At the end of December the state Department of Education (DOE) issued a letter of finding to school Superintendent Thomas Jefferson in response to a complaint filed in August on behalf of all special education students in Harvard. The complaint, filed by Maria Kaufmann, co-chair of the Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC), alleged that laws had been violated last year when information was released to newspapers and an attorney in Sterling regarding certain payments made to a former School Committee member out of special education funds.
Among the records released, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, were excerpts from a town budget report, a schedule of payments, copies of checks, and settlement agreements relating to the placement of students. The student names on these documents were redacted, but the parents’ names were not. This, said Kaufmann, violated laws regarding confidentiality of student information.
“You can’t release any records that personally identify a student, including the parents’ names and street address,” she said.
Kaufmann said that, as the story about the payments unfolded in the press, parents of special education students in town “felt hung out to dry,” and were left wondering, “Who’s looking out for our interests?”
“It was a travesty,” said Kaufmann. “It was outrageous—laws had to have been broken.”
She said that, in questioning the release of the information, she found that “no one in the school department felt they could stop records from being released,” since there was a belief that redacting student names was all that was necessary to be in compliance with confidentiality laws.
However, in its Dec. 27 letter the DOE found that “Harvard violated the state student records law, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).”
The DOE response clarified “student record,” as defined in Massachusetts regulations:
“The student record shall consist of the transcript and the temporary record, including all … computer tapes, microfilm, microfiche, or any other materials regardless of physical form or characteristics concerning a student that is organized on the basis of the student’s name or in a way that such student may be individually identified, and that is kept by the public schools of the commonwealth. [This] shall mean all such information and materials regardless of where they are located, except for the information and materials specifically exempted … .”
It went on to explain that information covered in the category of data that makes a student personally identifiable includes: student name, name of the student’s parent or other family member, address of the student or the student’s family, a personal identifier, such as Social Security number or student number, a list of personal characteristics, or other information that would make the student’s identity easily traceable.
The DOE ruled that, in her role as town finance director, Lorraine Leonard acts on behalf of the schools in paying bills for out-of-district student placements and is therefore subject to the laws regarding release of student information. However, Jefferson said that prior to releasing the information in question, Leonard had consulted with the Department of Public Records for a ruling on whether it was appropriate to release the information as it was ultimately presented. Jefferson said he has communicated with the DOE on this point.
“There is obviously some clarification needed,” he said.
The letter said further that “the School Committee’s role in approving expenditure does not necessarily require access to confidential student information.” This was a point of controversy last year when the published records revealed that School Committee members had approved a payment from special education funds to an individual rather than an institution, as is customary. Critics wanted to know why they had approved such a payment.
Jefferson said this is another area on which he is seeking clarification from the DOE—what information can appear on warrants presented to School Committee members for approval. He added that he would be looking at “what mechanisms can be put into place to make payments” related to special education while protecting student identity.
Remedial action
The DOE letter calls upon Jefferson to arrange training for himself, Leonard, and School Committee members on state student records laws, and to create “a new system of oversight for the processing of district expenditures by the town finance director,” which would prevent recurrences of the release of confidential information to unauthorized parties.
“We are absolutely going to follow up on these recommendations,” said Jefferson.
Kaufmann said she recognizes that there may be people who are unhappy with a ruling that so strictly limits the availability of information, particularly as it relates to special education expenditures. However, she said, “It’s not a policy that can be debated in a Q&A session. It’s the law.”
She added, “The town hires special education professionals to evaluate how those [special education] funds are spent. People need to trust that those professionals are doing their jobs.”
