Abstract
This case focuses on how an administrator at an Alabama high school interpreted the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. Specifically, the administrator had to determine whether a notebook should or should not be turned over to a student’s parents. The notebook, which was confiscated by a school resource officer, contained journal entries from five other students detailing drug use at school and off school property. The administrator had to make a difficult decision to either deny parents access to their child’s educational record or to risk possibly violating the privacy of other students involved.
Keywords
Background
Ridgemont High School is part of the Sherwin City School district, which is located in northern Alabama. The Sherwin City district serves 23,000 students and is composed of 23 elementary, 9 middle, and 7 high schools. Based on its low percentage (9.1%) of students on free or reduced lunch, and its geographic location, Ridgemont is considered a “high” socioeconomic status (SES) school (Alabama State Department of Education, 2011). Standardized test scores for students at this school are the highest in the district and are consistently among the highest in the state. In the 2010-2011 school year, Ridgemont had 1,992 students making it the largest school in the district. At this time, Ridgemont had two full-time school resource officers and five other security personnel. When this incident occurred, Ridgemont’s principal was the highest paid and the longest serving administrator in the school district. Ridgemont was operating at more than 100% capacity, and the general perception in the community was that the school is the best in the area in regard to academics and discipline. Because the school is so large, the principal has several assistant principals who are in charge of handling all disciplinary matters.
Case Narrative
On Friday, Ricky (a 15-year-old sophomore at Ridgemont High) was acting particularly possessive of his school backpack. Specifically, he was carrying it around the house and was not letting it out of his sight. Ricky’s father, Ron, searched the backpack and found hidden within two unidentified pills with the letters “OC” on them. A quick Internet search confirmed that the pills were the prescription drug Oxycodone, a drug that has made national headlines in recent months for being widely abused across the United States (Estep, Hjalmarson, & Abdullah, 2011). Ron asked Ricky who gave him the medication, and he said, “Some kid named Cody, but I don’t remember his last name and he’s not in my grade.” On Monday morning, Ricky’s father sent an email to officer Jones (one of the school resource officers at Ridgemont) and asked that he search Ricky’s locker and have a discussion with Ricky regarding the legal ramifications of possessing narcotics without a prescription.
On Wednesday, Ricky’s father received a call from Mrs. Williams, an assistant principal at Ridgemont, regarding the search of Ricky’s locker. Within the locker, officer Jones found a notebook with the words “Potheads Forever” written in large letters across the cover. In the notebook, Ricky and five of his friends had been chronicling their illegal drug use at school and on the weekends. Being a concerned parent, Ron requested to be provided the notebook to discipline Ricky appropriately and alert the other parents whose children were involved. Mrs. Williams told Ron that he could come down to get photocopies of the pages Ricky wrote in his notebook, but that the names of the other students involved had been redacted to protect their privacy. In addition, Mrs. Williams said that Ron would not be able to see the journal entries made by any of the other students in his son’s notebook. Mrs. Williams cited that it would be a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974) to give out the other students’ names or their writings. Ron said to Mrs. Williams, “I want to see everything that was written in that notebook, it’s my son’s property.” Mrs. Williams responded by saying, “I cannot let you see anything that any other student wrote in your son’s notebook and I’m ‘blacking out’ all of the names of other students.” Ron said, “I will be there in 10 minutes and I will be given the pages in the notebook.” Mrs. Williams said, “When we meet, I will have two uniformed deputies in the room and I assure you that you will not get the notebook.”
When Ron arrived at the school, Mrs. Williams was holding the notebook in her hand. On the front of Ricky’s notebook, under the words “Potheads Forever” someone in the group had drawn a creative “Under the Influence” sign, which his group of friends had adopted as their logo. Mrs. Williams handed seven photocopied pages from the notebook to Ron. Ron began to read what Ricky had written and came to the following sentence. “Today was kewl, XXXXXXXX traded me two OC’s for two of my AD’s.” The “AD’s” referred to Ricky’s prescription drug Adderall, which he was legally prescribed to treat his attention deficit disorder. His parents had trusted that Ricky was taking the pills in the morning, and instead Ricky was trading them at school for opiates. Another line of the notebook said, “I can’t believe that when XXXXXXX wrecked his mom’s van when he was drunk that he didn’t get a DUI. I was so scared and that’s why I ran home.” Other entries listed times when Ricky and his friends had been smoking marijuana (once while at school) and other times on the weekends. All names, however, were redacted and were not available to Ron.
Ron looked at Mrs. Williams and said, “I need to know the names of students who are giving my son pain medication and I need to know who has been driving him around while intoxicated.” Ron wanted to ensure that Ricky would not be allowed to socialize with these other students in the future. Ron also wanted to call the parents of the students to make sure that they were aware of what was happening. Mrs. Williams reiterated the fact that it would be a FERPA violation to release any of the other students’ names. That night, Ron asked Ricky to “fill in the blanks” of the notebook with names and Ricky said, “Dad, I can’t remember and even if I did remember, I’m not going to snitch on my friends.”
That evening, Ron and his wife went to Ricky’s best friend Alex’s house and asked Alex’s parents, “Has the school contacted you regarding any notebook?” Alex’s father indicated that no one at Ridgemont had contacted either him or his wife. Alex’s father called Alex to the room, and Alex admitted that he authored several entries in the notebook. He also admitted that he and his locker had been searched that day by the school resource officer and that one of the students named in the notebook had been searched, found in possession of an illegal drug on campus, and arrested. Alex’s parents were frustrated that Mrs. Williams had not contacted them to notify them of Alex’s involvement in the situation. When Alex’s father contacted Mrs. Williams the next day, she agreed to give his parents all the pages that Alex had written, but she also indicated that any other names would be redacted. Ron speculated that Mrs. Williams had not notified any of the parents because she wanted to keep the illegal drug use on campus a secret so as not to damage Ridgemont’s reputation as one of the best schools in the area.
Ron immediately began researching FERPA rights and went to the home page of the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) in Washington, D.C. This agency ensures that schools and school personnel are accurately following the guidelines and enforcing the mandates set forth in FERPA legislation. Any school that uses federal funds can be denied future funds if it is found to be in violation of the protocols set forth in FERPA. Ron contacted Bernard Cieplak of the FPCO and explained the situation. After conferring with others in his office, Mr. Cieplak called Ron back the following day to say that because the school was maintaining possession of the notebook, that it had in fact become an “educational record.” Mr. Cieplak also suggested that if Mrs. Williams stated that the notebook was not an education record that Ron demand its return immediately because it was simply personal property. Based on either definition, Ron had a right to see the notebook, in its entirety.
On Friday, Ron sent an email to Mrs. Williams relaying Mr. Cieplak’s explanation and reiterating his expectation to receive the notebook. At the end of the school day on Monday, Ron still had not been contacted by Mrs. Williams. Growing more frustrated, Ron then sent an email to Mrs. Williams and copied the principal, the director of secondary programs, the superintendent of the school district, and the district’s legal counsel. In effect, these were Ron’s main points:
The notebook that was confiscated was Ron’s property, as he had purchased it for his 15-year-old son.
The only reason that the notebook was found was because Ron asked the school resource officer to search Ricky’s locker.
Even if they were not Ricky’s writing, all the entries in the journal were in Ricky’s notebook, which was Ron’s property.
Ron asked that a school official (by this time, it had been several days since meeting Mrs. Williams and she would not return voice mails or emails) define the notebook as “personal property,” “documents involved in an ongoing investigation,” or an “educational record.”
Ron’s main contention was that to act in Ricky’s best interest as a parent, he had a right to see the notebook, in its entirety.
On Tuesday, the principal of Ridgemont sent Ron an email and said, “You may come get the notebook today, I’ll be here until 3:30.” Ron sent his wife immediately to retrieve the notebook from the principal. The situation was awkward, based on the acrimonious nature of the interactions, so Ron’s wife left immediately. When she opened the notebook in the parking lot, all pages with any writing had been ripped out.
That night, Ron sent another email reiterating his concerns and voicing his frustration with the lack of communication from Mrs. Williams who still refused to answer phone calls or emails. On Wednesday, he sent an “ultimatum” email in which he threatened legal action and contacting the education reporter for the local newspaper to report the mishandling of the situation.
Conclusion
This case study addresses the complex issues, including illicit drug use among students, personal privacy protected by the fourth amendment, and parental rights to documents under FERPA. Mrs. Williams was faced with a very serious problem in the course of her duties as an administrator. First, students had admitted in writing to using and trading illegal drugs on campus. Second, she had to determine how much information she could release to Ricky’s parents. Third, Mrs. Williams had to deal with the legal aspects of the case as Ricky’s parents were aggressively pursuing information that may have been considered confidential under existing FERPA laws. Subthemes in this case study (a) show the need for administrators who are versed in educational and constitutional law and (b) show that administrators must be proactive communicators with parents to work through problems effectively. Unfortunately, by not responding to Ron’s attempts to contact her, Mrs. Williams irreparably damaged her relationship with Ron.
Teaching Notes
This case study is based on actual events, which occurred in the spring of 2011. By examining how the situation was handled, administrators can clarify their understandings of practical applications of FERPA legislation. Administrators should recognize their need to not only understand the purposes of privacy rights but also the need to weigh their responsibilities with regard to acting in the best interest of parents as they raise their children.
Technical Aspects
Mrs. Williams’ reasoning for not turning over the notebook was that it violated other students’ rights to privacy. In 1974, the federal government enacted the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act also known as FERPA [20 U.S.C. § 1232(g)]. This legislation has two important concepts: (a) Any student’s “educational record” maintained by school personnel is only to be seen by the student or legal guardians of the student and (b) parents have the right to inspect and review all educational records related to a student to ensure accuracy. If records are considered inaccurate by parents, they have a right to request that the records be corrected.
“Education record” is defined as “those records, files, documents, and other materials which (i) contain information directly related to a student, and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution” [20 U.S.C. § 1232(g)(4)(A)]. Parents have a right to see their child’s educational record within 45 days of their request. Copies of the educational records must be provided to the parents if requested.
Although the fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides protection of all citizens against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, schools need only “reasonable suspicion” to initiate a search. When an educator is operating under reasonable suspicion in school-related searches, no constitutional violation is in question (see New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 1985).
Effective school–home communication has been shown to increase student achievement (Anderson & Minke, 2007) as well as increasing parental involvement in schools (Epstein, 2001). By not answering emails or voice mail messages, Mrs. Williams effectively ended communication with the parents and by doing so forced Ron to contact her supervisors.
Administrators and teachers act in loco parentis, that is, in place of parents, while students are at school. This allows school officials to exercise a “reasonable degree of control over students under their supervision” (Essex, 2002, p. 43) to establish a safe learning environment.
At the time of the incident, Ricky was 15 years of age. If Ricky was 18 at the time of the incident, the school would not have been responsible for notifying his parents, in most cases. However, Alabama law considers students “minors” until the age of 19 and therefore subject to their parents’ authority.
Discussion Questions
Place students in groups and have them read the case study. Then, ask the students to either answer each of these questions as a group or divide the questions among the groups. Allow time for the students to fully discuss the questions within their group. Then have the students present their answers to the class or discuss each question soliciting answers from all students in the class.
Did Ron have grounds to demand the notebook that contained the names of other students?
How did Mrs. Williams handle the situation? How could she have handled the situation more effectively and efficiently?
Was the notebook an “educational record” as defined by FERPA or was it simply personal property of Ricky?
Would it have been legal for Mrs. Williams to tear out the pages of the notebook written by other students and thus make them an “educational record” for the other students, thus shielding Ron’s ability to see them?
At what point should Mrs. Williams have contacted the school district’s legal counsel?
Did the school resource officer have reasonable suspicion to search the students’ lockers and person?
What political factors may be contributing to Mrs. Williams’ reluctance in sharing the information about drug use on her campus?
What are Mrs. Williams’ responsibilities in relation to providing information about possibly drug use to the parents?
If a student’s locker or person is searched by the school resource officer, is the administration responsible for notifying the parents of the student?
Teaching Activities
Ask the students to design an outreach program to inform parents of the issues pertaining to the illegal use of prescription drugs. Specific concepts addressed should include common warning signs of drug use, how to communicate the dangers of using the drugs from physical and legal perspectives, and the importance of keeping parents’ prescription drugs in secure locations.
Using this case study, assume that Mrs. Williams had given Ron the notebook on his initial request. At that point, Ron went to another student’s house mentioned in the notebook and confronted the student. Ron’s father and the other father engage in a physical altercation in which one of the men was assaulted. Discuss the extent to which the school is liable, if at all, regarding this situation.
Ask students to design a family-friendly FERPA pamphlet for parents. Consider this pamphlet a primer for parents and students to understand their rights regarding privacy and access to records. Include information for parents regarding whom to contact if a dispute arises with their child’s school officials. The pamphlet should include an easy-to-understand definition of “educational record” and “personal property.”
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.