# data[].attributes.body
I recently wrapped up my first year as an intern school counselor at an elementary school campus. At the culmination of this course, I will complete my degree and embark on my second year as a fully certified counselor.

This Padlet aims to help school counselors working in K-12 schools understand the legal and ethical guidelines on confidentiality.

# data[].attributes.body
The ethical term used to describe the information shared within the counseling relationship is confidentiality (ASCA, 2022). The school counselor is ethically required to maintain the confidentiality of the information received within the counseling relationship unless legal obligations or school board policies necessitate its disclosure or a breach is necessary to prevent serious and foreseeable harm to the student or others (ASCA, 2022).

Confidentiality is a concept school counselors deal with in every aspect of their work, making it essential to fully understand the limitations of the law. School counselors often find themselves in challenging situations where they must share complex information about a student with their parents. Additionally, it can be challenging to navigate when and how much private information a school counselor should disclose to teachers and administrators. It is essential to recognize that school counselors often find themselves in compromising positions and gaining a better understanding of this concept could help prevent such situations.

School counselors commonly use technology to save data, allowing them to communicate, store information, and use digital software and hardware. Email, text messaging, electronic records, cloud-based storage, applications, and assessments are all now accessible as information-delivering services (Lustgarten et al., 2020). Previously, professionals saved all data on local devices. Technology has enabled school counselors to be more productive. However, incorporating these advancements has implications for digital privacy and may heighten the risk of unintentional breaches of confidentiality for students (Lustgarten et al., 2020).

References

American School Counselor Association. (2022). Ethical standards for school counselors. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Lustgarten, S. D., Garrison, Y. L., Sinnard, M. T., & Flynn, A. W. (2020). Digital privacy in mental healthcare: current issues and recommendations for technology use. Current opinion in psychology, 36, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.012

# data[].attributes.body
As a school counselor, you have legal and ethical responsibilities to the court and your students. This article shows that in certain circumstances, you must prioritize protecting a student's confidence and advocate for them, especially when testifying could cause harm and damage the trusting relationship you have built (Stone, 2012). While statutes grant privilege for the school counselor/student relationship, there are often exceptions, and the courts tend to interpret privilege statutes for school counselors narrowly. The main goal as a school counselor is to safeguard the student's well-being and maintain the trust you have established with him while navigating the legal and ethical complexities (Stone, 2012).

References

Stone, C. (2012). Confidentiality, privileged communication and your school counselor. ASCA School Counselor, March-April 2012. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Magazines/March-April-2012/Confidentiality,-Privileged-Communication-and-Your

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Confidentiality, Privileged Communication and Your Legal Muscle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eric, a student you've been working with, was living with his aunt when it was discovered his cousin had a methadone laboratory in the woods behind the aunt's house. You receive a subpoena to appear for a deposition in the prosecution's bid to learn what Eric has told you about the circumstances of his aunt's home.

# data[].attributes.body
A woman from Maine is suing her school district after her child's counselor facilitated the teen's gender transition without consulting the parents (Sharp, 2023). The mother argues that the school violated her right to control her child's upbringing and healthcare decisions. The school administrators cite confidentiality requirements as the reason for not responding to the allegations, while the mother, unsatisfied with the school's response, has taken legal action (Sharp, 2023). The Goldwater Institute is leading the lawsuit, and it is part of a broader debate about parental rights and children's privacy regarding mental health interventions and gender-affirming care (Sharp, 2023).

References

Sharp, D. (2023). Maine mom: school wrong to help, hide gender transition. Associated Press News. https://apnews.com/article/transgender-lawsuit-school-maine-8003272a6c8b1111010ba42bea2ceb8e

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) - A Maine woman is suing a school district whose counselor encouraged her teen's social gender transition, providing a chest binder and using a new name and pronouns, without consulting parents.

It's the latest lawsuit to pit a parent's right to supervise their children's health and education against a minor's right to privacy when confiding in a mental health professional. A similar lawsuit filed in California was working its way through the courts this year. In Massachusetts, parents are suing a middle school for not telling them their two pre-teens were using different names and pronouns.

The federal lawsuit in Maine argues the mother of the 13-year-old student has a "right to control and direct the care, custody, education, upbringing and healthcare decisions of her children," and that Great Salt Bay Community School violated her constitutional right by keeping gender-affirming treatments from parents.

Civil rights advocates have argued in other cases that schools must protect student privacy including their gender identity and sexuality under federal law, and that counselors need to be able to keep conversations with students confidential if they want to maintain trust.

Administrators at the Maine school add that confidentiality requirements have prevented them from responding to "a grossly inaccurate and one-sided story" that began circulating on social media. The superintendent didn't immediately return a message seeking comment Thursday.

Amber Lavigne, of Newcastle, Maine, filed the lawsuit after being unsatisfied with the school's response after she became concerned by the discovery of the chest binder in her child's belongings in December. The compression clothing allows people to better conceal their breasts under clothing.

Lavigne's child told her that a school counselor provided the chest binder at the school and provided instruction on how to use it, according to the lawsuit. The mother also says the school was also calling her child by a different name and pronouns.

The Goldwater Institute, an Arizona-based conservative and libertarian think tank, is lead counsel on the lawsuit filed Tuesday. It argues the Maine mother's rights trump state statute allowing school counselors to keep information private.

Along with legislation banning surgical and pharmacological gender-affirming care, Republicans have also pushed so-called parental rights legislation demanding transparency from schools. A 2022 Arizona law expands the rights of parents to know anything their children tell a teacher or school counselor.

"I deserve to know what's happening to my child. The secrecy needs to stop," said Lavigne, who is now homeschooling her teenager, in a statement released by the institute.

___

Follow David Sharp on Twitter @David_Sharp_AP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Maine Mom: School wrong to help, hide gender transition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Maine woman is suing a school district saying a counselor encouraged her teen's social gender transition without consulting her. The federal lawsuit argues parents' rights trump state statutes allowing school counselors to keep student gender and sexuality information private.

# data[].attributes.body
A father in Clay County is taking the school district to court, claiming that his parental rights were violated when a school counselor held secret meetings with his elementary-aged child regarding a gender identity crisis without involving the parents. The father was only informed when his daughter attempted suicide on campus, and the school counselor seemed ignorant about the family's Catholic faith (Grant, 2022). The lawsuit alleges that school leaders encouraged others to address the 12-year-old as a boy and gave her a new name without the parents' knowledge. The school district refutes these claims, but this case aligns with the debate surrounding House Bill 1557, which aims to limit schools from withholding information about a child's well-being from parents and restrict classroom discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity (Grant, 2022).

References

Grant, R. (2022). Lawsuit claims clay county schools withheld information about child’s well-being. CBS 47 FOX 30 Action News Jax. https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/lawsuit-claims-clay-county-schools-withheld-information-about-childs-well-being/EY5EPAL4RFAIPHAJTMWPT722WQ/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLAY COUNTY, Fla. - A Clay County father said his rights as a parent were violated and now he's taking the school district to court.

The suit, filed by Child & Parental Rights Campaign, claims a school counselor held secret weekly meetings with an elementary student about a gender identity crisis for months without alerting the parents.

"It is a serious mental health decision that school personnel are not qualified, not competent, and not authorized to make," Vernadette Broyles, the organization's president, said. "Parents must be involved in these important decisions."
RELATED: LGBTQ advocates speak up for student privacy concerns
The father, who we are not naming to protect the identity of the child, said he was alerted on Jan. 5 that his daughter attempted to commit suicide on campus.

"It was a nightmare for us," he told Action News Jax's Robert Grant. He said the guidance counselor told him his daughter didn't want to talk about it because of her parent's Catholic faith.

"I took offense because that had nothing to do with it. I mean I don't even know if she understands our faith. That demonstrated she was ignorant about it. Our faith is one of unconditional love for our children."

The suit was filed Monday in federal court.

"To protect the rights of parents to be able to raise their children, to direct the care of their child, in accordance with their faith and without the interference of government officials," Broyles said.

The suit alleges that school leaders encouraged others to call the 12-year-old a boy and gave her a new name without the parents knowing.

A Jacksonville counselor told Action News Jax that confidentiality is protected until the child presents a danger of harming themself or others, then they must notify the parent.

In a statement, Clay County Schools said it has not been served any legal process as of Tuesday. "We performed an investigation into these allegations and believe the statements made by this out-of-state organization invalid."

The district had no further comment at this time.

A similar issue is also the same motivation behind House Bill 1557, currently making its way through the state Legislature.

Broyles said she is a proponent of the bill. It would prohibit school districts from withholding information regarding a child's emotional, physical and mental well-being from parents. It would also ban classroom discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity.

State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith is opposed to the bill.

"We call it the 'don't say gay' bill because it will essentially erase conversations in our classrooms about LGBTQ students, families, and history," he said. "Many LGBTQ people don't have supportive homes. They don't have supportive parents. Oftentimes their teachers and their school environment is the only form of support they have and we cannot take that away."

The bill is now in the House Judiciary Committee.

©2022 Cox Media Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawsuit claims Clay County Schools withheld information about child's well-being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Clay County father said his rights as a parent were violated and now he's taking the school district to court.

# data[].attributes.body
FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Acts)

Federal Administrative Law

FERPA, or the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. It gives parents certain rights concerning their student's education records, which transfer to the students when they reach 18. FERPA restricts access to students' education records, ensuring that a student’s information remains confidential. Schools must obtain written consent from parents or eligible students before disclosing personally identifiable information from education records. Nevertheless, there are certain conditions under which prior consent is not needed.

FERPA allows schools to disclose records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions:

School officials with legitimate educational interest

Other schools to which a student is transferring

Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes

Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student

Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school

Accrediting organizations

Compliance with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena

Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies

State and local authorities within a juvenile justice system, under specific state law (34 C.F.R. § 99 (2023))

Schools may disclose, without consent, directory information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance (34 C.F.R. § 99 (2023)). However, schools must inform parents and eligible students about this disclosure and allow them a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them (34 C.F.R. § 99 (2023)). Furthermore, schools must provide access to records within 45 days of receiving a request. Parents or eligible students can request the amendment of records they believe are inaccurate, misleading, or violating the student's (34 C.F.R. § 99 (2023)). If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student has the right to a formal hearing. After the hearing, if the school still decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student can place a statement with the record commenting on the contested information (34 C.F.R. § 99 (2023)).

U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title20/USCODE-2011-title20-chap31-subchapIII-part4-sec1232g

Code of Federal Regulation: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-99

References

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (1974).

34 C.F.R. § 99 (2023)

# data[].attributes.headline
#7 Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo 

# data[].attributes.subject
#7 Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo 

# data[].attributes.body
Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo (2002)

Judicial Law

The case involves a dispute over whether student peer grading violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The court ruled that peer grading does not violate FERPA, as student-graded papers are not considered "education records" under the Act. The definition of "education records" under FERPA was a point of contention, with one party arguing that an assignment becomes an education record as soon as another student grades it. However, the court ruled in favor of the interpretation that education records include only institutional records, such as student grade point averages, standardized test scores, and records of disciplinary actions. This case was vital in narrowing the scope of the records protected under FERPA, thus making the confidentiality guidelines more explicit concerning educational records.

References

Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OCTOBER TERM, 2001

Syllabus

OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1-011, AKA OWASSO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL.

v. FALVO, PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, PLETAN, ET AL.

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

No. 00-1073. Argued November 27, 200l-Decided February 19,2002

Teachers sometimes ask students, including respondent's children, to score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teachers explain the correct answers to the entire class. Claiming that such "peer grading" violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA or Act), respondent filed a 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action against the school district and school officials (petitioners). FERPA, inter alia, authorizes federal funds to be withheld from school districts that permit students' "education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein ... )" to be released without their parents' written consent, 20 U. S. C. § 1232g(b)(1); and defines education records 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," § 1232(a)(4)(A). In granting petitioners summary judgment, the District Court held that grades put on papers by another student are not "education records." The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that FERPA provided respondent with a cause of action enforceable under § 1983, and finding that grades marked by students on each other's work are "education records," so the very act of grading is an impermissible release of information to the student grader.

Held: Peer grading does not violate FERPA. Pp. 430-436.

(a) This Court assumes, without deciding, that FERPA provides private parties with a cause of action enforceable under § 1983. Though that question is left open, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction here because respondent's federal claim is not so completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy. Pp. 430-431.

(b) Petitioners and the United States contend that education records include only institutional records, e. g., student grade point averages, standardized test scores, and records of disciplinary actions. But respondent, adopting the Tenth Circuit's reasoning, contends that an assignment satisfies § 1232(a)(4)(A)'s definition as soon as another student grades it. That court determined that teachers' grade books and the grades within are "maintained" by the teacher and thus covered by the

Act. The court recognized that teachers do not maintain the grades on individual student assignments until they have recorded them in the grade books. It reasoned, however, that if the teacher cannot disclose the grades once written in the grade book, it makes no sense to permit disclosure immediately beforehand. The court thus held that student graders maintain the grades until they are reported to the teacher. Two statutory indicators show that the Tenth Circuit erred. First, student papers are not, at that stage, "maintained" under § 1232(a)(4)(A). That word's ordinary meaning is to preserve or retain. Even assuming that a grade book is an education record, the score on a student-graded assignment is not "contained therein," § 1232g(b)(1), until the teacher records it. "Maintain" suggests FERPA records will be kept in a file in a school's record room or on a secure database, but student graders only handle assignments for a few moments as the teacher calls out the answers. The Tenth Circuit also erred in concluding that a student grader is "a person acting for" an educational institution, § 1232g(a)(4)(A). That phrase connotes agents of the school. Just as it would be awkward to say students are acting for the institution when following their teacher's instruction to take a quiz, it is equally awkward to say they are acting for the institution when following their teacher's direction to score it. That process can be as much a part of the assignment as taking the test itself. This Court does not think FERPA prohibits such educational techniques. Moreover, saying that students are acting for the teacher in grading an assignment is different from saying they are acting for an educational institution in maintaining it. Other FERPA sections--e. g., § 1232g(b)(4)(A), which requires educational institutions to maintain a record of access kept with the student's education records-support this Court's interpretation. The instant holding is limited to the narrow point that, assuming a teacher's grade book is an education record, grades on students' papers are not covered by the Act at least until the teacher has recorded them. The Court does not reach the broader question whether the Act protects grades on individual assignments once they are turned in to teachers. Pp.431-436.

233 F.3d 1203, reversed and remanded.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 436.

Jerry A. Richardson argued the cause for petitioners.

With him on the briefs was Karen L. Long.

Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With

him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, Beth S. Brinkmann, Mark B. Stern, and Colette G. Matzzie.

Will K. Wright, Jr., argued the cause for respondent.

With him on the brief were John W Whitehead and Steven H. Aden.*

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

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the National Education Association et al. by Robert H. Chanin and Andrew D. Roth; for the National School Boards Association et al. by Julie Underwood, Julie E. Lewis, Sheldon E. Steinbach, and Martin Michaelson; for the Oklahoma Education Association by Richard B. Wilkinson and Brandon R. Webb; and for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al. by Gregg

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Capitol Resource Institute et al. by Richard D. Ackerman and Gary G. Kreep; for the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs et al. by Dennis Owens; and for the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund by Karen Tripp and Phyllis Schlafiy.

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. 1-011, 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 12111213. 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, post, p. 1103. 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 manifest 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 recorda point the parties contest and one we do not decide herethe 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

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment

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.

JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court that peer-graded student papers do not constitute "education records" while they remain in the possession of the peer grader because, as the Court explains, a student who grades another's work is not "a person acting for" the school in the ordinary meaning of that phrase. Ante, at 432, 433. I cannot agree, however, with the other ground repeatedly suggested by the Court: that education records include only documents kept in some central repository at the school. Ante, at 433 ("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 .... It is fanciful to say [student graders] maintain the papers in the same way the registrar maintains a student's folder in a permanent file"), 435 ("FERPA implies that education records are institutional records kept by a single central custodian, such as a registrar ... ").

As the Court acknowledges, ante, at 429, 432, Congress expressly excluded from the coverage of FERPA "records of

instructional ... 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," 20 U. s. C. § 1232g(a)(4)(B)(i). Respondent argues that this exception, which presumably encompasses many documents a teacher might create and keep in the classroom, including a grade book, would be rendered superfluous if education records included only "institutional records kept by a single central custodian, such as a registrar." We do not, of course, read statutes in such fashion as to render entire provisions inoperative. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 35-36 (1992).

The Court does not explain why respondent's argument is not correct, and yet continues to rely upon the "central custodian" principle that seemingly renders the exception for "records of instructional ... personnel" superfluous. Worse still, while thus relying upon a theory that plainly excludes teachers' grade books, the Court protests that it is not deciding whether grade books are education records, ante, at 433. In my view, the Court's endorsement of a "central custodian" theory of records is unnecessary for the decision of this case, seemingly contrary to § 1232g(a)(4)(B)(i), and (when combined with the Court's disclaimer of any view upon the status of teachers' grade books) incurably confusing. For these reasons, I concur only in the judgment of the Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1-011, AKA OWASSO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL. v. FALVO, PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, PLETAN, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1073.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas Attorney General Opinion

Administrative Guidance

The Texas Attorney General has determined that parents generally have access to all student records. Only in very specific and uncommon situations can a minor child's school counseling records be kept from a parent. In accordance with the Federal Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act, a public school may only withhold a minor child's counseling records from a parent if the records are solely kept by the counselor, used as the counselor's personal memory aid, and are not accessible to anyone else except for a temporary substitute for the counselor (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0538 (2002)). Within this limited category, state law allows the counselor to withhold a minor child's records only if the counselor meets the definition of a "professional" as outlined in section 611.001(2) of the Health and Safety Code, and if the counselor "determines that release" of such record "would be harmful to the patient's physical, mental, or emotional health" (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0538 (2002)). In cases where the counselor does not meet the criteria of a licensed professional under section 611.001(2) of the Health and Safety Code, section 26.004 of the Education Code takes precedence, and the parent "is entitled to access to all written records" of the school district "concerning the parent's child, including . . . counseling records" (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0538 (2002)).

References

Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0538 (2002)

# data[].attributes.body
Texas Education Code

Statutory Law

The law stipulates that a school district, its employees, the board of trustees, or any other individual are prohibited from compelling a child to conceal information from their parent (Tex. Educ. Code § 26.005 (2023)). This law upholds the rights of parents to access their child's educational records and emphasizes that the school and its staff should not keep information about the child confidential (Tex. Educ. Code § 26.005 (2023)). It emphasizes the principle that parents have the right to complete information about their child's education, highlighting the importance of transparency and the parental role in the educational process (Tex. Educ. Code § 26.005 (2023)).

References

Tex. Educ. Code § 26.005 (2023)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
EDUCATION CODE



TITLE 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION



SUBTITLE E. STUDENTS AND PARENTS



CHAPTER 26. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES



Sec. 26.001. PURPOSE. (a) Parents are partners with educators, administrators, and school district boards of trustees in their children's education. Parents shall be encouraged to actively participate in creating and implementing educational programs for their children.


(b) The rights listed in this chapter are not exclusive. This chapter does not limit a parent's rights under other law.


(c) Unless otherwise provided by law, a board of trustees, administrator, educator, or other person may not limit parental rights.


(d) Each board of trustees shall provide for procedures to consider complaints that a parent's right has been denied.


(e) Each board of trustees shall cooperate in the establishment of ongoing operations of at least one parent-teacher organization at each school in the district to promote parental involvement in school activities.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.


Sec. 26.002. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "parent" includes a person standing in parental relation. The term does not include a person as to whom the parent-child relationship has been terminated or a person not entitled to possession of or access to a child under a court order. Except as provided by federal law, all rights of a parent under Title 2 of this code and all educational rights under Section 151.001(a)(10), Family Code, shall be exercised by a student who is 18 years of age or older or whose disabilities of minority have been removed for general purposes under Chapter 31, Family Code, unless the student has been determined to be incompetent or the student's rights have been otherwise restricted by a court order.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 767, Sec. 10, eff. June 13, 2001.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 324 (S.B. 1488), Sec. 6.002, eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 26.003. RIGHTS CONCERNING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS. (a) A parent is entitled to:


(1) petition the board of trustees designating the school in the district that the parent's child will attend, as provided by Section 25.033;


(2) reasonable access to the school principal, or to a designated administrator with the authority to reassign a student, to request a change in the class or teacher to which the parent's child has been assigned, if the reassignment or change would not affect the assignment or reassignment of another student;


(3) request, with the expectation that the request will not be unreasonably denied:


(A) the addition of a specific academic class in the course of study of the parent's child in keeping with the required curriculum if sufficient interest is shown in the addition of the class to make it economically practical to offer the class;


(B) that the parent's child be permitted to attend a class for credit above the child's grade level, whether in the child's school or another school, unless the board or its designated representative expects that the child cannot perform satisfactorily in the class; or


(C) that the parent's child be permitted to graduate from high school earlier than the child would normally graduate, if the child completes each course required for graduation; and


(4) have a child who graduates early as provided by Subdivision (3)(C) participate in graduation ceremonies at the time the child graduates.


(b) The decision of the board of trustees concerning a request described by Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is final and may not be appealed.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.


Sec. 26.0031. RIGHTS CONCERNING STATE VIRTUAL SCHOOL NETWORK. (a) At the time and in the manner that a school district or open-enrollment charter school informs students and parents about courses that are offered in the district's or school's traditional classroom setting, the district or school shall notify parents and students of the option to enroll in an electronic course offered through the state virtual school network under Chapter 30A.


(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), a school district or open-enrollment charter school in which a student is enrolled as a full-time student may not deny the request of a parent of a student to enroll the student in an electronic course offered through the state virtual school network under Chapter 30A.


(c) A school district or open-enrollment charter school may deny a request to enroll a student in an electronic course if:


(1) a student attempts to enroll in a course load that is inconsistent with the student's high school graduation plan or requirements for college admission or earning an industry certification;


(2) the student requests permission to enroll in an electronic course at a time that is not consistent with the enrollment period established by the school district or open-enrollment charter school providing the course; or


(3) the district or school offers a substantially similar course.


(c-1) A school district or open-enrollment charter school may decline to pay the cost for a student of more than three yearlong electronic courses, or the equivalent, during any school year. This subsection does not:


(1) limit the ability of the student to enroll in additional electronic courses at the student's cost; or


(2) apply to a student enrolled in a full-time online program that was operating on January 1, 2013.


(d) Notwithstanding Subsection (c)(2), a school district or open-enrollment charter school that provides an electronic course through the state virtual school network under Chapter 30A shall make all reasonable efforts to accommodate the enrollment of a student in the course under special circumstances.


(e) A parent may appeal to the commissioner a school district's or open-enrollment charter school's decision to deny a request to enroll a student in an electronic course offered through the state virtual school network. The commissioner's decision under this subsection is final and may not be appealed.


(f) A school district or open-enrollment charter school from which a parent of a student requests permission to enroll the student in an electronic course offered through the state virtual school network under Chapter 30A has discretion to select a course provider approved by the network's administering authority for the course in which the student will enroll based on factors including the informed choice report in Section 30A.108(b).


Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1337 (S.B. 1788), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.


Amended by:


Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1386 (H.B. 1926), Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 26.004. ACCESS TO STUDENT RECORDS. (a) In this section, "intervention strategy" means a strategy in a multi-tiered system of supports that is above the level of intervention generally used in that system with all children. The term includes response to intervention and other early intervening strategies.


(b) A parent is entitled to access to all written records of a school district concerning the parent's child, including:


(1) attendance records;


(2) test scores;


(3) grades;


(4) disciplinary records;


(5) counseling records;


(6) psychological records;


(7) applications for admission;


(8) health and immunization information;


(9) teacher and school counselor evaluations;


(10) reports of behavioral patterns; and


(11) records relating to assistance provided for learning difficulties, including information collected regarding any intervention strategies used with the child.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.


Amended by:


Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 443 (S.B. 715), Sec. 18, eff. June 14, 2013.


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 735 (S.B. 1153), Sec. 2, eff. June 12, 2017.


Sec. 26.005. ACCESS TO STATE ASSESSMENTS. Except as provided by Section 39.023(e), a parent is entitled to access to a copy of each state assessment instrument administered under Section 39.023 to the parent's child.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 767, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Sec. 26.006. ACCESS TO TEACHING MATERIALS. (a) A parent is entitled to:


(1) review all teaching materials, instructional materials, and other teaching aids used in the classroom of the parent's child, including while the child is participating in virtual or remote learning;


(2) review each test administered to the parent's child after the test is administered; and


(3) observe virtual instruction while the parent's child is participating in virtual or remote learning to the same extent the parent would be entitled to observe in-person instruction of the child.


(b) A school district shall make tests readily available for review by parents in person and teaching materials readily available for review by parents both in person and, if applicable, through an instructional materials parent portal established under Section 31.154. In providing access to instructional materials to a student's parent under this section, the district shall:


(1) allow access beginning not later than 30 days before the school year begins and concluding not earlier than 30 days after the school year ends; and


(2) include, for the entire period specified in Subdivision (1), access to all instructional materials that pertain to each subject area in the grade level in which the student is enrolled, except for:


(A) tests or exams that have not yet been administered to the student; and


(B) the student's graded assignments.


(b-1) The district may specify reasonable hours for in-person review.


(c) A student's parent is entitled to request that the school district or open-enrollment charter school the student attends allow the student to take home any instructional materials used by the student. Subject to the availability of the instructional materials, the district or school shall honor the request. A student who takes home instructional materials must return the instructional materials to school at the beginning of the next school day if requested to do so by the student's teacher. A school district or open-enrollment charter school must provide the instructional materials to the student in printed format if the student does not have reliable access to technology at the student's home. In this subsection, "instructional material" has the meaning assigned by Section 31.002.


(d) The requirement under Subsection (c) to provide to a student instructional materials in a printed format does not require a school district or open-enrollment charter school to purchase printed copies of instructional materials that the district or school otherwise would not purchase. A district or school may comply with Subsection (c) by providing the student a printout of the relevant electronic instructional materials.


(e) Each school district and open-enrollment charter school that uses a learning management system or any online learning portal to assign, distribute, present, or make available instructional materials as defined by Section 31.002 to students shall provide login credentials to the system or portal to each student's parent.


(f) A school district may not deny a parent access to an instructional materials parent portal hosted under Section 31.154.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 805, Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 2001.


Amended by:


Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., Ch. 6 (S.B. 6), Sec. 12, eff. July 19, 2011.


Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1031 (H.B. 391), Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 2019.


Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 558 (S.B. 348), Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 2021.


Acts 2021, 87th Leg., 2nd C.S., Ch. 9 (S.B. 3), Sec. 2, eff. December 2, 2021.


Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 818 (H.B. 1605), Sec. 5, eff. June 13, 2023.


Sec. 26.0061. RIGHT TO REQUEST INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL REVIEW. (a) The board of trustees of each school district shall establish a process by which a parent of a student, as indicated on the student registration form at the student's campus, may request an instructional material review under Section 31.0252 for a subject area in the grade level in which the student is enrolled.


(b) A process established under Subsection (a):


(1) may not require more than one parent of a student to make the request;


(2) must provide for the board of trustees of the school district to determine if the request will be granted, either originally or through an appeal process; and


(3) may permit the requesting parent to review the instructional material directly before the district conducts an instructional material review under Section 31.0252.


(c) If the parents of at least 25 percent of the students enrolled at a campus present to the board of trustees of the school district in which the campus is located a petition for the board to conduct an instructional material review under Section 31.0252, the board shall, subject to Subsection (d), conduct the review, unless the petition is presented by the parents of less than 50 percent of the students enrolled at the campus and, by a majority vote, the board denies the request. A review conducted under this subsection shall include a review of instructional materials for each subject area or grade level specified in the petition.


(d) The board of trustees of a school district is not required to conduct a review under this section for a specific subject area or grade level at a specific district campus more than once per school year.


(e) Parental access to instructional material provided by an instructional material review conducted under this section is in addition to any other right to access instructional material granted by this title or school district policy.


(f) The State Board of Education may adopt rules to implement this section.


Added by Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 818 (H.B. 1605), Sec. 6, eff. June 13, 2023.


Sec. 26.007. ACCESS TO BOARD MEETINGS. (a) A parent is entitled to complete access to any meeting of the board of trustees of the school district, other than a closed meeting held in compliance with Subchapters D and E, Chapter 551, Government Code.


(b) A board of trustees of a school district must hold each public meeting of the board within the boundaries of the district except as required by law or except to hold a joint meeting with another district or with another governmental entity, as defined by Section 2051.041, Government Code, if the boundaries of the governmental entity are in whole or in part within the boundaries of the district. All public meetings must comply with Chapter 551, Government Code.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335, Sec. 7, eff. June 19, 1999.


Sec. 26.008. RIGHT TO FULL INFORMATION CONCERNING STUDENT. (a) A parent is entitled to full information regarding the school activities of a parent's child except as provided by Section 38.004.


(b) An attempt by any school district employee to encourage or coerce a child to withhold information from the child's parent is grounds for discipline under Section 21.104, 21.156, or 21.211, as applicable.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.


Sec. 26.0081. RIGHT TO INFORMATION CONCERNING SPECIAL EDUCATION AND EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES. (a) The agency shall produce and provide to school districts sufficient copies of a comprehensive, easily understood document that explains the process by which an individualized education program is developed for a student in a special education program and the rights and responsibilities of a parent concerning the process. The document must include information a parent needs to effectively participate in an admission, review, and dismissal committee meeting for the parent's child.


(b) The agency will ensure that each school district provides the document required under this section to the parent as provided by 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(b):


(1) as soon as practicable after a child is referred to determine the child's eligibility for admission into the district's special education program, but at least five school days before the date of the initial meeting of the admission, review, and dismissal committee; and


(2) at any other time on reasonable request of the child's parent.


(c) The agency shall produce and provide to school districts a written explanation of the options and requirements for providing assistance to students who have learning difficulties or who need or may need special education. The explanation must state that a parent is entitled at any time to request an evaluation of the parent's child for special education services under Section 29.004 or for aids, accommodations, or services under Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Section 794). Each school year, each district shall provide the written explanation to a parent of each district student by including the explanation in the student handbook or by another means.


(d) Each school year, each school district shall notify a parent of each child, other than a child enrolled in a special education program under Subchapter A, Chapter 29, who receives assistance from the district for learning difficulties, including through the use of intervention strategies, as that term is defined by Section 26.004, that the district provides that assistance to the child. The notice must:


(1) be provided when the child begins to receive the assistance for that school year;


(2) be written in English or, to the extent practicable, the parent's native language; and


(3) include:


(A) a reasonable description of the assistance that may be provided to the child, including any intervention strategies that may be used;


(B) information collected regarding any intervention in the base tier of a multi-tiered system of supports that has previously been used with the child;


(C) an estimate of the duration for which the assistance, including through the use of intervention strategies, will be provided;


(D) the estimated time frames within which a report on the child's progress with the assistance, including any intervention strategies used, will be provided to the parent; and


(E) a copy of the explanation provided under Subsection (c).


(e) The notice required under Subsection (d) may be provided to a child's parent at a meeting of the team established for the child under Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Section 794), if applicable.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 616, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 539, Sec. 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 735 (S.B. 1153), Sec. 3, eff. June 12, 2017.


Sec. 26.0082. SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES. (a) In this section, "rigorous research" means research that includes:


(1) a study design that employs either a randomized controlled trial or a quasi-experimental design;


(2) an adequate measure of outcomes; and


(3) reliable and valid results.


(b) As part of the annual notice a school district provides to parents under 20 U.S.C. Section 6316(e)(2)(A) concerning supplemental educational services, the district shall include information provided to the district by the agency that:


(1) identifies characteristics of supplemental educational services that, based on rigorous research, have been demonstrated to be more likely to foster improvement in student academic performance, including information concerning the minimum number of hours of tutoring necessary for improved performance; and


(2) sorts, for each subject for which supplemental educational services are provided, supplemental educational services providers serving district students according to the provider's level of effectiveness in improving student performance in the applicable subject area.


(c) The agency shall develop and the commissioner by rule shall establish a process for approving and revoking approval for a supplemental educational services provider. The process must allow the agency to use any publicly available information from any published source in determining whether to approve an entity as a provider, except that the agency may not use information that is self-published or published by a provider for marketing purposes.


(d) The agency shall maintain a publicly available list of approved providers. In accordance with standards established by commissioner rule, the agency shall promptly investigate a complaint against an approved provider and promptly remove from the list of approved providers a provider for which agency approval has been revoked.


(e) Not later than the fifth business day after the date on which the agency removes a provider from the list of approved providers, the agency shall send notice of the removal to each appropriate school district. The district shall provide notice of the removal to parents of appropriate students.


(f) A supplemental educational services provider for which agency approval has been revoked because the agency determines that the provider has engaged in fraudulent activity is permanently prohibited from acting as a provider in this state.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 646 (H.B. 753), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.


Sec. 26.0085. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION. (a) A school district or open-enrollment charter school that seeks to withhold information from a parent who has requested public information relating to the parent's child under Chapter 552, Government Code, and that files suit as described by Section 552.324, Government Code, to challenge a decision by the attorney general issued under Subchapter G, Chapter 552, Government Code, must bring the suit not later than the 30th calendar day after the date the school district or open-enrollment charter school receives the decision of the attorney general being challenged.


(b) A court shall grant a suit described by Subsection (a) precedence over other pending matters to ensure prompt resolution of the subject matter of the suit.


(c) Notwithstanding any other law, a school district or open-enrollment charter school may not appeal the decision of a court in a suit filed under Subsection (a). This subsection does not affect the right of a parent to appeal the decision.


(d) If the school district or open-enrollment charter school does not bring suit within the period established by Subsection (a), the school district or open-enrollment charter school shall comply with the decision of the attorney general.


(e) A school district or open-enrollment charter school that receives a request from a parent for public information relating to the parent's child shall comply with Chapter 552, Government Code. If an earlier deadline for bringing suit is established under Chapter 552, Government Code, Subsection (a) does not apply. This section does not affect the earlier deadline for purposes of Section 532.353(b)(3) for a suit brought by an officer for public information.


Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1335, Sec. 8, eff. June 19, 1999.


Sec. 26.009. CONSENT REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES. (a) An employee of a school district must obtain the written consent of a child's parent before the employee may:


(1) conduct a psychological examination, test, or treatment, unless the examination, test, or treatment is required under Section 38.004 or state or federal law regarding requirements for special education; or


(2) make or authorize the making of a videotape of a child or record or authorize the recording of a child's voice.


(b) An employee of a school district is not required to obtain the consent of a child's parent before the employee may make a videotape of a child or authorize the recording of a child's voice if the videotape or voice recording is to be used only for:


(1) purposes of safety, including the maintenance of order and discipline in common areas of the school or on school buses;


(2) a purpose related to a cocurricular or extracurricular activity;


(3) a purpose related to regular classroom instruction;


(4) media coverage of the school; or


(5) a purpose related to the promotion of student safety under Section 29.022.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1175, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Amended by:


Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1147 (S.B. 507), Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2015.


Sec. 26.0091. REFUSAL OF PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF CHILD AS BASIS OF REPORT OF NEGLECT. (a) In this section, "psychotropic drug" has the meaning assigned by Section 261.111, Family Code.


(b) An employee of a school district may not use or threaten to use the refusal of a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator of a child to administer or consent to the administration of a psychotropic drug to the child, or to consent to any other psychiatric or psychological testing or treatment of the child, as the sole basis for making a report of neglect of the child under Subchapter B, Chapter 261, Family Code, unless the employee has cause to believe that the refusal:


(1) presents a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury to the child; or


(2) has resulted in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child.


Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1008, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 2003.


Sec. 26.010. EXEMPTION FROM INSTRUCTION. (a) A parent is entitled to remove the parent's child temporarily from a class or other school activity that conflicts with the parent's religious or moral beliefs if the parent presents or delivers to the teacher of the parent's child a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from the class or other school activity. A parent is not entitled to remove the parent's child from a class or other school activity to avoid a test or to prevent the child from taking a subject for an entire semester.


(b) This section does not exempt a child from satisfying grade level or graduation requirements in a manner acceptable to the school district and the agency.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.


Sec. 26.011. COMPLAINTS. (a) The board of trustees of each school district shall adopt a grievance procedure under which the board shall address each complaint that the board receives concerning violation of a right guaranteed by this chapter.


(b) The board of trustees of a school district is not required by Subsection (a) or Section 11.1511(b)(13) to address a complaint that the board receives concerning a student's participation in an extracurricular activity that does not involve a violation of a right guaranteed by this chapter. This subsection does not affect a claim brought by a parent under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq.) or a successor federal statute addressing special education services for a child with a disability.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 925 (S.B. 1566), Sec. 9, eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 26.012. FEE FOR COPIES. The agency or a school district may charge a reasonable fee in accordance with Subchapter F, Chapter 552, Government Code, for copies of materials provided to a parent under this chapter.


Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.


Sec. 26.0125. PARENT CONTACT INFORMATION REQUIRED. The parent of a student enrolled in a school district shall provide in writing to the district:


(1) on enrollment of the student in the district and not later than two weeks after the beginning of each school year, the parent's address, phone number, and e-mail address; and


(2) if the parent's contact information changes during the school year, not later than two weeks after the date the information changes, the parent's updated information.


Added by Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 581 (S.B. 746), Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 2021.


Sec. 26.013. STUDENT DIRECTORY INFORMATION. (a) A school district shall provide to the parent of each district student at the beginning of each school year or on enrollment of the student after the beginning of a school year:


(1) a written explanation of the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g), regarding the release of directory information about the student; and


(2) written notice of the right of the parent to object to the release of directory information about the student under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g).


(b) The notice required by Subsection (a)(2) must contain:


(1) the following statement in boldface type that is 14-point or larger:


"Certain information about district students is considered directory information and will be released to anyone who follows the procedures for requesting the information unless the parent or guardian objects to the release of the directory information about the student. If you do not want [insert name of school district] to disclose directory information from your child's education records without your prior written consent, you must notify the district in writing by [insert date]. [Insert name of school district] has designated the following information as directory information: [Here a school district must include any directory information it chooses to designate as directory information for the district, such as a student's name, address, telephone listing, electronic mail address, photograph, degrees, honors and awards received, date and place of birth, major field of study, dates of attendance, grade level, most recent educational institution attended, and participation in officially recognized activities and sports, and the weight and height of members of athletic teams.]";


(2) a form, such as a check-off list or similar mechanism, that:


(A) immediately follows, on the same page or the next page, the statement required under Subdivision (1); and


(B) allows a parent to record:


(i) the parent's objection to the release of all directory information or one or more specific categories of directory information if district policy permits the parent to object to one or more specific categories of directory information;


(ii) the parent's objection to the release of a secondary student's name, address, and telephone number to a military recruiter or institution of higher education; and


(iii) the parent's consent to the release of one or more specific categories of directory information for a limited school-sponsored purpose if such purpose has been designated by the district and is specifically identified, such as for a student directory, student yearbook, or district publication; and


(3) a statement that federal law requires districts receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Section 6301 et seq.) to provide a military recruiter or an institution of higher education, on request, with the name, address, and telephone number of a secondary student unless the parent has advised the district that the parent does not want the student's information disclosed without the parent's prior written consent.


(c) A school district may designate as directory information any or all information defined as directory information by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g). Directory information under that Act that is not designated by a district as directory information for that district is excepted from disclosure by the district under Chapter 552, Government Code.


(d) Directory information consented to by a parent for use only for a limited school-sponsored purpose, such as for a student directory, student yearbook, or school district publication, if any such purpose has been designated by the district, remains otherwise confidential and may not be released under Chapter 552, Government Code.


Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 687 (S.B. 256), Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2005.


Sec. 26.015. POSTING OF INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENT DISCIPLINE. A school district shall post on the district's Internet website, for each district campus, the e-mail address and dedicated telephone number of a person clearly identified as:


(1) the campus behavior coordinator designated under Section 37.0012; or


(2) if the district has been designated as a district of innovation under Chapter 12A and is exempt from the requirement to designate a campus behavior coordinator under Section 37.0012 under the district's local innovation plan, a campus administrator designated as being responsible for student discipline.


Added by Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 265 (S.B. 1306), Sec. 1, eff. May 28, 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EDUCATION CODE CHAPTER 26. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EDUCATION CODE TITLE 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION SUBTITLE E. STUDENTS AND PARENTS CHAPTER 26. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Sec. 26.001. PURPOSE. (a) Parents are partners with educators, administrators, and school district boards of trustees in their children's education. Parents shall be encouraged to actively participate in creating and implementing educational programs for their children.

# data[].attributes.headline
#10 Ector County Independent School District 

# data[].attributes.subject
#10 Ector County Independent School District 

# data[].attributes.body
The Student Records Policy

Administrative Law

The privacy of student records is of utmost importance and must be safeguarded against unauthorized access. It is the responsibility of all employees to ensure the confidentiality of student records (Ector County Independent School District, 2024). Generally, only parents (whether married, separated, or divorced, unless parental rights are legally terminated and the school has the court order) and students themselves (those who are 18 years old or enrolled in post-secondary education) have access to student records (Ector County Independent School District, 2024).

References

Ector County Independent School District. (2024). Employee handbook. https://www.ectorcountyisd.org/departments/human-resources/employee-handbook

# data[].attributes.body
The ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors reinforces the importance of maintaining confidentiality and the appropriate procedures for disclosing student information. Counselors must keep the information confidential unless disclosure is legally required or necessary to prevent serious harm. They must balance their primary ethical duty to students with parents’ legal rights, using the least intrusive methods for breaching confidentiality when necessary. Counselors should protect student records according to federal and state laws and be cautious with electronic communications. They should use secure methods to convey sensitive information and advocate for protocols that safeguard student data, ensuring that only a limited number of educators can access sensitive information. Finally, they should avoid using insecure software and advocate for secure workspaces.

References

American School Counselor Association. (2016). Ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Maintaining privacy in counseling relationships is crucial for fostering trust between clients and counselors. However, establishing and comprehending the limits of confidentiality in educational settings can be challenging (Journal of School Counseling, 2013). This research article delves into the experiences of nine practicing school counselors to address the following two research questions: 1) how do professional school counselors handle ethical dilemmas concerning student confidentiality while carrying out their duties within the school community? 2) what are the school counselors' perceptions of how members of the school community view student confidentiality? The implications for school counselors and school counseling graduate programs are deliberated (Journal of School Counseling, 2013).

References

Journal of School Counseling. (2013). EBSCOhost. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1034752&site=eds-live&scope=site

# data[].attributes.headline
#13 Recommendations and Best Practices  

# data[].attributes.subject
#13 Recommendations and Best Practices  

# data[].attributes.body
Parents have the right to access information about their children.

Any statements indicating suicidal thoughts must be taken seriously due to the potential for harm.

Students expressing suicidal thoughts should be given appropriate support.

For students who are 18 years old and have expressed suicidal thoughts, it is advisable to encourage them to communicate with their parents or guardians.

Information about a student should only be shared with teachers and staff who have a genuine educational interest.

Schools are required to comply with subpoenas and court orders when disclosing information.