March 30, 2000; School Disrict 281 (Robbinsdale)
3/30/2000 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 person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On February 3, 2000, IPA received a letter dated February 2, 2000, from X. In his letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding School District 281's (Robbinsdale) release of certain data about X's child, a student in the District. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ken Kostka, Superintendent of the District, in response to X's request. This February 7, 2000, letter served to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On February 22, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Dave Baumann, Acting Senior Associate for Human Resources. A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. X is having a disagreement with the District involving the person who is the case monitor for his child's IEP (Individual Educational Plan) team. Because of this disagreement, the school invited a teacher's union steward to sit in on the team meetings (discussions relating to X's child and his/her educational planning). X did not give consent for the steward to participate at the meetings. X wrote: [S/he] is seated at the same table with us. This person is making recommendations regarding the use of this case manager and in fact is listening to confidential information on our family and on our [child] to which we believe [s/he] has no right. We discuss psychological testing and psychiatric testing and diagnostic information on [our child], [our child's] academic problems, behavioral issues and family issues pertaining to myself and my wife....I do not understand the rights of a union representative to pose questions during an Individual Educational Planning Team meeting, much less listen to the information being presented. Issue:In request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data about students are termed educational data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. Generally speaking, educational data are private. See section 13.32, subdivision 2. Both state and federal law set forth standards regarding access to private data by employees of a school district. Minnesota Rules section 1205.0400, states that private data may be disseminated to those persons within the entity, e.g., the District, whose work assignments reasonably require access to the private data. 34 CFR 99.31(a)(1), of the rules implementing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), provides that education records may be disclosed to other school officials, including teachers, within the institution whom the institution has determined to have a legitimate educational interest in the record. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Baumann wrote that the teacher/case manager did have the building union representative attend a couple of meetings. He stated, The teacher did not know the follow-up meetings were technically IEP meetings. He added, We have dealt with this by informing the principals and the teachers' group. A mistake was made through ignorance, not malice and we will work to improve. Further, attached to Mr. Baumann's response was a copy of a memo he wrote to the Robbinsdale Federation of Teachers. He apparently sent a copy of this memo to the Senior Associate for Human Resources and asked her to share it with District principals. The memo states: It has been brought to my attention that a teacher at [a District school] asked the building union rep to attend an IEP meeting. The building rep did attend with the teacher. This was a violation of the statute. The violation was in no way intentional on the part of the union rep; it was clearly the administrator's responsibility to have told the building rep the rules and asked the building rep to leave. In this case, the District has acknowledged that the union representative's work assignment did not require that s/he be present when private data about X's child were discussed during the IEP meeting. Therefore, because this person was present at the IEP meeting, it is the Commissioner's opinion that the District inappropriately disseminated data about X's child. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: March 30, 2000 |
Educational data
Educational data
IEP (Individual Education Plans)
Legitimate educational interest
Work assignment reasonably requires access
