Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified.

Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students and their parents. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 C.F.R. Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent.

One of the exceptions is that any data a school district chooses to designate as directory information pursuant to the provisions of FERPA are public. (See section 13.32, subdivision 5.) Under the federal regulations, directory information means information contained in an education record of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.3.)

Another exception is that private educational data can be released to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access. (See Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0400.) The corresponding language in FERPA states that data can be released without consent if, The disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests. (See 34 C.F.R. section 99.31(a)(1).) Furthermore, 34 C.F.R. section 99.7(a)(3)(iii) states that if a District has a policy of disclosing records under section 99.31(a)(1), the district must include in its annual notification to parents a specification of criteria for determining who constitutes a school official and what constitutes a legitimate educational interest.

In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple wrote:

First, it should be noted that the letter did not identify the child, but only the child's parent [X]. Second, the name of a child's parent is educational data under Minn. Stat. section 13.32 and directory information under the ISD No. 832 data practices policy. As such, there has been no violation of state or federal law and the district complied with its own policy.

Second, even if the data in question, the parent's name, is somehow determined not to be directory information, the question would then become, whether the high school teachers who were sent a copy of the letter had a legitimate educational interest in receiving the letter. Despite the notation at the bottom of the letter in question, copies of the letter were not sent to all [the high school teachers]. To the extent the letter was distributed at all, it was only sent to special education teachers at the high school. Those teachers most certainly would have a legitimate educational interest in the contents of the letter and the appropriate means to service [X's child].

As such, there has been no violation of either state or federal law or the school district's data practices policy by the manner in which this letter was actually distributed.

Ms. Kepple's first argument is that, according to the District's directory information policy, the name of a child's parent is public data. The Commissioner was not provided with the District's directory information policy. However, if it states that a parent's name is public, it would seem to mean that the name is public in relation to the fact that the parent has a child enrolled in the District. It would not seem to mean that all other information about the parent is public, i.e., the fact that the parent made a complaint related to some of the District's special education services. Thus, pursuant to section 13.32, the Commissioner assumes the data about X regarding the complaint to CFL are private data.

Regarding Ms. Kepple's second argument, the Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the Superintendent disseminated copies of the May, 2002 letter to any or all high school teachers. Although the letter indicates High School Teachers were to receive copies, Ms. Kepple states, To the extent the letter was distributed at all, it was only to special education teachers at the high school. If the Superintendent disseminated copies of the letter, such disclosures were appropriate only to those teachers who had a legitimate educational interest according to the District's policy and whose work assignments required that they have access to the data.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: July 12, 2004