A school district must release student contact information requested by a private, non-profit, corporation according to the Ohio Supreme Court in the case of State ex rel. School Choice Ohio, Inc. v. Cincinnati Pub. School Dist., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5026.
“School Choice Ohio, Inc. (“School Choice Ohio”), is a private, nonprofit corporation that informs Ohio parents about alternative educational opportunities for their children, including publicly funded scholarships to attend private schools. It provides this information by contacting parents via telephone, e-mail, or mail. School Choice Ohio obtains the students’ contact information by submitting public-records requests to Ohio public school districts.” School Choice Ohio at ¶ 2.
“In January 2013, School Choice sent a public-records request to [the Springfield City School District (“Springfield”)], asking the district to provide information regarding students enrolled in the district during the 2012-2013 academic year.” School Choice Ohio at ¶ 5. “Springfield complied with the request in part” explaining “that it would release only information that its 2012-2013 policy explicitly designated as directory information” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). School Choice Ohio at ¶ 5.
“For the 2013-2014 school year, the district changed its student information policy” in an apparent attempt to prevent School Choice Ohio’s access to information regarding students enrolled in the district. School Choice Ohio at ¶ 6. Notably, the form entitled “Consent for Disclosure of Student Information for Superintendent Approved Purposes” designated student “directory information” as “personally identifiable information,” “specified [limited] categories of requesters who would be eligible to receive student information,” and authorized the superintendent to approve or reject the disclosure of student information. School Choice Ohio at ¶¶ 6-7.
There was no dispute in this matter that, absent an exception, the requested records were public records under the Ohio Public Records Act, as maintaining information regarding students is an essential function of every school district. Springfield asserted that the records fell within an exception to the Ohio Public Records Act that prevents the disclosure of “[r]ecords the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.” R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v). Specifically, Springfield asserted that both FERPA and R.C. 3319.321 prohibited their disclosure.
“FERPA [is a federal statute] enacted to protect the privacy rights of students and their parents.” School Choice Ohio at ¶ 17. “FERPA broadly prohibits the release of education records but provides” an exception for directory information. School Choice Ohio at ¶ 18. Directory information includes information such as the student’s name, address, and telephone listing. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5)(A).
The Ohio Supreme Court first found that FERPA “does not afford [Springfield] the discretion to change the categories that fit within the term ‘directory information’” as Springfield had attempted to designate its directory information as “personally identifiable information.” School Choice Ohio at ¶ 20. The Ohio Supreme Court next ruled that, while “a district has the power to adopt policies and use consent forms that limit the scope of disclosure to specific parties or for specific purposes,” School Choice Ohio fit within the parties and purposes outlined under the district’s consent form. School Choice Ohio at ¶ 26. Finally, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “the superintendent cannot create a FERPA prohibition by making post-consent discretionary decisions.” School Choice Ohio at ¶ 29.
The moral of this story appears to be that, if a school district wants to prevent the release of student contact information to certain parties, such as School Choice Ohio, it must use consent forms that specifically limit the scope of disclosure to exclude those parties. McGown & Markling is always available to assist school districts in revising their FERPA consent forms. In this case the failure of Springfield to prepare proper forms and timely respond to the public records request resulted in the imposition of attorney fees.
To read the case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.