February 14, 1996; School District 577 (Willow River)
2/14/1996 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.On December 27, 1995, PIPA received a letter from G (a pseudonym), in which G requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by Independent School District Number 577, Willow River. G enclosed copies of correspondence regarding G's effort to gain access to data about G's child, an eighteen-year-old District high school student. In response to G's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to O.W. Pat Ostrand, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 29, 1995, were to inform Mr. Ostrand of G's request, to ask him or the District's attorney to provide information or support for the District's position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner is required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, G and Mr. Ostrand were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.) In a subsequent telephone message to PIPA staff, William V. Skarich, Principal, Willow River High School, indicated that the information he provided to G would serve as the District's response in this matter. In particular, Mr. Skarich referred to a 1991 School Law Bulletin for school board members and administrators, entitled Effect of 18 Year Old Age of Majority Law on Certain School District Policies. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. According to G, G is the noncustodial parent of G's child. G requested access to said child's educational records. Mr. Skarich responded to G by citing the above-referenced bulletin, which . . . in part states that educational data is private data and cannot be released without the consent of the age of majority student. [Your child] has chosen not to release this information to you.
Issue:
In G's request for an opinion, G asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Provisions of both state and federal law govern access to data generated by school districts about students. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, Educational Data, incorporates by reference much of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 1232g, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and its implementing Rules, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 99.
NOTE: FERPA refers to education records and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 refers to educational data. For purposes of this opinion, the definitions are similar enough not to warrant distinction. Section 13.32 provides that educational data are private data about individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student. ( Directory information is an exception. See Section 13.32, subdivision 5.) Under both state and federal law, parents are entitled to gain access to the education records of their minor children. (See FERPA, Section 1232g(a)(1)(A), Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 4.) Section 1232g (d) of FERPA states: whenever a student has attained eighteen years of age, or is attending an institution of postsecondary education the permission or consent required of and the rights accorded to the parents of the student shall thereafter only be required of and accorded to the student. Section 99.3 of the federal rules defines students who fall under this provision as eligible students. In general then, as private data, educational data may not be disclosed except to parents and eligible students. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3, provides certain exceptions to that general rule. One of those exceptions, contained in subdivision 3(e), incorporates a provision of the federal law that is central to this opinion. Section 13.32, subdivision 3(e) provides for the disclosure of educational data: [p]ursuant to the provisions of United States Code, title 20, sections 1232g(b)(1), (b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B), (b)(1)(B), (b)(3) and Code of Federal Regulations, title 34, sections 99.31, 99.32, 99.33, 99.34, and 99.35 which are in effect on July 1, 1993. Section 1232g(b)(1) provides that, with the exception of directory information, education records may not be disclosed without the written consent of the parent(s) or eligible student, except as otherwise provided in that Section. One of the other exceptions, found in Section 1232g(b)(1)(H), states that consent is not required for the disclosure of education records to parents of a dependent studentof such parents, as defined in section 152 of Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Service Code.) (Emphasis added.) (See also 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(a)(8).) The Commissioner was not provided information to enable her to determine whether G's child qualifies as a dependent student under the IRS definition. If the child is G's dependentstudent, even though the child is an eligiblestudent, then pursuant to Section 1232g(b)(1)(H), G is entitled to gain access to G's child's education records, without the child's consent. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by G is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: February 14, 1996
|
Educational data
Parent of dependent adult student
