# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 1: Professional Perspective / Audience / Topic

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 1: Professional Perspective / Audience / Topic

# data[].attributes.body
For my padlet I chose FERPA as my topic of concern.

From a professional standpoint on colleges and universities protecting the privacy of their students, I believe that it is the responsibility of every faculty member and staff to ensure all protocols are followed to protect their students' rights to privacy. The audience is the student, faculty, staff, and anyone involved with the student's information. Institutions of higher education must follow the Federal Code of Regulations.

I chose to cover FERPA because I am a prior student, and a current college staff member who knows that privacy is a major safety issue for students, and I want to make sure we are held to a higher standard when it comes to privacy in this new technology era, we are living in.

# data[].attributes.body
FERPA

Governed by the U.S. Department of Education and the Texas Education Agency.

College Admissions Office and their staff are responsible for the facilitation of the policy and the college registrar and president, are responsible for making sure the college is complying.

FERPA gives certain rights to parents in regard to their students educational records. Once the students turns 18 those rights are transferred to the student and the parents are only allowed access if the student puts the parents on their privacy contact information at the college. I learned that a students place of birth is considered "directory information" and schools are allowed to disclose that to others without consent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 3: Federal & State Constitutional Laws 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 3: Federal & State Constitutional Laws 

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. constitution for FERPA in higher education is 20 U.S.C.S § 1232g(b).

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education. (Tex Const. art 20 §1232g)

The Texas Law for FERPA in higher education is section 552.114, (Tex Gov’t Code §552.114; Tex Educ Code §26.004)

FERPA

·         protects students who are over the age of 18 to privacy of their educational records

·         Colleges who violate FERPA are asked to comply, if they refuse a cease-and-desist order can be issued

·         payments from the Department of Education programs will be frozen

·         in severe cases colleges will lose federal funding

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. §1232 (2012).

Tex Gov't Code §552.114

Tex Const. art. 20, §1232g.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Office of the Federal Register publishes documents on behalf of Federal agencies but does not have any authority over their programs. We recommend you directly contact the agency responsible for the content in question.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas statute for FERPA in higher education is 20 U.S.C. §1232g. These regulations set forth requirements regarding the privacy of student records and affords students certain rights with respect to their education records. FERPA applies to those institutions that require funding from the Department of Education and guarantees students three primary rights: to inspect and review their education records; to seek to amend education records; and to exercise some control over the disclosure of information from those education records.

(Texas Public Information Act, Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001 et seq.)

Texas administrative law for FERPA 19 T.A.C § 1.18. FERPA means the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 42 U.S.C. §1232g, including regulations and informal written guidance issued by the United States Department of Education and any amendments or supplementation thereof.

(Operation of Education Research Centers, 19. Tex. Admin. Code § 1.18)

FERPA in higher education is used to

·         Inspect and review student’s education records

·         Amendment of education records

·

·         If a student feels that their privacy has been violated, they must file a complaint with the DOE.

·         Schools that fail to comply with FERPA can lose federal funding

·         Employees who violate FERPA can be fined up to $500 for each violation

Tex. Gov't Code §552.001 et seq.

Operation of Education Research Center, 19 Tex. Admin. Code §1.18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (1) FERPA means the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 42 U.S.C. §1232g, including regulations and informal written guidance issued by the United States Department of Education and any amendments or supplementation thereof. (2) Cooperating Agencies means the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (CB), and the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). (3) P-20/Workforce Data Repository refers to the collection of data from each Cooperating Agency. The cooperating agencies shall execute agreements for the sharing of data for the purpose of facilitating the studies or evaluations at Education Research Centers (ERCs). In accordance with the agreements, each cooperating agency shall make available all appropriate data, including to the extent possible data collected by the cooperating agency for at least the preceding 20 years. A cooperating agency shall periodically update the data as additional data is collected, but not less than once each year. The repository shall be operated by the CB. (4) The CB may enter into data agreements for data required for approved studies or evaluations with the state education agency of another state, giving priority to the agencies of those states that send the highest number of postsecondary education students to this state or that receive the highest number of postsecondary education students from this state. An agreement under this paragraph must be reviewed by the United States Department of Education and must require the agency of another state to comply with all data security measures required of a center. The CB may also enter into data agreements with local agencies or organizations that provide education services to students in this state or that collect data that is relevant to current or former students of public schools in this state and is useful to the conduct of research that may benefit education in this state. (5) Confidential information as applied to data in the P-20/Workforce Data Repository provided to an ERC includes all individual-level data, including any data cells small enough to allow identification of an individual. All data cells containing between one and four individuals, inclusive, are confidential. (A) Small data cells will be considered any cell containing between one and four individuals inclusive. Information may not be disclosed where small data cells can be determined through subtraction or other simple mathematical manipulations or subsequent cross-tabulation of the same data with other variables. Institutions may use any of the common methods for masking including: (i) hiding the small cell and the next larger cell on the row and column so the size of the small cell cannot be determined; or (ii) hiding the small cell and displaying the total for both the row and column as a range of at least ten; or (iii) any methodology approved by the cooperating agencies. (B) References to the CB shall also be deemed to include the Commissioner of Higher Education. References to the TEA shall also be deemed to include the Commissioner of Education. References to the TWC shall also be deemed to include the Workforce Commissioners. (b) Purpose. (1) ERCs shall be established by the CB. An ERC may only be established at a sponsoring public institution of higher education in Texas but may be awarded to a consortium of such institutions. An ERC must be physically located within Texas and must retain all data at that location except for secure off-site data back-up in accordance with written procedures approved by the Advisory Board. Individual level data from the ERC P-20/Workforce Data Repository may not be provided to a researcher except in the following ways: (A) individual level data may be provided to a researcher at a Research Center or the CB or a public institution of higher education located in Texas that is an acknowledged consortium member of the ERC; or (B) individual level data may be accessed by approved researchers via secure, restricted, VPN remote access provided all other provisions of this chapter are met and established policies are followed regarding additional controls. (2) The CB is responsible for general oversight and technical assistance of ERCs, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. All policy decisions shall be approved by the CB. (3) Sponsoring institutions of higher education are responsible for all equipment, salaries and other operating costs of an ERC, including documented staff time and equipment at TEA and the CB necessary to prepare and maintain data for the ERCs, as well as reasonable reimbursable expenses of the Advisory Board. Costs will include actual documented expenses up to two full-time equivalent employees at TEA and CB along with associated data storage costs as set by DIR for the data center consolidation rates unless otherwise agreed to by the CB and the ERCs. (4) The ERCs may provide researchers access to shared data only through secure methods and require each researcher to execute an agreement regarding compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. §1232g) and rules and regulations adopted under that Act. Each ERC shall adopt rules or policies to protect the confidentiality of information used or stored at the center in accordance with applicable state and federal law, including rules or policies establishing procedures to ensure that confidential information is not duplicated or removed from an Education Research Center or from a remote access interface in an unauthorized manner. (c) Advisory Board. (1) The Commissioner of Higher Education shall create and maintain an advisory board to review and approve, as it deems appropriate, research involving access to confidential information and to adopt policies and rules governing the protection of such information in ERC operations. The Advisory Board is considered to be a governmental body for purposes of Chapters 551 and 552 of the Texas Government Code. (2) Membership of the Advisory Board shall include, at a minimum: (A) the Commissioner of Higher Education, as Chair; (B) a representative of TEA, designated by the Commissioner of Education; (C) a representative of the CB, designated by the Commissioner of Higher Education; (D) a representative of the TWC, designated by the Commission; (E) the Director or Director's designee of each ERC; and (F) a representative of preschool, elementary, or secondary education, designated by the Commissioner of Higher Education. (G) Additional member(s) may be appointed within the discretion of and as determined by the Commissioner of Higher Education. (3) The Advisory Board will review each study or evaluation proposal. A study or evaluation proposal must be approved in advance by majority vote of the Advisory Board before it can be conducted at an ERC. The Advisory Board's review of a proposal must include the following factors: (A) the potential to benefit education in Texas; (B) require each ERC Director or designee to approve of the research design and methods to be used; and (C) the extent to which the required data is not readily available from another source. (4) The Advisory Board will decide if a submitted proposal falls under the "studies" exception or the "audit/evaluation" exception described in FERPA and its implementing regulations. Should a proposed study or evaluation not be permitted by FERPA or its implementing regulations, the proposal will be denied. (5) Each ERC will enter into a written agreement with each researcher mandating the researcher's compliance with FERPA. (6) The Advisory Board shall meet at the call of the Chair at least quarterly each year and such meetings will be open to the public. (7) Meetings may be conducted by electronic means, including telephonic, video conference call, Internet, or any combination of those means. (8) The Advisory Board may create committees and subcommittees as it deems necessary or appropriate. (d) Operation. (1) An ERC may operate only under written authorization by the CB. Status as an ERC may not be assigned, delegated or transferred to any other entity. (2) An ERC shall be led by a managing Director who is a professional employee of the sponsoring institution of higher education (IHE). The managing Director shall report directly to the chief operating officer of the sponsoring IHE unless a different reporting structure is approved by the CB. (3) All research at an ERC involving access to confidential information shall be conducted with the approval of the Advisory Board or by request of the Texas Workforce Commission, Commissioner of Higher Education or the Commissioner of Education if the requesting agency provides sufficient funds to the ERC to finance the project. All remote access research at an ERC involving access to confidential information shall be conducted with the approval of the Advisory Board. (4) Confidential information provided to an ERC shall be protected by procedures to ensure that any unique identifying number is not traceable to any individual. Such procedures must be maintained as confidential by TEA and the CB and may not be shared with an ERC, or used for any other purpose. Under no circumstances may social security numbers, names, or birthdates be accessed for the purpose of research at an ERC. (5) ERCs shall adopt written procedures for research conducted using confidential information, subject to FERPA and its implementing regulations and approval by the Advisory Board. An ERC may not access confidential information until all such procedures are approved. Such procedures shall include: (A) measures to ensure against unauthorized disclosure of confidential information; (B) independent review of all research products/results by a designated ERC staff person not involved in that specific project to ensure against unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in accordance with guidelines adopted under FERPA; (C) measures to ensure that confidential information is not copied or removed from the ERC; (D) annual certification of full compliance with all requirements of state and federal laws and regulations regarding the use of confidential information for research purposes by the internal auditor of each participating IHE; (E) before final approval of a research proposal by the Advisory Board, the researcher must certify that the research proposal complies with the IHE's institutional review board or similar research review board with oversight over research design, including any applicable requirements for research involving human subjects the ERC shall provide evidence of approval from the IRB or justification for exclusion from the IRB process before a researcher has access to any data; and (F) criteria for allocating research access capacity for researchers not affiliated with the sponsoring IHEs. (6) All final research reports or analysis produced at an ERC shall: (A) be made available upon request to the cooperating agencies; (B) a single copy shall be made available to the cooperating agencies for any copyright publications at no cost to the cooperating agencies; institutionally produced or non-copyright publications shall be available for public distribution, copying or reproduction at no cost to the cooperating agencies; (C) contain a disclaimer in a form acceptable to the cooperating agencies stating that the conclusions of the research do not necessarily reflect the opinion or official position of those entities or of the State of Texas; (7) An ERC shall comply with the requirements of the Texas Public Information Act, including requirements relating to data manipulation. Charges for processing Public Information Act requests shall be based on guidelines developed by the Texas Attorney General's Office. (8) A sponsoring IHE shall cooperate fully with all audit requests made by the CB or the Advisory Board. Each ERC shall annually request and undergo a security audit performed by the Texas Department of Information Resources, or a contractor approved by that Department, which shall include a penetration test of computer equipment and access, and provide the results thereof to the CB. (9) Research projects that require access to data not then included in the database maintained by the CB for research will be provided by the cooperating agencies if available. An ERC will be charged the cost to process or manipulate such data. (e) Sanctions and Termination. (1) Upon a determination that confidential information has been released or has been copied to another location, or that appropriate security measures are not in place to protect confidential information, the CB may, in addition to other remedies set forth in this section, require an ERC to obtain appropriate services or equipment or to remove confidential information from such other location in order to remedy a security deficit. Such services or equipment shall be purchased by the ERC from vendors subject to approval of the CB. Cont'd...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (1) FERPA means the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 42 U.S.C. §1232g, including regulations and informal written guidance issued by the United States Department of Education and any amendments or supplementation thereof.

# data[].attributes.body
FERPA

U.S. v Miami University, 2002.

The Department of Education sued Miami university to ban them from releasing student disciplinary records to a newspaper. The court concluded that student disciplinary records are unquestionably student education records under federal law and are protected as such.

(U.S. v Miami University, 6th Cir. 294 F.3D 797).

The supreme court ruling in favor of Tufts shows that altering a test would lower the academic standards of the course.

The ruling on FERPA regarding student disciplinary records protects the students from outside discrimination.

U.S. v Miami University, 6th Cir. 294 F. 3D 797.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Intervening Defendant-Appellant The Chronicle of Higher Education contests the district court's grant of summary judgment and subsequent permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee the United States. Specifically, the district court concluded that university disciplinary records were "educational records" as that term is defined in the Family Education Rights and , , and that releasing such records and the personally identifiable information contained therein constitutes a violation of the FERPA. The district court permanently enjoined the Defendants-Appellees Miami University and The Ohio State University ("Miami," or collectively "Universities") from releasing student disciplinary records or any "personally identifiable information" contained therein, except as otherwise expressly permitted under the FERPA. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

This case was born of a dispute between a university newspaper and the university's administration. In the spring of 1995, the editor-in-chief of Miami's student newspaper, The Miami Student , sought student disciplinary records from the University Disciplinary Board to track crime trends on campus.1 Miami initially refused to release the requested records, but after the editors made a written request pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act, , for all UDB records from 1993-1996, Miami released the records. Pursuant to the FERPA privacy provisions, however, Miami redacted "from these records the identity, sex, and age of the accuseds [sic], as well as the date, time and location of the incidents giving rise to the disciplinary charges."

A divided Ohio Supreme Court granted the editors a writ of mandamus. According to the Court, the Ohio Public Records Act "provides for full access to all public records upon request unless the requested records fall within one of the specific exceptions listed in the Act." The relevant exception in "excludes from the definition of public records those records `the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.'" Relying on a Georgia Supreme Court case,3 the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that university disciplinary records were not "education records" as defined in the FERPA. Accordingly, the Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling Miami to provide the records requested by the editors. Miami sought United States Supreme Court review of the Ohio decision, but the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

On the heels of the Ohio Supreme Court decision, Because the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that student disciplinary records were not educational records covered by the FERPA, The Chronicle,4 pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act, made written requests of Miami and Ohio State for disciplinary records amassed during the calendar years 1995 and 1996. The Chronicle requested the records with names intact and minimal redaction as required by the Ohio Public Records Act. Upon receipt of the request, and in light of the Ohio Supreme Court decision, Miami contacted the United States Department of Education and explained that it might not be able to comply with the FERPA.5 The DOE told Miami that it believed the Ohio Supreme Court was incorrect in holding that student disciplinary records are not "education records" under the FERPA. The DOE assured Miami "that the FERPA prohibits the University from releasing personally identifiable information contained in student disciplinary records."

In December of 1997, Miami complied in part with Miami informed the DOE that it intended to comply with the remainder of The Chronicle's request by providing the newspaper virtually unredacted disciplinary records from November, 1995, and November, 1996. The Chronicle's request. In addition, Miami advised the DOE that it "had adopted a policy of releasing disciplinary records to any third-party requestor."

In January of 1998, Ohio State confirmed with the DOE that it too had received Thereafter, Ohio State told the DOE that it intended to comply with the remainder of The Chronicle's request for all disciplinary records from 1995 and 1996. The Chronicle's request.

Shortly after the DOE learned that Miami and Ohio State intended to release student disciplinary records containing personally identifiable information without the consent of the student, the United States filed the underlying complaint against the Universities.6 In the complaint, the DOE sought declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Universities from releasing student disciplinary records that contain personally identifiable information, except as permitted under the FERPA. The DOE immediately filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the Universities' release of student disciplinary records.

On February 13, 1998, The second motion alleged that The Chronicle filed an unopposed motion to intervene and the district court granted the motion. The Chronicle subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the action and a motion to establish an order of procedure. The motion to dismiss contended that the DOE lacked standing to bring this action and that the DOE's enforcement power was limited to the administrative remedies outlined in the FERPA. The Chronicle may dispute certain material facts. The Chronicle requested a reasonable period of time for discovery and the filing of additional affidavits to develop those facts.

The DOE responded to The district court denied The Chronicle's motions and filed its own motion for summary judgment. The Chronicle's motion to dismiss and motion for an order of procedure. Determining that the student disciplinary records were "education records" under the FERPA, the court granted the DOE's motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the Universities from releasing student disciplinary records in violation of the FERPA.7 This timely appeal followed.

First, Second, Instead, Third, Next, Fifth, Finally, The Chronicle asserts that the district court should be reversed for several reasons. The Chronicle contends that the DOE lacks standing to bring an action seeking injunctive relief and compliance with the FERPA. The Chronicle argues that the district court erred in holding that the FERPA "prohibits" education records disclosure, thereby concluding that education records were not subject to disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act. The Chronicle contends that the district court implicitly held that the Ohio public records law was preempted by the FERPA. The Chronicle alleges that the district court erred in holding that student disciplinary records are education records within the meaning of the FERPA. The Chronicle contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without first permitting discovery to develop a sufficient factual record. The Chronicle alleges that the United States had an entirely adequate remedy at law and failed to show irreparable harm; therefore, the district court erred in granting broad permanent injunctive relief. The Chronicle argues that, to the extent it prohibits disclosure of student disciplinary records, the FERPA violates the and the district court failed to recognize that violation. After a recitation of the applicable standards of review and a brief FERPA synopsis, we will address these arguments in turn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
0: [object Object]. 1: [object Object]. 2: [object Object]. 3: [object Object]

# data[].attributes.body
FERPA

Federal regulation refers to Protection of Pupil Rights Amendments; 1978 or Tex. Educ Code §32.151 et. Seq. or Tex. HB2087.

Government mandates on ADA and FERPA are set in place to protect institutions and the students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, or PPRA, is a federal law that provides certain rights for parents of students regarding, among other things, student participation in surveys; the inspection of instructional material; certain physical exams; and the collection, disclosure, and use of personal information for marketing purposes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 7: Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 7: Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.body
FERPA

The privacy of an individual’s medical and related records may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), excepting health records protected by FERPA and by Texas state law. Access to an employee’s personnel records may be restricted by applicable Texas and federal law. (Howard College, 2023).

This policy is in place to protect the privacy of the students.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Respect Autonomy- Individuals have the right to make their own decisions. This means “eligible students” have the right to not put their parents on their privacy contact information form. (McDonald et al., 2006)

2. Do No Harm- Do not do anything that could potentially mentally or physically harm a student or staff member. Don’t release student information that isn’t allowed. (McDonald et al., 2006)

3. Benefit Others- Promote the health and well being of the students. Make sure the students are being placed first, over everything else. (McDonald et al., 2006)

4. Being Just- Treat everyone fairly. Treat each student equally. (McDonald et al., 2006)

5. Being Faithful- Be trustworthy. Always be honest with the students. (McDonald et al., 2006)

McDonald, W.M., Walker Ebelhar, M., Orehovec, E.R., & Sanderson, R.H. (2006).

Ethical Decision Making: A Teaching and Learning Model for Graduate Students and New Professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(2), 152-163.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 8: Three Risk Management Strategies

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 8: Three Risk Management Strategies

# data[].attributes.body
Risk management steps that can be taken by a college to ensure FERPA laws are in place are:

•Increase awareness of FERPA to all staff making sure everyone knows what information is protected under the law

•Understand the rights that FERPA provides

•Know the exceptions to the law

•Train staff members

Institutions of higher education must make students right to privacy very important. FERPA violations are serious. The penalty for non-compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) can be withdrawal of U.S. Department of Education funds from the institution or agency that has violated the law. This applies to schools, school districts, and state education agencies. The Family Policy Compliance Office of the U.S. Department of Education, charged with reviewing and investigating complaints, seeks to promote voluntary compliance with the law. To date, findings of non-compliance have not resulted in such action.

A third party who improperly discloses personally identifiable information from student records can be prohibited from receiving access to records at the education agency or institution for at least five years. State laws on privacy may also apply penalties. (IES, n.d.)

Institute of Education Science. Section six. (n.d.)

https:necs.ed.gov/pubs97/p97527/Sec6_txt.asp#:~:text=The%20penalty%20for%20non%2Dcompliance,that%20has%20violated%20the%20law

# data[].attributes.body
FERPA

The principles of ethics in FERPA is basically valuing and respecting the privacy of each student, employee, parent, and partner of the college. The release of information should follow the FERPA Act, The Clery Act, and the Texas Public Information Act.

(Howard College, 2023).

Ethical decision-making strategies to implement for FERPA regulations in higher education.

# data[].attributes.body
I am a prior ADA coordinator at Howard College, and I now know that I had not even scratched the surface of all the regulations that are required in higher education. Being able to help students who have a disability to be able to enjoy the college life is something that is so rewarding to see come to fruition. ADA accommodations for college classes as well as student life are so important to have in place, it helps the student, and it helps the college to be more accessible.

ADA compliance is so important on college campuses to maintain the legal compliance. Aside from the legal aspect, college campuses who follow the guidelines of ADA will also influence more students with disabilities to attend said campus.