# data[].attributes.body
Understanding legal components regarding student confidentiality of educational records is vital in academic advising careers in higher education. As a student seeking a profession in academic advising, it is important for me to understand and comply with legal and ethical standards relating to confidentiality of student records in higher education.
The purpose of this legal guide padlet is to inform current and future college academic advisors of the legal and ethical principles relating to student confidentiality. This padlet covers current laws, local policies, and best practices for academic advisors regarding student confidentiality of educational records.
I chose this topic because I am working towards a career in academic advising. Through this project, I am learning how to ensure I comply with laws and best practices relating to this topic.

# data[].attributes.body
To further understand this topic, I interviewed Joel Jackson, an academic advisor at the University of North Texas, who is also the President of the University Counselor Advisor Network at UNT. Jackson provided his experience in complying with student privacy laws (J. Jackson, personal communication, September 19, 2019).

Why Student Confidentiality is Important for Academic Advisors in Higher Education

Jackson explained that when a student turns 18, they have a right to confidentiality of their educational records at their college of attendance. Jackson discussed that advisors must ensure confidentiality of student records every day (J. Jackson, personal communication, September 19, 2019). He emphasized that advisors can violate the statutory law, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g), if advisors do not work to protect student confidentiality. Jackson explained that it is crucial for advisors to listen to students' requests in order to maintain upmost integrity and confidentiality (J. Jackson, personal communication, September 19, 2019).

Best Practices

Jackson provided a scenario, in which, he needed to ask the parents to step outside of the room due to the student's request to not allow the parents to view their records (J. Jackson, personal communication, September 19, 2019).
In the interview, I concluded the following best practices:

Apply social etiquette procedures when confronted with asking someone to leave the room for confidentiality purposes.

Advisors should listen to students: listen to what students say, but also other communication cues, such as facial expressions and body language, to ensure advisors understand what the students ask.

Communicate with the student directly: do not discuss students' specific information to other third parties.

Emerging Issues

New technologies present information security problems relating to student confidentiality. Educational records are now primarily accessed through online databases.
With new technology, there is a greater possibility of security breaches, which could potentially release student educational records to third parties without the consent of the student. Professionals work to ensure security within the programs maintaining students' educational records.

Reference:
(J. Jackson, personal communication, September 19, 2019).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you have any questions about getting involved with UCAN, please reach out to any one of the Executive Board Members:

Joel Jackson, President

Megan Sellers, Vice President

Melissa Schneider, Secretary

Chelsea Godin, Treasurer

Zach Yeager, Historian

Sarah Romack, Parliamentarian
Executive Committee: Chaired by the UCAN President, Joel Jackson Professional Development Committee: Chaired by the UCAN Vice President, Megan Sellers

Comprised of the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Historian, Parliamentarian, Senior Advising Group Liaison (appointed by SAG in conjunction with new UCAN Executive being elected in May or June), and chairs of the standing committees (committee chairs attend meetings at start of the new year in September).

Includes the immediate Past-President as an ex-officio member.

Exists as a forum for officers and committee chairs to:

1. Submit information for consideration prior to presentation to the body

2. Submit and create the UCAN calendar and meeting dates.

3. Make informed decisions regarding the UCAN body in the interim of regularly scheduled general meetings.

Meets in the summer prior to a new year to plan professional development goals for the year:

1. Uses recommendations of the UCAN membership provided through the prior end-of-year assessment conducted by the prior year's Professional Development Committee.

2. Uses recommendations provided from the Senior Advising Group and their Subcommittee(s).

Hospitality Committee: Chaired by the UCAN Secretary, Melissa Schneider

Works with the Executive Committee to provide programming for UCAN general meetings.

Acts as a link between UCAN and larger advising related organizations such as NACADA, TEXAAN, etc. and encourages UCAN membership to participate in these organizations.

Helps to organize UCAN Awards
Works in conjunction with the advisor recognition committee to organize the UCAN Awards to be issued at the end of each year in May and helps forward nominations to NACADA Regional.

Conducts a membership interest survey regarding UCAN as a whole as well as a survey to assess UCAN projects, programs, and social events in May/June
Provides results of survey in a written report to the newly elected UCAN Executive to assist them in their summer planning sessions.

Public Relations Committee: Chaired by the UCAN Historian, Zach Yeager

Reserves general meeting rooms.

Coordinates social events to encourage networking amongst the UCAN membership.

Organizes refreshments for meetings as needed.

Coordinates activities to welcome new members to UCAN.

Elections & By-Laws Committee: Chaired by the UCAN Parliamentarian, Sarah Romack

Archives current and past activities of UCAN.

Documents annual projects and programs.

Edits and publishes UCAN newsletter/web-page each semester.

Provides information regarding UCAN to internal and external sources as needed (after approval from the President).

Conference/Retreat Planning Committee: Chaired by the UCAN Treasurer, Chelsea Godin

Organizes and conducts the election process by soliciting nominations, counting ballots and reporting results.

Reviews Bylaws annually and submits proposed changes for approval.

Coordinates, hosts and evaluates the UCAN Conference and Retreat (held on an annually rotating schedule) every year in accordance with the budget allocated by the budget holder, currently the Provost Office.

Maintains a single conference/retreat binder with all pertinent information regarding venue, constituents, contracts and contact information, etc.

Provides binder to the newly elected Executive Committee each year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UCAN: University Counselor Advisor Network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you have any questions about getting involved with UCAN, please reach out to any one of the Executive Board Members: Joel Jackson, President Megan Sellers, Vice President Melissa Schneider, Secretary Chelsea Godin, Treasurer Zach Yeager, Historian Sarah Romack, Parliamentarian Executive Committee: Chaired by the UCAN President, Joel Jackson Professional

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #3 Professional Association - National Academic Advising Association

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #3 Professional Association - National Academic Advising Association

# data[].attributes.body
The National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) provides a guide relating to the Family Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) for academic advisors (20 U.S.C. § 1232g). This guide informs advisors in higher education on the specifics of FERPA, students' rights according to FERPA, and proper information disclosing procedures (Rust, 2014).
This guide provides a reliable source to further understand the statutory law of FERPA and the federal regulations implementing FERPA (Rust, 2014).

This guide is a reliable source for academic advisors to apply best practices and to ensure compliance with laws regarding student confidentiality (Rust, 2014).

Reference:
Rust, M. (2014). FERPA and its implications for academic advising practice. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. Retreived from https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/FERPA-overview.aspx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Authored By: Matthew M. Rust, MS, JD 2014

Note: NACADA does not provide legal advice

Individuals with questions regarding FERPA interpretation at a specific college/university should contact that institution's Registrar or general counsel office. Questions regarding K-12 FERPA issues should be directed to the building principal or the school district's legal counsel.

Introduction
Among the U.S. laws that impact academic advising in higher education, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is likely the most often cited and yet also the most poorly understood. This article will present a general overview clarifying the advising-related components of FERPA, including:

Distinctions from state privacy laws and institutional policy

What student information is protected by FERPA

Common disclosure scenarios and procedures, and

Rights of the advisee under FERPA

No part of this article should be construed as legal advice for a specific situation. Advisors with specific questions about their advising practice should consult their institution's legal counsel.

Distinctions
FERPA represents the floor, not the ceiling of privacy laws impacting academic advising. FERPA generally imposes less onerous requirements regarding maintenance and disclosure of education records than what state privacy laws and institutional policies require. Additionally, the penalties for non-compliance with FERPA are generally not as intimidating as those associated with state privacy laws.

Record-Keeping
FERPA, a federal funding statute enacted in the 1970s, conditions continued receipt of federal dollars upon compliance with the confidentiality requirements FERPA establishes (US Department of Education, 2004). Because of this, FERPA applies to any institution of higher education-public or private-that receives federal money (financial aid, research grants, etc.). FERPA does not, however, require the maintenance of education records regarding students. FERPA simply sets guidelines for keeping those records confidential, so long as the institution of higher education chooses to maintain them.

Nevertheless, state-level laws and regulations often do establish expectations for advisors to create and maintain education records. For example, a records retention schedule from the Idaho State Board of Education (2008) requires that student advising records be maintained by institutions under that board's purview for a set period of time and then destroyed. Additionally, a records retention schedule from The Ohio State University (2013) shows how institutional policy might dictate the maintenance of records. In this case, the institutional policy specifies correspondence with students as part of the advising files to be maintained. No such records retention schedule exists within FERPA or its implementing regulations from the U.S. Department of Education's Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO).

Restrictiveness
Another important distinction between FERPA, state law, and institutional policy lies in the requirements of non-disclosure. For example, FERPA regulations that went into effect in 2012 generally allow for the disclosure of student identification numbers, so long as use of those numbers alone (without a password) would not grant access to education records (34 C.F.R. § 99, 2011). This relaxed standard-which was unsuccessfully challenged in a federal district court (Electronic Privacy information Center v. U.S. Department of Education, 2013)-stands in sharp contrast to state privacy laws which sometimes require specific encryption in the maintenance or transmission of identification numbers (Nicholson & O'Reardon, 2009). The relaxed FERPA standard also should be distinguished from institutional policies which often prohibit the disclosure of student identification numbers. For example, a data classification chart from Stanford University (2014) lists university ID numbers as confidential information, and states that access to these numbers should be "limited to those with a need to know" (Table 1, row 2). This university policy also strongly recommends encryption for storage or transmission of university ID numbers. FERPA contains no expectation of encryption for the digital transmission of student information.

Enforcement
A final distinction lies in enforcement options under FERPA compared to state laws. The Supreme Court has clarified that students have no individual right of action under FERPA ( Gonzaga v. Doe, 2002). This means that when students believe an institution has violated their privacy rights under FERPA, they do not have the option to bring a lawsuit. Rather, the student must file a complaint with the FPCO, at which point the FPCO would notify the institution of the alleged violation and give the institution an opportunity to change any deficient practices. Only if the institution refused to comply-after being warned and having an opportunity to change practices-would the institution lose federal funding (34 C.F.R. § 99). This ultimate punishment has never been handed out, and even if it were, the aggrieved students would still have no options to sue under FERPA for personal damages.

Under many state privacy laws, however, a student who believes his or her university has violated state law could sue the institution for damages. Indeed, at least seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands permit individuals to bring a cause of action when the privacy of their personally identifiable data has been breached (BakerHostetler, 2014).

The distinctions discussed above highlight that FERPA is merely the minimum when it comes to privacy laws with which advisors should familiarize themselves. Advisors should also consult websites or trainings at their institutions (typically available from the Registrar's office) for guidance on the state privacy laws and institutional policies that likely impose more stringent requirements than FERPA.

What is Protected Under FERPA?
FERPA generally requires that advisors not disclose to third parties the personally identifiable information contained in students' education records. FERPA defines education records broadly to include most any record maintained by the institution (or by a third party acting for the institution) regarding a student (34 C.F.R. § 99). Advisors are wise to assume that any email or record system-paper or electronic-where they maintain correspondence with or notes on advisees would qualify as education records under FERPA.

Tangible Education Records
A frequently over-looked aspect of the notion of education records under FERPA is that the law applies only to information from tangible records (Family Policy Compliance Office, 2006). Information that advisors learn from students through conversation is not protected by FERPA. That is, FERPA does not create an advisor-advisee privilege around advising conversations such that advisors are prohibited from disclosing the substance of those conversations to third parties. That being said, state privacy laws, institutional policy, or a common sense desire to maintain rapport with students would likely compel an advisor to keep advising conversations confidential.

Directory Information
The main exception to the general rule of non-disclosure is in the case of directory information. Directory information includes information such as email addresses, dates of attendance, academic major, awards and class standing, but it also includes student identification numbers as discussed above (34 C.F.R. § 99). Generally, directory information may be disclosed to third parties, unless the student has requested that directory information not be disclosed. When students ask to protect their directory information, many institutions will show a FERPA privacy block-sometimes a window shade icon-in their student information systems as a notice to advisors.

In Attendance
Education records become subject to FERPA protection as soon as a student-regardless of age-is "in attendance" at the institution. This means that admissions records of students who apply to but ultimately never attend an institution are not subject to FERPA. Institutions are free to define through institutional policy what the date of "in attendance" will be so long as it is after the student has been admitted but no later than the first day of classes (Rooker & Falkner, 2013). See, for example, how Penn State University (2014) has established that university's effective date:

According to Penn State policy, FERPA becomes effective on the first day of classes for those newly admitted students who have scheduled at least one course. A student who accepted an admission offer but did not schedule at least one course, or a newly admitted student who canceled his/her registration either before or after the semester begins, is not covered by FERPA (FAQ 16).

Advisors should consult their own institution's guidance on when education records will begin to be protected by FERPA. Advisors should also look to whether there is institutional policy on where advisors should maintain notes from advising conversations and what information the institution deems to be directory information that is generally able to be disclosed. In particular, advisors should verify whether their institutions adopted the relaxed view of student ID numbers that FERPA promulgated in the 2012 regulatory update.

When to Disclose
The general rule with education records protected under FERPA is that advisors should not disclose information from those records to third parties. There are, however, four scenarios that typically arise in advising where advisors are permitted to disclose and remain in compliance with FERPA.

Consent-based
The first scenario is where consent is present. In this typical scenario, students consent to release of personally identifiable information from their education records through a signed, written consent form specifying the person (or group of people) to whom disclosures may be made (34 C.F.R. § 99). Changes to the FERPA regulations from 2008 add an expectation that advisors will take reasonable steps to authenticate the identity of any third party requesting access to a student's education records. For this reason, many institutions add a password to FERPA disclosure consent forms; students then share this password with the persons to whom they are consenting to have their records released; that third party must then provide the password to the advisor before disclosure may occur.

Legitimate Educational Interest
The second common scenario includes disclosures to school officials with a legitimate educational interest (34 C.F.R. § 99). FERPA does not specify who will be considered to have a legitimate educational interest, but rather views this broadly. It is likely that any employee of the institution with some articulable connection to the educational mission of institution will qualify. Advisors should inquire, however, into whether their institutions specifically define who will have a legitimate educational interest. For example, the online bulletin from Indiana University Bloomington (2014) gives a broad overview of the types of individuals who may qualify under this exception.

A school official is a person employed by the University in an administrative, supervisory, academic or research, or support staff position (including law enforcement unit personnel and health staff); a person or entity with whom the University has contracted (such as an attorney, auditor, or collection agent; the Indiana University Foundation and Indiana University Alumni Association; and vendors of services such as e-mail or other electronic applications, enrollment verification, and so on); a person serving on the Board of Trustees; or a student serving on an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance committee, or assisting another school official in performing his or her tasks. A school official has a legitimate educational interest if the official needs to review an education record in order to fulfill his or her professional responsibilities for the University (para. 3).

Tax-Dependent Status
A third common disclosure scenario in advising is in the tax dependent exception. FERPA allows-but never mandates-institutions to disclose information from a student's education record to a parent who claims that student as a tax dependent (34 C.F.R. § 99). Typically, if an institution opts to release education records in this manner, the institution will have staff in the registrar's office trained on receiving and interpreting tax forms. If advisors share education record information under the tax dependent exception, that disclosure must be recorded in a log (no such requirement exists for the consent-based or legitimate education interest scenarios discussed above).

Health and Safety Exception
In 2008, regulatory updates to FERPA clarified the health and safety exception. This was done in part to encourage sharing of information that might prevent tragedies like the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech (Nicholson & O'Reardon, 2009). Under the health and safety exception, advisors may share information from an education record (e.g., a troubling email) if doing so is necessary to protect the health and safety of that student or others. As with the tax-dependent status exception, disclosures under the health and safety exception must be recorded in a log.

There are two issues related to the health and safety exception advisors should consider. If the troubling information is coming not from an education record but from a conversation with a student in distress, FERPA does not apply, so there would be no need to look for a disclosure exception. The second issue to keep in mind is that most campuses consider their advisors to be mandatory reporters of sexual assault occurrences, meaning disclosures of such information would not merely be permissible, disclosures would be expected.

Advisors should consult their institutional policies to determine whether their institution chooses to disclose under all of the exceptions discussed above. Some institutions might choose to only disclose in cases where consent and legitimate educational interest are present. Indeed, institutions could even decide to not disclose protected information under any circumstances. FERPA never mandates releasing protected information.

Rights of Students Under FERPA
In addition to understanding the obligations imposed by FERPA, it is important that advisors understand the following rights granted to students under FERPA:

1. Students have the right to access their education records. This means advisors should assume that anything they put in writing regarding a student could eventually be accessed by the student. This is true whether that writing be in paper or electronic file or in an email.

2. Students have the right to opt out of having their directory information published. Advisors should therefore take care when publishing lists of their advisees' contact information or awards lists such as Dean's Lists. Such information is directory information and therefore publishable but only if the student has not opted out of directory information publication.

3. Students have a right to annual notification of their institution's FERPA compliance policies and procedures. If changes are made to those practices, students need to be updated.

Finally, it is important to note that these rights associated with FERPA belong to the student as soon as the student is in attendance at the institution of higher education. This is true regardless of whether the student is still a minor.

For Further Guidance
The above general guidance on the U.S. federal law known as FERPA serves to reduce misconceptions and encourage compliance with this important advising-related law. Advisors will need to consult their institution's policies and offices such as the Registrar and General Counsel for specific guidance on how to appropriately observe state privacy laws applicable to their institution. Advisors will also want to work with their legal counsel to ensure that the policies and procedures in their offices are up-to-date regarding any recent developments in the FERPA statute, its implementing regulations or in state law. To help guide these discussions, a checklist is provided below.

For Advisors in Canada
Unlike the U.S., Canada does not have a singular federal privacy law related to student records which sets a consistent minimum standard. There is, however, a fairly consistent naming convention for the privacy laws that exist in the territories and provinces. Advisors in Canada should consult their institutional legal counsel for guidance on compliance with their applicable Information and Privacy Act (Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, 2014).

Matthew M. Rust, MS, JD
Director of Campus Career and Advising Services
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
References:
34 C.F.R. § 99 (2011). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

BakerHostetler. (2014). Data breach charts. Retrieved from http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Data%20Breach%20documents/Data_Breach_Charts.pdf

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Department of Education, District of Columbia - Document Filing System (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2013). Retrieved from https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv0327-28

Family Policy Compliance Office (2006, February 15). Letter to Montgomery County Public Schools (MD) re: law enforcement unit records. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/library/montcounty0215.html

Gonzaga v. Doe 536 U.S. 273 (2002). Gonzaga University v. Doe. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_679

Idaho State Board of Education. (April, 2008). Students-Advising records. Records Management Guide Appendix 9. Retrieved from http://history.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Education_Higher_Ed_Records_Book_0.pdf

Indiana University Bloomington. (2014). Indiana University's annual notification of student rights under FERPA. Enrollment and Student Academic Information Bulletin. Retrieved from http://enrollmentbulletin.indiana.edu/pages/ferpa.php?Term=3

Nicholson, J. L., & O'Reardon, M. E. (2009). Data protection basics: a primer for college and university counsel. The Journal of College and University Law 36(1), 101-144.

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (2014, April 7). Links. Retrieved from: http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/links-liens.aspx

Pennsylvania State University. (September, 2014). FERPA frequently asked questions (FAQ). Office of the University Registrar. Retrieved from http://www.registrar.psu.edu/confidentiality/FERPA_faq.cfm

Rooker, L. R. & Falkner, T. M. (2013). 2013 FERPA quick guide. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Stanford University. (May, 2014). Data classification, access, transmittal, and storage. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/group/security/securecomputing/dataclass_chart.html

The Ohio State University. (March, 2013). Student & course records-Advising files. General Records Retention Schedule. Retrieved from http://library.osu.edu/documents/records-management/general-schedule.pdf

US Department of Education. (February, 2004). Legislative history of major FERPA provisions. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/leg-history.html
Resources: Checklist for working with legal counsel to develop FERPA policies and procedures for advising offices FERPA Resources from AACRAO: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers Chart comparing privacy laws in U.S. States Canadian Privacy Law Resources Cite this using APA style as:
Rust, M. M. (2014). FERPA and its implications for academic advising practice. Retrieved from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources website:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/FERPA-overview.aspx
This article should not be considered legal advice from NACADA nor from the author. Individuals contemplating any action regarding a FERPA claim should seek legal counsel before going forward.

Individuals with questions regarding FERPA interpretation at a specific college or university should contact the institution's Registrar or Student Legal Services office. Questions regarding K-12 FERPA issues should be directed to the building principal or the school district's legal counsel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authored By: Matthew M. Rust, MS, JD 2014 Note: NACADA does not provide legal advice Individuals with questions regarding FERPA interpretation at a specific college/university should contact that institution's Registrar or general counsel office. Questions regarding K-12 FERPA issues should be directed to the building principal or the school district's legal counsel.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses a program called, Handshake, which connects student to future employers (Straumsheim, 2017).

Students noticed that the program was sending the students' GPA and grades to future employers without knowledge of consent (Straumsheim, 2017).

The author explained that, upon creating an account, students agreed to the terms and conditions, which gives consent for Handshake to send grades and GPA to future employers (Straumsheim, 2017).

The author discusses that students can disable this feature in their account settings (Straumsheim, 2017).

This articles raises awareness for new technologies possibly violating student privacy laws (Straumsheim, 2017).

Reference:
Straumsheim, C. (2017, Mar., 30). Handshake deal. Inside Higher Ed. Retrived from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/30/career-services-platform-handshake-sees-quick-growth-also-questions-about-data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College career centers are seeing big boosts in interactions between students and potential employers -- a development they credit to Handshake, a talent-recruitment start-up. But many students who have profiles on the platform say they don't remember listing their grades or even signing up, and some privacy experts are raising questions about the site's terms of service.

Handshake was founded in 2014 by three engineering students at Michigan Technological University in an effort to give students access to a larger number of potential employers, no matter their location, head of business Jonathan Stull and co-founder Garrett Lord said in an interview.

Lord said he founded the company because of a problem many of his classmates at Michigan Tech faced: the university is located in the state's Upper Peninsula, a quarter of a day's drive from Minneapolis and Milwaukee. "A lot of my smart, talented computer science friends didn't have the opportunities that my West Coast, East Coast friends were having," he said.

For students, Handshake works a lot like LinkedIn, the professional networking site. Students can build profiles highlighting their academic accomplishments, skills and extracurricular activities, and then make those profiles visible to companies on Handshake that have connected with their university.

Inside Higher Ed on Monday morning activated an account and invited 10 universities to connect on Handshake. Within three hours, six universities approved the requests, granting a reporter access to more than 47,700 student profiles.

Many students appear to have spent time and effort fleshing out their profiles, adding head shots, student clubs, work experience and other pieces of information designed to market themselves to potential employers.

But many other students appear never to have touched their profiles. Those profiles contain only basic information such as major, year and intended graduation date, and, in the case of many universities, grade point average.

Some of those students, contacted by Inside Higher Ed, said they were not aware of Handshake.

"I do not remember even signing up for the service, let alone allowing it to list my GPA," a former student at the University of Rochester said in an email.

A student at Emory University said the same: "I do not remember giving Handshake permission to list my GPA."

A recent alumnus of Boston University added, "I wouldn't know how to take [the information] off, because I don't remember signing up."

Disclosing information about thousands of students' grades without their written consent would be a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. When reached for comment, however, the universities all said the same thing: at some point, the students gave Handshake permission to display that information.

"Based on the University of Rochester's agreement with Handshake, a student's information is only available to potential employers after the student signs up for the Handshake system," a spokesperson for the University of Rochester said in an email. "Once students join, they can customize the settings of their profile according to their privacy preferences. Without a University of Rochester student's active permission, employers are not able to view that student's details through Handshake, including his or her GPA."

Following the requests for comment, three of the universities revoked Inside Higher Ed 's access to student profiles.
'A Huge Win for Students and Employers'
Handshake has gained traction over the last three years. Now headquartered in San Francisco, the start-up has raised $34 million in venture capital funding, according to Crunchbase. Today, more than 160 colleges use the start-up's platform to run their career centers.

Colleges typically see the number of companies interacting with students double or triple after switching to Handshake, and a 30-40 percent increase in students interacting with the career center, Lord said.

The University of California, Berkeley, began using Handshake in 2016. Thomas C. Devlin, executive director of the career center, said in an email that the platform "substantially increases student engagement with the career center." He was traveling and could not provide exact numbers, but added, "Simply, we find Handshake to be the new superhighway for career-minded students."

The University of San Francisco plans to make the switch to Handshake on June 1, said Alex Hochman, senior director of the career services center there. The center made the decision after consulting with Berkeley, Stanford University, Villanova University and other Handshake customers, he said.

"The feedback that I got was that Handshake is a huge win for students and employers," Hochman said in an email. "They all said that student engagement was 30 percent-plus higher, and that they were seeing a large increase in employers on campus."

Handshake also touts the benefit it offers to employers. Box, an online storage provider based in the Redwood City, Calif., in 2016 used the platform to hire three students from Morehouse College, a historically black institution in Atlanta.

When a college begins using Handshake, it uses software provided by the start-up to upload basic information about students -- first and last names, year, major, and so on -- and keep it up-to-date. The information remains private until students activate their accounts, Lord and Stull said. Some institutions, like Villanova, include student GPA in that upload; others, like Princeton University, do not, they said.

"When [it is] uploaded, never, ever is that that student information ever shown to anybody else outside the career center," Lord said. "The only time a student profile -- name, GPA -- is shown to an employer is when a student logs into Handshake and goes through an onboarding process."

Lord and Stull shared screenshots of the onboarding process. Students are first asked whether they want to make their profile public or private, then about where in the U.S. they could see themselves working, their skills and extracurricular activities. Finally, students are given an opportunity to edit their profiles, which includes checking boxes to hide their cumulative and department GPAs (that information is visible by default).

Only about 24 percent of students who chose to make their profiles public hide their GPA, Stull said. Most students on Handshake have public profiles, he added -- just 9 percent of students have private profiles.

"There would be no situation where a student would have information released about them without their explicit consent," Lord said.
'Committed to Make It as Clear as Possible'
It could be that the students surprised to find themselves listed on Handshake simply forgot that they signed up. Perhaps they did it as freshmen, quickly clicking through the onboarding process without reading the instructions. Another culprit: not reading the terms of service, an issue so common that South Park once built an episode around it.

However, LeRoy Rooker, who for two decades headed the U.S. Department of Education's Family Policy Compliance Office, which oversees FERPA, said in an interview that the specific language in the terms of service, combined with fact that colleges upload information about students, is important.

In an interview, Rooker pointed out that Handshake's terms of service state that users "agree that [the] company may share your personally identifiable information, contact details, education history and grades, and other information you enter through the services with your school(s) and potential employers."

In other words, students agree to share information that they themselves entered, not the college.

"If the student puts it in there, then it's fine," Rooker, a senior fellow with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said. "But if [Handshake is] getting this from the school and putting it out there, then that's where the consent needs to come into play."

Elana Zeide, a privacy expert based at the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, said in an email that Rooker has an interesting point, and that "it would matter if [Handshake] got a particular type of data from the college that was not specified in the terms of service [or] privacy policy and students didn't enter the same piece of information, and then the company shared that with employers."

Steven J. McDonald, general counsel at the Rhode Island School of Design, said that language, while not perfect, suggests Handshake is "on the right path" to complying with FERPA.

"I assume that the [terms of service] is an effort to obtain student consent for Handshake to then share that information with employers (just as schools themselves would need such consent)," McDonald said in an email.

Coincidentally, Lord said, Handshake is preparing to update its terms of service ahead of the National Association of Colleges and Employers conference in June to make them easier for the average user to understand.

"If it's not as clear as it should be today, we're committed to make it as clear as possible," Stull said. "It is 100 percent our intent that students are 100 percent in control of their data."

Since Handshake's platform has been active for only two years, the start-up has not yet performed a purge of accounts that appear to be inactive. Stull said the company may do so in the future.

"We don't want students on the system who aren't getting value out of it," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Career-services platform Handshake sees quick growth, but also questions about data privacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College career centers are seeing big boosts in interactions between students and potential employers -- a development they credit to Handshake, a talent-recruitment start-up. But many students who have profiles on the platform say they don't remember listing their grades or even signing up, and some privacy experts are raising questions about the site's terms of service.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses new technologies which may violate student privacy laws (McKenzie, 2018).

The author discusses that students are using Alexa, a virtual assistant who can receive voice commands (McKenzie, 2018).

The use of Alexa allows for the possible breach in student privacy, including the release of student schedules and students' grades or GPA (McKenzie, 2018).

This article brings awareness to privacy concerns regarding the use of Alexa in university settings (McKenzie, 2018).

Reference:
McKenzie, L. (2018, Aug., 22). Alexa, what's the deal with you, anyway? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/22/meet-new-kid-campus-alexa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All students moving into residence halls at Saint Louis University this week will find a corner of their desks already taken up by a new roommate. Her name is Alexa.

Housed in a SLU-branded Amazon Echo Dot, Alexa is the anthropomorphic personal assistant every 21st-century student needs, or so says David Hakanson, chief innovation officer at SLU.

SLU purchased 2,300 Echo Dots from Amazon to put in students' dorm rooms.

The devices are preloaded with an Alexa voice app or skill, called "SLU", which enables students to easily access information about what's going on on-campus. Alexa can currently answer around 130 campus-related questions, and more questions and answers will be added at students' request, said Hakanson. The SLU skill was developed with n-Powered -- an ed-tech company spun out of Northeastern University.

The Echo Dots were purchased using money from SLU's IT equipment budget. Hakanson confirmed that the devices, currently priced at $39.99, were purchased at a discount, but he would not say by how much. An Amazon spokeswoman declined to discuss specific customer accounts and pricing.

It would be easy to dismiss SLU's Echo Dot purchase as a marketing gimmick -- a cool new toy for students that's cheaper for institutions to provide than an iPad or laptop. But Hakanson says that SLU's decision to invest in the Alexa devices and develop the SLU skill is part of an institutional strategy to help students feel more connected to the university and get engaged in campus life quickly. Time spent searching online to figure out when the library opens, or how to get to the registrar's office, is time wasted, said Hakanson. Why not just ask Alexa instead?

This immediate access to information could be game-changing, says Hakanson. He thinks voice-activated technology will play an important role in higher ed and help students, faculty members and staff to increase their productivity.

For now, the virtual personal assistants at SLU can't get that personal with students. Students can't link their personal Amazon accounts to the Echo Dots, and the devices are managed centrally by SLU through an Alexa for Business account.

Putting devices in students' bedrooms does raise privacy concerns, Hakanson said. That's why students' personal information is not linked to the Echo Dots, and the SLU skill can only give out publicly available information.

Hakanson added that SLU cannot access transcripts of conversations recorded by Alexa and has "no visibility" into the data collected by the Echo devices, apart from the usage analytics that Amazon Web Services provides to administrators, indicating, for example, how popular the SLU skill is with students relative to other skills.

In the future, Hakanson would like students to be able to access personalized information, such as their GPA or class schedule, but university administrators "did not feel it was the right time" to take that step because of concerns that students might be able to access each other's information, he said.

SLU is not the first university to experiment with Alexa devices. Arizona State University placed 1,600 Echo Dots (reportedly donated by Amazon) in a residence hall for engineering students last year. The University of Oklahoma also encouraged students to develop Alexa skills that would be useful to OU students by hosting a hackathon competition. It provided 600 devices to residential students.

Northeastern University has perhaps gone the furthest with Alexa. Working with n-Powered, the start-up spun out of the university earlier this year, Northeastern has developed an Alexa skill called Husky Helper that will be accessible not only to students with Amazon Echo devices but any student with a smartphone later this year.

Somen Saha, formerly director of IT systems at Northeastern, and Joel Evans, an expert mobile developer and entrepreneur, are the joint CEOs and co-founders of n-Powered. They explained that the Alexa skills they developed for universities are available in two versions: a basic version that can provide users with publicly available information about campus life, and a more complex version that can access students' personal data with their permission. SLU offers only the basic "unauthenticated" version for now; Northeastern is introducing both.

To access the more complex, personalized version of the Husky Helper skill, Northeastern students will be required to authenticate their account using their institutional ID and password. They will also have to consent to the Alexa skill accessing their student information or be restricted to the basic version of the skill.

Sophia Cope, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that campaigns for digital privacy rights, said that universities must obtain this consent to be compliant with FERPA -- a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records -- unless certain exceptions are met. She added that universities "have an obligation to find out what data these devices collect, how the company intends to use that data, and to control data collection and use through the contract."

"Privacy and security is a valid concern and one which universities should be asking questions about," said Saha. He said that n-Powered takes the issue very seriously and has ensured that all data stored on its platform is encrypted.

Saha explained that although the voice-enabled aspect of their product is "cool," they are tackling a bigger problem for universities -- connecting information systems.

"Every university has a problem with multiple systems that don't talk to each other," he said.

Not only does the personalized Alexa skill make it easier for students to find information such as when various school payments are due, or who their academic adviser is, it also makes it easier for administrators to find that information via an institutional platform, said Saha.

Madeleine Estabrook, senior vice provost for student affairs at Northeastern, said students were very receptive to the personalized Husky Helper skill when it was tested earlier this year. "We have very big dreams for this," she said.

Estabrook said that Northeastern wants to be an innovator in voice-controlled technology, not only using it to help students find information but also exploring the role the technology might play in teaching and learning, and even student advising.

"We want to stay at the forefront of the way that learners want to access information," she said.

Like n-Powered, ed-tech companies such as Ellucian have been exploring how voice-controlled devices might be used to access student information. Brian Knotts, senior vice president and chief architect at Ellucian, said many institutions are interested in the technology. He suggested, however, that in areas such as advising, chat bots might be a better choice, not only because there is no risk of one student's voice being mistaken for another, but also because text can be exchanged more privately. Voice-enabled technology is "fun," said Knotts, but not always practical.

"How often are students in private locations to ask questions? They're not going to ask their GPA in front of their roommate."

Knotts is not the only one skeptical about the popularity of voice-controlled technology among students.

Writing in a recent blog post for Inside Higher Ed, Barbara Fister, librarian at Gustavus Adolphus College, said that the technology "makes a lot of sense for people with sight impairments, but for the rest of us? I don't get it."

Fister also raised concerns about privacy. "Inviting Alexa into your bedroom is like inviting a bunch of strangers to sit beside your bed and take notes," she said.

Doug Levin, president of consulting company EdTech Strategies, described the trend of universities giving students Alexa devices as "a terrific idea for Amazon," but "tech theater" for institutions.

"It's a way to seem cutting-edge by outsourcing core services to a gimmick technology which could as easily be offered via a mobile app or web interface -- and without introducing new privacy or security concerns."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All students moving into residence halls at Saint Louis University this week will find a corner of their desks already taken up by a new roommate. Her name is Alexa. Housed in a SLU-branded Amazon Echo Dot, Alexa is the anthropomorphic personal assistant every 21st-century student needs, or so says David Hakanson, chief innovation officer at SLU.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #6 U.S. Const. Amend. I - Constitutional Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #6 U.S. Const. Amend. I - Constitutional Law

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitutions (U.S. Const. Amend. I) protects U.S. citizens in

Freedom of speech

Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion

Freedom to petition

Freedom of the press

This amendment declares that students have a right to freedom of speech and petition, relating to student confidentiality (U.S. Const. Amend. I).

Reference:
U.S. Const. Amend. I
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-i

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3-12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
ATTEST,
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate
Amendments 11-27
The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendments 11-27
Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
Back to Main Bill of Rights Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #7 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) - Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #7 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) - Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.body
FERPA protects the rights of students and their parents regarding the handling of the students’ education records.

FERPA determines the policies regarding student confidentiality.

In higher education, students have the right to view and request amends to their educational records.

Students also have the right to determine who views the records outside of school.

Students must give written consent to allow parents to view their records (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g).

Reference:
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=family+education+and+privacy+rights&f=treesort&fq=true&num=21&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title20-section1232g

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
§1232g. Family educational and privacy rights

(a) Conditions for availability of funds to educational agencies or institutions; inspection and review of education records; specific information to be made available; procedure for access to education records; reasonableness of time for such access; hearings; written explanations by parents; definitions

(1)(A) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution, as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of their children. If any material or document in the education record of a student includes information on more than one student, the parents of one of such students shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such material or document as relates to such student or to be informed of the specific information contained in such part of such material. Each educational agency or institution shall establish appropriate procedures for the granting of a request by parents for access to the education records of their children within a reasonable period of time, but in no case more than forty-five days after the request has been made.

(B) No funds under any applicable program shall be made available to any State educational agency (whether or not that agency is an educational agency or institution under this section) that has a policy of denying, or effectively prevents, the parents of students the right to inspect and review the education records maintained by the State educational agency on their children who are or have been in attendance at any school of an educational agency or institution that is subject to the provisions of this section.

(C) The first sentence of subparagraph (A) shall not operate to make available to students in institutions of postsecondary education the following materials:

(i) financial records of the parents of the student or any information contained therein;

(ii) confidential letters and statements of recommendation, which were placed in the education records prior to January 1, 1975, if such letters or statements are not used for purposes other than those for which they were specifically intended;

(iii) if the student has signed a waiver of the student's right of access under this subsection in accordance with subparagraph (D), confidential recommendations-

(I) respecting admission to any educational agency or institution,

(II) respecting an application for employment, and

(III) respecting the receipt of an honor or honorary recognition.

(D) A student or a person applying for admission may waive his right of access to confidential statements described in clause (iii) of subparagraph (C), except that such waiver shall apply to recommendations only if (i) the student is, upon request, notified of the names of all persons making confidential recommendations and (ii) such recommendations are used solely for the purpose for which they were specifically intended. Such waivers may not be required as a condition for admission to, receipt of financial aid from, or receipt of any other services or benefits from such agency or institution.

(2) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution unless the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution are provided an opportunity for a hearing by such agency or institution, in accordance with regulations of the Secretary, to challenge the content of such student's education records, in order to insure that the records are not inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the privacy rights of students, and to provide an opportunity for the correction or deletion of any such inaccurate, misleading or otherwise inappropriate data contained therein and to insert into such records a written explanation of the parents respecting the content of such records.

(3) For the purposes of this section the term "educational agency or institution" means any public or private agency or institution which is the recipient of funds under any applicable program.

(4)(A) For the purposes of this section, the term "education records" means, except as may be provided otherwise in subparagraph (B), those records, files, documents, and other materials which-

(i) contain information directly related to a student; and

(ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.

(B) The term "education records" does not include-

(i) records of instructional, supervisory, and administrative personnel and educational personnel ancillary thereto which are in the sole possession of the maker thereof and which are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a substitute;

(ii) records maintained by a law enforcement unit of the educational agency or institution that were created by that law enforcement unit for the purpose of law enforcement;

(iii) in the case of persons who are employed by an educational agency or institution but who are not in attendance at such agency or institution, records made and maintained in the normal course of business which relate exclusively to such person in that person's capacity as an employee and are not available for use for any other purpose; or

(iv) records on a student who is eighteen years of age or older, or is attending an institution of postsecondary education, which are made or maintained by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other recognized professional or paraprofessional acting in his professional or paraprofessional capacity, or assisting in that capacity, and which are made, maintained, or used only in connection with the provision of treatment to the student, and are not available to anyone other than persons providing such treatment, except that such records can be personally reviewed by a physician or other appropriate professional of the student's choice.

(5)(A) For the purposes of this section the term "directory information" relating to a student includes the following: the student's name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student.

(B) Any educational agency or institution making public directory information shall give public notice of the categories of information which it has designated as such information with respect to each student attending the institution or agency and shall allow a reasonable period of time after such notice has been given for a parent to inform the institution or agency that any or all of the information designated should not be released without the parent's prior consent.

(6) For the purposes of this section, the term "student" includes any person with respect to whom an educational agency or institution maintains education records or personally identifiable information, but does not include a person who has not been in attendance at such agency or institution.

(b) Release of education records; parental consent requirement; exceptions; compliance with judicial orders and subpoenas; audit and evaluation of federally-supported education programs; recordkeeping

(1) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a)) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization, other than to the following-

(A) other school officials, including teachers within the educational institution or local educational agency, who have been determined by such agency or institution to have legitimate educational interests, including the educational interests of the child for whom consent would otherwise be required;

(B) officials of other schools or school systems in which the student seeks or intends to enroll, upon condition that the student's parents be notified of the transfer, receive a copy of the record if desired, and have an opportunity for a hearing to challenge the content of the record;

(C)(i) authorized representatives of (I) the Comptroller General of the United States, (II) the Secretary, or (III) State educational authorities, under the conditions set forth in paragraph (3), or (ii) authorized representatives of the Attorney General for law enforcement purposes under the same conditions as apply to the Secretary under paragraph (3);

(D) in connection with a student's application for, or receipt of, financial aid;

(E) State and local officials or authorities to whom such information is specifically allowed to be reported or disclosed pursuant to State statute adopted-

(i) before November 19, 1974, if the allowed reporting or disclosure concerns the juvenile justice system and such system's ability to effectively serve the student whose records are released, or

(ii) after November 19, 1974, if-

(I) the allowed reporting or disclosure concerns the juvenile justice system and such system's ability to effectively serve, prior to adjudication, the student whose records are released; and

(II) the officials and authorities to whom such information is disclosed certify in writing to the educational agency or institution that the information will not be disclosed to any other party except as provided under State law without the prior written consent of the parent of the student.

(F) organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions for the purpose of developing, validating, or administering predictive tests, administering student aid programs, and improving instruction, if such studies are conducted in such a manner as will not permit the personal identification of students and their parents by persons other than representatives of such organizations and such information will be destroyed when no longer needed for the purpose for which it is conducted;

(G) accrediting organizations in order to carry out their accrediting functions;

(H) parents of a dependent student of such parents, as defined in section 152 of title 26;

(I) subject to regulations of the Secretary, in connection with an emergency, appropriate persons if the knowledge of such information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other persons;

(J)(i) the entity or persons designated in a Federal grand jury subpoena, in which case the court shall order, for good cause shown, the educational agency or institution (and any officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney for such agency or institution) on which the subpoena is served, to not disclose to any person the existence or contents of the subpoena or any information furnished to the grand jury in response to the subpoena; and

(ii) the entity or persons designated in any other subpoena issued for a law enforcement purpose, in which case the court or other issuing agency may order, for good cause shown, the educational agency or institution (and any officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney for such agency or institution) on which the subpoena is served, to not disclose to any person the existence or contents of the subpoena or any information furnished in response to the subpoena;

(K) the Secretary of Agriculture, or authorized representative from the Food and Nutrition Service or contractors acting on behalf of the Food and Nutrition Service, for the purposes of conducting program monitoring, evaluations, and performance measurements of State and local educational and other agencies and institutions receiving funding or providing benefits of 1 or more programs authorized under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) for which the results will be reported in an aggregate form that does not identify any individual, on the conditions that-

(i) any data collected under this subparagraph shall be protected in a manner that will not permit the personal identification of students and their parents by other than the authorized representatives of the Secretary; and

(ii) any personally identifiable data shall be destroyed when the data are no longer needed for program monitoring, evaluations, and performance measurements; and

(L) an agency caseworker or other representative of a State or local child welfare agency, or tribal organization (as defined in section 5304 of title 25), who has the right to access a student's case plan, as defined and determined by the State or tribal organization, when such agency or organization is legally responsible, in accordance with State or tribal law, for the care and protection of the student, provided that the education records, or the personally identifiable information contained in such records, of the student will not be disclosed by such agency or organization, except to an individual or entity engaged in addressing the student's education needs and authorized by such agency or organization to receive such disclosure and such disclosure is consistent with the State or tribal laws applicable to protecting the confidentiality of a student's education records.

Nothing in subparagraph (E) of this paragraph shall prevent a State from further limiting the number or type of State or local officials who will continue to have access thereunder.

(2) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable information in education records other than directory information, or as is permitted under paragraph (1) of this subsection, unless-

(A) there is written consent from the student's parents specifying records to be released, the reasons for such release, and to whom, and with a copy of the records to be released to the student's parents and the student if desired by the parents, or

(B) except as provided in paragraph (1)(J), such information is furnished in compliance with judicial order, or pursuant to any lawfully issued subpoena, upon condition that parents and the students are notified of all such orders or subpoenas in advance of the compliance therewith by the educational institution or agency, except when a parent is a party to a court proceeding involving child abuse and neglect (as defined in section 3 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 note)) or dependency matters, and the order is issued in the context of that proceeding, additional notice to the parent by the educational agency or institution is not required.

(3) Nothing contained in this section shall preclude authorized representatives of (A) the Comptroller General of the United States, (B) the Secretary, or (C) State educational authorities from having access to student or other records which may be necessary in connection with the audit and evaluation of Federally-supported education programs, or in connection with the enforcement of the Federal legal requirements which relate to such programs: Provided, That except when collection of personally identifiable information is specifically authorized by Federal law, any data collected by such officials shall be protected in a manner which will not permit the personal identification of students and their parents by other than those officials, and such personally identifiable data shall be destroyed when no longer needed for such audit, evaluation, and enforcement of Federal legal requirements.

(4)(A) Each educational agency or institution shall maintain a record, kept with the education records of each student, which will indicate all individuals (other than those specified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection), agencies, or organizations which have requested or obtained access to a student's education records maintained by such educational agency or institution, and which will indicate specifically the legitimate interest that each such person, agency, or organization has in obtaining this information. Such record of access shall be available only to parents, to the school official and his assistants who are responsible for the custody of such records, and to persons or organizations authorized in, and under the conditions of, clauses (A) and (C) of paragraph (1) as a means of auditing the operation of the system.

(B) With respect to this subsection, personal information shall only be transferred to a third party on the condition that such party will not permit any other party to have access to such information without the written consent of the parents of the student. If a third party outside the educational agency or institution permits access to information in violation of paragraph (2)(A), or fails to destroy information in violation of paragraph (1)(F), the educational agency or institution shall be prohibited from permitting access to information from education records to that third party for a period of not less than five years.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit State and local educational officials from having access to student or other records which may be necessary in connection with the audit and evaluation of any federally or State supported education program or in connection with the enforcement of the Federal legal requirements which relate to any such program, subject to the conditions specified in the proviso in paragraph (3).

(6)(A) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an institution of postsecondary education from disclosing, to an alleged victim of any crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18), or a nonforcible sex offense, the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by such institution against the alleged perpetrator of such crime or offense with respect to such crime or offense.

(B) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an institution of postsecondary education from disclosing the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by such institution against a student who is an alleged perpetrator of any crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18), or a nonforcible sex offense, if the institution determines as a result of that disciplinary proceeding that the student committed a violation of the institution's rules or policies with respect to such crime or offense.

(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the final results of any disciplinary proceeding-

(i) shall include only the name of the student, the violation committed, and any sanction imposed by the institution on that student; and

(ii) may include the name of any other student, such as a victim or witness, only with the written consent of that other student.

(7)(A) Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit an educational institution from disclosing information provided to the institution under section 14071 of title 42 concerning registered sex offenders who are required to register under such section.

(B) The Secretary shall take appropriate steps to notify educational institutions that disclosure of information described in subparagraph (A) is permitted.

(c) Surveys or data-gathering activities; regulations

Not later than 240 days after October 20, 1994, the Secretary shall adopt appropriate regulations or procedures, or identify existing regulations or procedures, which protect the rights of privacy of students and their families in connection with any surveys or data-gathering activities conducted, assisted, or authorized by the Secretary or an administrative head of an education agency. Regulations established under this subsection shall include provisions controlling the use, dissemination, and protection of such data. No survey or data-gathering activities shall be conducted by the Secretary, or an administrative head of an education agency under an applicable program, unless such activities are authorized by law.

(d) Students' rather than parents' permission or consent

For the purposes of this section, whenever a student has attained eighteen years of age, or is attending an institution of postsecondary education, the permission or consent required of and the rights accorded to the parents of the student shall thereafter only be required of and accorded to the student.

(e) Informing parents or students of rights under this section

No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution unless such agency or institution effectively informs the parents of students, or the students, if they are eighteen years of age or older, or are attending an institution of postsecondary education, of the rights accorded them by this section.

(f) Enforcement; termination of assistance

The Secretary shall take appropriate actions to enforce this section and to deal with violations of this section, in accordance with this chapter, except that action to terminate assistance may be taken only if the Secretary finds there has been a failure to comply with this section, and he has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.

(g) Office and review board; creation; functions

The Secretary shall establish or designate an office and review board within the Department for the purpose of investigating, processing, reviewing, and adjudicating violations of this section and complaints which may be filed concerning alleged violations of this section. Except for the conduct of hearings, none of the functions of the Secretary under this section shall be carried out in any of the regional offices of such Department.

(h) Disciplinary records; disclosure

Nothing in this section shall prohibit an educational agency or institution from-

(1) including appropriate information in the education record of any student concerning disciplinary action taken against such student for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other students, or other members of the school community; or

(2) disclosing such information to teachers and school officials, including teachers and school officials in other schools, who have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student.

(i) Drug and alcohol violation disclosures

(1) In general

Nothing in this Act or the Higher Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.] shall be construed to prohibit an institution of higher education from disclosing, to a parent or legal guardian of a student, information regarding any violation of any Federal, State, or local law, or of any rule or policy of the institution, governing the use or possession of alcohol or a controlled substance, regardless of whether that information is contained in the student's education records, if-

(A) the student is under the age of 21; and

(B) the institution determines that the student has committed a disciplinary violation with respect to such use or possession.

(2) State law regarding disclosure

Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to supersede any provision of State law that prohibits an institution of higher education from making the disclosure described in subsection (a).

(j) Investigation and prosecution of terrorism

(1) In general

Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (i) or any provision of State law, the Attorney General (or any Federal officer or employee, in a position not lower than an Assistant Attorney General, designated by the Attorney General) may submit a written application to a court of competent jurisdiction for an ex parte order requiring an educational agency or institution to permit the Attorney General (or his designee) to-

(A) collect education records in the possession of the educational agency or institution that are relevant to an authorized investigation or prosecution of an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, or an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331 of that title; and

(B) for official purposes related to the investigation or prosecution of an offense described in paragraph (1)(A), retain, disseminate, and use (including as evidence at trial or in other administrative or judicial proceedings) such records, consistent with such guidelines as the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary, shall issue to protect confidentiality.

(2) Application and approval

(A) In general.-An application under paragraph (1) shall certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the education records are likely to contain information described in paragraph (1)(A).

(B) The court shall issue an order described in paragraph (1) if the court finds that the application for the order includes the certification described in subparagraph (A).

(3) Protection of educational agency or institution

An educational agency or institution that, in good faith, produces education records in accordance with an order issued under this subsection shall not be liable to any person for that production.

(4) Record-keeping

Subsection (b)(4) does not apply to education records subject to a court order under this subsection.

( Pub. L. 90-247, title IV, §444, formerly §438, as added Pub. L. 93-380, title V, §513(a), Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 571; amended Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a), Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1858; Pub. L. 96-46, §4(c), Aug. 6, 1979, 93 Stat. 342; Pub. L. 101-542, title II, §203, Nov. 8, 1990, 104 Stat. 2385; Pub. L. 102-325, title XV, §1555(a), July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 840; renumbered §444 and amended Pub. L. 103-382, title II, §§212(b)(1), 249, 261(h), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3913, 3924, 3928; Pub. L. 105-244, title IX, §§951, 952, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1835, 1836; Pub. L. 106-386, div. B, title VI, §1601(d), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1538; Pub. L. 107-56, title V, §507, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 367; Pub. L. 107-110, title X, §1062(3), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 2088; Pub. L. 111-296, title I, §103(d), Dec. 13, 2010, 124 Stat. 3192; Pub. L. 112-278, §2, Jan. 14, 2013, 126 Stat. 2480.)

References in Text

The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(K), is act June 4, 1946, ch. 281, 60 Stat. 230, which is classified generally to chapter 13 (§1751 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1751 of Title 42 and Tables.

The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(K), is Pub. L. 89-642, Oct. 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 885, which is classified generally to chapter 13A (§1771 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1771 of Title 42 and Tables.

Section 3 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(B), is section 3 of Pub. L. 93-247, which is set out as a note under section 5101 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Section 14071 of title 42, referred to in subsec. (b)(7)(A), was repealed by Pub. L. 109-248, title I, §129(a), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 600.

This Act, referred to in subsec. (i)(1), is Pub. L. 90-247, Jan. 2, 1968, 80 Stat. 783, known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967. Title IV of the Act, known as the General Education Provisions Act, is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1968 Amendment note set out under section 6301 of this title and Tables.

The Higher Education Act of 1965, referred to in subsec. (i)(1), is Pub. L. 89-329, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1219, which is classified generally to chapter 28 (§1001 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 444 of Pub. L. 90-247 was classified to section 1233c of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103-382.

Amendments

2013-Subsec. (b)(1)(L). Pub. L. 112-278, §2(1), added subpar. (L).

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 112-278, §2(2), inserted ", except when a parent is a party to a court proceeding involving child abuse and neglect (as defined in section 3 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 note)) or dependency matters, and the order is issued in the context of that proceeding, additional notice to the parent by the educational agency or institution is not required" after "educational institution or agency".

2010-Subsec. (b)(1)(K). Pub. L. 111-296, which directed that par. (1) be amended by adding subpar. (K) "at the end", was executed by adding subpar. (K) after subpar. (J), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

2002-Subsec. (a)(1)(B). Pub. L. 107-110, §1062(3)(A), realigned margins.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 107-110, §1062(3)(C), substituted "subparagraph (E)" for "clause (E)" in concluding provisions.

Subsec. (b)(1)(J). Pub. L. 107-110, §1062(3)(B), realigned margins.

Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 107-110, §1062(3)(D), realigned margins.

2001-Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 107-56 added subsec. (j).

2000-Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 106-386 added par. (7).

1998-Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 105-244, §951(1), amended subpar. (C) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (C) read as follows: "authorized representatives of (i) the Comptroller General of the United States, (ii) the Secretary, or (iii) State educational authorities, under the conditions set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection;".

Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 105-244, §951(2), designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), substituted "or a nonforcible sex offense, the final results" for "the results", substituted "such crime or offense" for "such crime" in two places, and added subpars. (B) and (C).

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 105-244, §952, added subsec. (i).

1994-Subsec. (a)(1)(B). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(1)(A)(ii), added subpar. (B). Former subpar. (B) redesignated (C).

Subsec. (a)(1)(C). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(1)(A)(i), (iii), redesignated subpar. (B) as (C) and substituted "subparagraph (D)" for "subparagraph (C)" in cl. (iii). Former subpar. (C) redesignated (D).

Subsec. (a)(1)(D). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(1)(A)(i), (iv), redesignated subpar. (C) as (D) and substituted "subparagraph (C)" for "subparagraph (B)".

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(1)(B), substituted "privacy rights" for "privacy or other rights".

Subsec. (a)(4)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 103-382, §261(h)(1), substituted semicolon for period at end.

Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(2)(A)(i), inserted before semicolon ", including the educational interests of the child for whom consent would otherwise be required".

Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 103-382, §261(h)(2)(A), substituted "or (iii)" for "(iii) an administrative head of an education agency (as defined in section 1221e-3(c) of this title), or (iv)".

Subsec. (b)(1)(E). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(2)(A)(ii), amended subpar. (E) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (E) read as follows: "State and local officials or authorities to whom such information is specifically required to be reported or disclosed pursuant to State statute adopted prior to November 19, 1974;".

Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 103-382, §261(h)(2)(B), substituted "the Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "the Internal Revenue Code of 1954", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text.

Subsec. (b)(1)(J). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(2)(A)(iii)-(v), added subpar. (J).

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(2)(B)(i), which directed amendment of matter preceding subpar. (A) by substituting ", unless-" for the period, was executed by substituting a comma for the period before "unless-" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(2)(B)(ii), inserted "except as provided in paragraph (1)(J)," before "such information".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103-382, §261(h)(2)(C), substituted "or (C)" for "(C) an administrative head of an education agency or (D)" and "education programs" for "education program".

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(2)(C), inserted at end "If a third party outside the educational agency or institution permits access to information in violation of paragraph (2)(A), or fails to destroy information in violation of paragraph (1)(F), the educational agency or institution shall be prohibited from permitting access to information from education records to that third party for a period of not less than five years."

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(3), substituted "Not later than 240 days after October 20, 1994, the Secretary shall adopt appropriate regulations or procedures, or identify existing regulations or procedures, which" for "The Secretary shall adopt appropriate regulations to".

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103-382, §261(h)(3), inserted a comma after "education".

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(4), inserted "effectively" before "informs".

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103-382, §261(h)(4), struck out ", or an administrative head of an education agency," after "The Secretary" and substituted "enforce this section" for "enforce provisions of this section", "in accordance with" for "according to the provisions of", and "comply with this section" for "comply with the provisions of this section".

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103-382, §261(h)(5), struck out "of Health, Education, and Welfare" after "the Department" and "the provisions of" after "adjudicating violations of".

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103-382, §249(5), added subsec. (h).

1992-Subsec. (a)(4)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 102-325 amended cl. (ii) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (ii) read as follows: "if the personnel of a law enforcement unit do not have access to education records under subsection (b)(1) of this section, the records and documents of such law enforcement unit which (I) are kept apart from records described in subparagraph (A), (II) are maintained solely for law enforcement purposes, and (III) are not made available to persons other than law enforcement officials of the same jurisdiction;".

1990-Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 101-542 added par. (6).

1979-Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 96-46 added par. (5).

1974-Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(1)(A)-(C), (2)(A)-(C), (3), designated existing par. (1) as subpar. (A), substituted reference to educational agencies and institutions for reference to state or local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, community colleges, schools, agencies offering preschool programs, and other educational institutions, substituted the generic term education records for the enumeration of such records, and extended the right to inspect and review such records to parents of children who have been in attendance, and added subpars. (B) and (C).

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(4), substituted provisions making the availability of funds to educational agencies and institutions conditional on the granting of an opportunity for a hearing to parents of students who are or have been in attendance at such institution or agency to challenge the contents of the student's education records for provisions granting the parents an opportunity for such hearing, and inserted provisions authorizing insertion into the records a written explanation of the parents respecting the content of such records.

Subsec. (a)(3) to (6). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(1)(G), (2)(F), (5), added pars. (3) to (6).

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(1)(D), (2)(D), (6), (8)(A)-(C), (10)(A), in provisions preceding subpar. (A), substituted "educational agency or institution which has a policy of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a))" for "state or local educational agency, any institution of higher education, any community college, any school, agency offering a preschool program, or any other educational institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of personally identifiable records or files (or personal information contained therein)", in subpar. (A), substituted "educational agency, who have been determined by such agency or institution to have" for "educational agency who have", in subpar. (B), substituted "the student seeks or intends to" for "the student intends to", in subpar. (C), substituted reference to "section 408(c)" for reference to "section 409 of this Act" which for purposes of codification has been translated as "section 1221e-3(c) of this title", and added subpars. (E) to (I).

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(1)(E), (2)(E), substituted "educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable information in education records other than directory information, or as is permitted under paragraph (1) of this subsection" for "state or local educational agency, any institution of higher education, any community college, any school, agency offering a preschool program, or any other educational institution which has a policy or practice of furnishing, in any form, any personally identifiable information contained in personal school records, to any persons other than those listed in subsection (b)(1) of this section".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(8)(D), substituted "information is specifically authorized by Federal law, any data collected by such officials shall be protected in a manner which will not permit the personal identification of students and their parents by other than those officials, and such personally identifiable data shall be destroyed when no longer needed for such audit, evaluation, and enforcement of Federal legal requirements" for "data is specifically authorized by Federal law, any data collected by such officials with respect to individual students shall not include information (including social security numbers) which would permit the personal identification of such students or their parents after the data so obtained has been collected".

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(9), substituted provisions that each educational agency or institution maintain a record, kept with the education records of each student, indicating individuals, agencies, or organizations who obtained access to the student's record and the legitimate interest in obtaining such information, that such record of access shall be available only to parents, school officials, and their assistants having responsibility for the custody of such records, and as a means of auditing the operation of the system, for provisions that with respect to subsecs. (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this section, all persons, agencies, or organizations desiring access to the records of a student shall be required to sign forms to be kept with the records of the student, but only for inspection by the parents or the student, indicating specifically the legitimate educational or other interest of the person seeking such information, and that the form shall be available to parents and school officials having responsibility for record maintenance as a means of auditing the operation of the system.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(1)(F), substituted "to any educational agency or institution unless such agency or institution" for "unless the recipient of such funds".

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 93-568, §2(a)(7), (10)(B), struck out reference to sections 1232c and 1232f of this title and inserted provisions that except for the conduct of hearings, none of the functions of the Secretary under this section shall be carried out in any of the regional offices of such Department.

Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111-296 effective Oct. 1, 2010, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 445 of Pub. L. 111-296, set out as a note under section 1751 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107-110 effective Jan. 8, 2002, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 107-110, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6301 of this title.

Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105-244 effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105-244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105-244, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title.

Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Pub. L. 102-325, title XV, §1555(b), July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 840, provided that: "The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [July 23, 1992]."

Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96-46 effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 8 of Pub. L. 96-46, set out as a note under section 930 of this title.

Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

Pub. L. 93-568, §2(b), Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1862, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall be effective, and retroactive to, November 19, 1974."

Effective Date

Pub. L. 93-380, title V, §513(b)(1), Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 574, provided that: "The provisions of this section [enacting this section and provisions set out as a note under section 1221 of this title] shall become effective ninety days after the date of enactment [Aug. 21, 1974] of section 438 [now 444] of the General Education Provisions Act [this section]."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[USC02] 20 USC 1232g: Family educational and privacy rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) Conditions for availability of funds to educational agencies or institutions; inspection and review of education records; specific information to be made available; procedure for access to education records; reasonableness of time for such access; hearings; written explanations by parents; definitions (1)(A) No funds shall be made available under any

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #8 Gonzaga University v. John Doe 536 U.S. 273 (2002) - Judicial Law 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #8 Gonzaga University v. John Doe 536 U.S. 273 (2002) - Judicial Law 

# data[].attributes.body
Gonzaga University is a private institution.

In this Supreme Court case, a student was kept from receiving an affidavit required for his graduation to become a teacher after another staff member alleges the student committed an act of sexual misconduct.

This student sued Gonzaga University stating it violated his FERPA rights.

The Supreme Court decided that FERPA does not create personal rights to apply under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This case identifies that FERPA is a federal statute applying to public educational institutions receiving government funding.

Reference:
Gonzaga University v. John Doe 536 U.S. 273 (2002)
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep536/usrep536273/usrep536273.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
1. Federal regulations implementing FERPA (34 C.F.R. § 99)

The federal regulations relating to FERPA directly affect how the university applies the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, relating to student confidentiality (34 C.F.R. § 99).

The federal regulations provide information regarding a student and family’s rights given to them under FERPA, as well as, guidelines on how a student can view and amend their education records, and who is allowed to view a student’s information (34 C.F.R. § 99).

1. Operation of Education Research Centers (19 TAC § 1.18)

This administrative law refers to student confidentiality in the functioning of Education Research Centers (ERCs) (19 TAC § 1.18).

The law states that ERC's must comply with FERPA (19 TAC § 1.18).

ERC's can give researchers secured access to information, as long as the researcher agrees to comply with current privacy policies (19 TAC § 1.18).

It also states that the Commissioner in Higher Education must set up an advisory board to ensure protection of information confidentiality (19 TAC § 1.18).

References:
Federal regulations implementing FERPA (34 C.F.R. § 99)
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=edd0d9bb95e4e0326f74bb13288b46e0&mc=true&node=pt34.1.99&rgn=div5

Operation of Education Research Centers (19 TAC § 1.18)
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=1&ch=1&rl=18

# data[].attributes.body
UNT Information Security 14.002

This policy requires that UNT protects the confidentiality and integrity of information of students faculty, staff, and other personnel (University of North Texas, 1991). This policy states risk management procedures relating to securing the confidentiality of information (University of North Texas, 1991).

Reference:
University of North Texas. (1991, Aug. 1). Policies of the University of North Texas, Information Security, 14.002. Retrieved from https://policy.unt.edu/sites/default/files/14.002_InformationSecurity_2015.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
"1.5 Maintain current, accurate knowledge of all regulations related to privacy of student records and electronic transmission of records and update knowledge of privacy legislation on a regular basis" (American College Personnel Association, 2019, p. 2).

This ethical standard requires that professionals comply with current privacy policies regarding student confidentiality. This standard also states that professionals must stay up to date with changes and amends to current privacy laws.

Reference:
American College Personnel Association. (2019). Statement of ethical principles & standards. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #12 Non-Law Source -FERPA Clear and Simple: The College Professionals Guide to Compliance by Clifford A. Ramirez 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #12 Non-Law Source -FERPA Clear and Simple: The College Professionals Guide to Compliance by Clifford A. Ramirez 

# data[].attributes.body
This book illustrates the specific details relating to FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g), and how professionals in higher education can ensure they comply with the statutory law of FERPA, and the federal regulations regarding FERPA (34 C.F.R. § 99). This book also discusses the changes to FERPA since 2008, and informs readers of the privacy rights in higher education (Ramirez, 2009). This source is important for academic advisors to further understand the components of student confidentiality laws in higher education, as well as, how to ensure advisors are complying with each specific requirement of FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g). The author provides a detailed, informative guide for higher education professionals (Ramirez, 2009).

Reference:
Ramirez, C. (2009). FERPA clear and simple: The college professional's guide to compliance. John Wiley & Sons.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the current laws, ethical standards,  and professional perspectives related to the confidentiality of students' educational records, academic advisors can follow these best practices for compliance:

Remain knowledgeable on federal and state laws and regulations relating to students' rights to privacy of educational records.

Remain knowledgeable on the university's local policy on student privacy of records.

Remain knowledgeable on emerging issues regarding student confidentiality.

Listen to students when discussing their educational records.

Communicate with students directly about their education records.

Maintain confidentiality: Do not share students' educational records to other third parties, unless the student provides written consent.

Use social etiquette when asking a person to step away or out of the room for student confidentiality purposes.

Maintain integrity to ensure compliance with current policies.