# data[].attributes.body
I am currently a school counselor at an elementary school with a growing population of students who qualify for special services or special programs. For our students, it is important that privacy and confidentiality becomes a part of the school framework to foster an inclusive and safe environment. I chose this topic because as the landscape of education changes and more students are qualifying for special services, it is important to be aware of the laws and policies surrounding confidentiality.

This Padlet is intended for administration, counselors, teachers, and parents to inform and educate on confidentiality. I chose this topic because as a school counselor, I have been asked about student information that should not be shared. As more student information becomes digitally stored and email communication more prevalent in schools, knowing the "public school district is responsible for complying with the requirements of FERPA and the IDEA" holds all stakeholders accountable for student privacy (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d., para. 6).

Reference
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information: State and Local Education Agencies - 2.D. FERPA and Special Education Records. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/privacy/section_2d.asp

# data[].attributes.body
For the interview component of the legal guide, I interviewed Chelsey Murphy. Chelsey is a former special education team lead for an elementary school within my current school district. Her role as the special education team lead required an overarching view of every student served by special education and supporting staff in their inclusive practices and family relations of students. Mrs. Murphy began her career in education by serving as a Deaf Education teacher in a small school district.

At the School for the Deaf, she worked with another teacher to speak to Texas Legislators to encourage more healthcare coverage for choclear implants and hearing aids for children. She stated that this is where she worked closely examining privacy concerns. Mrs. Murphy said that "there were lots of questions during that time I was looking at FERPA and IDEA and how I can tell stories but maintain privacy" (Murphy, personal communication, July 19th, 2022). Parent communication and transparency were extremely important during this time for her. Coming from a smaller school district, parents were "more wary of putting their students in the public eye and speaking on their disabilities" (Murphy, personal communication, July 19th, 2022). After many initiatives to help communicate the why behind this to parents, she spoke about her students (with non-identifying information) and their educational journey to be their advocate. If Mrs. Murphy had not diligently student FERPA and privacy laws within her district and been open to her parents, the ramifications of a wrong decision could have been huge for her career.

She remarked that her time in a large school with a rising special population was "more and more difficult every day in terms of teacher understanding" of communication of student information. Mrs. Murphy talked with teachers consistently about texting student names and information throughout the school day. After talking with her principal and research, she was able to educate those teachers on electronic communication related to FERPA. "Everyone is texting, and I get it, but kids should always come first. If they can't, then we need to observe systems and processes" (Murphy, personal communication, July 19th, 2022).

As a school counselor serving all students within one building, my student caseload comes with many stories and situations. How I choose to share their stories and situations says everything about my integrity as a school counselor. Advocacy is a very important portion of a school counselor and working to provide an understanding to staff on best practices for student information is important.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource is very informative on the topic of confidentiality in special education because it has a frequently asked question section that is in-depth and speaks on real-life educational situations. This resource also gives the full text of the laws as well as governmental education resources to be shared with staff and other stakeholders.

Resource: Special Education and the Law

Citation: National Association of Special Education Teachers.
(2022). Special Education and the Law. FERPA. https://www.naset.org/professional-resources/special-education-and-the-law/family-educational-rights-and-privacy-act-ferpa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information: State and Local Education Agencies - 2.D. FERPA and Special Education Records

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information: State and Local Education Agencies

# data[].attributes.body
A school district in Iowa violated student privacy rights by posting seven documents online outlining the reasons why students were transferring out of the district.

The content of these documents is considered to be educational records, which means that consent is required from parents of students under 18 to share this information.

The school district states that they accidentally changed a setting in 2020 that allowed these documents to be published online.

Reference:

Droze, R. (2021, January 29). Lawyer: Des Moines Public Schools violated federal law by accidentally publishing confidential documents online. WeAreIowa.com. https://www.weareiowa.com/article/news/education/des-moines-public-schools-ferpa-federal-law-by-accidentally-publishing-confidential-documents-online/524-2ea28852-2526-40ab-9f64-e0a9b54fb36a

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The district says a privacy setting was "inadvertently changed" in February 2020.

DES MOINES, Iowa - An attorney said Des Moines Public Schools violated federal privacy laws when they accidentally published confidential documents on their website.

Local 5 reported Thursday the district accidentally published seven documents that included names and descriptions of why students were requesting transfers to other districts.

A DMPS spokesperson said those documents were published by mistake when a privacy setting was inadvertently changed.

According to Alan Ostergren, president of Kirkwood Institute and the person that alerted Local 5 to the documents, by publishing the documents, DMPS violated federal and state privacy laws.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of students' education records.

"The essence of FERPA is that it prevents schools from releasing the educational records of their students without student consent, or if the student's under 18, the parent's consent," said Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel at Student Press Law Center.

Local 5 described the documents released on DMPS's website and asked if they would fit the FERPA definition of educational records.

"The records, as you've described them here, I think that those would be considered educational records," Hiestand said.

So what happens if you violate FERPA?

According to Hiestand, usually nothing, because the penalty is very extreme.

"There's like a nuclear bomb option - basically, the penalty for violating FERPA is a loss of all federal funding," Hiestand said. "There is no private cause of action under FERPA. You can't take your school to court. The mechanism is to go through the Department of Education. File your complaint with them. They do an investigation and then they decide whether they're going to exercise this nuclear option - which they don't - or whether they're gonna send the school a letter that basically says, 'You guys need to clean up your act.'"

There are paths to filing civil suits if private documents are made public without the owner's permission.

"Everybody has a right to privacy and every state, Iowa is going to be one of them, has their own sorts of remedies for going after invasions of privacy," Hiestand said. "In that case, there would be a private cause of action that these individuals might be able to pursue."

The documents on the @DMschools website listed names of alleged bullying, assault and rape victims.
https://t.co/fYjZvsflCf
- Rachel DrozeTV (@RachelDrozeTV) January 28, 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawyer: Des Moines Public Schools violated federal law by accidentally publishing confidential documents online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The district says a privacy setting was "inadvertently changed" in February 2020. DES MOINES, Iowa - An attorney said Des Moines Public Schools violated federal privacy laws when they accidentally published confidential documents on their website. Local 5 reported Thursday the district accidentally published seven documents that included names and descriptions of why students were requesting transfers to other districts.

# data[].attributes.body
A school district in Iowa violated student privacy rights by posting seven documents online outlining the reasons why students were transferring out of the district.

The content of these documents is considered to be educational records, which means that consent is required from parents of students under 18 to share this information.

The school district states that they accidentally changed a setting in 2020 that allowed these documents to be published online.

Reference:

Droze, R. (2021, January 29). Lawyer: Des Moines Public Schools violated federal law by accidentally publishing confidential documents online. WeAreIowa.com. https://www.weareiowa.com/article/news/education/des-moines-public-schools-ferpa-federal-law-by-accidentally-publishing-confidential-documents-online/524-2ea28852-2526-40ab-9f64-e0a9b54fb36a

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 6: Source of Law: Constitutional Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 6: Source of Law: Constitutional Law

# data[].attributes.body
Federal:

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to public education. It does this by guaranteeing all citizens equal protection under the law. This means that students are protected within public education due to the governing laws and codes, including FERPA.

Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Citation:

United States Constitution,  amend. XIV, § 1.

State:

The Texas Constitution states that everyone is secure in their privacy, including papers (written documentation). This protects students in Texas from confidential information they have written or their parents have shared from being distributed or discussed by those who do not have the right to do so.

Link: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm
Citation: Texas Education Code, art. 1, § 9.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal:

A mother sued her children's school district due to their peer-grading policies. Students would trade papers with a partner, and grade each other's assignments.

The mother argued that having the student report the grade of the paper they graded to the teacher in front of the class is a violation of student privacy. The entire class would then know student scores, which is a violation of FERPA.

Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1073.ZO.html

Citation:

Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002).

State:

Hall, a regent at The University of Texas, sued William McRaven, the university's Chancellor due to his refusal to grant Hall complete access to records with student admission information.

This case examined if a university regent actually had the right to access this information. The court ruled that McRaven was acting correctly in protecting student information considering the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

Link: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1437050/160773c3.pdf
Citation: Hall v. McRaven, NO. 16-0773, 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
No. I—011, aka OWASSO PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
et al., PETITIONERS v. KRISTJA J. FALVO,
parent and next friend of her minor
children, ELIZABETH PLETAN,
PHILIP PLETAN, and
ERICA PLETAN

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

[February 19, 2002]

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

Teachers sometimes ask students to score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teacher explains the correct answers to the entire class. Respondent contends this practice, which the parties refer to as peer grading, violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA or Act), 88 Stat. 571, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. We took this case to resolve the issue.

I

Under FERPA, schools and educational agencies receiving federal financial assistance must comply with certain conditions. §1232g(a)(3). One condition specified in the Act is that sensitive information about students may not be released without parental consent. The Act states that federal funds are to be withheld from school districts that have "a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein ...) of students without the written consent of their parents." §1232g(b)(1). The phrase "education records" is defined, under the Act, as "records, files, documents, and other materials" containing information directly related to a student, which "are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution." §1232g(a)(4)(A). The definition of education records contains an exception for "records of instructional, supervisory, and administrative personnel ... which are in the sole possession of the maker thereof and which are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a substitute." §1232g(a)(4)(B)(i). The precise question for us is whether peer-graded classroom work and assignments are education records.

Three of respondent Kristja J. Falvo's children are enrolled in Owasso Independent School District No. I—011, in a suburb of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The children's teachers, like many teachers in this country, use peer grading. In a typical case, the students exchange papers with each other and score them according to the teacher's instructions, then return the work to the student who prepared it. The teacher may ask the students to report their own scores. In this case it appears the student could either call out the score or walk to the teacher's desk and reveal it in confidence, though by that stage, of course, the score was known at least to the one other student who did the grading. Both the grading and the system of calling out the scores are in contention here.

Respondent claimed the peer grading embarrassed her children. She asked the school district to adopt a uniform policy banning peer grading and requiring teachers either to grade assignments themselves or at least to forbid students from grading papers other than their own. The school district declined to do so, and respondent brought a class action pursuant to Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V), against the school district, Superintendent Dale Johnson, Assistant Superintendent Lynn Johnson, and Principal Rick Thomas (petitioners). Respondent alleged the school district's grading policy violated FERPA and other laws not relevant here. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of the school district's position. The court held that grades put on papers by another student are not, at that stage, records "maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution," 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A), and thus do not constitute "education records" under the Act. On this reasoning it ruled that peer grading does not violate FERPA.

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 233 F.3d 1203 (2000). FERPA is directed to the conditions schools must meet to receive federal funds, and as an initial matter the court considered whether the Act confers a private right of action upon students and parents if the conditions are not met. Despite the absence of an explicit authorization in the Act conferring a cause of action on private parties, the court held respondent could sue to enforce FERPA's terms under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 233 F.3d, at 1211—1213. Turning to the merits, the Court of Appeals held that peer grading violates the Act. The grades marked by students on each other's work, it held, are education records protected by the statute, so the very act of grading was an impermissible release of the information to the student grader. Id., at 1216.

We granted certiorari to decide whether peer grading violates FERPA. 533 U.S. 927 (2001). Finding no violation of the Act, we reverse.

II

At the outset, we note it is an open question whether FERPA provides private parties, like respondent, with a cause of action enforceable under §1983. We have granted certiorari on this issue in another case. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 534 U.S. __ (2002). The parties, furthermore, did not contest the §1983 issue before the Court of Appeals. That court raised the issue sua sponte, and petitioners did not seek certiorari on the question. We need not resolve the question here as it is our practice "to decide cases on the grounds raised and considered in the Court of Appeals and included in the question on which we granted certiorari." Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 638 (1998). In these circumstances we assume, but without so deciding or expressing an opinion on the question, that private parties may sue an educational agency under §1983 to enforce the provisions of FERPA here at issue. Though we leave open the §1983 question, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because respondent's federal claim is not so "completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy." Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citation omitted). With these preliminary observations concluded, we turn to the merits.

The parties appear to agree that if an assignment becomes an education record the moment a peer grades it, then the grading, or at least the practice of asking students to call out their grades in class, would be an impermissible release of the records under §1232g(b)(1). Tr. of Oral Arg. 21. Without deciding the point, we assume for the purposes of our analysis that they are correct. The parties disagree, however, whether peer-graded assignments constitute education records at all. The papers do contain information directly related to a student, but they are records under the Act only when and if they "are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution." §1232g(a)(4)(A).

Petitioners, supported by the United States as amicus curiae, contend the definition covers only institutional records–namely, those materials retained in a permanent file as a matter of course. They argue that records "maintained by an educational agency or institution" generally would include final course grades, student grade point averages, standardized test scores, attendance records, counseling records, and records of disciplinary actions–but not student homework or classroom work. Brief for Petitioners 17; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14.

Respondent, adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, contends student-graded assignments fall within the definition of education records. That definition contains an exception for "records of instructional, supervisory, and administrative personnel ... which are in the sole possession of the maker thereof and which are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a substitute." §1232g(a)(4)(B)(i). The Court of Appeals reasoned that if grade books are not education records, then it would have been unnecessary for Congress to enact the exception. Grade books and the grades within, the court concluded, are "maintained" by a teacher and so are covered by FERPA. 233 F.3d, at 1215. The court recognized that teachers do not maintain the grades on individual student assignments until they have recorded the result in the grade books. It reasoned, however, that if Congress forbids teachers to disclose students' grades once written in a grade book, it makes no sense to permit the disclosure immediately beforehand. Id., at 1216. The court thus held that student graders maintain the grades until they are reported to the teacher. Ibid.

The Court of Appeals' logic does not withstand scrutiny. Its interpretation, furthermore, would effect a drastic alteration of the existing allocation of responsibilities between States and the National Government in the operation of the Nation's schools. We would hesitate before interpreting the statute to effect such a substantial change in the balance of federalism unless that is the mani-
fest purpose of the legislation. This principle guides our decision.

Two statutory indicators tell us that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that an assignment satisfies the definition of education records as soon as it is graded
by another student. First, the student papers are not, at that stage, "maintained" within the meaning of §1232g(a)(4)(A). The ordinary meaning of the word "maintain" is "to keep in existence or continuance; preserve; retain." Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1160 (2d ed. 1987). Even assuming the teacher's grade book is an education record–a point the parties contest and one we do not decide here–the score on a student-graded assignment is not "contained therein," §1232g(b)(1), until the teacher records it. The teacher does not maintain the grade while students correct their peers' assignments or call out their own marks. Nor do the student graders maintain the grades within the meaning of §1232g(a)(4)(A). The word "maintain" suggests FERPA records will be kept in a filing cabinet in a records room at the school or on a permanent secure database, perhaps even after the student is no longer enrolled. The student graders only handle assignments for a few moments as the teacher calls out the answers. It is fanciful to say they maintain the papers in the same way the registrar maintains a student's folder in a permanent file.

The Court of Appeals was further mistaken in concluding that each student grader is "a person acting for" an educational institution for purposes of §1232g(a)(4)(A). 233 F.3d, at 1216. The phrase "acting for" connotes agents of the school, such as teachers, administrators, and other school employees. Just as it does not accord with our usual understanding to say students are "acting for" an educational institution when they follow their teacher's direction to take a quiz, it is equally awkward to say students are "acting for" an educational institution when they follow their teacher's direction to score it. Correcting a classmate's work can be as much a part of the assignment as taking the test itself. It is a way to teach material again in a new context, and it helps show students how to assist and respect fellow pupils. By explaining the answers to the class as the students correct the papers, the teacher not only reinforces the lesson but also discovers whether the students have understood the material and are ready to move on. We do not think FERPA prohibits these educational techniques. We also must not lose sight of the fact that the phrase "by a person acting for [an educational] institution" modifies "maintain." Even if one were to agree students are acting for the teacher when they correct the assignment, that is different from saying they are acting for the educational institution in maintaining it.

Other sections of the statute support our interpretation. See Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989) ("It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme"). FERPA, for example, requires educational institutions to "maintain a record, kept with the education records of each student." §1232g(b)(4)(A). This record must list those who have requested access to a student's education records and their reasons for doing so. Ibid. The record of access "shall be available only to parents, [and] to the school official and his assistants who are responsible for the custody of such records." Ibid.

Under the Court of Appeals' broad interpretation of education records, every teacher would have an obligation to keep a separate record of access for each student's assignments. Indeed, by that court's logic, even students who grade their own papers would bear the burden of maintaining records of access until they turned in the assignments. We doubt Congress would have imposed such a weighty administrative burden on every teacher, and certainly it would not have extended the mandate to students.

Also FERPA requires "a record" of access for each pupil. This single record must be kept "with the education records." This suggests Congress contemplated that education records would be kept in one place with a single record of access. By describing a "school official" and "his assistants" as the personnel responsible for the custody of the records, FERPA implies that education records are institutional records kept by a single central custodian, such as a registrar, not individual assignments handled by many student graders in their separate classrooms.

FERPA also requires recipients of federal funds to provide parents with a hearing at which they may contest the accuracy of their child's education records. §1232g(a)(2). The hearings must be conducted "in accordance with regulations of the Secretary," ibid., which in turn require adjudication by a disinterested official and the opportunity for parents to be represented by an attorney. 34 CFR § 99.22 (2001). It is doubtful Congress would have provided parents with this elaborate procedural machinery to challenge the accuracy of the grade on every spelling test and art project the child completes.

Respondent's construction of the term "education records" to cover student homework or classroom work would impose substantial burdens on teachers across the country. It would force all instructors to take time, which otherwise could be spent teaching and in preparation, to correct an assortment of daily student assignments. Respondent's view would make it much more difficult for teachers to give students immediate guidance. The interpretation respondent urges would force teachers to abandon other customary practices, such as group grading of team assignments. Indeed, the logical consequences of respondent's view are all but unbounded. At argument, counsel for respondent seemed to agree that if a teacher in any of the thousands of covered classrooms in the Nation puts a happy face, a gold star, or a disapproving remark on a classroom assignment, federal law does not allow other students to see it. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40.

We doubt Congress meant to intervene in this drastic fashion with traditional state functions. Under the Court of Appeals' interpretation of FERPA, the federal power would exercise minute control over specific teaching methods and instructional dynamics in classrooms throughout the country. The Congress is not likely to have mandated this result, and we do not interpret the statute to require it.

For these reasons, even assuming a teacher's grade book is an education record, the Court of Appeals erred, for in all events the grades on students' papers would not be covered under FERPA at least until the teacher has collected them and recorded them in his or her grade book. We limit our holding to this narrow point, and do not decide the broader question whether the grades on individual student assignments, once they are turned in to teachers, are protected by the Act.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. I-011V. FALVO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal:

The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires that parents receive a notice and an opportunity to consent, receive notice, and opt students out of surveys that ask for protected information.

The PPRA also requires that parents receive the opportunity to opt their students out of the collection, disclosure, or use of personal information for the purpose of marketing or sale.

Link: https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/protection-pupil-rights-amendment-ppra-general-guidance

Citation: U.S. Department of Education, (20 U.S.C. § 1232h, 34 CFR Part 98).

State:

The Texas Administrative code gives the guidelines of the standards needed to obtain a school counseling certificate.

This code states that school counselors must know the legal standards of a school counseling program, and they must make a commitment to applying those legal standards.

An important legal standard of school counseling is privacy and disclosing student information. Being aware of what is legally acceptable to share and what isn't is an important part of legality in school counseling.

Link: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac%24ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=239&rl=15
Citation: Texas Administrative Code, 19 § 239.15.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This guidance document reviews parents' rights under the PPRA and education officials' obligations in implementing the PPRA. The PPRA applies to the programs and activities of a State educational agency (SEA), local educational agency (LEA), or other recipient of funds under any program funded by the U.S. Department of Education. (20 U.S.C. § 1232h, 34 CFR Part 98)

This guidance document reviews parents' rights under the PPRA and education officials' obligations in implementing the PPRA. The PPRA applies to the programs and activities of a State educational agency (SEA), local educational agency (LEA), or other recipient of funds under any program funded by the U.S. Department of Education. (20 U.S.C. § 1232h, 34 CFR Part 98)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) General Guidance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guidance document reviews parents' rights under the PPRA and education officials' obligations in implementing the PPRA. The PPRA applies to the programs and activities of a State educational agency (SEA), local educational agency (LEA), or other recipient of funds under any program funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal:

The Family and Educational Rights Privacy Act is a federal law that protects student privacy records.

Parents and eligible students have a right to request their student records and dispute any information they believe is inaccurate.

FERPA outlines what information school districts can share, and what they cannot share about students.

Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1232g

Citation:

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99.

State:

Texas school districts are required to give written explanations of FERPA and release of student information for the directory of a school.

Parents have the right to object to the release of student directory information.

Link: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.26.htm#26.013
Citation: 2 Tex. Edu. Code § 26.013, (2 TEC §).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
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 ;".

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 , 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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 U.S. Code § 1232g - Family educational and privacy rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Leander Independent School District Elementary School Student & Parent Handbook, there are many considerations to student privacy concerning written records, technology usage, electronic communication, and disbursement of information. All district staff members who have a "legitimate educational interest" in a student's records can view student records at any time (Leander Independent School District, 2021, p. 37). This verbiage in the handbook protects school counselors as we need to know student information in order to remove barriers to their learning and support them emotionally.

Reference: Leander Independent School District. (2021). Elementary School Student & Parent Handbook 2021-2022.

# data[].attributes.body
The ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors is very clear on how school counselors should serve their students in an ethical way. The preamble of the standards states that student "privacy that is honored to the greatest extent possible, which at times may be limited by school counselors’ balance of other competing interests (e.g., best interests of students, the safety of others, parental rights) and adherence to laws, policies and ethical standards pertaining to confidentiality and disclosure in the school setting (American School Counselor Association, 2016).

Link: https://www.schoolcounselor.org/About-School-Counseling/Ethical-Legal-Responsibilities/ASCA-Ethical-Standards-for-School-Counselors-(1)

Reference: American School Counselor Association, (2016). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/About-School-Counseling/Ethical-Legal-Responsibilities

# data[].attributes.body
I have a very strong personal connection to the legal and ethical standards surrounding student data privacy. As a student supported by a 504 for a specific learning disability in math starting in 4th grade, I had to learn very early on that advocacy was a huge component in my educational journey. My 7th grade teacher did not abide my legal and ethical standards concerning my progress in math, and was reprimanded by the administration at the middle school that I attended. This teacher was speaking about my progress (in a negative way) in math while she was in the workroom with another teacher. This other teacher reported this conversation, which led to a total overhaul of student privacy practices in the district where I grew up. Being mindful of how important maintaining integrity as a school counselor when it comes to student information now comes naturally to me due to my experiences. Before speaking with any teacher on my campus, they know that I adhere to confidentiality guidelines with students due to my advocacy for them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 13: Recommendations & Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 13: Recommendations & Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
When unsure of whether or not to share student information with another teacher or colleague, refer to your school district's handbooks and policies.

In electronic communication, be certain that the intended recipients are correct in the subject line. Sending documents or information electronically to the wrong person is a violation of student privacy rights.

Ensure you are aware of any surveys or questionnaires that could require parental permission.

When publishing documents online or sending them electronically, be sure that the viewing settings of the documents are set to only allow those invited to view the documents.

All 504, IEPs, BIPs, and special service information printed out must be locked in a filing cabinet to ensure confidentiality.

When talking with parents about a situation between their student and another on your campus, be sure to not identify the other student involved by name.

Document, document, document! Write down dates and take notes of meetings, parent conversations, teacher consults, etc. This will act as a reference point and further evidence that student privacy is being maintained.

Texting student names and information through your personal cellphone could be a grey area in terms of student confedentiality.