Home  >  Oklahoma  >  Open Records Act means exactly that

Open Records Act means exactly that

By   /   June 7, 2012  /   3 Comments

According to a Tulsa World article, some Tulsa-area school officials are not happy that a packet of information released in conjunction with the State Board of Education meeting this week includes some information regarding students appealing the Achieving Classroom Excellence (ACE) requirements in order to get a diploma.  In order to file the appeal, the student or his or her parent had to sign a waiver exempting the records from the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) so that their records could be discussed at a State Board of Education meeting.  It clearly states in the waiver access to the records will be granted “for the purposes of discussion and consideration in meetings open to the public.”

Until recently, reporters attending State Board of Education meetings would be handed a packet of materials just before a meeting started containing the information Board members received on each agenda item.  At the request of reporters, that information was put online last year.  Now, not only do reporters get to see things like proposed line items for the Activities Fund budget, the public can as well.  Most information given to board members is subject to the Open Records Act so there should be no objection to putting that information online.

I asked Department of Education spokesman Damon Gardenhire about the article and he provided the same comment to me that he gave to the Tulsa World, a few snippets of which appear in the story:

The Oklahoma State Department of Education is committed to remaining as transparent as possible with respect to open meetings and open records. There is a longstanding precedent by the department for providing board materials at meetings to reporters and members of the public. After multiple requests from media outlets (including requests from the Tulsa World) and from other stakeholders, we began providing these board materials online last year. The appeals process for ACE before the State Board is a quasi-judicial proceeding of the Board that occurs in an open meeting. The very subject matter of the appeal involves a student’s academic record. Appeals of every kind filed with the department are an open record and ACE appeals are no exception. Students, parents or legal guardians are not obligated to sign the FERPA waiver or to bring the student’s academic record into the public eye. However, to appeal graduation requirements under the law, a FERPA privacy waiver is required in order for a student’s records to be provided and considered by the Board for the purposes of granting or denying a waiver of ACE graduation requirements. Once a FERPA privacy waiver has been have signed, the student’s academic record becomes an open record for discussion and consideration in an open meeting. The record in an appeal before a state agency is akin to evidence that is part of a public record in a quasi-judicial process. While deliberations by board members are protected by executive session (much as a judge or jury might privately deliberate over public evidence) the records themselves remain public. Given that such records are subject to open records requirements, the agency made the information available online as it has routinely done for other board meetings. To do otherwise would thwart transparency.

It should be noted that the student records are scanned images of the documents.  As such, they would not turn up as results to a search engine query.  Someone would have to know that a student filed an appeal that was heard before the State Board of Education in order to know the documents existed.

I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that if a document is subject to an Open Records Act request, making it available online is a good idea, not a bad one.

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

  • Pingback: School districts opposing online charter school – Burlington Times News | Political Daily

  • Pingback: In The Know: Oklahoma AG Pruitt appeals abortion drug ruling | OK Policy Blog

  • R

    Go back and read the ‘waiver’ that the parents and students signed and what is stated in the FERPA and IDEA. First, FERPA only has a few exceptions, and this situation does not seem to fall under any of them.  Second, the FERPA exceptions require the entity to effectively and clearly explain the parents’ and students’ rights, and the state never clearly stated that any records submitted would be uploaded to the Internet for public perusal by non-involved parties. In the waiver it states disclosure would occur “to the extent necessary.” It is not necessary to upload documents to the Internet for the state board to make a decision on the student’s appeal, and I doubt parents understood that they were giving consent for that to happen. Nor did the state ever explain whether a student could file an appeal without waiving some or all of their rights under FERPA. For the students who receive special education services (which a number of them did), IDEA grants privacy through FERPA but also adds several subsections dictating what states may report and disclose. § 300.602 states:

    “(3) Privacy. The State must not report to the public or the Secretary any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children, or where the available data are insufficient to yield statistically reliable information.”

    Seems crystal clear to me. Furthermore there is nothing in that portion of the law that makes it permissible for a state to disclose personally identifiable information if there is a signed waiver. It is pretty straightforward when it says “must not report to the public.” I’m fairly certain being that FERPA and IDEA are FEDERAL laws, that would more than likely supersede a STATE’S open meetings law.

    It makes me wonder . . . Considering student privacy under the federal laws, why did the board set up the appeals process to be discussed and decided upon in this manner? Couldn’t they have come up with rules and guidelines to dictate how decisions should be made in regards to this then assign it to be handled by one of the departments at their agency? It makes no sense to me that it is necessary for the board to oversee this appeals process in such a manner that puts student privacy in jeopardy.