Search News


Browse Archives

News

U.S. Proposes New Rules on Student Privacy

March 24, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The federal law designed to protect the privacy of students' educational records has been under scrutiny and stress from a variety of angles in recent years, most recently from those concerned (in the wake of last year's shootings at Virginia Tech) about whether the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act gives college officials sufficient latitude to report their fears about mentally ill students.

Responding to the issues raised by Virginia Tech, by laws like the Patriot Act, and by several recent court decisions, the U.S. Education Department today proposed new regulations to govern the educational privacy law known as FERPA, which restricts disclosures by educational institutions from a student’s records.

As is typical when federal agencies propose new rules to update existing laws or programs, the department’s guidelines for FERPA, which appear in today’s Federal Register, appear to contain nothing in the way of stunning surprises or radical departures from the important law as it has been understood by campus officials. But the regulations proposed by the Education Department suggest several important updates, changes and clarifications to the law since the regulations were last significantly updated, in 2000.

Perhaps foremost among them, as the anniversary of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech approaches, is an attempt to give educational administrators more latitude in sharing information about a student (without getting that student’s prior approval) when they believe the health and safety of that student or others may be in jeopardy. A federal report in the wake of Virginia Tech found consistent “confusion and differing interpretations” about when it was appropriate for college instructors or administrators to provide information about students they suspected might pose harm to themselves or others, and what kind of liability the campus officials might face if they were later found to have violated FERPA by revealing that information.

Although legal experts (on Inside Higher Ed and elsewhere) and Education Department officials have argued that the law already provides significant flexibility and protections for such disclosures, the department’s new proposed regulations aim to “provide a new standard” for when campus officials can release information under the “health and safety” exception.

Under the proposed change, the department explains in its publication today, “the Secretary requires that, considering the totality of the circumstances, there must be an articulable and significant threat [emphasis added] to the health or safety of a student or other individuals, and that the disclosure be to any person whose knowledge of the information is necessary to protect against the threat.

“On the other hand,” the proposed regulation continues, “the Secretary has determined that greater flexibility and deference should be afforded to administrators so they can bring appropriate resources to bear on a circumstance that threatens the health or safety of individuals. To provide for appropriate flexibility and deference, the Secretary has determined that if, based on the information available at the time of the determination, there is a rational basis [emphasis added] for the determination, the Department will not substitute its judgment for that of the educational agency or institution in evaluating the circumstances and making its determination.”

In other words, the department aims to clarify the legal standard a campus official must meet in deciding to release information (assuring that there is an “articulable and significant threat” to the health and safety of individuals), but also offering assurance that college officials will be less likely to be second guessed later for having released the information as long as they can show they had a “rational basis” for their original decision.

Steven McDonald, general counsel at the Rhode Island School of Design, who closely monitors developments related to the educational privacy law, said the department had signaled to colleges in guidance as early as 2004 that it would not second guess decisions they made to release information related to students' health and safety. But the current language in the FERPA regulations "clearly was frightening" to many campus officials," because it "made it sound like you had to be absolutely sure before you relied on that exception. The proposed new language, McDonald said, makes it crystal clear that "you're not going to get in trouble for a good faith decision made in the heat of the moment before all facts are known."

"This is a very positive and important statement that provides a significant safety net for college administrators who have been inappropriately concerned about a narrow interpretation of emergency conditions" under the law, said Sheldon E. Steinbach, a lawyer with the Washington firm of Dow Lohnes. "These regulations hopefully will be heeded by administrators at all levels so as to understand that at the end of the day, the welfare of the student and the student body and the community is what is paramount, and not restricting access to vital information out of a fear of potential penalty that does not exist.”

Following are some other changes that the proposed rules would make:

  • To conform FERPA with the requirements of the USA Patriot Act, the proposed rules would make clear that educational institutions must disclose education records to the attorney general in response to an ex parte court order as part of an investigation or prosecution related to potential terrorism.
  • To conform FERPA with the requirements of the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, enacted in 2000, the new regulations would permit campus officials to release information they received from a state community notification program about a student registered as a sex offender.
  • The proposed rules would extend to contractors, consultants and others who work with a college or school the exception that allows educational institutions to disclose personally identifiable information about a student to school officials who have "legitimate educational interests in the information."
  • The rules would allow a school or college to share information about a student without his or her consent with officials at another institution in which the student has already enrolled.
  • The department, citing concerns that "some institutions are under the mistaken impression that FERPA prevents them from providing parents with any information about a college student," aims to clarify in the proposed regulations that current laws and rules allow colleges to make information available to parents of financially dependent students without their consent, and to any student (even if not he or she is not financially dependent on the parents) under several exceptions to the law.
  • Reflecting changing technology, the rules would clarify that students who study online or otherwise are not physically present in the classroom are covered by FERPA. (Existing regulations extend the law to students studying via correspondence, but do not address those who are taught by electronic means.)
  • The regulations would clarify that educational institutions can provide personally identifiable information to state auditors without prior consent without violating FERPA.
  • The new rules would provide "objective standards" about when colleges and schools can release education records and other information without the consent of students when they have removed all "personally identifiable information." The regulations, as proposed, would seem to allow for the release of significantly more information that has been redacted, as long as it is not seen as targeted to identify an individual student or does not, in combination with other information that might be requested, allow for students to be identified by name.
  • The proposed regulations would bar a college or school from requiring a victim of an alleged sexual offense to agree not to disclose information he or she receives from the institution about the alleged perpetrator as part of a campus disciplinary proceeding. "Some postsecondary institutions have required the accuser to execute a non-disclosure agreement before they disclose the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged sexual offense as required under the [Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act]," the department says in its guidance published today. "The proposed regulations would clarify that postsecondary institutions may not require the accuser to execute a non-disclosure agreement or otherwise interfere with the redisclosure or other use of information disclosed as required under the Clery Act."
  • The rules make clear that, as suggested by a 2002 Supreme Court decision in a case involving Gonzaga University, the department has the authority to investigate possible violations of FERPA even if a complaint by a parent has been withdrawn or no complaint has ever been filed. "[T]he department needs to establish in its regulations that the Office may investigate allegations of non-compliance provided by a school official or some other party who is not a parent or eligiblestudent because sometimes parents and students are not aware of an ongoing FERPA problem that needs to be addressed."

"This is a pretty significant update of FERPA regulations," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. "I'm impressed. It's very thoughtful."

The department invites comments on the proposed rules by May 8, and offers instructions on how to submit them in the publication in today's Federal Register .

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on U.S. Proposes New Rules on Student Privacy

  • FERPA lite
  • Posted by theron on March 24, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • Although I have only skimmed the notice in today's Federal Register, I see some of the changes welcome, especially some of the clarity the new rules bring to institution. But I worry about the implications the changes revealed by that clarity.

    The proposed rules would "allow" schools to report both the academic AND the social behavior of 18-21 year old students to their parents IF the students are dependents on the parents' taxes. It would extend the rights of outside contractors to view and use private data. It enables the use of non-court reviewed National Security Letters to gain information about students...with the concurrent gag order on the schools to prevent schools from informing the students.

    So, for some purposes and in some places, an 18-21 year-old is an adult...but not at an university. More to the point, students are not adults if their parents can claim them as tax deductions! So, students lose identity even as they are commodifed for their parents.

    This latter issue worries me far more than the to-be-expected clarification of the odious Patriot Act and NSL's or even the extension of rights to outside contractors. Think about it: To measure someone's adulthood, their identity, we have now legally connected that measure to their monetary value in an economic exchange.

    Perhaps I should be glad that the Federal Government has finally spelled out assumptions that drive current U.S. social thought. But, I am not.

  • Student vs. Adult
  • Posted by Randy on March 24, 2008 at 11:35am EDT
  • A previous comment suggested that the new rules would allow dependant students be subject to the review of thier parents without thier knowledge. The current rules already allow for that to happen but few institutions are aware, which leads to the need for the "new" clarity.

  • Posted by Former Reg Reviewer on March 24, 2008 at 12:25pm EDT
  • Theron raises important issues, but these proposed regulations contain at least one necessary clarification. Too many institutions have been hiding behind FERPA when they deny parental requests about the health and well-being of their children. Only when pressed will many institutions concede that there is no federal barrier to sharing serious life-and-death information. It is morally indefensible for an institution not to work with parents to help prevent, for example, a suicide or a mind and body being destoyed by meth. Yet, it happens.

    It is hypocritical of institutions to complain loudly about what they call excessive federal regulation in privacy matters, or financial aid, or research accounting, when in many cases the institutions are all too eager to misuse the federal regulations as a smoke-screen to shield their own covert policies that they would rather not disclose or explain. These proposed regulations may save lives and institutions that play by the rules will welcome them.

  • A violation of rights
  • Posted by Robert on March 26, 2008 at 1:20pm EDT
  • At eighteen years old you reach the age of majority. Regardless as to whether or not you attend a university, you shouldn't have to answer to your parents anymore. Just because you attend a university doesn't mean that you should have your privacy rights violated. These "clarifications" are nothing more than making certain adults second class citizens. None of your private information should be shared with anyone else without your consent. These rules even apply to non-dependent students. It's time we treated all adults, whether they are eighteen or fifty, whether they attend a university or not, like adults, and leave them responsible for themselves. If I were attending a university today, I would feel as though I couldn't go to the school psychologist for help, or that I should only see a private psychologist who was unconnected with the school. This is a terrible rights violation that no adult should be subject to.

  • Posted by Steve on March 28, 2008 at 6:00pm EDT
  • If the clarification of the regulations passes as proposed, I don't think students like "Robert" would have to worry about information being disclosed by school psychologists. At least I would hope not. Counseling centers and the professionals who work in them are bound by a code of ethics and probably could not disclose to anyone, including a parent, unless there were an imminent threat to the health or safety of the individual counselee or of others.

  • parental concern
  • Posted by ccbb on April 1, 2008 at 8:30am EDT
  • I am the mother of a freshman who attends an expensive, small, private NY state college. In December he showed signs which we later understood as indications of possible mental illness. His personality was loving and compassionate towards his family and from one second to the next he ceased all communication with anyone related to him including friends from childhood.

    We immediately contacted the Director of the Counseling Center at the school and went through a month long bureaucratic process involving the Director of Counseling, the Dean of Academic Advising and the VP of Student Affairs. The latter two are administrators, not trained counselors but we had to rely on their opinion whether or not our son needed counseling. All the while under the impression that they were our allies in trying to help our son. They in turn relied on the opinion of professors and advisors whose knowledge of our son was brief and whose contact with him was only in the classroom. We did succeed in getting him to a counseling session and the result was we were immediately cut out of the process of helping him. The VP ordered us not to contact anyone at the school and that no one there had permission to speak with us. She then allowed our son to place us on a persona non grata list, threatening us with arrest if we were caught trespassing on campus. These people criminalized us--the parents.

    We then involved the President and Dean of Students and only then did the VP agree to speak with us. She told us it had been determined our son wasn't a harm to himself or others and did not see the need for further mandated counseling. We have had several close family members visit him and their immediate and lasting reaction was his behavior was nowhere near normal. After specifically asking, she finally disclosed to us the dispute process for the PNG list and agreed to a meeting. In the meantime, three months have passed and our formerly gregarious and social son has continued his social withdrawal and isolation. A condition I defy anyone to justify as healthy.

    The actions this college has taken are morally indefensible and even though I wonder how legally defensible they are I don't really care. Before I spend $10,000 on a lawyer, I will spend it on a PR firm and get the word out to all the millions of parents out there about what could happen when their child goes to college. I have shared my story with many people including school administrators, guidance counselors, psychologists and lawyers all of whom are also parents. People are shocked and many are afraid for their kids who are now in the process of applying to colleges. They are making a point of better understanding FERPA--most didn't have a clue about what it is let alone it's implications.

    The mission of this college was to teach ethical and socially responsible behavior and they have showed none. They failed to help one of their own students in crisis and have exhausted our good faith in what has only turned out to be superficial concern despite the many statements in their publications and website of what a small, caring community they are. Statements that were key in my son's decision to attend their college.

    We are talking about a beloved son, a human being here, not a law. We are talking about administrators and counselors, not some unidentifiable system, who brutally and completely cut out the parents and actually enabled our child, who has been an "adult" for all of six months, to further isolate himself from society, family and friends. Explain to me again how FERPA justifies that!

  • changes in FERPA law
  • Posted by John Cotter , parent of student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo on April 2, 2008 at 4:00pm EDT
  • I was very interested to read this article. As a former member of the Parent Council at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, an advisory group of parents of current students, I encountered resisistance when I continued to broach the topic of the university taking some sort of leadership role in instituting changes in the law, so parents of dependent students could have access to student academic and health information as well as conversing with university officials about the progress their student was making toward graduation. They have made their policies regarding FERPA more transparent online, but hide behind the "we don't have to tell you anything unless your student gives us permission" policy. From what I read in the article, the changes seem very promising for parent access issues. When will these changes take place? I have placed a call to the universtiy counsel's office regarding these changes, to see how Cal Poly will implement them.