Protecting Student Data with SF 2307:

Why Student Data Privacy Matters More Than Ever in Minnesota Schools

SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts refers to Minnesota's legislative effort to protect student information when schools use technology vendors. Enacted as House File 2353 (H.F. 2353) in May 2022, it amends the state's Government Data Practices Act to regulate how "Technology Providers" handle educational data.

Quick Summary:

• What it is: Minnesota law regulating third-party vendor access to student data.
• Who it affects: Public K-12 schools, educational agencies, and technology vendors.
• Key requirements: Prohibits selling student data, requires data destruction within 90 days of contract end, and restricts device monitoring.
• Parent rights: Schools must notify parents within 30 days of new vendor contracts involving student data.
• Effective date: School year 2022-2023.

As schools adopt more digital tools, the amount of student information flowing to third-party vendors has exploded. This data, from academic records to behavioral patterns, can end up with companies that have unclear data practices. Minnesota's law responds to these risks by creating clear boundaries for vendors, prohibiting targeted advertising and restricting electronic monitoring of school-issued devices.

For K-12 IT directors, this law introduces new compliance obligations beyond federal FERPA requirements. You must vet vendor contracts, notify parents of data-sharing, and ensure third parties have proper security safeguards. Non-compliance can lead to litigation, reputational damage, and a loss of parent trust.

However, compliance is more than avoiding penalties; it's about building a culture of data protection. Even the best policies fail if your team can't spot phishing attempts or handle student data securely.

What is Minnesota's Student Data Privacy Act (SF 2307)?

Signed into law in May 2022, House File 2353 (originating as Senate File 2307) fundamentally changed how student data is handled in Minnesota. Often called SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts, the law took effect for the 2022-2023 school year.

The law amends Minnesota's Government Data Practices Act to address modern digital classroom challenges, focusing on surveillance protection and data ownership. It establishes clear rules about who owns student information and what monitoring is off-limits on school-issued devices. Three key definitions shape its scope:

• Technology Provider: Any company contracted by a public school to provide an online service, website, or app that handles educational data. This includes learning management systems, assessment platforms, and attendance trackers.
• School-Issued Devices: Laptops, tablets, or other electronics provided by schools to students for learning. These devices have special privacy protections under the law.
• Educational Data: A broad category including any data, metadata, or student-generated content collected, created, or shared by a technology provider or school. This covers grades, attendance, behavioral notes, and online activity.

These definitions clarify who must follow the rules and what information is protected, preventing student data from being sold or exploited. At its core, the law ensures technology improves education without compromising student privacy.

For a detailed review, see the official text of H.F. 2353 on Minnesota's legislative website.

Core Requirements of SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts

The Minnesota Student Data Privacy Act (H.F. 2353) establishes firm legal boundaries for handling student data, creating a protective shield around educational information when schools partner with technology companies.

Strict Prohibitions for Technology Providers

The law's fundamental principle is that educational data is not the property of technology providers. This forms the basis for several key prohibitions:

• No Selling or Sharing Data: Vendors are forbidden from selling student data or sharing it with other companies, except under specific conditions like a valid contract delegation that maintains all privacy protections.
• No Commercial Use: Vendors cannot use educational data to develop new products, improve services for other clients, or for any business advantage outside the specific educational service provided.
• No Targeted Marketing: The Act prohibits targeted advertising based on educational data. A student's learning patterns or browsing history cannot be used to market products or services to them.

Mandates for Third-Party Contracts

SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts requires that legally binding agreements include specific privacy protections.

Every contract must include clauses that:

• Confirm Data Ownership: Explicitly state that educational data is not the vendor's property.
• Require Security Safeguards: Mandate appropriate security measures, such as encryption and access controls, aligned with industry standards like the NIST framework.
• Outline Breach Disclosure Duties: Spell out the vendor's obligation to promptly provide all necessary information to the school in the event of a data breach.
• Enforce Data Destruction: Include a 90-day destruction or return rule, requiring the vendor to destroy or return all educational data within 90 days of contract expiration.
• Limit Employee Access: Enforce the "need-to-know" principle, ensuring only authorized personnel can access data to perform their duties.

Restrictions on Monitoring School-Issued Devices

The law places strict limits on the potential surveillance capabilities of school-issued devices. Schools and technology providers are generally prohibited from monitoring:

• Location tracking
• Audio or video recording
• Keystroke logging
• Web-browsing history

This creates a zone of privacy for students using school equipment. Narrow exceptions exist for responding to a judicial warrant, locating a missing or stolen device, addressing an imminent safety threat, or for a non-commercial educational purpose with explicit notice to students and parents. The default position is privacy, with monitoring allowed only in these clearly defined situations.

Compliance Checklist for Minnesota Schools and EdTech Vendors

Both school administrators and technology vendors must take intentional action to comply with SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts.

Key Obligations for Educational Institutions

Minnesota public K-12 schools and educational agencies have several concrete responsibilities to protect students and inform parents.

• Provide Parental Notification: Within 30 days of the start of each school year, you must give direct notice to parents and students about contracts with curriculum, testing, or assessment technology providers. The notice must identify the provider, explain what data is shared, and state how to inspect the contract.
• Grant Contract Inspection Rights: Parents and students have the right to review the complete contract with any Technology Provider. Make this access straightforward, for example, by posting details on your district website.
• Establish a Vendor Vetting Process: Before signing any contract, thoroughly review the vendor's data privacy policies and security measures to confirm they meet all H.F. 2353 requirements.
• Designate a Point of Contact: Appoint a specific person or department to handle questions from parents and students about data privacy and vendor contracts.

Navigating SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts as a Vendor

Technology Providers working with Minnesota K-12 schools must adapt their practices to meet the law's standards.

• Update Service Agreements: Your contracts must explicitly state that educational data is not your property and include all required clauses on security, breach disclosure, and data destruction.
• Implement Data Destruction Protocols: You must have a documented process to destroy or return all educational data within 90 days of a contract's expiration, as mandated by the 90-day data destruction rule.
• Conduct Employee Training: Train employees on the "need-to-know" principle, ensuring educational data is only accessed by authorized personnel for official duties.
• Develop a Breach Response Plan: Have a solid plan to promptly disclose all necessary breach information to the educational agency, allowing them to meet their notification obligations.

Enforcement and the Importance of Compliance

Compliance with SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts is critical due to the real consequences of failure. Since H.F. 2353 amends the Government Data Practices Act, violations fall under its enforcement framework. The primary risks include:

• Litigation: The cost of defending a data security lawsuit can be staggering, regardless of the outcome.
• Reputational Damage: A breach of trust with parents can take years to repair. For schools, this means negative media and community backlash. For vendors, it means lost contracts and a damaged brand.
• Regulatory Scrutiny: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can take action against organizations for unfair or deceptive data security practices, even if no breach has occurred.

Compliance is about more than avoiding penalties; it's about honoring the trust that communities place in educational institutions and their partners.

How SF 2307 Compares to Other Privacy Laws

SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts builds upon federal law and reflects a national trend toward stronger student privacy protections.

SF 2307 vs. FERPA: State vs. Federal Protection

The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), enacted in 1974, has long been the primary law protecting student education records. However, FERPA sets a minimum standard—a "floor, not a ceiling"—for privacy. Minnesota's SF 2307 is an example of a state building on that floor to address modern challenges like third-party vendors and device monitoring, which FERPA was not designed to handle.

Learning from National Trends in Student Privacy

Minnesota is part of a national movement of states enacting stronger student data privacy laws. States like Connecticut and New York have also implemented robust regulations. Connecticut created a central hub for vendors to pledge compliance, while New York's Education Law §2-d requires schools to designate a Chief Privacy Officer and adopt standards based on the NIST Framework.

These state-level efforts recognize that generic privacy principles are no longer sufficient. The digital education landscape demands explicit rules on data ownership, usage restrictions, security standards, and breach response protocols. Laws like SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts create accountability and represent states taking responsibility for protecting students in a digital world.

Frequently Asked Questions about SF 2307

Here are answers to common questions about SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts.

What are the main goals of SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts?

The law has four primary goals to protect students in the digital age:

1. Increase transparency for parents by requiring schools to provide notice about vendor contracts and the data being shared.
2. Hold vendors accountable through mandatory contract clauses and strict security requirements.
3. Prohibit commercial exploitation of data, including selling student information or using it for targeted marketing.
4. Prevent unauthorized surveillance by putting strict limits on monitoring school-issued devices.

Does SF 2307 apply to all schools in Minnesota?

No. SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts specifically applies to public K-12 educational agencies and institutions in Minnesota. It does not apply to post-secondary institutions like colleges and universities, and it includes exceptions for certain nonprofit national assessment providers.

What happens to student data when a contract with a vendor ends?

The law includes a 90-day rule. When a contract with a Technology Provider expires and is not renewed, the vendor has 90 days to either destroy all educational data or return it to the school. This mandate prevents student data from remaining on vendor servers indefinitely, reducing long-term privacy risks through data minimization.

Conclusion: Building a Culture of Cybersecurity in Schools

Minnesota's Student Data Privacy Act (SF 2307: Student Data Privacy and Third-Party Contracts) sets a new standard for protecting student data. It prohibits commercial exploitation, mandates security in vendor contracts, and restricts device surveillance.

However, legal compliance is only the starting point. True cybersecurity is not just about technology and policies; it's about people. Cybersecurity is fundamentally a human challenge. A single phishing email clicked by an unsuspecting staff member can bypass the strongest defenses. The most secure system is vulnerable if your team cannot recognize and respond to threats like social engineering.

Building a culture of cybersecurity means empowering every staff member to be a part of the solution. This requires moving beyond forgettable annual training to create ongoing, engaging awareness.

At CyberNut, we understand the unique challenges K-12 educators face. Our automated, gamified micro-trainings are designed to be low-touch and effective, focusing on real-world threats like phishing. When your team can confidently spot suspicious emails and social engineering tactics, you move beyond compliance with SF 2307 to build a truly resilient defense.

Combining strong policies with a well-trained, security-aware team creates a comprehensive shield for the student data in your care.

Ready to strengthen your school's human firewall? Start by understanding your vulnerabilities. Get your free Phishing Audit to see how prepared your team is to stop threats.

For more insights, explore CyberNut's cybersecurity resources. Because when it comes to student data privacy, knowledge is protection.