# data[].attributes.body
Keep up to date with professional development regarding school counselor policies.

Become a member of a school counseling association that provides legal liability for counselors.

Be knowledgeable in the districts confidentiality policies.

Explain confidentiality policies to students, family members or staff.

Remain up to date with laws, or policies regarding educational confidentiality.

Be cautious of social media platforms or using technology as a counseling resource.

Refer to the American School Counselor Association ethical codes often.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)
Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-679.ZO.html

Policy or practice of releasing education records to unauthorized personnel.

Undergraduate school records are released to unauthorized personnel.

Respondent loses job opportunity because of released records and sues the university for damages.

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

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GONZAGA UNIVERSITY and ROBERTA S. LEAGUE,
PETITIONERS v. JOHN DOE

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF WASHINGTON

[June 20, 2002]

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether a student may sue a private university for damages under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V), to enforce provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA or Act), 88 Stat. 571, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g which prohibit the federal funding of educational institutions that have a policy or practice of releasing education records to unauthorized persons. We hold such an action foreclosed because the relevant provisions of FERPA create no personal rights to enforce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V).

Respondent John Doe is a former undergraduate in the School of Education at Gonzaga University, a private university in Spokane, Washington. He planned to graduate and teach at a Washington public elementary school. Washington at the time required all of its new teachers to obtain an affidavit of good moral character from a dean of their graduating college or university. In October 1993, Roberta League, Gonzaga's "teacher certification specialist," overheard one student tell another that respondent engaged in acts of sexual misconduct against Jane Doe, a female undergraduate. League launched an investigation and contacted the state agency responsible for teacher certification, identifying respondent by name and discussing the allegations against him. Respondent did not learn of the investigation, or that information about him had been disclosed, until March 1994, when he was told by League and others that he would not receive the affidavit required for certification as a Washington schoolteacher.

Respondent then sued Gonzaga and League (petitioners) in state court. He alleged violations of Washington tort and contract law, as well as a pendent violation of §1983 for the release of personal information to an "unauthorized person" in violation of FERPA. 1 A jury found for respondent on all counts, awarding him $1,155,000, including $150,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages on the FERPA claim.

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, concluding that FERPA does not create individual rights and thus cannot be enforced under §1983. 99 Wash. App. 338, 992 P.2d 545 (2000). The Washington Supreme Court reversed that decision, and ordered the FERPA damages reinstated. 143 Wash. 2d 687, 24 P.3d 390 (2001). The court acknowledged that "FERPA itself does not give rise to a private cause of action," but reasoned that FERPA's nondisclosure provision "gives rise to a federal right enforceable under section 1983." Id., at 707—708, 24 P.3d, at 400.

Like the Washington Supreme Court and the state court of appeals below, other state and federal courts have divided on the question of FERPA's enforceability under §1983. 2 The fact that all of these courts have relied on the same set of opinions from this Court suggests that our opinions in this area may not be models of clarity. We therefore granted certiorari, 534 U.S. 1103 (2002), to resolve the conflict among the lower courts and in the process resolve any ambiguity in our own opinions.

Congress enacted FERPA under its spending power to condition the receipt of federal funds on certain requirements relating to the access and disclosure of student educational records. The Act directs the Secretary of Education to withhold federal funds from any public or private "educational agency or institution" that fails to comply with these conditions. As relevant here, the Act provides:

"No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein ...) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization." 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1).

The Act directs the Secretary of Education to enforce this and other of the Act's spending conditions. §1232g(f). The Secretary is required to establish an office and review board within the Department of Education for "investigating, processing, reviewing, and adjudicating violations of [the Act]." §1232g(g). Funds may be terminated only if the Secretary determines that a recipient institution "is failing to comply substantially with any requirement of [the Act]" and that such compliance "cannot be secured by voluntary means." §§1234c(a), 1232g(f).

Respondent contends that this statutory regime confers upon any student enrolled at a covered school or institution a federal right, enforceable in suits for damages under §1983, not to have "education records" disclosed to unauthorized persons without the student's express written consent. But we have never before held, and decline to do so here, that spending legislation drafted in terms resembling those of FERPA can confer enforceable rights.

In Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980), six years after Congress enacted FERPA, we recognized for the first time that §1983 actions may be brought against state actors to enforce rights created by federal statutes as well as by the Constitution. There we held that plaintiffs could recover payments wrongfully withheld by a state agency in violation of the Social Security Act. Id., at 4. A year later, in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981), we rejected a claim that the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975 conferred enforceable rights, saying:

"In legislation enacted pursuant to the spending power, the typical remedy for state noncompliance with federally imposed conditions is not a private cause of action for noncompliance but rather action by the Federal Government to terminate funds to the State." Id., at 28.

We made clear that unless Congress "speak[s] with a clear voice," and manifests an "unambiguous" intent to confer individual rights, federal funding provisions provide no basis for private enforcement by §1983. Id., at 17, 28, and n. 21.

Since Pennhurst, only twice have we found spending legislation to give rise to enforceable rights. In Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 479 U.S. 418 (1987), we allowed a §1983 suit by tenants to recover past overcharges under a rent-ceiling provision of the Public Housing Act, on the ground that the provision unambiguously conferred "a mandatory [benefit] focusing on the individual family and its income." Id., at 430. The key to our inquiry was that Congress spoke in terms that "could not be clearer," and conferred entitlements "sufficiently specific and definite to qualify as enforceable rights under Pennhurst." Id., at 432. Also significant was that the federal agency charged with administering the Public Housing Act "ha[d] never provided a procedure by which tenants could complain to it about the alleged failures [of state welfare agencies] to abide by [the Act's rent-ceiling provision]." Id., at 426.

Three years later, in Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 U.S. 498 (1990), we allowed a §1983 suit brought by health care providers to enforce a reimbursement provision of the Medicaid Act, on the ground that the provision, much like the rent-ceiling provision in Wright, explicitly conferred specific monetary entitlements upon the plaintiffs. Congress left no doubt of its intent for private enforcement, we said, because the provision required States to pay an "objective" monetary entitlement to individual health care providers, with no sufficient administrative means of enforcing the requirement against States that failed to comply. 496 U.S., at 522—523.

Our more recent decisions, however, have rejected attempts to infer enforceable rights from Spending Clause statutes. In Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992), the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 required States receiving funds for adoption assistance to have a "plan" to make "reasonable efforts" to keep children out of foster homes. A class of parents and children sought to enforce this requirement against state officials under §1983, claiming that no such efforts had been made. We read the Act "in the light shed by Pennhurst," id., at 358, and found no basis for the suit, saying:

"Careful examination of the language . . . does not unambiguously confer an enforceable right upon the Act's beneficiaries. The term 'reasonable efforts' in this context is at least as plausibly read to impose only a rather generalized duty on the State, to be enforced not by private individuals, but by the Secretary in the manner [of reducing or eliminating payments]." Id., at 363.

Since the Act conferred no specific, individually enforceable rights, there was no basis for private enforcement, even by a class of the statute's principal beneficiaries. Id., at 357.

Similarly, in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997), Title IV—D of the Social Security Act required States receiving federal child-welfare funds to "substantially comply" with requirements designed to ensure timely payment of child support. Five Arizona mothers invoked §1983 against state officials on grounds that state child-welfare agencies consistently failed to meet these requirements. We found no basis for the suit, saying,

"Far from creating an individual entitlement to services, the standard is simply a yardstick for the Sec-
retary to measure the systemwide performance of a State's Title IV—D program. Thus, the Secretary
must look to the aggregate services provided by the State, not to whether the needs of any particular person have been satisfied." Id., at 343 (emphases in original).

Because the provision focused on "the aggregate services provided by the State," rather than "the needs of any particular person," it conferred no individual rights and thus could not be enforced by §1983. We emphasized: "[T]o seek redress through §1983, ... a plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law." Id., at 340 (emphases in original).

Respondent reads this line of cases to establish a relatively loose standard for finding rights enforceable by §1983. He claims that a federal statute confers such rights so long as Congress intended that the statute "benefit" putative plaintiffs. Brief for Respondent 40—46. He further contends that a more "rigorous" inquiry would conflate the standard for inferring a private right of action under §1983 with the standard for inferring a private right of action directly from the statute itself, which he admits would not exist under FERPA. Id., at 41—43. As authority, respondent points to Blessing and Wilder,which, he says, used the term "benefit" to define the sort of statutory interest enforceable by §1983. See Blessing, supra, at 340—341 ("Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff "); Wilder, supra, at 509 (same).

Some language in our opinions might be read to suggest that something less than an unambiguously conferred right is enforceable by §1983. Blessing, for example, set forth three "factors" to guide judicial inquiry into whether or not a statute confers a right: "Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff," "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so 'vague and amorphous' that its enforcement would strain judicial resources," and "the provision giving rise to the asserted right must be couched in mandatory, rather than precatory, terms." 520 U.S., at 340—341. In the same paragraph, however, Blessing emphasizes that it is only violations of rights, not laws, which give rise to §1983 actions. Id., at 340. This confusion has led some courts to interpret Blessing as allowing plaintiffs to enforce a statute under §1983 so long as the plaintiff falls within the general zone of interest that the statute is intended to protect; something less than what is required for a statute to create rights enforceable directly from the statute itself under an implied private right of action. Fueling this uncertainty is the notion that our implied private right of action cases have no bearing on the standards for discerning whether a statute creates rights enforceable by §1983. Wilder appears to support this notion, 496 U.S., at 508—509, n. 9, while Suter, supra, at 363—364, and Pennhurst, 451 U.S., at 28, n. 21, appear to disavow it.

We now reject the notion that our cases permit anything short of an unambiguously conferred right to support a cause of action brought under §1983. Section 1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. Accordingly, it is rights, not the broader or vaguer "benefits" or "interests," that may be enforced under the authority of that section. This being so, we further reject the notion that our implied right of action cases are separate and distinct from our §1983 cases. To the contrary, our implied right of action cases should guide the determination of whether a statute confers rights enforceable under §1983.

We have recognized that whether a statutory violation may be enforced through §1983 "is a different inquiry than that involved in determining whether a private right of action can be implied from a particular statute." Wilder, supra, at 508, n. 9. But the inquiries overlap in one meaningful respect–in either case we must first determine whether Congress intended to create a federal right. Thus we have held that "[t]he question whether Congress ... intended to create a private right of action [is] definitively answered in the negative" where "a statute by its terms grants no private rights to any identifiable class." Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 576 (1979). For a statute to create such private rights, its text must be "phrased in terms of the persons benefited." Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 692, n. 13 (1979). We have recognized, for example, that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 create individual rights because those statutes are phrased "with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class." Id., at 691 (emphasis added). 3 But even where a statute is phrased in such explicit rights-creating terms, a plaintiff suing under an implied right of action still must show that the statute manifests an intent "to create not just a private right but also a private remedy." Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001) (emphases added).

Plaintiffs suing under §1983 do not have the burden of showing an intent to create a private remedy because §1983 generally supplies a remedy for the vindication of rights secured by federal statutes. See supra, at 4—7. Once a plaintiff demonstrates that a statute confers an individual right, the right is presumptively enforceable by §1983. 4 But the initial inquiry–determining whether a statute confers any right at all–is no different from the initial inquiry in an implied right of action case, the express purpose of which is to determine whether or not a statute "confer[s] rights on a particular class of persons." California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 294 (1981). This makes obvious sense, since §1983 merely provides a mechanism for enforcing individual rights "secured" elsewhere, i.e., rights independently "secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. "[O]ne cannot go into court and claim a 'violation of §1983'–for §1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything." Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979).

A court's role in discerning whether personal rights exist in the §1983 context should therefore not differ from its role in discerning whether personal rights exist in the implied right of action context. Compare Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 107—108, n. 4 (1989) ("[A] claim based on a statutory violation is enforceable under §1983 only when the statute creates 'rights, privileges, or immunities' in the particular plaintiff "), with Cannon, supra, at 690, n. 13 (statute is enforceable under implied right only where Congress "explicitly conferred a right directly on a class of persons that included the plaintiff in the case"). Both inquiries simply require a determination as to whether or not Congress intended to confer individual rights upon a class of beneficiaries. Compare Wright, 479 U.S., at 423 (statute must be "intended to rise to the level of an enforceable right"), with Alexander v. Sandoval, supra, at 289 (statute must evince "congressional intent to create new rights"); and California v. Sierra Club, supra, at 294 ("The question is not simply who would benefit from the Act, but whether Congress intended to confer federal rights upon those beneficiaries" (citing Cannon, supra, at 690—693, n. 13)). Accordingly, where the text and structure of a statute provide no indication that Congress intends to create new individual rights, there is no basis for a private suit, whether under §1983 or under an implied right of action.

Justice Stevens disagrees with this conclusion principally because separation-of-powers concerns are, in his view, more pronounced in the implied right of action context as opposed to the §1983 context. Post, at 9—10 (dissenting opinion) (citing Wilder, 496 U.S., at 509, n. 9). But we fail to see how relations between the branches are served by having courts apply a multi-factor balancing test to pick and choose which federal requirements may be enforced by §1983 and which may not. Nor are separation-of-powers concerns within the Federal Government the only guideposts in this sort of analysis. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) ("[I]f Congress intends to alter the 'usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government,' it must make its intention to do so 'unmistakably clear in the language of the statute' " (quoting Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985); citing Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984))).5

With this principle in mind, there is no question that FERPA's nondisclosure provisions fail to confer enforceable rights. To begin with, the provisions entirely lack the sort of "rights-creating" language critical to showing the requisite congressional intent to create new rights. Alexander v. Sandoval, supra, at 288—289; Cannon, supra, at 690, n. 13. Unlike the individually focused terminology of Titles VI and IX ("no person shall be subjected to discrimination"), FERPA's provisions speak only to the Secretary of Education, directing that "[n]o funds shall be made available" to any "educational agency or institution" which has a prohibited "policy or practice." 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1). This focus is two steps removed from the interests of individual students and parents and clearly does not confer the sort of " individual entitlement" that is enforceable under §1983. Blessing, 520 U.S., at 343 (emphasis in original). As we said in Cannon:

"There would be far less reason to infer a private remedy in favor of individual persons if Congress, instead of drafting Title IX with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class, had written it simply as a ban on discriminatory conduct by recipients of federal funds or as a prohibition against the disbursement of public funds to educational institutions engaged in discriminatory practices." 441 U.S., at 690—693.

See also Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S., at 289 ("Statutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected create 'no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class of persons' " (quoting California v. Sierra Club, supra, at 294)).

FERPA's nondisclosure provisions further speak only in terms of institutional policy and practice, not individual instances of disclosure. See §§1232g(b)(1)—(2) (prohibiting the funding of "any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records" (emphasis added)). Therefore, as in Blessing, they have an "aggregate" focus, 520 U.S., at 343, they are not concerned with "whether the needs of any particular person have been satisfied," ibid., and they cannot "give rise to individual rights," id., at 344. Recipient institutions can further avoid termination of funding so long as they "comply substantially" with the Act's requirements. §1234c(a). This, too, is not unlike Blessing, which found that Title IV—D failed to support a §1983 suit in part because it only required "substantial compliance" with federal regulations. 520 U.S., at 335, 343. Respondent directs our attention to subsection (b)(2), but the text and structure of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) are essentially the same. 6 In each provision the reference to individual consent is in the context of describing the type of "policy or practice" that triggers a funding prohibition. For reasons expressed repeatedly in our prior cases, however, such provisions cannot make out the requisite congressional intent to confer individual rights enforceable by §1983. 7

Our conclusion that FERPA's nondisclosure provisions fail to confer enforceable rights is buttressed by the mechanism that Congress chose to provide for enforcing those provisions. Congress expressly authorized the Secretary of Education to " deal with violations" of the Act, §1232g(f) (emphasis added), and required the Secretary to "establish or designate [a] review board" for investigating and adjudicating such violations, §1232g(g). Pursuant to these provisions, the Secretary created the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) "to act as the Review Board required under the Act and to enforce the Act with respect to all applicable programs." 34 CFR §§99.60(a) and (b) (2001). The FPCO permits students and parents who suspect a violation of the Act to file individual written complaints. §99.63. If a complaint is timely and contains required information, the FPCO will initiate an investigation, §§99.64(a)—(b), notify the educational institution of the charge, §99.65(a), and request a written response, §99.65. If a violation is found, the FPCO distributes a notice of factual findings and a "statement of the specific steps that the agency or institution must take to comply" with FERPA. §§99.66(b) and (c)(1). These administrative procedures squarely distinguish this case from Wright and Wilder, where an aggrieved individual lacked any federal review mechanism, see supra, at 5, and further counsel against our finding a congressional intent to create individually enforceable private rights. 8

Congress finally provided that "[e]xcept for the conduct of hearings, none of the functions of the Secretary under this section shall be carried out in any of the regional offices" of the Department of Education. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(g). This centralized review provision was added just four months after FERPA's enactment due to "concern that regionalizing the enforcement of [FERPA] may lead to multiple interpretations of it, and possibly work a hardship on parents, students, and institutions." 120 Cong. Rec. 39863 (1974) (joint statement). Cf. Wright, 479 U.S., at 426 ("Congress' aim was to provide a decentralized ... administrative process " (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)). It is implausible to presume that the same Congress nonetheless intended private suits to be brought before thousands of federal- and state-court judges, which could only result in the sort of "multiple interpretations" the Act explicitly sought to avoid.

In sum, if Congress wishes to create new rights enforceable under §1983, it must do so in clear and unambiguous terms–no less and no more than what is required for Congress to create new rights enforceable under an implied private right of action. FERPA's nondisclosure provisions contain no rights-creating language, they have an aggregate, not individual, focus, and they serve primarily to direct the Secretary of Education's distribution of public funds to educational institutions. They therefore create no rights enforceable under §1983. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: American School Counseling Association. (2022). ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf
Link: https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf

This association is especially aimed at school counselors. Being part of this association provides updates and information that is vital to every school counselor. These sources help in keeping up to date with professional developments, memberships, and school counseling standards. School counselors should keep up to date with standards and training opportunities that will help them achieve their full potential as school counselors.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethical Code Item: A.2.F Keep information confidential unless legal requirements demand confidential information be revealed or a breach is required to prevent serious and foreseeable harm to the student or others. Serious and foreseeable harm is different for each minor in schools and is determined by a student’s developmental and chronological age, the setting, parental/guardian rights, and the nature of the harm. School counselors consult with appropriate professionals when in doubt as to the validity of an exception.

Citation: American School Counseling Association. (2022). ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf

Link: https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf

These ethical principles provide counselors with their responsibilities regarding student confidentiality.

This professional code of ethics provides important information that counselors will need to keep in mind concerning student confidentiality.

Explains the limits of confidentiality

When student confidentiality can be breached.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Hansen, S. (2009). Confidentiality Guidelines for School Counselors. School Counseling Zone.https://meckes.weebly.com/uploads/5/8/2/9/58298161/confidentiality_for_school_counselors.pdf
Link: https://meckes.weebly.com/uploads/5/8/2/9/58298161/confidentiality_for_school_counselors.pdf

The purpose of this website is to provide in-depth information to counselors across the states. The website is created by professional counselors who aid in different topics to provide additional information to counselors. The website provides guidelines that help counselors determine different confidentiality questions and answers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
School Counseling Zone - Brentwood TN Schooling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a few days, your children will be back on their way to school. Who says back to school also means new year and new expectations. For parents, going back to school is often a source of anxiety. The anxiety that we also communicate to our children in awkward and unconscious ways. We give you our five tips to start the new school year on the right foot with your teenager.

Reassure your teenager
You are not the only ones for whom back to school is a source of anxiety. For your child, back to school is synonymous with something new: a new school, a new class, a new teacher, new friends. It can be disturbing for your teenager, even frightening. Also, the somewhat specific context of this new school year can be destabilizing for your teenagers, who, for some, have not walked the benches of school since last March. This is why you must show your teenager that you will support him, concretely or psychologically, through this new stage. List of school supplies ok, mask ok, week planning ok. Show him that he has in his possession all the elements to start his school year without worrying.
Adapt to their needs
If he goes to college, your teen will start asking for more and more freedom. Going to MacDonald's or the cinema with his friends, the opportunities to go out while respecting current health instructions will multiply as part of their socialization. It will be important to talk to him to allow you to remain calm when you let him wander about his business.
Start giving him pocket money to empower him
As we said, the outings will multiply for your teenager and the expenses at the same time. It is important to teach him the value of things. Define together an amount of monthly pocket money, for example, and let it manage its budget for the first month. Take stock the following month. If the amount was not enough to cover all of your teen's expenses, study his expenses with him to determine if he has overdone to adjust or not the amount of his pocket money.
No panic! Stay tuned, and don't put unnecessary pressure on him
For most parents, a new school year is a source of anxiety that we also communicate to our children unconsciously and awkwardly. The most important thing is to stay tuned to your child and that no matter the past school year (good or bad), this new year is a sign of renewal, of a new beginning. Do not needlessly compare your children with others; each child is unique with their strengths and weaknesses. The best you can do is support and empower him. This will give him the feeling that you have confidence in him and that you are ready to help him or her if they feel the need.
Talk about money with your teenager
The transition to adolescence (the ungrateful age) of children is often difficult for some parents to accept. No more docile and attentive children, adolescents will seek to assert themselves, make their own decisions, be more autonomous. The important thing is to remain available and to support them in carrying out their projects. As mentioned earlier, he will ask you a lot more freedom and multiply the conviviality moments with their friends. The outings will be more present and the expenses too! Money can then be a source of tension between you. We recommend that you have a discussion on this topic at the start of the year....

Counselors can play a crucial role in helping individuals with depression. Here are some ways in which counselors can assist you:

1. Emotional support: Counselors provide a safe and nonjudgmental space where you can express your feelings and thoughts openly. They offer empathy, understanding, and validation, which can help alleviate feelings of isolation and provide comfort during challenging times.

2. Identifying underlying issues: Counselors work with you to identify the underlying causes or triggers of your depression. They help explore past experiences, relationships, and patterns of thinking that may contribute to your current emotional state. Understanding these factors can facilitate healing and personal growth.

3. Developing coping strategies: Counselors assist in developing effective coping strategies to manage symptoms of depression. They can teach you relaxation techniques, stress management skills, and healthy ways to challenge negative thinking patterns. By acquiring these tools, you can better navigate daily challenges and reduce the impact of depressive symptoms.

4. Setting goals and creating a treatment plan: Counselors work collaboratively with you to set specific, attainable goals. They help you create a personalized treatment plan that outlines steps towards improvement. This plan may include therapy sessions, self-care practices, lifestyle adjustments, and referrals to other healthcare professionals if necessary.

5. Providing evidence-based therapies: Counselors employ evidence-based therapies such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal therapy (IPT) to address depression. These therapeutic approaches help challenge negative thoughts, improve problem-solving skills, enhance communication, and foster healthier relationships.

6. Monitoring progress and offering ongoing support: Counselors regularly assess your progress, ensuring that the chosen interventions are effective and making adjustments as needed. They provide ongoing support, encouragement, and guidance throughout your journey towards recovery.

It's important to note that while counselors can be an integral part of managing depression, they are not a substitute for medical treatment. If necessary, they may work in conjunction with other healthcare professionals, such as psychiatrists, to ensure a comprehensive approach to your mental health....

The Brentwood, Tennessee public school system has an excellent reputation of providing quality education to its students. As part of their commitment to student success, the system has recently added counselors to schools throughout the district. These trained professionals provide a wide range of benefits to the students, staff, and parents in the district.

Counselors are valuable members of the Brentwood TN public school system. Counselors are trained to assist students in learning how to cope with the challenges of everyday life. They can provide guidance, support, and referrals to appropriate mental health professionals, as needed.

Jeff Grossman Counseling is a counselors who is able to provide social and emotional support to students. They are equipped to help students manage stressful situations, discuss feelings, and strategize ways of coping with difficult experiences. Counselors offer advice and provide coping tools, such as relaxation exercises and problem-solving strategies.

Counselors also provide educational guidance. They can advise students on course curriculum, discuss career choices, and provide insight on how to navigate the college admissions process. Counselors meet with each student at least once a semester and carry out assessments to develop an individualized educational plan.

The Brentwood TN public school system has taken steps to ensure that counselors are available to all students. Counselors work in collaboration with teachers and other staff members to ensure that students receive the best possible guidance and care. For example, the school system hosts counselor-led workshops and seminars that discuss a variety of topics related to student success. These workshops are designed to help students enhance their academic and social skills, learn strategies for dealing with stress, and become more independent learners.

Counselors also work to foster a positive school environment. They are a key component in combating bullying and emphasize the importance of positive relationships. Through guidance lessons and meetings, counselors promote respect and demonstrate good communication and conflict resolution skills....

Your teen feels like he still has plenty of time to study; he is zen and very relaxed, while you know the days will pass by.

An exam is like a marathon: it's hard to believe in winning without proper preparation. So that's it, let's go; it's time to start revisions, and to get him to get started now, you can help him quite simply.
1 - Start by making a schedule of revisions with him
List together the subjects to be revised and the time remaining until D-Day. You will have a clearer vision of the amount of work to be distributed each week.
Keep in mind that a good schedule is a realistic schedule!
And yes, for your teenager to commit to respecting it, he must consider his daily constraints: we do not revise with the same intensity in the evening after a day of classes and the WE.

Remember to vary the materials every 2 hours maximum and do not neglect the breaks, essential to ventilate the brain.

Do not forget to integrate into his schedule on the board his outings and extracurricular activities ;

Finally, as to which subject to work in priority: to each his strategy. Your teen can start with materials with a higher coefficient to ensure his back if that reassures him or the subjects where he is a little late to not lose his footing completely.
2 - Once this schedule is established, you can offer him your help to memorize his lessons
Encourage him to make index cards that he can read quickly and often. This is essential for the long-term recording of knowledge because otherwise, the brain very quickly forgets what has not been repeated and reviewed at regular intervals.

You can also ask him to lecture you: by explaining his course to you, he will work on his memorization, his oral expression, and his synthesis skills. This is a good way to pinpoint the course parts that he has not yet fully mastered; if he's having trouble talking to you about it, it's because you still have to work!

So listen and be available to him. And if he prefers to recite to his brother, his cousin, his friends, that also works.

The important thing is to combine the methods of doing things: learning, rereading, making cards, reciting, and watching course videos: the more the methods are varied, the less the brain will get bored. Your teen will learn faster and for longer.
3 - Simplify their daily life
He will go through a few difficult weeks filled with doubt, stress, and sometimes discouragement. To help him hold on and get in good shape on the day of the exam, you can, for example, reduce their participation in household chores, asking siblings to turn down the volume at home while studying prepare him balanced meals (no more sweet treats that soften the brain and energy drinks!) ensure that he sleeps enough because it is during the night that the learning of the day is consolidated; then 9th is a minimum!

In short, show him that the whole family is by his side to support him.

Finally, during this period, he will need your encouragement. So, even if the prospect of a baccalaureate or a certificate makes you terribly worried, avoid putting pressure on it. Trust him, be present, listen, and tell yourself that a positive and relaxed parent is the best gift you can give him during this time of intense revision....

The Educational Counsellor is a very important piece within the current educational system. Regarding its importance, it must be said that the figure has existed rather for a few years. Their role is to detect any educational or personal problems for students in time to advise teachers and families. In addition to detecting and treating learning problems, they also determine schooling in the different existing programs. Types of programs: integration, compensatory, curricular diversification, basic learning, high capacities, etc. Another function would be to guide students in the various educational and professional outings.

When a student has some type of disability (cognitive, sensory, or conduct disorder), the counselors make a psycho-pedagogical report and an opinion on schooling, which must be approved, through a resolution, by a schooling commission (educational inspection and advisers). In said opinion, the material or human resources and the curricular adaptations required by the student throughout their schooling are provided.

When a student has high capacities, and the teachers show some difficulty in handling them or in addressing the contents in the classroom, the figure of the educational counselor is essential to advise on the possible methodology to be used with these children or to guide the adapted educational materials to its high capacity with which to work in the classroom.

Faced with families' difficulties in the education of their children (childhood tantrums, times of rebellion, control of homework, jealousy of siblings, school demotivation), the educational counselor can stimulate meetings or schools of parents were to approach said problematic.

...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Counseling Zone - Brentwood TN Schooling

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Education, 19. TX. Admin. Code §247.2
Link: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=2#:~:text=The%20educator%20shall%20not%20reveal%20confidential%20information%20concerning%20students%20unless,or%20is%20required%20by%20law.

This law helps to summarize the duties that the educator should follow.

It provides information about when it would be acceptable to reveal student information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enforceable Standards. (1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 1974, 20 § U.S.C. 1232 et seq.
Link: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html#:~:text=The%20Family%20Educational%20Rights%20and,the%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Education.

This law provides information regarding student privacy.

This law would be resourceful to educators, administrators, and counselors to be able to understand when student privacy regarding educational records should be respected or released.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) 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.

FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are "eligible students."

Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student's education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records. Schools may charge a fee for copies.

Parents or eligible students have the right to request that a school correct records which they believe to be inaccurate or misleading. If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student then 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 has the right to place a statement with the record setting forth his or her view about the contested information.

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):

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;

To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;

Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and

State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

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. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
policy; privacy; academic records; technical assistance; parent rights; student rights; ferpa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Home Page.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: 2 Tex. Educ. Code § 26.004 (2019)
Link: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.26.htm

This law provides information on educational records that parents have access to.

This law is relatable to the topic because it provides specific information that may be released to parents, and is a good resource because educators do have a hard time acknowledging what information may or may not be released.

# 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.body
Citation: Lamesa Independent School District. (2023). Employee Handbook. https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/897125/2023-2024_Lamesa_ISD_Employee_Handbook_for_Staff.pdf

Link: https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/897125/2023-2024_Lamesa_ISD_Employee_Handbook_for_Staff.pdf

This local law is located in the Lamesa ISD Employee Handbook under the Employee Conduct and Welfare section. This law is relatable because it provides information in regard to maintaining student confidentiality and the expectations of an employer. It is essential that employers know and understand their expectations, especially in respecting student privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Brown, S. (2015). More Colleges Add Confidential Advisors for Students Reporting Sexual Assault. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/more-colleges-add-confidential-advisers-for-students-reporting-sexual-assault/?bc_nonce=4f675q22uswyvfl3i8aosh&cid=reg_wall_signup&sra=true
Link: https://www.chronicle.com/article/more-colleges-add-confidential-advisers-for-students-reporting-sexual-assault/?bc_nonce=4f675q22uswyvfl3i8aosh&cid=reg_wall_signup&sra=true

Understanding the importance of appropriately reporting student incidents.

Investigating student claims under Title 9 jurisdictions.

Advocating for students and providing students with the information they need to make confidential reports.

# data[].attributes.body
Confidentiality is important in my field of education because it helps provide a safe environment for students while protecting their privacy. Protecting student's privacy is important in developing positive relationships with students. Students who build trusting relationships with their educators, or school professionals are able to meet their their academic and social needs more effectively.

Emerging Issues
Emerging issues that educators should be on the lookout for include the use of technology in the classroom. Technology and social media platforms have become so it is very easy to get carried away by the trend. Educators need to know the school's policy regarding technology or social media platforms. This issue is especially scary in smaller school districts where everyone knows everyone. I have witnessed several scenarios where an educator posts something vague about their classroom on their social media page, and still gets repercussions.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Rosenberg, J. (2021). School Post on Facebook Could Threaten Student Privacy. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/school-posts-on-facebook-could-threaten-student-privacy-160248

Link: https://theconversation.com/school-posts-on-facebook-could-threaten-student-privacy-160248

School's social media accounts such as Facebook can be accessed by thousand and even millions of accounts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of schools used different social media platforms to stay in touch with their students.

Uploading pictures of faculty and students on schools' social media platforms can cause a breach of student confidentiality.

Providing school information on social media websites can also lead to data mining methods that hackers use to get information.

Students can easily be identified if certain elements are available on the post such as picture, school name, or surname.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like many of us, schools in the United States are active on social media. They use their accounts to share timely information, build community and highlight staff and students. However, our research has shown that schools' social media activity may harm students' privacy.

As a researcher who specializes in data science in education, I and my colleagues came to the topic of student privacy unintentionally. We were exploring how schools used social media during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically March and April of 2020. In the course of this research, we noticed something surprising about how Facebook worked: We could view the posts of schools - including images of teachers and students - even when not logged in to our personal Facebook accounts.

The ability to access pages and pictures even when we were not logged in revealed that not only could schools' posts be accessed by anyone, but they could also be systematically accessed using data mining methods, or new research methods that involve using computers and statistical techniques to discover patterns in large - often publicly accessible - datasets.

Since practically all U.S. schools report their websites to the National Center for Education Statistics, and many schools link to their Facebook pages from their websites, these posts could be accessed in a comprehensive manner. In other words, not only researchers but also advertisers and hackers could use data mining methods to access all of the posts by any school with a Facebook account. This comprehensive access allowed us to study phenomena like violations of students' privacy at a massive scale.

Risks are present

The easy access to student photos that we encountered comes despite broader concerns about individuals' privacy on social media. Parents, for instance, have expressed concerns about teachers posting about their children on social media.

Fortunately, our search of news coverage and academic publications did not reveal any harms that have come to students because their schools posted about them. However, there are a number of possible risks that identifiable posts of students could pose. For instance, would-be stalkers and bullies could use the postings to identify individual students.

Also, there are newer threats that students may face. For instance, the facial recognition company Clearview collects internet data - and social media data - from across the World Wide Web. Clearview then sells access to this data to law enforcement agencies, who can upload photos of a potential suspect or person of interest to view a list of potential names of the individual depicted in the uploaded photo. Clearview already accesses identifiable photos of minors in the U.S. from public posts on Facebook. It is possible that photos of students from schools' Facebook pages could be accessed and used by companies such as Clearview.

Even though we are not aware of these things actually happening, that is not reason to not be concerned about it. At a time when our privacy is often threatened in surprising ways, as technology journalist Kara Swisher writes, " only the paranoid survive." My fellow researchers and I think this cautious view - even a paranoid view - is particularly justified when it comes to students as minors who may not provide their explicit permission to be included within posts.

Millions of student photos available

In our study, we used federal data and an analytical tool provided by Facebook to access posts from schools and school districts. We use the term "schools" to refer to both schools and school districts in our study. From this collection of 17.9 million posts by around 16,000 schools from 2005 to 2020, we randomly selected - sampled - 100 and then coded these publicly accessible posts. We determined whether students were named in the post with their first and last name and whether their faces were clearly depicted in a photo. If both of these elements were present, we considered a student to be identified by name and school.

For example, a student in a Facebook post whose photo includes a name in the caption, such as Jane Doe, would be deemed identified.

We determined that 9.3 million of the 17.9 million posts we analyzed contained images. Within those 9.3 million posts, we estimated that around 467,000 students were identified. In other words, we found nearly half a million students on schools' publicly accessible Facebook pages who are pictured and identified by first and last name and the location of their school.

Assessing the risks

While many of us already post photos of ourselves, friends and family - and sometimes our children - on social media, the posts of schools are different in one important sense. As individuals, we can control who can see our posts. If we want to limit it to just friends and family, we can change our own privacy settings. But people do not necessarily control how schools share their posts and images, and all of the posts we analyzed were strictly publicly accessible. Anyone in the world can access them.

Even if one considers the potential harm of this situation to be minimal, there are small steps that schools can take that could make a notable difference in whether that potential is present at all:

1. Refrain from posting students' full names

Not posting students' full names would make it much more difficult for individual students to be targeted and for students' data to be sold and linked with other data sources by companies.

2. Make school pages private

Making school pages private means that data mining approaches similar to our own would be much more difficult - if not impossible - to carry out. This single step would drastically minimize risks to students' privacy.

3. Use opt-in media release policies

Opt-in media release policies require parents to explicitly agree to have photos of their child shared via communications and media platforms. These may be more informative to parents - especially if they mention that the communications and media platforms include social media - and more protective of students' privacy than opt-out policies, which require parents to contact their child's school if they do not want their child's photo or information to be shared.

In sum, schools' Facebook pages are different from our personal social media accounts, and posts on these pages may threaten the privacy of students. But using social media doesn't have to be an either-or proposition for schools. That is to say, it doesn't necessarily come down to a choice between using social media without considering privacy threats or not using social media at all. Rather, our research suggests that educators can and should take small steps to protect students' privacy when posting from school accounts.

[ Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation's science newsletter.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School posts on Facebook could threaten student privacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When school officials post photos about students on Facebook, they may be inadvertently enabling data mining firms and others to use the information for other purposes, new research has found.

# data[].attributes.body
Hello everyone, My name is Belen Olvera, and I am the counselor for Lamesa ISD. My professional perspective toward school counselors has significantly changed. According to the Texas Education Code, the primary responsibility of a school counselor is to counsel students to fully develop each student's academic, career, personal, and social abilities. Counselors work closely with students to help them succeed, and there is a lot of work that goes into helping students achieve their goals. Counselors are vital in any district to help students, staff and the community work together in creating students that our successful. This resource will be helpful to teachers, and paraprofessionals to guide in sharing student information. It is important to keep student information confidential but sometimes when to report information can become questionable. This topic aims to help you understand how to maintain student confidentiality, and when it is okay to share information.