report for CHSS again. If a transfer fails, our system notices and we follow up.
Clean records. You get an executed copy of every agreement, indexed, and a reminder before anything expires.
What we ask of your staff, honestly. A technical contact and a privacy contact named in the first two weeks. One onboarding call with both. The hours above to stand up the feed, more if your district needs the scheduled-upload route for a while. Nothing from your teachers beyond the ninth grade team work the accelerator already asks for. Data for your ninth grade cohort starts flowing in August 2027; the months before that are for getting the feed and the agreement in place.
Built to protect student privacy
Where this came from
James's collateral Opening sentence and "your student data remains your district's property" are James's.
Drafting choice Discipline removed from "only the data needed." James's draft and Emily's architecture both list it; Tara (10/19) said behavior data is rarely received and isn't needed for on-track; Luke (10/26) called discipline "the most tightly held thing." It stays available as an optional element in the agreement.
Drafting choice "Used for one purpose" now carries a second sentence disclosing de-identified evaluation, so the longitudinal work is never a surprise. James's original ("and nothing else") silently excluded it.
Lewis County A Missouri partner district's technology coordinator has already asked its consortium to obtain the NDPA with CHSS, so the NDPA commitment is stated here up front.
SIS integration is governed by a data sharing agreement with your district and designed to meet FERPA and your state's student privacy requirements. CHSS will sign the National Data Privacy Agreement (NDPA), including your state's version, or provide its own appendix written to the same standard. Your student data remains your district's property, and your district decides who can see it.
Only the data needed. CHSS receives student ID, name, grade level, course grades and credits, and attendance.
Used for one purpose. Identifiable student information supports ninth grade success work in your schools and nothing else. CHSS keeps only de-identified and aggregate results to evaluate and improve the program.
Deleted when you say so. When the partnership ends, or whenever you ask, identifiable data is destroyed and we certify it.
Who sees what
Where this came from
James's collateral Table structure and the school-team row are James's. His draft says CHSS coaches and staff see "aggregate data only"; that row changes here and must change in his one-pager, because a coach watching a student-level screen is seeing identifiable records.
FERPA "Disclosure" under 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 includes permitting access by any means, oral and visual included. The school official exception authorizes it when its conditions are met; a login is not what makes it a disclosure.
Conversation Jonah (10/26) leaned toward the "less intrusive approach" with the team lead screen-sharing; James wanted to ask for access and fall back. Option B keeps Jonah's approach and describes it accurately.
Luke's experience AFUHSD's Teach For America agreement (2025–26) accepted the partner's coach seeing student-level data on the basis that the coach is the only partner viewer and is acknowledged as a FERPA school official.
Luke's decision Option B is "in-session view," not "aggregate only." See Decisions, M1.
Student names live in Navigator for one reason: so the educators responsible for a student know who needs support and can act. Role-based permissions decide who can see them.
To identify students, build intervention plans, and monitor progress kid by kid
CHSS coaches
Option B (default): no login of their own. They see student-level data only in coaching sessions, alongside your team lead on your team lead's screen, under the same agreement, training, and confidentiality as your staff. Outside sessions they work from aggregate views: on-track rate, course failures, attendance by group. Option A (district may elect): their own login to the schools they coach, with every access logged.
To coach your team and measure impact
CHSS program and research staff
De-identified and aggregate data only
To evaluate and improve the program across the network
CHSS technical staff who run the platform
Minimum-necessary, logged access to administer the system and investigate incidents; never for program or research use
To keep the platform running and secure
Records are matched using a consistent unique student identifier, so Navigator stays accurate as students change classes, schedules, and schools.
Agreement for Services: Sections Five and Six (replacement draft)
How to read this
Working drafts for the accelerator agreement. Every section has a Source pill in the right-hand column; hover or tap it to see where the language came from.
Luke's experienceConversationJames's collateralEmily's architectureFERPA / PPRA / state lawSDPC NDPADistrict agreements / district lensaf-dpa knowledge baseLuke's decisionDrafting choice
For discussion among the CHSS team and partner districts. Not legal advice; counsel reviews before anything is signed.
Drafting note: bracketed fields are completed per district. Conforming edits to Sections Three and Eight are listed at the end.
Where this came from
James's MOU draft Replaces Section Five ("Confidential Information") and Section Six ("Data Access and Sharing") of the CHSS Accelerator Agreement for Services draft (Year 0 Readiness + Year 1 Implementation). Section numbering, party names ("CHSS," "Organization," "District"), and defined-term style follow that document.
Conversation James (10/26): the existing data section "needs to be entirely trashed and redone"; what is needed is to "state our expectations as much as anything else." Jonah: the deliverable is "what they're committing to give, what we're committing to take care of, and why this is worth it."
Drafting choice Three things in the current draft conflict with Navigator and will be marked up by any privacy officer: it describes the feed as "de-identified individual student data" while Navigator shows names to school teams; it keeps identifiable data for three years after termination; and it has no FERPA basis, breach, subprocessor, location, or audit terms. This draft fixes all three.
Section Five: Student Data Privacy and Security
Where this came from
Drafting choice Section Five becomes the short, binding statement of the relationship and points to the appendix (or the NDPA) for the detailed terms, so the body of the agreement stays readable for the academic signers.
5.1 Purpose and relationship
Where this came from
FERPA School official exception, 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B): a contractor or other party to whom the institution has outsourced services may receive education records without consent if it performs a service the institution would otherwise use employees for, is under the institution's direct control as to use and maintenance, and is subject to the redisclosure limits of § 99.33(a).
Luke's experience On the 10/26 call: "there's a legitimate educational reason for you all to be looking at this data," and the coach already hears student names in every kid-talk today; the agreement "operationalizes" a threshold the district has already crossed.
AFUHSD precedent Luke's own test from the 360training review (Jan 2026): a partner is a FERPA school official when it is "an integrated part of learning" that the district facilitates, versus a direct student–vendor relationship like ACT or ASVAB.
AFUHSD precedent The sentence on parental consent is deliberate. AFUHSD's GCU priority-acceptance program (2025) had a board-approved agreement but no scalable consent mechanism and produced about one student in year one. Districts should not go looking for a consent process the school official exception doesn't require.
af-dpa knowledge/law/ferpa.md (captured 2026-10-26): PTAC adds a fourth element, that the party "has been determined to meet the criteria set forth in the school's or district's annual notification of FERPA rights for being a school official" (§ 99.7(a)(3)(iii)); many districts' annual notices name only employees and board contractors. The last sentence below asks the District to close that gap. The studies exception (§ 99.31(a)(6)) is the alternative basis for evaluation work, but it requires destruction when the study ends, which is why evaluation here rests on de-identified data instead.
The District and the Center for High School Success ("CHSS"), a program of Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. ("Organization"), a nonprofit organization exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, share student data under this Agreement so that CHSS can provide ninth grade success coaching, the CHSS Navigator platform, and on-track analytics to the District's participating schools (the "Services").
In providing the Services, CHSS and Organization act as a "school official" with a "legitimate educational interest" under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B). CHSS performs an institutional service for which the District would otherwise use its own employees, is under the District's direct control with respect to the use and maintenance of education records, and will not redisclose student data except as this Agreement permits. The District's disclosure of education records to CHSS for the Services does not require parental consent under FERPA when the conditions in this Section are met; notice and consent requirements that apply to the screeners are governed by Section 6.7. The District will confirm that its annual notification of FERPA rights includes, among the criteria for school officials with a legitimate educational interest, contractors and organizations to which the District has outsourced institutional services.
5.2 Governing privacy terms
Where this came from
Lewis County A partner district in Missouri has already routed CHSS through its consortium (TEC via MOREnet) and the SDPC Resource Registry to obtain the NDPA. Districts in Arizona, Ohio, California, Massachusetts, Utah, and Missouri have state NDPA versions; this clause lets each district choose its instrument without renegotiating.
SDPC NDPA The NDPA is the Student Data Privacy Consortium's national agreement; state alliances publish versions with a state exhibit. AFUHSD signs vendors onto the Arizona Standard Version 1.2.
District lens Counsel's objection to an earlier draft: "If we sign both documents, 'the document the district signed controls' does not tell us which document controls." Now one rule, stated the same way here and in Appendix A.18: the state NDPA controls.
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/exhibit-e-general-offer.md: Exhibit E extends a signed NDPA's privacy terms to any other district in the same state that accepts and delivers notice; it runs three years from the provider's signature.
Luke's decision See Decisions, M6.
All handling of student data under this Agreement is governed by the CHSS Data Privacy and Security Appendix (Appendix A). At the District's election, the Parties will instead, or in addition, execute the Student Data Privacy Consortium's National Data Privacy Agreement (NDPA) in the version adopted in the District's state. Where the NDPA has been executed, the NDPA and its state exhibits control over Appendix A and over any other provision of this Agreement concerning student data. Where a district in the same state has already executed the NDPA with CHSS, the District may instead accept CHSS's General Offer of Privacy Terms (NDPA Exhibit E) and deliver notice of acceptance, with the same effect. If Appendix A conflicts with the body of this Agreement, Appendix A controls as to student data.
5.3 Definitions
Where this came from
FERPA De-identified Data tracks 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1): records may be released without consent after removal of all personally identifiable information, provided the institution has made a reasonable determination that a student's identity is not personally identifiable, taking into account other reasonably available information.
James's MOU draft "Confidential Information" is retained from the current Section Five and narrowed to the defined terms below.
Conversation "Cohort" implements the 10/23 decision with James: start with ninth grade and "grow the dashboard each year after that" so the cohort can be followed into 10th grade, CTE sequences, and graduation.
Student Data means any information from the District's education records that identifies, or could be used to identify, a student, including the elements listed in Exhibit D-1. Student Data is Confidential Information.
Screening Data means responses and scores from the CHSS Belonging Screener and Skills Screener administered to students at participating schools. Screening Data is Student Data.
De-identified Data means Student Data or Screening Data from which all personally identifiable information has been removed in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1), such that a reasonable person in the school community who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances could not identify the student.
Aggregate Data means statistics computed across groups of students, with any group smaller than ten students suppressed.
Navigator means the CHSS web platform through which the Services are delivered.
School Team means the District employees at a participating school who are responsible for ninth grade students, as designated by the District.
Coach means the CHSS employee assigned to support a participating school.
Cohort means the ninth grade students enrolled at a participating school in a school year in which the Services are provided.
5.4 Who may see student-level data
Where this came from
Luke's decision Option B is "in-session view," not "aggregate only." A coach who watches the team lead's student-level screen is receiving identifiable records; an earlier draft called that "aggregate only," which was wrong. See Decisions, M1.
FERPA "Disclosure" (34 C.F.R. § 99.3) means permitting access to or release of PII by any means, including oral, written, or electronic; the school official exception (§ 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B)) authorizes the access when its conditions are met, whether or not the recipient holds credentials. § 99.31(a)(1)(ii): the institution must use reasonable methods to ensure school officials access only records in which they have a legitimate educational interest.
District lens A privacy officer's first objection to an earlier draft: "You say the coach cannot see student-level data, then arrange for the coach to watch the student-level dashboard on a shared screen. That is still disclosure." And a CTO's: "Somebody must administer Salesforce, troubleshoot imports, and investigate incidents." Both are answered below.
Conversation 10/26: Jonah wanted the less intrusive approach with screen-share and one consistent protocol; James: ask for A and let their lawyers say no; Luke: the coach already hears names in every kid talk, so the agreement "operationalizes" a threshold the district has already crossed, and the Phoenix Union experience with Teach For America mentors was six months of fingerprint and onboarding fights.
AFUHSD precedent Luke's review of the renewed TFA template (Feb 2026): "as long as it's just the Coach that's going to see the data then it's covering it, acknowledging them as FERPA proxies." One named role, acknowledged as a school official, is the basis for both options.
School Team members designated by the District may view student-level records, including names, for their school, to identify students, plan interventions, and monitor progress.
CHSS program, research, and leadership staff, and Organization staff, may view only De-identified Data and Aggregate Data, except that CHSS technical and security personnel designated under Appendix A.7 may access Student Data on a minimum-necessary basis to administer the platform, resolve data-feed problems, and investigate incidents, with every such access logged.
Coaches. In both options the Coach assigned to a participating school is a CHSS employee acting as a school official under Section 5.1, bound by Appendix A, trained annually in FERPA and privacy, under a confidentiality obligation, and subject to the personnel requirements in Appendix A.7. The District may revoke a Coach's access at any time by written notice. One of the following applies; the District's election is recorded in Exhibit D-3.
Option A (standing access). The Coach holds a Navigator login and may view student-level records, including names, for the schools the Coach supports, with every access logged.
Option B (in-session view; default). The Coach holds no Navigator login and no standing access to student-level records. The Coach views student-level records, including names, only during a coaching session, on the screen of a School Team member who is logged into Navigator, and does not retain, copy, or record them. Outside sessions the Coach works from Aggregate Data. The District may elect by written notice to convert a Coach to Option A for a school.
5.5 Permitted use and restrictions
Where this came from
James's MOU draft Builds on the current Section Five "Permitted Use and Restrictions" (use solely to perform services and evaluation; access limited to those performing work; no third-party disclosure).
SDPC NDPA Mirrors NDPA Article IV prohibitions: no sale, no targeted advertising, no building a profile except to further the educational purpose.
Conversation James (10/23): Stand is both a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4), "so there doesn't actually have to be something wrong for people to raise a stink." The advocacy clause answers the question before a board member asks it.
Drafting choice The evaluation sentence is where the current draft's "Whenever practicable, CHSS will use aggregated or de-identified data" becomes a rule rather than an aspiration: identifiable data for the Services only; de-identified and aggregate data for evaluation.
CHSS and Organization will use Student Data solely to provide the Services to the District. CHSS and Organization will not: (a) sell, rent, or trade Student Data; (b) use Student Data for targeted advertising or marketing to students, parents, or staff; (c) build a profile of a student for any purpose other than the Services; (d) use Student Data in any advocacy, lobbying, political, or fundraising activity of Organization or any affiliated entity, including any entity organized under section 501(c)(4); or (e) disclose Student Data to any third party other than a subprocessor listed in Appendix A, except as required by law.
CHSS may create and retain De-identified Data and Aggregate Data to evaluate and improve the program, including following Cohort outcomes over time. CHSS will not attempt to re-identify any student and will not publish any result that could identify a student or, without the District's written consent, the District.
5.6 Return and destruction
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA "Company shall destroy or return to the District all educational records created, received, or maintained pursuant to the contract/agreement within ninety days" of termination. Term is co-terminus with the contract and ends only when data is destroyed or returned.
SDPC NDPA Article IV "Disposition of Data": dispose of or return data within sixty days of written request on an agreed schedule; the duty does not extend to de-identified data; the LEA may use the Directive for Disposition of Data form (Exhibit D) with no further notice.
AFUHSD precedent Luke rejected "may retain copies in the ordinary course of business" in a 2026 dual-enrollment review and pasted the NDPA disposition clause in its place.
James's MOU draft Replaces the current draft's three-year post-termination retention, which no partner district on the call list will accept.
Conversation James (10/23): CHSS is "perfectly okay to delete the de-identified student data" but wants to keep that "Agua Fria High School went from 60% on track to 72%." Luke: "That's fine. That's a different thing."
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/article-crosswalk-v1-2-to-v2-1.md: NDPA v1.2 IV.6 is sixty days from a written request and, at termination, "after providing the LEA with reasonable prior notice" with no deadline; v2 4.6 is "within sixty (60) days of termination." Sixty days at termination is used here so the clause satisfies v2, Columbus (ninety), and the stricter districts (Beaverton: sixty days from expiration). knowledge/practice/vendor-negotiation.md: backups "expire on the vendor's documented rotation," with "an outside date" and "certification when the outside date passes."
On the District's written directive at any time, which may be given on the form in Exhibit D-4 or, where the NDPA applies, on NDPA Exhibit D, CHSS and Organization will return or destroy the Student Data specified within sixty days, on a schedule agreed with the District. Within sixty days after this Agreement ends, CHSS and Organization will destroy or return to the District all Student Data and Screening Data, including copies held by subprocessors, and will certify destruction in writing; copies in encrypted backups expire on the documented rotation, not to exceed ninety days, are never restored to production, and are certified as expired when that date passes. De-identified Data and Aggregate Data are not subject to this subsection.
5.7 Records of this Agreement
Where this came from
AFUHSD precedent ASU-Helios consortium thread (Mar 2026): the district could not locate its own executed DSA; a partner that supplies an indexed executed copy and a renewal reminder removes a real pain point.
Luke's experience AFUHSD's own agreement inventory lives in the SDPC registry and BoardDocs; most districts have nothing comparable for non-vendor partners.
CHSS will provide the District an executed copy of this Agreement and Appendix A within ten business days of signature, and written notice at least ninety days before this Agreement or Appendix A expires.
Section Six: Data Access and Sharing
Where this came from
James's MOU draft Keeps the current Section Six's purpose sentence and liaison block; replaces the "de-identified individual student data" framing, the element list, the cadence, and the delivery language.
Conversation Luke (10/26): the district's technical and privacy people must be at the table early, "so that they're not caught with their pants down six months later when they're like, okay, now send the data to Stand."
Successful implementation requires timely access to actionable data that allows School Teams, school leaders, the District, and CHSS to identify students needing support, monitor progress, compare outcomes, and assess the effectiveness of supports.
6.1 District contacts and onboarding
Where this came from
Conversation 10/23 (James and Luke) and 10/26 (all): verbal yeses came from superintendents and heads of academics, not CTOs; James met one CTO so far. The contact designation and the onboarding call are the mechanism that forces the CTO/privacy conversation before data moves.
James's MOU draft The current draft already has a "District Data/IT Liaison" block; this subsection makes naming that person a dated obligation and adds the privacy contact.
Within fifteen business days after signature, the District will designate (a) a technical contact responsible for the data feed, (b) a privacy contact (data privacy officer, technology director, or counsel) responsible for Appendix A, and (c) a program contact for each participating school, and will record them in Exhibit D-3. CHSS will schedule an onboarding call that includes the technical and privacy contacts before any Student Data is transferred.
6.2 Data provided by the District
Where this came from
James's MOU draft The current element list (demographics, course enrollment and master schedule, credits, course performance and GPA, attendance, behavior and discipline "as permitted," summer school, other agreed indicators) is kept, re-sorted into required and optional in Exhibit D-1.
Conversation Tara (10/19): course performance, GPA, credit accrual, attendance; behavior "we typically don't get." James (10/19): the three Synergy reports a school actually runs are GRD 401, GRD 402, and the MST transcript.
Emily's email "Right sizing our data request: what is the minimum practical dataset we should request initially versus additional data we might pursue later?" Required core is kept small; everything else is optional.
AFUHSD precedent In AFUHSD's feeder-district DSA (May 2025) the data team struck an element the district could not produce accurately. Expect district data teams to do the same; a short required list survives that review.
The District will provide the elements marked Required in Exhibit D-1 for each Cohort, and may provide the elements marked Optional at its discretion. The District will provide data as it exists in its student information system; CHSS will report apparent errors to the technical contact and will not alter source data.
6.3 Scope of students and years
Where this came from
Conversation James (10/23): "let's do it in ninth grade, but grow the dashboard each year after that. So when they become 10th graders, we continue importing their data." Luke: "it is an arbitrary difference" technically; the value is in following the cohort.
Drafting choice Written so a district that balks can strike the second sentence and keep a ninth-grade-only feed without touching anything else.
Student Data covers all ninth grade students at participating schools. For each Cohort, the District will continue to provide the Required elements for those students in subsequent school years through graduation or exit, for as long as this Agreement is in effect, so that on-track outcomes can be followed over time.
6.4 Student identifier
Where this came from
James's collateral "Records are matched using a consistent unique student identifier."
Emily's architecture The platform's identity-matching step lists district ID, state ID, and "probabilistic matching." A deterministic ID in every feed makes probabilistic matching unnecessary for linking.
Luke's experience Two de-identification methods used at AFUHSD (10/19 call): a deterministic transformation of the student ID, or a growing mapping table from hashed to random IDs. Either produces a stable pseudonymous identifier a district can send instead of its real ID.
af-dpa agents/operational-context.md: "Pseudonymous or 'anonymized' student-level rows can remain linkable student data, especially when the same student is tracked over time." The last sentence below says so, which keeps a pseudonymous feed inside the agreement's protections rather than outside them.
Each record will include the District's student identifier (and the state student identifier where available) so that records can be matched consistently across feeds and years. A District that prefers not to send its student identifier may instead send a stable pseudonymous identifier that it generates and maintains, provided the same identifier is used in every feed. Records carrying a pseudonymous identifier remain Student Data under this Agreement.
6.5 Delivery method and cadence
Where this came from
Emily's architecture v1 of the CHSS data platform ingests periodic files (Excel, CSV, TXT) by SFTP or secure upload, "quarterly/semester or more frequent." No vendor API in v1.
Conversation Luke's ranking (10/19): SIS vendor feed direct to CHSS first, district SFTP second, Clever/ClassLink last ("this isn't OneRoster data"). Luke (10/23): a menu from "run these five reports and a Python cleanup script" up to a nightly automated export.
James's MOU draft The current draft's "within two weeks after the end of each marking period" is kept as the floor; weekly is the target because the coaching model needs Friday's data on Tuesday.
James's MOU draft The current Section Three already obligates the District to "make grades, attendance, and other agreed-upon key indicators available at least weekly." This subsection is how that happens.
The District will choose one of the delivery tiers in Exhibit D-2. The target for every District is Tier 1 (automated feed) by the end of technical onboarding. Tier 2 (scheduled secure upload) is acceptable for a District that cannot yet automate, with CHSS support to move to Tier 1 when ready. Whatever the tier, the District will provide an initial load at onboarding and updates no later than two weeks after the end of each marking period, the school year, and summer school; weekly updates during the school year are strongly preferred so that coaching conversations use current data.
6.6 Changes affecting the feed
Where this came from
Luke's experience Running district feeds to outside partners: SIS vendor changes, grading-scale changes, and term-structure changes are what break them.
James's MOU draft Extends the current Section Three notice obligation ("data-system changes that may affect implementation") with a lead time.
The District will notify CHSS at least thirty days before a change in student information system, grading scale, or term structure that would affect the feed.
6.7 Screeners
Where this came from
PPRA Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1232h: surveys funded or administered through a school that touch protected categories (including psychological problems and certain attitudes) require parental notice and, in some cases, opt-out or consent. A belonging screener can reach those categories.
Emily's email Navigator must "explicitly cover the Belonging and Skills screeners we administer, including the collection, storage, analysis, and use of student-level screening data."
James's MOU draft The current Section Three already obligates the District to "administer CHSS or comparable belonging and skills screeners." This subsection makes the District the approver and notice-giver, which is where PPRA puts the responsibility.
af-dpa knowledge/law/ppra-cipa-other-federal.md, quoting the Department of Education's Student Privacy Policy Office letter of Aug 26, 2026: when schools "use behavioral health screeners that probe students' emotional or psychological states, they must ensure that written parental consent is obtained prior to administration," and "the opt-out provisions in PPRA do not apply as a way of securing parental consent." Arizona A.R.S. § 15-117 adds fourteen categories and seven days' advance notice.
State law Arizona A.R.S. § 15-104 requires prior written parental consent for mental health screening in schools, and § 15-117 exempts § 15-104 screenings from its separate survey regime. Whether the Belonging Screener is a mental health screening is a classification question for counsel, item by item.
District lens "I cannot approve 'notice, opt-out, or consent' without reviewing the actual instruments." The clause now makes collection contingent on the District's written authorization and certification, so the review happens before any student answers a question.
The District will review the full content of the CHSS Belonging Screener and the Skills Screener, item by item, before either is administered, and will determine what parent notice, opt-out, or prior written consent is required by District policy, by the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 U.S.C. § 1232h), and by state law (in Arizona, A.R.S. §§ 15-104 and 15-117). CHSS will not open collection at a participating school until the District has authorized the instruments in writing and certified that any required notice has been given and any required consent is on file. The District administers the screeners through the School Team. CHSS will not add or change questions without the District's written approval and will provide each versioned instrument for that purpose. Screening Data is Student Data for all purposes of this Agreement.
6.8 Navigator users
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA Districts remain responsible for their own users' credentials and for prompt notice of role changes; the NDPA places account-management duties on the LEA for its staff.
Columbus City DSA District duties include "take reasonable precautions to secure usernames, passwords, and any other means of gaining access to the service."
The District will designate which School Team members receive Navigator logins and will notify CHSS within five business days when a user's role changes or ends. District users are responsible for safeguarding their credentials.
6.9 CHSS integration support
Where this came from
Conversation Luke (10/26): "Let's send, Luke will have a conversation with your data nerds for two calls, set up a Python system that can clean and refine your data and send it via SFTP." James (10/26): "it's almost like another form of coaching we're going to offer."
Luke's experience Monitoring: a daily failure report is what makes an automated feed trustworthy; the district should never be the one to notice a missed transfer.
District lens A data manager's read of "two working sessions": "I still do not know whether support ends before the feed works." Support now runs to acceptance, with maintenance when the SIS, grading scale, or terms change. Cost is an open decision (O11).
CHSS will provide technical assistance to the District's technical contact to establish the data feed, including the file specification and data dictionary, SIS-specific report instructions where CHSS has them, mapping of the District's exports to the specification, a cleanup script where needed, and working sessions until the feed passes the acceptance test in Exhibit D-3. After acceptance, CHSS will provide assistance when the District's student information system, grading scale, or term structure changes. CHSS will monitor the feed, notify the technical contact within one business day when a transfer fails or expected data is missing, and provide a validation report for each load that distinguishes rejected files, rejected rows, and warnings.
6.10 Timeline
Where this came from
Conversation Jonah (10/26): starting in January "gives us the four or five months of let's get this set up before students start." James (10/23): "when we come to them in April and say, hey, it's time to engineer this SIS integration." Winners announced Dec 15; Columbus City needs about three months for board approval.
James's MOU draft Year 0 is the readiness period; "data access and reporting setup" is listed among Year 0 activities. Year 1 is implementation.
District lens Counsel reads a December pilot next to a three-month board calendar and concludes data is being asked for before approval. The timeline now says what the cohort is actually committing to: readiness in Year 0, live data in Year 1.
Luke's decision No Student Data moves before signature; a spring test load is optional and follows signature; live data begins with Year 1 instruction (August 2027 for the January cohort). The December Navigator pilot is outside this Agreement (Decisions, O1).
No Student Data is transferred before this Agreement and Appendix A (or the NDPA) are executed. During Year 0 the District will name its contacts, elect its delivery tier, and complete the mapping and acceptance test in Exhibit D-3; a test load of current-year data may be made after execution to validate the feed. The feed goes live for the ninth grade Cohort no later than [the first day of Year 1 instruction], and the Parties will complete acceptance by [thirty days before that date].
District Data/IT Liaison: [TO BE COMPLETED] · Privacy contact: [TO BE COMPLETED]
Exhibit D-1: Data elements
Where this came from
James's MOU draft All elements from the current Section Six appear here; the change is the Required/Optional split.
James's collateral James's "only the data needed" list (student ID, name, grade level, course grades, attendance, discipline) with discipline moved to Optional.
Emily's architecture Input categories on the platform diagram: student information, grades, attendance, discipline, other optional (assessments, state tests, program participation).
Conversation Luke (10/19): attendance, discipline, EL, and IEP data "don't belong in rostering tools"; discipline is the element most likely to draw objections.
Element
Required / Optional
Notes
District student identifier (state identifier also requested)
Required
Stable across years; see 6.4
Student name (first, last)
Required
Visible to the School Team only; see 5.4
Grade level, school, enrollment status and dates
Required
Entry and exit dates support Cohort tracking
Course enrollments by term (course code, title, section)
Required
Teacher of record optional
Course marks by grading period and final marks
Required
Include grading scale or pass/fail flag
Credits attempted and earned by term
Required
Core of the on-track calculation
Cumulative GPA
Required
Weighted and unweighted where both exist
Attendance: daily absences and tardies; period absences where available
Required
Chronic absence computed by CHSS
Summer school enrollment, completion, credits, and outcomes
Optional
From the current draft
Demographics (race/ethnicity, gender, EL, IEP/504, economic status)
Optional
For subgroup reporting at the District's election
Discipline (incidents, referrals, outcomes)
Optional
Not required for on-track
Assessments, state test scores, program participation
Optional
Date of birth
Optional
Only where identifiers are unavailable for matching
Screening Data (Belonging, Skills)
Collected by CHSS under 6.7
Exhibit D-2: Delivery tiers
Where this came from
Emily's architecture Tier 1 and Tier 2 are the two inputs the v1 platform supports (SFTP; secure file upload).
Conversation Tier 3 reflects Luke's preferred route (10/19): "if you use one of the top five SIS, we have an API route built out with them where you don't even have to think about it." Listed because it is the best privacy posture (no files in the middle) even though v1 does not ingest it.
Luke's experience Tier 2 is the "least prepared district" path from 10/23: "here's the five reports you have to run every week, put them in this spot, and here's a little Python snippet that will clean them up."
Tier
How it works
Who does what
Cadence
Tier 1: Automated feed (target)
The District's SIS or data warehouse exports the specified files on a schedule and transfers them to CHSS by SFTP.
CHSS provides the specification, credentials, and setup support. The District schedules the job.
Nightly or weekly
Tier 2: Scheduled secure upload (floor)
District staff run the specified reports and upload them to the CHSS secure portal, using a CHSS-provided cleanup script where needed.
CHSS provides the report list for the District's SIS and the script. The District uploads on schedule.
Every marking period at minimum; monthly preferred
Tier 3: SIS vendor connection (where available)
The SIS vendor provides a read-only API or scheduled export directly to CHSS.
CHSS and the vendor configure it; the District authorizes it.
Nightly
Exhibit D-3: District elections and contacts
Where this came from
Drafting choice Collects every per-district choice in one place so the body of the agreement is identical for every district, which is what makes an Exhibit E general offer under the NDPA workable later.
Item
District election
Privacy instrument (5.2)
☐ Appendix A ☐ State NDPA ☐ NDPA Exhibit E acceptance
Coach access (5.4)
☐ Option A (standing access) ☐ Option B (in-session view)
Delivery tier (6.5)
☐ Tier 1 ☐ Tier 2 ☐ Tier 3
Cohort tracking beyond ninth grade (6.3)
☐ Yes ☐ Ninth grade only
Optional elements provided (D-1)
[list]
Third parties approved to receive Student Data under Appendix A.4(f)
☐ None ☐ [recipient, data shared]
Technical contact
[name, title, email, phone]
Privacy contact
[name, title, email, phone]
Program contact(s)
[name, school]
Onboarding milestones (January cohort)
When
What
Dec 15
Acceptance announced.
By mid-Jan
District names technical, privacy, and program contacts (6.1); onboarding call with the technical and privacy contacts.
Jan–Mar
Agreement and Appendix A (or NDPA) routed and executed, including board approval where required. Delivery tier elected; specification mapped. No Student Data moves yet.
After execution
Optional test load of current-year data; validation report; corrections.
By [30 days before Year 1 instruction]
Acceptance test passed: a full load of the Required elements, validated, with dashboards reviewed by the School Team.
First day of Year 1 instruction
Feed live for the ninth grade Cohort; weekly updates.
Acceptance test. The feed passes acceptance when a complete load of the Required elements in D-1 for all participating schools is received by the elected tier, validated with no rejected files, with rejected rows and warnings below thresholds agreed in writing, and with on-track indicators reviewed by the District's technical contact against the District's own figures.
Exhibit D-4: Directive for Disposition of Data
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA Modeled on NDPA Exhibit D, the one-page directive a district uses to order return or destruction without further notice. Districts that execute the NDPA use NDPA Exhibit D instead.
Luke's decision Districts that do not use the NDPA should still have a form, so a disposition request is a form and not a negotiation (Decisions, M4).
To be completed by the District and delivered to CHSS's privacy contact. CHSS will act within sixty days and certify completion in writing.
Field
Entry
District
[name]
Scope of Student Data
☐ All Student Data and Screening Data held under this Agreement ☐ The following only: [schools, cohorts, elements, date range]
Action
☐ Destroy ☐ Return in [format] and then destroy
Timing
☐ As soon as practicable, not later than sixty days ☐ On [date], not later than sixty days after it
Exclusions acknowledged
De-identified Data and Aggregate Data retained under Section 5.5 and Appendix A.10
Certification requested
☐ Written certificate of destruction signed by an officer of CHSS, listing systems and backup expiration date
Authorized by
[name, title, signature, date]
Conforming edits elsewhere in the Agreement
Where this came from
James's MOU draft Section Three, District bullets 8 and 9, and Section Eight's insurance and liability paragraphs are the other places the current draft touches data. Section Eight disclaims consequential damages and caps liability at insurance proceeds.
af-dpa knowledge/practice/dpa-review-checklist.md: district practice is to "carve out data breach, confidentiality and indemnity obligations, or set a breach super-cap." The NDPA has no liability or indemnity clause of its own, so the main agreement's terms govern unless carved out.
District lens "You promise breach costs and substantial insurance, but I cannot tell whether the main agreement caps those obligations." The carve-out is drafted as a proposal with the amount left open (Decisions, O2).
Columbus City DSA Cyber liability of at least $1,000,000 is a stated requirement; Section Eight currently promises only "reasonable liability insurance" and a certificate on request.
af-dpa knowledge/practice/dpa-review-checklist.md: "$1M for directory-only, $2M+ for SIS, assessment, special education or health data"; Beaverton requires $2,000,000 per claim and aggregate "when staff or student information is exchanged." Grades, attendance, and identifiers put CHSS in the $2M tier. Confirm current limits with Stand's finance lead before this number goes out.
Section Three, District agrees: replace "Make grades, attendance, and other agreed-upon key indicators available at least weekly in a user-friendly dashboard or other accessible format" and "Provide CHSS and participating school teams with timely, actionable data ... in accordance with Sections Six and Seven" with a single bullet: "Provide Student Data as described in Section Six and Exhibit D-1, through the delivery tier elected in Exhibit D-3."
Section Three, CHSS agrees: replace "Protect Confidential Information and use student data only as permitted by this Agreement and applicable law" with "Protect Student Data as provided in Section Five and Appendix A, and provide the integration support described in Section 6.9."
Section Eight: add after the certificate-of-insurance sentence: "Organization maintains cyber liability insurance of not less than $2,000,000 per claim, as further described in Appendix A." [Limit pending Stand's certificate; Decisions O7.]
Section Eight, liability: the disclaimer of consequential damages and the cap at "applicable liability insurance proceeds" must be reconciled with Appendix A. Proposed: "The limitations in this Section do not apply to Organization's obligations under Appendix A, Sections A.4, A.8, and A.10, or to either Party's breach of confidentiality, [or: and Organization's liability for those obligations is limited to $[X]]." [Open decision for Jonah and counsel; Decisions O2.]
Section Nine, Notices: add the privacy contact from Exhibit D-3 as a required notice recipient for matters under Appendix A.
CHSS Commitment to Student Data Privacy and Security
How to read this
Working drafts for the accelerator agreement. Every section has a Source pill in the right-hand column; hover or tap it to see where the language came from.
Luke's experienceConversationJames's collateralEmily's architectureFERPA / PPRA / state lawSDPC NDPADistrict agreements / district lensaf-dpa knowledge baseLuke's decisionDrafting choice
For discussion among the CHSS team and partner districts. Not legal advice; counsel reviews before anything is signed.
This commitment has three parts. Part A states how CHSS will work with the National Data Privacy Agreement. Part B is Appendix A, CHSS's own privacy and security terms, which apply where a district does not use the NDPA and which track its structure. Part C is the system specification a district's technology office reads before signing.
Where this came from
Conversation Jonah (10/26): the second deliverable is "our commitment to data privacy and security" plus "a system specifications document ... based on the required specifications by the districts that we're trying to contract with," set so CHSS is "compliant no matter what a district asks." James (10/23): a "system improvement plan" of what CHSS must build to meet district agreements.
Drafting choice Three parts: a short NDPA posture statement for districts that use the national agreement; Appendix A, CHSS's own terms, mapped to the NDPA's structure and set at the Columbus City Schools bar; and a one-page system specification a district CTO can read in five minutes.
Part A: NDPA posture statement
Where this came from
Lewis County A Missouri partner district's technology coordinator wrote on 10/26 that she had asked her consortium (TEC via MOREnet) and the SDPC Resource Registry to obtain an NDPA with CHSS. The NDPA will arrive whether or not CHSS writes its own appendix.
SDPC NDPA Exhibit E (General Offer of Privacy Terms) lets a provider extend an agreement it has signed with one LEA to any other LEA in the same state that subscribes; the subscribing LEA signs Exhibit E rather than negotiating anew.
Luke's experience AFUHSD extends other districts' signed NDPAs to itself through Exhibit E routinely; each vendor file holds "the DPA from another district, and then the Exhibit E attachment signed by either me or Lauren."
Drafting choice Naming the Provider, the Service, and Provider staff up front answers the first three questions a consortium reviewer asks and settles that coaches are inside the agreement.
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/exhibit-e-general-offer.md and resource-registry.md (captured 2026-10-26): Exhibit E is "a one-signature piggyback" that extends only privacy terms, within one state, for three years from the provider's signature; a subscribing district "must deliver notice of acceptance." Registry rows are created by districts, not providers ("One row = one district + one resource"), and the originating district uploads "the signed agreement file and a standalone Exhibit E file." So CHSS's job is to sign promptly and hand the first district in each state a clean standalone Exhibit E, not to "list itself."
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/ndpa-structure.md: the v1.2 "Provider" definition is "provider of digital educational software or services ... for the digital storage, management, and retrieval of Student Data," a strained fit for a coaching nonprofit; the school-official recital in Article I is the real footing, which is why Section 5.1 of the Agreement states it independently.
The Center for High School Success (CHSS), a program of Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc., will execute the Student Data Privacy Consortium's National Data Privacy Agreement (NDPA), including any state-specific version and exhibits adopted in the District's state, on request from any partner district or its privacy consortium. With the first executed NDPA in each state, CHSS will sign the General Offer of Privacy Terms (NDPA Exhibit E) and provide the originating district a standalone copy for the SDPC Resource Registry, so that other districts in that state may subscribe to the same terms by accepting Exhibit E and delivering notice of acceptance.
For purposes of the NDPA: the Provider is Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. (CHSS program); the Service is CHSS Navigator and the ninth grade success coaching it supports; Provider staff include CHSS coaches, who are bound by the agreement and trained accordingly. CHSS does not operate a student-facing application other than the Belonging and Skills screeners administered through the District's School Team.
Where a district does not use the NDPA, Appendix A (Part B) applies. Where a district has executed the NDPA, or accepted Exhibit E, the NDPA and its state exhibits control over Appendix A as to any conflict.
Part B: Appendix A, Data Privacy and Security
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA Section order follows the NDPA's articles (purpose and FERPA designation; data ownership and authorized access; duties of the LEA; duties of the provider; data provisions including security, breach, disposition, and advertising limits; general offer; miscellaneous) so a district privacy officer recognizes the shape immediately.
Luke's experience AFUHSD's baseline is the Arizona NDPA Standard Version 1.2 with Exhibit G, which carries Arizona contract requirements and the AI questionnaire Luke co-wrote with the privacy leads from Mesa and Deer Valley.
A.1 Definitions
Where this came from
Drafting choice Defined terms are the same as in Agreement Sections Five and Six so the two documents never drift.
Terms defined in Sections Five and Six of the Agreement (Student Data, Screening Data, De-identified Data, Aggregate Data, Navigator, School Team, Coach, Cohort) have the same meaning here. Subprocessor means a third party that hosts or processes Student Data on CHSS's behalf.
A.2 Purpose and legal basis
Where this came from
FERPA 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B) (school official exception) and § 99.33 (limits on redisclosure).
PPRA 20 U.S.C. § 1232h applies to the screeners CHSS administers through schools.
COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; Columbus City's DSA requires a COPPA warranty for any data collected directly from students. Navigator is not student-facing, but screener administration may be, so the commitment is stated "to the extent it applies."
Columbus City DSA "agrees that it shall comply with all applicable Ohio laws ... regarding the collection, use and protection of data as if it were the District." The "as if CHSS were the District" standard is adopted for every state.
CHSS receives Student Data solely to provide the Services described in the Agreement. The District designates CHSS as a school official with a legitimate educational interest under 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B). CHSS is under the District's direct control with respect to the use and maintenance of education records and is subject to the redisclosure limits of 34 C.F.R. § 99.33. CHSS will comply with FERPA; with the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 U.S.C. § 1232h) as it applies to screeners; with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506) to the extent it applies; and with the student privacy laws of the District's state listed in the State Exhibit, as if CHSS were the District.
A.3 Ownership and control
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA "All information, data, and other content transmitted by the District ... will remain the sole property of the District. The District will retain exclusive control over student data, including determining who may access data and how it may be used."
James's collateral "Your student data remains your district's property, and your district decides who can see it."
All Student Data and Screening Data, and all records CHSS creates or receives on the District's behalf, are and remain the property of the District. The District retains exclusive control over its Student Data, including who may access it and for what purposes. CHSS acquires no rights in Student Data other than the limited license to use it to provide the Services.
A.4 Authorized and prohibited uses
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA Article IV prohibitions (no sale; no targeted advertising; no profiling beyond the educational purpose) and Article V on advertising limitations.
Columbus City DSA "Company shall not use educational records for any commercial purpose outside the scope of the agreement, including but not limited to marketing or advertising to students or parents. Company agrees not to sell, share, or disseminate educational records."
Conversation The 501(c)(4) clause (d) comes from James's 10/23 flag that Stand's dual structure invites questions "even when nothing is wrong."
af-dpa knowledge/law/coppa.md and arizona.md: COPPA's "operator" definition excludes nonprofits exempt from § 5 of the FTC Act, and A.R.S. § 15-1046 reaches operators of services "designed and marketed for school purposes." A coaching nonprofit may sit outside both, so "the contract is the only enforcement." That is the reason clause (d) and clause (f) are written in rather than left to statute. NDPA v1.2 IV.2 limits use to "the Services outlined in Exhibit A or stated in the Service Agreement"; v2 4.2 closes that gap with "or as instructed by the LEA," which (a) through (f) mirror.
af-dpa agents/exhibit-h-rider-draft.md, term 6 ("Partner and evaluator visibility"): "Where the approved service shares data with a program partner, evaluator, certifying body or sponsor, Provider will name the recipient and the data shared ... no other third-party visibility is permitted." Marked in the repo as an agent draft not yet adopted by the Director; reused here as clause (f) and restated in A.6.
District lens "If we object to a subprocessor and your team cannot resolve it, the new provider still takes effect." A.6 now gives the district a remedy before the change becomes effective (Decisions, M12).
CHSS will use Student Data only to provide the Services and as instructed by the District. CHSS will not: (a) sell, rent, or trade Student Data; (b) use Student Data for targeted advertising or marketing to students, parents, or staff; (c) build a profile of a student for any purpose other than the Services; (d) use Student Data in any advocacy, lobbying, political, or fundraising activity of Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. or any affiliated entity, including any entity organized under section 501(c)(4); (e) disclose Student Data to any third party other than a Subprocessor listed under A.6, except as required by law and, where lawful, with prior notice to the District; or (f) share Student Data with any program partner, evaluator, funder, certifying body, or sponsor unless the recipient and the data shared are named in Exhibit D-3 of the Agreement and approved by the District in writing.
A.5 Data minimization
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA The NDPA's Exhibit B is a checklist of data elements the provider collects; this clause ties CHSS to the equivalent list in Agreement Exhibit D-1.
Emily's email "Asking for too much could create unnecessary objections and delays."
Columbus City DSA Service "will not require a student to disclose more information than is reasonably necessary."
af-dpa agents/exhibit-h-rider-draft.md, term 3 (data minimization): the provider "will not require Social Security numbers, government identification numbers, payment information, health or disability records" unless listed. Adopted here; IEP/504 status stays an optional element the District may elect.
CHSS will collect only the elements listed in Exhibit D-1 of the Agreement and will not require the District to provide more data than is reasonably necessary to deliver the Services. CHSS will not request Social Security numbers, government identification numbers, payment information, or health records, and will receive disability-related status only where the District elects to provide it under Exhibit D-1. Changes to the element list require the District's written agreement.
A.6 Subprocessors
Where this came from
Emily's architecture The CHSS Data Platform diagram: Microsoft Azure / Fabric (data lake, SQL warehouse), Azure API Management, Salesforce Experience Cloud as Navigator (with CRM Analytics and Lightning components), Power BI for research and program analytics, and AI-assisted mapping, validation, and intervention recommendations.
SDPC NDPA Article IV requires the provider to flow down the agreement's obligations to subprocessors and to maintain a list available to the LEA.
Luke's experience From the Rescue Ready review (2026): the DPA goes with whoever actually hosts the data. Naming the platforms here is what lets a district CTO stop asking.
CHSS uses the following Subprocessors, each bound by written terms at least as protective as this Appendix:
Subprocessor
Function
Location
Microsoft (Azure, Fabric)
Cloud hosting, data lake, data warehouse, API management
United States
Salesforce (Experience Cloud, CRM Analytics)
Navigator user platform, student records and intervention workflows
United States
Microsoft (Power BI)
Analytics and reporting
United States
[AI model provider]
File-mapping assistance, data validation, intervention recommendations
United States
CHSS will give the District at least thirty days' written notice before adding or replacing a Subprocessor that will process Student Data. The District may object in writing, and the Parties will work in good faith to resolve the objection before the change takes effect. If the objection is not resolved before the change takes effect, the District may require CHSS to exclude its Student Data from the new Subprocessor, disable the affected feature for the District, or terminate the data provisions of the Agreement without penalty, and CHSS will return or destroy the District's Student Data under A.10.
CHSS does not share Student Data with any program partner, evaluator, funder, certifying body, or sponsor. Any such recipient must be named in Exhibit D-3 of the Agreement with the data to be shared and approved by the District in writing before any disclosure.
A.7 Security program
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA Sections 5 through 8: encrypted storage in monitored data centers; no storage outside the United States; passwords not visible to employees, salted hashes, SSL; patches "within one week of release"; anti-virus; firewall and DMZ; "third party audits of security operations are conducted annually"; access control lists; "the identity of all persons having access to student data is documented and access is logged"; employees bound by FERPA.
San Diego CCAP "All staff involved in the data sharing process will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement"; passwords changed frequently; data kept in secure facilities.
SDPC NDPA Article V and Exhibit F (data security requirements) call for a written security program, access controls, encryption, training, and an incident response plan.
Conversation Luke and Jonah (10/26) on background checks: Phoenix Union required fingerprinting and onboarding of Teach For America mentors who were entirely virtual, which stalled the program for years. Stating a background check as a CHSS commitment removes one reason for a district to add its own.
af-dpa knowledge/practice/dpa-review-checklist.md: "TLS 1.2+ in transit, AES-256 or equivalent at rest, including backups"; "MFA on vendor support access"; SOC 2 "does not test application code, does not require penetration testing," which is why the pen test is a separate line. NDPA v1.2 IV.3 binds "each employee or agent with access to Student Data" to confidentiality. The repo records no district position on background checks; that line is a drafting choice from the 10/26 discussion.
Needs CHSS confirmation Every control in this section is a commitment CHSS makes on signature. Which are true today and which are true by a date is an open decision for Emily (O4); background checks and annual training for all staff with access, coaches included, is an open decision for Demian and James (O5). Lines not confirmed before a district reads this are re-tensed to "by [date]."
District lens "Are these implemented controls or your roadmap?" and "Somebody must administer Salesforce, troubleshoot imports, and investigate incidents." The technical-personnel role answers the second; the confirmation gate answers the first.
CHSS maintains a written information security program with administrative, technical, and physical safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of Student Data, including at minimum:
Encryption. Student Data is encrypted in transit (TLS 1.2 or higher) and at rest (AES-256 or equivalent). File transfers use SFTP or an HTTPS secure upload; email is never used to transfer Student Data.
Access control. Role-based access on the principle of least privilege. Multi-factor authentication for all CHSS staff and administrator accounts. The identity of every person with access to Student Data is documented, reviewed at least quarterly, and removed within one business day of role change or separation.
Logging. Access to student-level records is logged, including user, time, and record; logs are protected from alteration and retained for at least twelve months. On written request, CHSS will provide the District with log data for end-user, administrative, and maintenance activity relating to its Student Data.
Passwords and sign-on. Stored passwords are salted and hashed; passwords are never visible to CHSS staff; single sign-on is supported for District users where the District elects it.
Infrastructure. Production environments are segregated from the public internet by firewall and network controls; critical security patches are applied within seven days of release; anti-malware is current on all endpoints with access to Student Data; backups are encrypted and tested.
Secure development. Changes to Navigator and the data platform go through code review and testing; secrets are managed in a vault, never in code.
Personnel. All CHSS staff with access to Student Data, including Coaches, pass a background check before access is granted, complete privacy and security training at hire and annually, and sign confidentiality obligations. [Subject to CHSS confirmation of current practice; Decisions O5.]
Authorized technical and security personnel. A small, named set of CHSS technical staff may access Student Data to administer the platform, resolve data-feed problems, and investigate incidents, on a minimum-necessary and time-limited basis, with multi-factor authentication, logging of every access, confidentiality obligations, and quarterly review of the roster. No other CHSS program, research, or leadership staff access identifiable Student Data.
Independent assessment. CHSS undergoes an independent third-party assessment of its security controls at least annually (SOC 2 Type II or an equivalent independent audit) and an annual penetration test of Navigator and the data platform. Summaries are available to the District under A.13.
Incident response. CHSS maintains and tests an incident response plan covering assessment, containment, evidence preservation, notification, recovery, documentation, and post-incident review.
A.8 Breach notification
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA Breach section lists the response steps (assess, communicate, contain, classify severity, protect evidence, notify external agencies, recover, document, assess cost, review, update policies) and gives the District the right to request logs; Ohio R.C. 1347.12 governs notification to affected persons.
SDPC NDPA Article V requires notice to the LEA of any security breach, cooperation in the investigation, and provider responsibility for its own costs; the national form's notice window is the one most state versions keep.
Luke's experience 10/19: "if you have a leak, you'll tell us, if we have a leak, we'll tell you ... those things make us feel a lot more comfortable." Districts do not want to learn of a breach from the press.
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/ndpa-structure.md, Arizona NDPA v1.2 Article V.4, verbatim: "the Provider shall provide notification to LEA within seventy-two (72) hours of confirmation of the incident, unless notification within this time limit would disrupt investigation of the incident by law enforcement." The repo's reverification notes recommend keeping v1.2's broad, undefined trigger (not v2's "in violation of applicable law" qualifier), saying who notifies families, and lifting the Illinois breach-cost allocation (parent notification, credit monitoring, "legal fees, audit costs, fines").
If CHSS becomes aware of unauthorized access to, or acquisition, disclosure, or loss of, Student Data, whether or not it meets a statutory definition of breach (a "Breach"), CHSS will notify the District's privacy contact without unreasonable delay and in no event later than seventy-two hours after confirming the Breach, unless notification within that time would disrupt a law-enforcement investigation, by telephone and email, with the information then known: the nature of the Breach, a description of the Student Data involved, the students affected, steps taken to contain it, and a point of contact. CHSS will update the District as the investigation proceeds, cooperate fully, and comply with any breach-notification law applicable to the District's data. The District decides whether and how affected students and parents are notified; CHSS will not notify students, parents, or the public without first consulting the District, except where law requires otherwise. CHSS will bear the reasonable costs attributable to its Breach, including parent notification, credit monitoring where offered, forensic investigation, legal fees, and regulatory fines.
A.9 Data location
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA "No student data is stored outside the United States without the District's written consent."
Conversation Jonah (10/26): "Don't store your data in Russia, et cetera."
Student Data is stored and processed only in data centers located in the United States. CHSS will not transfer Student Data outside the United States without the District's prior written consent.
A.10 Retention, de-identification, and destruction
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA Article IV "Disposition of Data" and Exhibit D (Directive for Disposition of Data): sixty days from written request; duty does not extend to de-identified data.
Columbus City DSA Ninety days after termination to destroy or return all educational records.
FERPA De-identification standard at 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1); the attribute of "reasonable determination" that identity is not personally identifiable "taking into account other reasonably available information."
Emily's architecture The platform already separates a "De-identification & Privacy" step (tokenization and pseudonymization for research datasets) from the identifiable warehouse. This clause makes that separation contractual.
Drafting choice Cell suppression at fewer than ten students is a common state-reporting threshold; it keeps aggregate results publishable without re-identification risk at small schools.
Conversation James (10/23): keep "Agua Fria High School went from 60% on track to 72%"; delete the student-level data. Luke: "That's a different thing."
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/ndpa-structure.md, NDPA v1.2 IV.5: "Provider agrees not to attempt to re-identify De-Identified Student Data ... Provider's use of De-Identified Data shall survive termination of this DPA ... Provider agrees not to transfer de-identified Student Data to any party unless (a) that party agrees in writing not to attempt re-identification, and (b) prior written notice has been given to the LEA who has provided prior written consent." v2 4.5 adds that de-identification must "comply with either NIST de-identification standards or US Department of Education guidance." Both are adopted below.
af-dpa knowledge/law/ferpa.md: § 99.31(b)(2) allows coded student-level releases only for education research, with a code "not based on" the student's SSN "or other personal information" and the method kept secret; a hash of the student number is a code based on personal information. PTAC: "simple removal of direct identifiers ... DOES NOT constitute adequate de-identification." Hence the random token and the destroyed key.
af-dpa knowledge/law/deidentification-and-definitions.md: the captures "do not settle" a minimum cell size; PTAC uses "a minimum cell size" and "controlled rounding," and "a vendor's 'aggregate' effectiveness report with n=3 cells is PII." Ten is the drafting choice, matching common state reporting thresholds.
During the term. CHSS retains Student Data only as long as needed to provide the Services.
On request. On the District's written directive at any time, CHSS will return or destroy the Student Data specified within sixty days, on a schedule agreed with the District. The District may use the NDPA's Directive for Disposition of Data (Exhibit D) for this purpose with no further notice required.
On termination. Within sixty days after the Agreement ends, CHSS will destroy or return to the District all Student Data and Screening Data, including copies held by Subprocessors, and will certify destruction in writing signed by an officer. Copies in encrypted backups expire on the documented rotation, not to exceed ninety days, are never restored to production, and are certified as expired when that date passes.
De-identified and Aggregate Data. CHSS may create De-identified Data in accordance with NIST de-identification standards or U.S. Department of Education guidance, by removing direct and indirect identifiers and replacing the student identifier with a random token that is not derived from any student identifier or other personal information, under a key that CHSS destroys with the identifiable data. Aggregate Data is a subset of De-identified Data. CHSS may retain De-identified Data and Aggregate Data after termination to evaluate and improve the program, including following Cohort outcomes over time. CHSS will not attempt to re-identify any student and will not transfer De-identified Data to any third party other than a Subprocessor unless that party agrees in writing not to attempt re-identification and the District has given prior written consent. Aggregate Data will suppress any cell smaller than ten students.
Research and publication. CHSS may publish findings based on De-identified Data and Aggregate Data. No publication will identify a student. CHSS will not identify the District in any publication without the District's prior written consent and will provide the District a copy of any report that includes the District's aggregate results at least fifteen business days before publication. The District may always see its own data.
A.11 Parent and eligible student rights
Where this came from
FERPA Parents and eligible students have rights to inspect, review, and seek amendment of education records (34 C.F.R. §§ 99.10–99.22); those rights run against the District, which the provider must support.
Columbus City DSA The company and District "shall establish reasonable procedures ... by which a parent, legal guardian or eligible student may review personally identifiable information on the pupil's records, correct erroneous information."
SDPC NDPA Article II: the provider assists the LEA in responding to parent and eligible-student requests within a stated period.
Requests by a parent or eligible student to inspect, review, or correct education records are handled by the District. CHSS will support the District by providing, within ten business days of request, the Student Data it holds about the student, and will correct or delete data as the District directs.
A.12 Use of artificial intelligence
Where this came from
Luke's experience The Arizona NDPA Exhibit G AI questionnaire, which Luke co-developed with the privacy leads from Mesa and Deer Valley with input from about a dozen privacy and technology professionals: how the vendor uses AI, what data goes to AI providers, whether user data trains models, and what safeguards and oversight exist. This clause answers those questions before they are asked.
Emily's architecture AI-assisted mapping, anomaly detection, "risk models and intervention recommendations" are in the platform design; Jonah (10/19) described AI that "can help coach the team leads."
af-dpa knowledge/practice/ai-dpa-clauses.md (marked in the repo as a drafting suggestion, not a standard): model-provider disclosure "by URL and date, and the country of processing," thirty days' notice before changing a model provider with a termination right; outputs "descriptive of an identifiable student are Student Data"; disclosure of any subprocessor personnel who may view prompts or outputs for abuse monitoring; outputs "require human review before use" and are not "the sole basis for any decision with legal or material effect on a student." The shortest proven binding wording is California NDPA v1.5 Exhibit G cl. 8: "Student Data ... shall not be used for training purposes or to develop synthetic and/or inferred data."
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/ai-addendum-and-checklist.md lists the Arizona checklist questions this clause pre-answers: base model and provider (1.1–1.2), opt-out of AI decision-making (1.4), data shared with an AI subprocessor (4.2), whether user data trains the model (4.7), human in the loop (5.6), and query logging (5.7).
District lens An earlier draft's exception for "a model used solely to deliver the Services" could be read to permit training. Training and inference are now separated: no training by anyone; inferences only to deliver the Services, and treated as Student Data.
Needs CHSS confirmation The model provider's name, tier, data-use terms, and zero-retention arrangement are Emily's to supply (Decisions, O3). The subprocessor table carries a bracket until then.
CHSS uses automated and machine-learning tools within the data platform to assist with mapping incoming files to a common format, to flag data-quality problems, and to suggest interventions for the School Team's consideration. CHSS commits that: (a) neither CHSS nor any Subprocessor will use Student Data, De-identified Data, or any output derived from them to train, fine-tune, evaluate, or otherwise improve any machine-learning model, or to develop synthetic or inferred data for any purpose other than delivering the Services to the District; (b) the Services may generate student-specific inferences solely to deliver the Services, and such inferences are Student Data for all purposes of this Appendix; (c) each model provider is listed as a Subprocessor with the product tier used, the provider's data-use terms by URL and date, and the country of processing, is contractually prohibited from retaining or training on Student Data, and CHSS will provide the provider's written attestation on request; (d) intervention suggestions are recommendations for educators, who make all decisions about students, and are never the sole basis for any decision with a material effect on a student; (e) no Subprocessor personnel view prompts or outputs containing Student Data except as disclosed to the District in writing; (f) the District may request that AI-generated recommendations be disabled for its schools; (g) CHSS will give thirty days' written notice before adding or changing a model provider, and the District has the remedies in A.6; and (h) CHSS will complete the District's AI questionnaire (for example, Arizona NDPA Exhibit G) on request.
A.13 Audit and assurance
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA Annual third-party audits of security operations; District may request log data for incident investigation.
Conversation Jonah (10/26) listed audits among the standard terms to include; James (10/23): "Columbus City requires a security audit every three years or something like that" (the document says annually).
Drafting choice Evidence-on-request once a year, plus full cooperation after a breach, is the posture most CTOs accept in place of an unlimited audit right; an audit right is still offered where state law or policy demands it.
af-dpa knowledge/sdpc/article-crosswalk-v1-2-to-v2-1.md: NDPA v1.2 Article V.2 "gives the LEA the right to audit the Provider." knowledge/GAPS.md recommends the Utah audit-evidence menu (self-assessment, questionnaire, "SOC2 or SOC3" report, or on-site review by agreement), adopted below so a district can pick the form of evidence.
On request, not more than once per year unless a Breach has occurred, CHSS will provide the District with any of the following at the District's election: a completed security self-assessment, responses to the District's security questionnaire within thirty days, its most recent independent assessment report (SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3, or equivalent) and penetration test summary under a confidentiality agreement, a description of its security program, and a certificate of insurance. If the District's state law or policy requires an audit right, CHSS will cooperate with an on-site or remote audit at a mutually agreed time, conducted so as not to compromise other districts' data.
A.14 Insurance
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA "Your company must carry cyber liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 to cover Crisis Management and Computer System Extortion, Media and Content Liability, and Security and Privacy Liability."
San Diego CCAP Each party: commercial general liability $1,000,000 per occurrence / $2,000,000 aggregate; professional errors and omissions $1,000,000; other party as additional insured; certificate of insurance on request; self-insurance acceptable.
James's MOU draft Section Eight currently promises "reasonable liability insurance" and a certificate "including any applicable cybersecurity or data-security coverage" on request; this clause states the limits.
af-dpa knowledge/practice/dpa-review-checklist.md: "the NDPA has no insurance clause"; district practice research puts "$1M for directory-only, $2M+ for SIS, assessment, special education or health data," and Beaverton requires $2,000,000 per claim and aggregate "with the policy running two years past the contract." $2,000,000 is drafted; Columbus's $1,000,000 floor is satisfied. Stand's finance lead confirms the actual policy before this is sent.
CHSS maintains, and will provide certificates on request for: cyber liability insurance of at least $2,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate, covering security and privacy liability, crisis management, network extortion, and media and content liability, maintained for two years after this Appendix ends; commercial general liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate; and professional errors and omissions liability of $1,000,000 per claim. These requirements may be met through a reasonable self-insurance program.
A.15 Screening Data
Where this came from
Emily's email Area 3 of the four the agreement must cover: "the Belonging and Skills screeners we administer, including the collection, storage, analysis, and use of student-level screening data."
PPRA 20 U.S.C. § 1232h; the District approves instruments and gives notice (Agreement 6.7). This clause covers what CHSS does with the responses.
Conversation Jonah (10/19): screener results feed the Navigator so the team can see that "fifteen other kids have the same profile" and deliver one intervention to all of them. Student-level screening results therefore have to be visible to the School Team.
Screening Data is collected by CHSS only after the District has approved the instruments and provided any required notice under Section 6.7 of the Agreement. Screening Data is subject to every protection in this Appendix. Student-level screening results are visible to the School Team and to the Coach on the terms of the option elected under Section 5.4; CHSS program and research staff see only De-identified and Aggregate Screening Data.
A.16 Term, termination, and survival
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA Term "shall be co-terminus with the contract/agreement and shall terminate when all of the student data ... is destroyed and/or returned."
James's MOU draft The Agreement's cure period is ten days (Section Two); thirty days is used here for data-specific breaches because remediation of a security finding usually takes longer than ten days.
District lens "If there is an active security problem, I cannot wait through a thirty-day cure period while access and transfers continue." An immediate suspension right and immediate termination for an incurable or repeated breach are added (Decisions, M12).
This Appendix is coterminous with the Agreement and continues until all Student Data has been returned or destroyed under A.10. Sections A.3, A.4, A.8, A.10, and A.11 survive termination. The District may suspend data transfers and CHSS's access to its Student Data immediately, by notice to CHSS's privacy contact, when the District reasonably determines that suspension is necessary to protect Student Data, and may terminate the data provisions of the Agreement on thirty days' written notice if CHSS materially breaches this Appendix and does not cure within that period, or immediately for a breach that cannot be cured or that recurs.
A.17 Governing law and State Exhibit
Where this came from
State law Ohio: R.C. 3319.321 (confidentiality of student records), 3319.325–3319.327 (educational records and third-party contractors), and Chapter 1347 including R.C. 1347.12 (breach notification), all named in the Columbus City DSA. California: Education Code § 49073.1 (contract requirements for digital storage and educational software) and the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act, Business and Professions Code § 22584. Arizona: Arizona NDPA Exhibit G, including the AI questionnaire.
Lewis County Missouri districts will supply the Missouri NDPA state exhibit through their consortium; it is listed as "to be added" rather than drafted here.
District lens Ohio counsel: "Ohio's definition of 'technology provider' is tied to providing a school-issued device or account. Tell me why CHSS falls within §§ 3319.325–327 when Navigator is staff-facing." CHSS adopts the protections contractually either way and leaves classification to Ohio counsel (Decisions, M15).
This Appendix is governed by the laws of the District's state. The State Exhibit attached for the District's state sets out additional required terms, including: for Ohio, compliance with Ohio Revised Code 3319.321, 3319.325 through 3319.327, and Chapter 1347 (including breach notification under R.C. 1347.12) as if CHSS were the District, whether or not CHSS falls within the statutory definition of a technology provider; for California, the terms required by Education Code § 49073.1 and Business and Professions Code § 22584; for Arizona, Arizona NDPA Exhibit G including the AI questionnaire, and the screener consent requirements of A.R.S. §§ 15-104 and 15-117; and for Missouri, Massachusetts, Utah, and other states, the state NDPA exhibit where one exists.
A.18 Order of precedence
Where this came from
Drafting choice Mirrors Section 5.2 of the Agreement so both documents say the same thing about which controls.
If this Appendix conflicts with the Agreement, this Appendix controls as to Student Data. If the District has executed the NDPA with CHSS, the NDPA controls as to any conflict with this Appendix.
Part C: System specifications (district-facing)
Where this came from
Conversation Jonah (10/26): "there's going to be a sheet that you design, where it's like, these are the systems we will have, but we're going to present it as, this is our system." Emily: leadership "can very quickly look at it and feel legit that we're behind it," and technical people see "these guys know what they're talking about."
Emily's architecture Every platform fact below is taken from the CHSS Data Platform diagram; items the diagram claims (RBAC, encryption, audit logging, retention policies) are stated here as commitments and should be confirmed by Emily before this page is shown to a district.
Drafting choice Written as present-tense statements where CHSS can confirm them and bracketed where a decision or build is still pending.
Needs CHSS confirmation This page does not go to a district until CHSS's technology office has marked every line as true today or given it a date (Decisions, O3 and O4). A CTO will ask for evidence of each line; the honest version of an unfinished control is "by [date]," not silence.
Readiness: each statement below is confirmed by CHSS's technology office before this page is shared with a district. Statements not yet confirmed carry a completion date in brackets.
Platform. CHSS Navigator is a web application delivered on Salesforce Experience Cloud, backed by a CHSS data platform on Microsoft Azure and Microsoft Fabric. All environments are hosted in United States regions.
How data moves.
The District transfers files (CSV, TXT, or Excel) to CHSS by SFTP on a schedule, or uploads them through the CHSS secure portal. Email is never used.
Files are virus-scanned and validated on receipt, mapped to a common data model, checked for quality (type, completeness, anomalies), and loaded to the data lake and warehouse with an audit record.
Student records are matched by the District's student identifier (and state identifier where provided). Probabilistic matching is used only to flag possible duplicates for human review, never to link records automatically.
On-track indicators, course-failure flags, and attendance measures are computed and published to Navigator for the School Team.
A separate de-identification step produces tokenized research datasets, which are the only datasets CHSS program and research staff use.
Who can see what. Role-based access in Navigator: school users see their school's students; district users see their district; Coaches hold no login and see student-level data only in sessions on a School Team member's screen (Option B), or hold a logged login to their schools where the District has elected Option A; a small, named set of CHSS technical staff have minimum-necessary, logged access to administer the platform and investigate incidents; CHSS program and research staff see de-identified and aggregate data only. Every access to a student-level record is logged.
Security controls.
Encryption in transit (TLS 1.2 or higher) and at rest (AES-256).
Multi-factor authentication for all CHSS accounts; single sign-on available for District users.
Least-privilege, role-based access; documented access roster reviewed quarterly; access removed within one business day of separation.
Access and administrative logging retained twelve months and available to the District on request.
Production segregated from the internet by firewall and network controls; critical patches within seven days; anti-malware on all endpoints; encrypted, tested backups.
Background checks and annual privacy training for all staff with access, including Coaches.
Independent security assessment annually (SOC 2 Type II or equivalent) and an annual penetration test; summaries available on request. [First assessment scheduled for completion by: date.]
Written, tested incident response plan; the District is notified within seventy-two hours of a confirmed breach.
Subprocessors. Microsoft (Azure, Fabric, Power BI), Salesforce (Experience Cloud, CRM Analytics), and [AI model provider]. All U.S.-hosted, all under written terms at least as protective as CHSS's agreement with the District. The District receives thirty days' notice of any change.
Artificial intelligence. Used for file-mapping assistance, data-quality checks, and intervention suggestions presented to educators. District data is never used to train models available to others. Recommendations can be disabled at the District's request.
Retention. Identifiable data is held only for the term of the agreement, destroyed or returned within sixty days of termination or of a written directive, with written certification; backups expire on a documented rotation of no more than ninety days. De-identified and aggregate data may be retained for program evaluation; no re-identification.
Insurance. Cyber liability $2,000,000 per claim and aggregate; general liability $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate; professional errors and omissions $1,000,000. Certificates on request.
Agreements. CHSS signs the National Data Privacy Agreement (any state version) or provides Appendix A to the same standard, and provides an executed copy and a ninety-day expiration notice.
Notes
How to read this
Working drafts for the accelerator agreement. Every section has a Source pill in the right-hand column; hover or tap it to see where the language came from.
Luke's experienceConversationJames's collateralEmily's architectureFERPA / PPRA / state lawSDPC NDPADistrict agreements / district lensaf-dpa knowledge baseLuke's decisionDrafting choice
For discussion among the CHSS team and partner districts. Not legal advice; counsel reviews before anything is signed.
The drafts describe CHSS as it needs to be, not necessarily as it is today. Each line below is a statement a district will test. Confirm it, date it, or strike it before the package leaves the building.
Where this came from
Drafting choice Working page for the CHSS team. First, every claim the drafts make on CHSS's behalf that someone at CHSS has to confirm, grouped by who confirms it. Then the paste-ready email blocks for James, collapsed.
Conversation Jonah (10/26): "this is our commitment ... this is our technical deliverable." Emily: "I would like to at least review and be involved in what you wrote." The claims below are exactly what that review is for.
For Emily: technical claims to confirm
Where this came from
Emily's architecture Every platform fact in Appendix A and Part C is drawn from the CHSS Data Platform diagram and the 10/26 call; none has been verified against a live tenant.
District lens A CTO will ask for evidence of each present-tense control; a privacy officer will not accept a blank where the model provider belongs.
Answer each as true today, true by [date], or no:
Microsoft Azure / Fabric, Salesforce Experience Cloud and CRM Analytics, and Power BI are the complete subprocessor list for Student Data, and every tenant is in a U.S. region. (A.6, A.9)
The AI model provider: name, product tier or API, the data-use terms by URL and date, country of processing, and whether a zero-retention arrangement is enabled. (A.6, A.12)
No Student Data, de-identified data, or outputs are used to train or fine-tune any model, by CHSS or any subprocessor, and the provider will attest to that in writing on request. (A.12)
Access to student-level records is logged (user, time, record), logs are tamper-protected and kept twelve months, and a per-district export is possible. (A.7)
MFA on every CHSS staff and administrator account; SSO (SAML or OIDC) available to district users. (A.7, Part C)
Encryption in transit TLS 1.2 or higher and at rest AES-256 across the data lake, warehouse, Salesforce, Power BI, backups, and the SFTP landing zone. (A.7)
Critical security patches within seven days; anti-malware on all endpoints with access; firewall and network segregation of production; encrypted, tested backups. (A.7)
A documented access roster reviewed quarterly, with deprovisioning within one business day. (A.7)
A written, tested incident response plan that can meet seventy-two-hour district notification. (A.8)
Independent security assessment (SOC 2 Type II or equivalent) and annual penetration test: current status and the earliest honest completion date. (A.7, A.13, Part C)
A deletion runbook that returns or destroys a district's data within sixty days across every store, with backups expiring on a rotation of ninety days or less and never restored to production, and a certificate template. (5.6, A.10)
The de-identification step produces a random token not derived from any student identifier, with the key destroyed alongside identifiable data. (A.10)
Deterministic matching on district or state ID is the rule; probabilistic matching only flags duplicates for human review. (6.4, Part C)
Cell suppression below ten in every aggregate output and dashboard. (A.10)
Whether a Navigator tenant can run without student names, and which features would be off. (O9)
The December pilot: which schools, under which agreement, with what data. (O1)
Integration support: what "support until the feed passes acceptance" costs in staff time, and who staffs it. (6.9, O11)
The [AI model provider] and [First assessment scheduled for completion by: date] brackets in Part C are the only placeholders; everything else in Part C is claimed in the present tense and must be true or re-tensed.
For Jonah: decisions and commitments
Where this came from
Conversation Jonah (10/26) listed the standard terms to include: deletion on termination, storage location, audits, insurance levels. The items below are the ones that go beyond that list or cost money.
Liability carve-out. Section Eight caps liability at insurance proceeds and disclaims consequential damages. Appendix A promises breach costs. Decide whether breach costs, confidentiality, and privacy indemnity sit outside the cap or under a super-cap. (O2)
The December pilot and the August 2027 start. Confirm that the January cohort commits to readiness in Year 0 and live data in Year 1, and that the pilot is existing partners on existing agreements. (O1)
Integration support through acceptance, not two sessions. It is the honest version of the "support you to do something" offer, and it is a cost line. (O11)
Signing any state NDPA and Exhibit E as a standing commitment. (O12)
Option B as default (in-session view) with Option A on district election, or the reverse after Tara weighs in. (M1)
Row-level de-identified retention for the longitudinal work, with the review process that goes with it. (O10)
For Demian and counsel: people, money, entity
Where this came from
District lens "If the appendix says every person with access passes a background check and completes annual training, show me the policy and the roster."
Every person with access to Student Data, coaches included, passes a background check before access and completes privacy and security training at hire and annually. True today, or by when? (A.7, O5)
Cyber liability: current limit, aggregate, and whether a two-year tail is available. Drafted at $2,000,000. CGL $1,000,000 / $2,000,000 and E&O $1,000,000. (A.14, O7)
Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. is the correct 501(c)(3) signatory, and the no-advocacy clause in A.4(d) is acceptable as written. (O8)
Stand will sign the NDPA's standard clauses without redline, in any state. (O12)
The Section Eight liability language and the Appendix A promises are reconciled before Columbus sees the package. (O2)
For Tara: screeners and the evaluation design
Where this came from
State law Arizona A.R.S. § 15-104 (written parental consent for mental health screening); Department of Education letter of August 26, 2026 on behavioral health screeners.
The full text of the Belonging Screener and the Skills Screener, versioned, so counsel can classify each item against PPRA's protected areas and § 15-104. (O6)
Whether coaches can do the job with in-session view only, or need a standing login. (M1)
Which longitudinal analyses need row-level de-identified records rather than aggregate results. (O10)
Whether any Navigator feature depends on discipline data. (M3)
For James: collateral and the current emails
Where this came from
James's collateral The Navigator one-pager says CHSS coaches and staff see "aggregate data only."
Change the one-pager's "Who sees what" row to match Option B as now defined: coaches hold no standing login and see student-level data only alongside your team. "Aggregate data only" is no longer accurate.
Replace "no emails, no manual pulls, no file transfers" with "no manual file handling once your automated feed is running."
Hold the Missouri reply until counsel confirms O12; if it goes sooner, drop the Exhibit E sentence.
Ask Columbus for a 45-minute slot Nov 2 to 4 with the CTO and their data-agreement reviewer; send the data summary, the file specification outline, the security page, and the screener instruments ahead of it.
Ask San Diego which instrument they use with outside partners that receive student-level data, without guessing the answer.
Paste-ready email blocks for James
Reply to the Missouri district's technology coordinator
Where this came from
Lewis County Her 10/26 email asked whether "support student success and timely interventions, not to conduct research" is correct.
FERPA "Interventions" means the school official exception; "research" would push her consortium toward the studies exception and a different agreement.
Thank you for getting this started, and for the clear summary. Your description is correct: the Center for High School Success uses information from your SIS to build the ninth grade dashboards your team uses, with our coach alongside, to identify students who need support and to act on it quickly. That is the purpose, and we operate as a school official under FERPA to deliver it.
One clarification so there are no surprises: like most programs, we evaluate whether our work is helping. We do that with de-identified and aggregate results only (for example, your school's on-track rate), never with identifiable student records, and we delete identifiable data when our partnership ends or whenever you ask.
We are glad to work through TEC and the SDPC process. We will sign the Missouri NDPA. [Pending counsel: and we expect to have a general offer of terms on file so other Missouri districts can use the same agreement.] When TEC reaches out, please have them contact Emily Phan, our Executive Technology Officer, who is copied here. Luke Allpress, who is helping us with agreement language and SIS integration, is also copied.
We will send you a short summary of exactly what data we ask for and how it moves before anyone has to review a document.
The one-paragraph data summary for any district
Where this came from
James's collateral Mirrors "Only the data needed" and "Who sees what," with discipline optional, the screeners named, and Option B stated accurately.
Here is what the integration involves, in plain terms. Your district sends us a file for each ninth grade cohort with student ID, name, grade level, course enrollments, course marks and credits by grading period, GPA, and attendance. Most districts set up an automated weekly export to our secure SFTP; if that is not possible yet, a scheduled upload each grading period works and we will help you automate it. Your school team sees student-level dashboards with names. Our coach has no login of their own and sees student-level data only in sessions with your team lead, unless you choose to give them more. Our program and research staff never see identifiable data. We also administer short belonging and skills screeners through your team, with your approval of the questions and whatever parent notice or consent your policy and state law require. Identifiable data is deleted when the partnership ends or whenever you ask; we keep only de-identified and aggregate results to evaluate the program. The full terms are in our data privacy appendix, or we will sign your state's NDPA, whichever you prefer.
Asks for the Columbus City CTO review
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA Their Student Data Sharing Agreement (revised 3/17/2025) is the strictest document in hand.
Forty-five minutes with the CTO and whoever reviews data agreements, between Nov 2 and Nov 4, with Luke on the call.
Confirmation that the 3/17/2025 agreement is the current form, and whether the district would also accept the Ohio NDPA.
Their read, before the call, on coach access (Option A versus B) and on CHSS keeping de-identified results after termination.
Anything the district requires of CHSS coaches beyond the agreement (background checks, onboarding, training).
The board timeline from "agreement final" to "approved."
Send ahead: the data summary, the file specification outline, the security page, and the screener instruments.
Asks for San Diego
Where this came from
San Diego CCAP The document in hand is a dual-enrollment agreement, not a student data privacy agreement.
Which agreement SDUSD uses with outside partners that receive student-level data.
Who signs it, and whether the General Services Agreement and SOW format will be required.
The same two substantive points as Columbus.
Two sentences for the superintendent-level emails
Because the accelerator includes SIS integration, we will ask you within the first two weeks to name a technical contact and a data privacy contact, and we will schedule a short onboarding call with both before any data moves. We will sign your state's National Data Privacy Agreement or provide our own privacy appendix written to the same standard, whichever your district prefers. Data for your ninth grade cohort begins flowing in August 2027; the months before that are for getting the feed and the agreement in place.
Decisions
How to read this
Working drafts for the accelerator agreement. Every section has a Source pill in the right-hand column; hover or tap it to see where the language came from.
Luke's experienceConversationJames's collateralEmily's architectureFERPA / PPRA / state lawSDPC NDPADistrict agreements / district lensaf-dpa knowledge baseLuke's decisionDrafting choice
For discussion among the CHSS team and partner districts. Not legal advice; counsel reviews before anything is signed.
Nothing in the drafts goes to a district until every open decision marked gate is closed. The rest can travel with a bracket.
Where this came from
Conversation Jonah (10/26): "we just need to have a little bit more of a calculus"; a small number of people decide. This page is the register: what is still open and who owns it, then the calls already made and why, so each can be defended or reversed on the record.
Drafting choice Source notes never refer to internal draft numbers; a change is described as a change from "an earlier draft." Version history lives in the header pill only.
Drafting choice Two lists. Open decisions come first: each names an owner, an approver, what evidence settles it, which documents it touches, and whether the package can go to a district before it is settled. Decisions made follow, with the reasoning and what would reverse them. Sources on each entry carry the legal basis and the district perspective that shaped it.
Open decisions
#
Decision
Owner
Approver
Needed by
Evidence that settles it
Documents
Gate
O1
When data starts flowing, and what the December Navigator pilot runs on
Jonah, Emily
Stand counsel
Before the Leadership Summit (late Nov)
Written statement of the pilot's data source and the Year 1 start date
B §6.10, D-3; A
Gate
O2
Liability cap, indemnity, and breach-cost carve-out
Jonah
Stand counsel
Before Columbus review
Counsel's redline of Agreement Section Eight
B conforming edits; C A.8, A.14
Gate
O3
AI model provider, tier, data-use terms, no-training attestation
Emily
Jonah
Before any CTO sees Part C
Provider name, contract excerpt or URL and date, zero-retention arrangement
C A.6, A.12, Part C
Gate
O4
Which security controls are true today; dates for the rest
Emily
Jonah
Before any CTO sees Part C
Control-readiness list with evidence per line
C A.7, A.9, A.13, Part C
Gate
O5
Background checks and annual privacy training for every person with access, coaches included
Demian, James
Jonah
Before Option A is offered anywhere
HR confirmation of current practice, or a dated plan
C A.7; B §5.4
Gate for Option A
O6
Screener consent classification and question-level review
Tara (program need), Stand counsel (consent)
Jonah
Before any screener runs in a new district
Instrument text; counsel's classification per protected category; district authorization form
B §6.7; C A.15, A.17
Gate for screeners
O7
Insurance limits actually held
Demian (finance), counsel
Jonah
Before draft goes out
Certificate of insurance
C A.14; B conforming edits
Bracket
O8
Contracting entity: Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. as the 501(c)(3) signatory
Stand counsel
Jonah
Before draft goes out
Counsel confirmation
B §5.1; C Part A, A.4
Bracket
O9
Whether a Navigator tenant can run without student names (pseudonymous election)
Emily
Jonah, Tara
Before Columbus review
Platform answer: yes, no, or with which features disabled
B §6.4, D-3
Bracket
O10
Row-level de-identified retention is actually needed for evaluation, not aggregate only
Tara, Jonah
Stand counsel
Before Columbus review
Description of the longitudinal analyses planned
B §5.5–5.6; C A.10
Bracket
O11
Integration support through acceptance plus maintenance, and who staffs it
Jonah
Emily
Before draft goes out
Staffing and hours decision
B §6.9; A
Bracket
O12
Standing commitment to sign any state NDPA and Exhibit E
Stand counsel
Jonah
Before the Missouri reply is sent
Counsel's yes
B §5.2; C Part A; D
Gate for the Missouri reply
O13
Deletion runbook across Salesforce, Azure/Fabric, Power BI, backups, subprocessors, within 60 days
Emily
Jonah
Before draft goes out
Runbook and a tested dry run
B §5.6; C A.10
Bracket
O14
Subprocessor list and U.S. region for each tenant
Emily
Jonah
Before draft goes out
Tenant settings or contract excerpts
C A.6, A.9
Bracket
O1. When data starts flowing
Where this came from
Conversation Jonah (10/26): starting with districts in January "gives us the four or five months of let's get this set up before students start." James (10/23): "when we come to them in April and say, hey, it's time to engineer this SIS integration." Winners announced Dec 15; technical onboarding January and February.
James's MOU draft Year 0 is readiness ("data access and reporting setup" is listed among Year 0 activities); Year 1 is implementation.
Emily's email Navigator "target launch at the CHSS Leadership Summit in late November 2026 and pilot schools beginning in December."
District lens A district counsel reads a December pilot next to a three-month board calendar and concludes the agreement is being asked to cover data already moving. Columbus City said board approval takes about three months.
Luke's decision Reframed the timeline so the January cohort commits to readiness in Year 0 and live data in August 2027; any spring test load happens only after the agreement is signed. The December pilot is existing partner schools on existing agreements and stays out of the new cohort's agreement entirely.
Why it is first. The new cohort is not sharing student data in December. It is committing to be ready by August 2027. If the drafts or the pitch imply otherwise, every district counsel will stop at the calendar. Exhibit D-3 now says: contacts named in January, agreement routed and signed in Year 0, test load after signature, live feed before Year 1 instruction. What has to be decided, before the Summit: the December pilot runs on which schools, under which agreement, with what data. The safe answer is existing partners, existing agreements, de-identified uploads as today.
O2. Liability and indemnity
Where this came from
James's MOU draft Section Eight: services "as is"; no liability for indirect or consequential damages; "in no event will the liability of Organization and its affiliates ... exceed applicable liability insurance proceeds." Each party responsible for its own acts; "reasonable liability insurance."
af-dpa knowledge/practice/dpa-review-checklist.md: "the NDPA has no insurance clause ... No liability cap or indemnity"; district practice is to "carve out data breach, confidentiality and indemnity obligations, or set a breach super-cap."
San Diego CCAP Mutual indemnification with defined allocation for sole, concurrent, and joint-defense cases; CGL $1M/$2M, E&O $1M, additional insured.
District lens A board attorney reading Appendix A's breach-cost promise next to Section Eight's cap asks which one wins. Until the two are reconciled, the privacy promises read as capped at the insurance limit and excluding the consequential losses a breach actually causes.
Recommendation. Carve breach costs under A.8, confidentiality, and privacy indemnity out of the Section Eight cap, or give them a super-cap of not less than the cyber limit. Add a mutual indemnity for each party's own acts in the data provisions. This is Jonah's call because it is money, and counsel's because it is drafting.
O3 and O4. AI provider and control readiness
Where this came from
Emily's architecture AI-assisted mapping, validation, "risk models and intervention recommendations"; Azure/Fabric, Salesforce, Power BI.
Luke's experience Arizona NDPA Exhibit G AI questionnaire: base model and provider, data shared with AI subprocessors, training on user data, human in the loop, query logging.
District lens A CTO reads Part C's present-tense controls and asks for evidence of each; a privacy officer will not accept a blank where the model provider's name belongs.
Recommendation. Emily returns the subprocessor table filled in, and a line-by-line "true today / true by date" against Part C. Part C is published in present tense only for lines marked true today.
O5. Personnel claims
Where this came from
Conversation Luke and Jonah (10/26): Phoenix Union required fingerprinting and onboarding of virtual Teach For America mentors; naming a CHSS background check removes one reason for a district to impose its own.
District lens If the appendix says every person with access passes a background check and completes annual training, a district will ask for the policy and the roster. Claiming it before HR confirms it is worse than not claiming it.
Recommendation. Demian confirms current practice for coaches and technical staff. If not current, the clause becomes "by [date]" and Option A is withheld until then.
O6. Screeners
Where this came from
State law Arizona A.R.S. § 15-104 requires prior written parental consent for mental health screening in schools, and § 15-117 exempts § 15-104 screenings from its separate survey regime. The U.S. Department of Education's August 26, 2026 letter treats behavioral health screeners that probe emotional or psychological states as requiring written consent, with PPRA opt-out not a substitute.
Emily's email The agreement must cover the Belonging and Skills screeners.
District lens A privacy officer will not approve "notice, opt-out, or consent" without the instruments in hand; Arizona counsel will ask whether the Belonging Screener is a mental health screening under § 15-104.
Recommendation. Tara supplies the instruments and the program purpose; Stand counsel classifies each against PPRA's protected areas and § 15-104; the agreement makes collection contingent on the district's written authorization and certification that any required consent is on file.
O9. Pseudonymous election
Where this came from
Luke's experience AFUHSD's first ask of Teach For America (2025) was to strip names and keep the linking key; the district's own feeds use deterministic transformations or a mapping table.
District lens A "fallback without names" that the agreement does not actually contain is a promise a data manager will test and find missing.
Recommendation. Emily answers whether a tenant can operate without names and which Navigator features would be off. If yes, Exhibit D-3 gets a pseudonymous election and the agreement says what the district loses. If no, the fallback is removed from the pitch.
O10. Row-level de-identified retention
Where this came from
Conversation Tara and Jonah (10/19): follow students "from ninth grade success to CTE enrollment, pathway completion, dual credit, graduation"; James (10/23): keep "went from 60% to 72%," delete student-level data.
FERPA 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1) (de-identified release after a reasonable determination that identity is not personally identifiable, accounting for other reasonably available information); Department of Education guidance warns that removing direct identifiers is not enough and that complementary suppression may be needed.
District lens A privacy officer asks whether cohort-level results need row-level records at all, and if so, what process makes the retained rows not personally identifiable.
Recommendation. Keep row-level de-identified retention, because the longitudinal cohort work needs it, and pair it with the reasonable-determination review now in A.10. Tara and Jonah confirm the analyses so the clause can describe them.
O12. NDPA and Exhibit E
Where this came from
Lewis County A Missouri partner district has already asked its consortium to obtain the NDPA with CHSS.
af-dpa Exhibit E is a one-signature general offer, within one state, for three years; the first signed agreement in a state plus a standalone Exhibit E lets other districts subscribe.
Recommendation. Counsel confirms Stand will sign any state NDPA as drafted (standard clauses cannot be redlined) and will sign Exhibit E. Until then, the Missouri reply omits the Exhibit E sentence.
Decisions made
M1. Option B is "in-session view," not "aggregate only"
Where this came from
Luke's decision A coach who watches the team lead's student-level screen is receiving identifiable education records. Calling that "aggregate only" was wrong, and it was the one legal error in the earlier draft. Option B now means: no standing login; student-level data seen only in a live session with the team lead; the coach is a school official under the agreement, trained, under confidentiality. Option A means a standing, logged login. Both are honest. James's one-pager, which says "aggregate data only," has to change to match.
FERPA "Disclosure" under 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 means permitting access to or the release of PII by any means, including oral and visual; the school official exception (§ 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B)) authorizes the access when its conditions are met, whether or not the recipient holds credentials.
District lens A privacy officer's first objection to an earlier draft: "You say the coach cannot see student-level data, then arrange for the coach to watch the student-level dashboard on a shared screen. That is still disclosure."
Conversation Jonah (10/26) wanted the less intrusive approach with screen-share and one consistent protocol; James wanted to ask for access and fall back; Luke: the coach already hears names in every kid talk, so the agreement "operationalizes" a threshold already crossed.
AFUHSD precedent Teach For America (2026): the district accepted the partner coach seeing student data as the only partner viewer, acknowledged as a FERPA school official.
What would reverse it: Tara saying coaches cannot do the job without their own login, in which case Option A becomes the default and Option B the fallback. The clause supports either.
M2. Identifiable data flows; the feed is not de-identified
Where this came from
James's MOU draft Current Section Six says "de-identified individual student data."
Conversation 10/19: a direct connection means identifiable data; with a strong agreement "there's more than there used to be" who say yes. Navigator cannot show a school team who needs support without names.
Luke's decision Identifiable, contained by role (5.4), use (5.5), and retention (5.6). A no-names fallback exists only if Emily confirms the platform can run that way (O9).
M3. Discipline is optional
Where this came from
James's collateral Listed discipline among "only the data needed."
Conversation Tara (10/19): behavior data "we typically don't get"; Luke (10/26): discipline is "the most tightly held" element.
Luke's decision Not needed for the on-track calculation; the single element most likely to stall a privacy review. Optional, at the district's election. Reversed only if Tara names a Navigator feature that depends on it.
M4. Sixty-day deletion, backups within ninety, a disposition form
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA Article IV: disposition within sixty days of written request; Exhibit D, Directive for Disposition of Data; de-identified data exempt.
Columbus City DSA Destroy or return within ninety days of termination.
James's MOU draft Current Section Five keeps identifiable data three years after termination.
af-dpa knowledge/practice/vendor-negotiation.md: backups expire on the documented rotation, never restored to production, with an outside date and certification.
Luke's decision Sixty days at termination or on directive satisfies NDPA v2, Columbus, and the stricter districts. Districts that do not use the NDPA get Exhibit D-4, a one-page directive modeled on NDPA Exhibit D, so the request is a form and not a negotiation. Emily's runbook (O13) has to make sixty days true.
M5. De-identified and aggregate retention, with a review step
Where this came from
FERPA 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1); § 99.31(b)(2) allows coded student-level data only for education research with a code not based on personal information.
SDPC NDPA Article IV.5: use of de-identified data survives termination; no re-identification; transfer only under written no-re-identification terms with LEA consent; LEA approval before any publication naming it.
District lens Replacing an ID and suppressing small cells does not by itself prevent identification through rare combinations or repeated releases.
Luke's decision Keep row-level de-identified retention (pending O10) under NIST or Department of Education methods, a random token with a destroyed key, a documented reasonable-determination review before retention or release, cells under ten suppressed, and district approval before any district-identifiable publication.
M6. The NDPA controls, and CHSS will sign it anywhere
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA The NDPA's own priority clause places the state exhibit and standard clauses above any other writing.
af-dpa Exhibit E mechanics; registry rows are district-created; the v1.2 "Provider" definition is a strained fit for a coaching nonprofit, so Section 5.1 states the school-official basis on its own.
District lens "If we sign both, 'the document the district signed controls' does not tell us which document controls."
Luke's decision Appendix A is the instrument where no NDPA is used; where the state NDPA is signed, it controls over Appendix A and the Agreement as to student data, and 5.2 and A.18 now say so in the same words. CHSS signs Exhibit E with the first district in each state (pending O12).
M7. Three delivery tiers, described honestly
Where this came from
Emily's architecture v1 ingests files by SFTP or secure upload; no vendor API.
Conversation Luke's ranking (10/19): vendor feed, then district SFTP, then rostering tools last. The 10/26 reframe: integration help is part of the offer.
District lens "You promise no file transfers; SFTP is a file transfer. The agreement permits marking-period uploads and commits to two sessions."
Luke's decision Tier 1 automated feed is the target, Tier 2 scheduled upload is transitional, Tier 3 vendor connection is listed for districts that can do it. The case-making now says "no manual file handling once your automated feed is running," and support runs until the feed passes acceptance (pending O11).
M8. Deterministic identifiers; pseudonyms stay inside the agreement
Where this came from
James's collateral "Records are matched using a consistent unique student identifier."
FERPA A hash of the student number is a code "based on" personal information, so it does not qualify as a research code under § 99.31(b)(2)(iii). It is still usable as protected Student Data under the school-official arrangement.
Luke's decision District or state ID in every feed; a district-generated stable pseudonym is allowed and remains Student Data; probabilistic matching only flags duplicates for human review.
M9. Minimum dataset
Where this came from
Emily's email "What is the minimum practical dataset we should request initially versus additional data we might pursue later?"
AFUHSD precedent District data teams strike elements they cannot produce accurately (AFUHSD feeder DSA, 2025).
Luke's decision Required: ID, name, grade level and enrollment, course enrollments, marks and credits by term, GPA, attendance. Everything else optional.
M10. Breach notice at seventy-two hours, broad trigger, district controls family notice
Where this came from
SDPC NDPA Arizona NDPA v1.2 Article V.4: notification "within seventy-two (72) hours of confirmation of the incident, unless notification within this time limit would disrupt investigation."
af-dpa Keep the broad trigger; say who notifies families; allocate costs (parent notification, credit monitoring, legal fees, fines).
Luke's decision As drafted in A.8. Cost allocation is subject to O2.
M11. Audit evidence on a menu
Where this came from
Columbus City DSA Annual third-party audits of security operations.
af-dpa NDPA v1.2 gives the LEA an audit right; the Utah evidence menu (self-assessment, questionnaire, SOC 2 or SOC 3, on-site by agreement).
Luke's decision Annual independent assessment and pen test (dates per O4); districts choose the form of evidence once a year; cooperation with an audit where state law requires.
M12. District remedies: immediate suspension, subprocessor objection
Where this came from
District lens "If there is an active security problem, I cannot wait through a thirty-day cure period while access and transfers continue." "If we object to a subprocessor and your team cannot resolve it, the new provider still takes effect."
SDPC NDPA Article IV requires flow-down to subprocessors and a list available to the LEA; most state exhibits add notice and objection.
Luke's decision The district may suspend transfers and access immediately when reasonably necessary to protect Student Data, and may disable the affected processing or terminate without penalty if a subprocessor objection is not resolved before the change takes effect. Both are cheap and both are standard in district agreements I have signed.
M13. Authorized technical personnel
Where this came from
District lens "You say all CHSS staff see only de-identified data, but somebody must administer Salesforce, troubleshoot imports, and investigate incidents."
Luke's decision A narrow role, named in 5.4 and A.7: minimum-necessary, time-limited, MFA, logged, under confidentiality, reviewed quarterly. Ordinary program and research staff stay de-identified-only.
M14. The parental-consent sentence is narrowed
Where this came from
FERPA Disclosure under the school-official exception needs no consent when its conditions are met; screeners are a separate question under PPRA and state law.
District lens "That sentence appears to cover the screeners, even though later sections recognize they may require written consent."
Luke's decision 5.1 now says the District's disclosure for the Services needs no FERPA consent when the school-official conditions are met, and screeners are governed by 6.7.
M15. Ohio: adopt the protections whether or not the statute applies
Where this came from
State law Ohio R.C. 3319.325–327 define "technology provider" by reference to school-issued devices or accounts; whether a staff-facing platform and a screener fall inside is a classification question for Ohio counsel.
Luke's decision A.17 says CHSS contractually adopts the Ohio protections regardless of the statutory definition. Ohio counsel classifies Navigator and the screeners.
M16. Naming
Where this came from
Conversation Emily (10/26) proposed "A, B, C" implementation profiles; coach access is "Option A / B."
Luke's decision Implementation profiles are "Tier 1, 2, 3"; coach access is "Option A / B."