Why are recs absolutely necessary at some schools, while not expected at others?

[adpiucf]

Hartofsec, this is incorrect. FERPA does not make the guidance counselor liable in this scenario. The only way to hold her liable under FERPA in your hypothetical is where some busy body alumna finds out Susie Q is going to SEC University and decides to contact the high school to get Susie's education records for whatever reason AND THE COUNSELOR GIVES THEM TO HER. She can call the counselor to get information about Susie's honors and awards without any FERPA violation. FERPA doesn't prevent the counselor from discussing her mental impressions of the student. She just can't release any written notes in the student's advising folder. Private notes, campus police records, and medical records are not education records under FERPA.

FERPA governs the right of education records. Parents hold that right until the child turns 18. Then the child, now an adult holds that right. The child is putting their education records at "issue" for the purpose of going through recruitment and has allowed Panhellenic and the sororities to view their transcripts. FERPA means that a parent can't call up their adult child's college later demanding to know how they're doing in Organic Chemistry. If the student to consents to a background check, FERPA does not apply.

FERPA prevents the school from releasing information about a student's "education record" without written consent of the parent/child above age 18. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to certain parties or under some conditions, including schools where a student is transferring, to comply with judicial order/subpoena, etc. Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. There must be notice of the disclosure, and notice is considered sufficient by FERPA if students are notified of the possibility of such disclosure occurring via their student handbook or a public notice informing them about FERPA.

A guidance counselor's actions are imputed to the school. A guidance counselor may observe FERPA and disclose this directory information. Moreover, the student matriculating has provided written consent for the university and Panhellenic to view their education record. There is no violation here for a guidance counselor to provide directory information to an alumna writing a rec. The alumna has also been provided with the student's education record by the student herself.

There is no legal privilege here or liability to the counselor/school when you, the subject of the matter, put that something (your records) at issue for consideration. You've consented.

ETA: Also, if we're asserting liability, you also have to consider that liability means lawsuit. A lawsuit requires actual injury. Where are you suing? State court? Federal court? Either way, there's no FERPA violation, so let's default to state court. What is the counselor liable for? Defamation or invasion of privacy? This is unlikely unless the counselor made patently false statements about the student or violated her reasonable expectation of privacy, and again, the student has already put her grades at issue by going through recruitment and consenting to have her education records verified. What is the measure of damages? The sorority can't be forced to take her as a member, and she'll have to prove money damages as a result of her damaged reputation to that sorority chapter for the no-rec? It all seems highly unlikely that any money damages can be assessed. If there's no remedy available, the court can't redress the grievance and will conclude there is no harm. If the counselor gets disciplined or fired for any of this, she does have a legal remedy that can be addressed for wrongful termination because she has done nothing wrong.

While we're at this, just want to make sure no one is taking this as legal advice.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

This is incorrect.

FERPA governs the right of education records. Parents hold that right until the child turns 18. Then the child, now an adult holds that right. The child is putting their education records at "issue" for the purpose of going through recruitment and has allowed Panhellenic and the sororities to view their transcripts.

FERPA prevents the school from releasing information about a student's "education record" without written consent of the parent/child above age 18. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to certain parties or under some conditions, including schools where a student is transferring, to comply with judicial order/subpoena, etc. Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. There must be notice of the disclosure, and notice is considered sufficient by FERPA if students are notified of the possibility of such disclosure occurring via their student handbook or a public notice informing them about FERPA.

A guidance counselor's actions are imputed to the school. A guidance counselor may observe FERPA and disclose this directory information. Moreover, the student matriculating has provided written consent for the university and Panhellenic to view their education record. There is no violation here for a guidance counselor to provide directory information to an alumna writing a rec. The alumna has been provided with the student's education record by the student herself.

There is no legal privilege here or liability to the counselor/school when you, the subject of the matter, put that something (your records) at issue for consideration. You've consented.

But the conditions under which the release of information apply do not include the Guidance Counselor rendering opinions such as:

or very average student according to her HS counselor, always had concerns about her academics, will be taking remedial classes, and then the "I do not support this woman for membership in AAA

That is not info that would be included in a directory (with or without permission), and a sorority is not on the list of agencies that info may be released to for any purpose.

As far as I know, PNMs consent for official transcript info to be sent to the school of application, but make copies of their transcript (unofficial) to include in rec packets given to alums. The high schools that I know of are not in the business of sending official transcripts to sororites and alums.

[adpiucf]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

But the conditions under which the release of information apply do not include the Guidance Counselor rendering opinions such as:



That is not info that would be included in a directory (with or without permission), and a sorority is not on the list of agencies that info may be released to for any purpose.

As far as I know, PNMs consent for official transcript info to be sent to the school of application, but make copies of their transcript (unofficial) to include in rec packets given to alums. The high schools that I know of are not in the business of sending official transcripts to sororites and alums.

Again, I point out that FERPA does not provide protection against a guidance counselor rendering a personal opinion about a student based on her knowledge of that student. It provides against the unconsented release of actual physical records. Therefore, the FERPA allegation fails. The high schools would violate FERPA if they provided official transcripts to sororities/alumnae without the student's express consent.

EDITED TO ADD: There is NO guidance counselor liability: According to the United States Supreme Court, FERPA does not allow for private individuals to sue a teacher, a school, or a district based on a perceived violation of FERPA. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002). Even if a student believes that her FERPA privacy rights have been violated, she cannot sue a teacher, guidance counselor or school in court. The Court’s decision was based on the fact that FERPA prevents “a policy or practice” of disclosing educational records. FERPA does not speak to specific instances of disclosure and it only states that if an institution has such a policy and practice, then it can lose federal funding. Arguably, a single disclosure of educational records does not violate FERPA. It must be a “policy or practice” before a violation occurs. But it would not be wise to test this argument. The Supreme Court took FERPA’s language to mean that Congress did not create a private cause of action.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

Again, I point out that FERPA does not provide protection against a guidance counselor rendering a personal opinion about a student based on her knowledge of that student. It provides against the unconsented release of actual physical records. Therefore, the FERPA allegation fails. The high schools would violate FERPA if they provided official transcripts to sororities/alumnae without the student's express consent.

EDITED TO ADD: There is NO guidance counselor liability: According to the United States Supreme Court, FERPA does not allow for private individuals to sue a teacher, a school, or a district based on a perceived violation of FERPA. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002). Even if a student believes that her FERPA privacy rights have been violated, she cannot sue a teacher, guidance counselor or school in court. The Court’s decision was based on the fact that FERPA prevents “a policy or practice” of disclosing educational records. FERPA does not speak to specific instances of disclosure and it only states that if an institution has such a policy and practice, then it can lose federal funding. Arguably, a single disclosure of educational records does not violate FERPA. It must be a “policy or practice” before a violation occurs. But it would not be wise to test this argument. The Supreme Court took FERPA’s language to mean that Congress did not create a private cause of action.

Remedies under educational law are not necessarily those one might expect in a civil court (monetary damages, for instance). A complaint filed with FPCO, and found to have merit, could result in some repercussions for the district (and therefore the employee).

Nonetheless, if I called the guidance counselor at my local high school, explained that I am an XYZ alum and would like some info on a list of female seniors there, I would fully expect her to hang up.

To her credit, since that would eliminate the need for any legal guidance, one way or another. We live in a litigious society.

The academic info necessary for membership perusal would appear on the transcript that was submitted officially to the school of application, and then unofficially with the rec packet -- both with the consent and knowledge of the PNM.

[adpiucf]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

Remedies under educational law are not necessarily those one might expect in a civil court (monetary damages, for instance). A complaint filed with FPCO, and found to have merit, could result in some repercussions for the district (and therefore the employee).

Nonetheless, if I called the guidance counselor at my local high school, explained that I am an XYZ alum and would like some info on a list of female seniors there, I would fully expect her to hang up.

To her credit, since that would eliminate the need for any legal guidance, one way or another. We live in a litigious society.

The academic info necessary for membership perusal would appear on the transcript that was submitted officially to the school of application, and then unofficially with the rec packet -- both with the consent and knowledge of the PNM.

Educational law? I believe you mean administrative law. Yes, FERPA claims go to an administrative body to adjudicate whether a school has committed a violation. Again, the penalty is loss of federal funding for the school.

A guidance counselor penalized in return is not liable. In fact, she can file a lawsuit. The school cannot seek indemnity or contribution in a against the guidance counselor in an administrative proceeding for a FERPA violation. They can't make the guidance counselor pay to replace fedearl funds or state that is her fault or have her take the blame.

Thus, you are incorrect. A guidance counselor has no liability for a FERPA violation in an administrative hearing and any attempt at retaliation for the school's FERPA violation is going to land the school, the school district, and the state in a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

The only repercussions are to the school. Your original argument asserted that the counselor would be open to liability. You are now attempting to change your hypothetical to talk of nebulous "repercussions" for the guidance counselor because you are determined to be right. You're wrong.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

Educational law? I believe you mean administrative law. Yes, FERPA claims go to an administrative body to adjudicate whether a school has committed a violation. Again, the penalty is loss of federal funding for the school.

A guidance counselor penalized in return is not liable. In fact, she can file a lawsuit. The school cannot seek indemnity or contribution in a against the guidance counselor in an administrative proceeding for a FERPA violation. They can't make the guidance counselor pay to replace fedearl funds or state that is her fault or have her take the blame.

Thus, you are incorrect. A guidance counselor has no liability for a FERPA violation in an administrative hearing and any attempt at retaliation for the school's FERPA violation is going to land the school, the school district, and the state in a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

The only repercussions are to the school. Your original argument asserted that the counselor would be open to liability. You are now attempting to change your hypothetical to talk of nebulous "repercussions" for the guidance counselor because you are determined to be right. You're wrong.

Oh keep your shorts on. I'll change "educational" law to "administrative" law, and "liability" to "expose one's district to potential repercussions" if you like.

Originally Posted by adpiucf

You are now attempting to change your hypothetical to talk of nebulous "repercussions" for the guidance counselor because you are determined to be right. You're wrong.

I'm really not that invested in being correct about the participation of the high school guidance counselor -- it doesn't seem necessary if the info needed for recruitment is on the transcript. Subjective opinions, particularly negative judgements or predictions made by the guidance counselor, may be another matter.

I think you may just be determined to split hairs and wave around a law degree.

Which might be handy for your guidance counselor friends in the event sorority alums come calling and ask for information on a list of female seniors (unsolicited by the female seniors, and without their knowledge or consent).
.

[adpiucf]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

Oh keep your shorts on. I'll change "educational" law to "administrative" law, and "liability" to "expose one's district to potential repercussions" if you like.



I'm really not that invested in being correct about the participation of the high school guidance counselor -- it doesn't seem necessary if the info needed for recruitment is on the transcript. Subjective opinions, particularly negative judgements or predictions made by the guidance counselor, may be another matter.

I think you may just be determined to split hairs and wave around a law degree.

Which might be handy for your guidance counselor friends in the event sorority alums come calling and ask for information on a list of female seniors (unsolicited by the female seniors, and without their knowledge or consent).
.

You may not be invested in being correct, but you sure act like it. You shouldn't throw around terms and laws and procedures if you don't have even a layman's understanding of them. And there's no need to launch into personal attacks.

I'm not splitting hairs. I'm calling you out because you have no idea what you're talking about, and you insist you backtracking or changing the scenario to attempt to make yourself right.

TL;DR: You made an incorrect assertion.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

Plenty of people have posted on GC in other threads, mostly PNMs, "I can't find recs and therefore I won't," or "They aren't common at my school so I won't bother." That's fine. I take issue with sorority members stating that their chapter wouldn't know what to do with a rec if they got one, contending they have no value, and theorizing that a rec could hurt a PNM at such a school where they are not common.

Well my sorority chapter wouldn't have known what to do with one, generally speaking. If you've never seen one and don't know what it is, how could you know what the value of it is?

And why is it so wrong to THEORIZE that a rec could have a negative affect on a PNMs recruitment, or at least initially be looked at as something strange/off/weird? Regardless, I don't see how theorizing this = sticking your nose up at schools that rely heavily on recs.

But maybe I'm missing something?

[adpiucf]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Well my sorority chapter wouldn't have known what to do with one, generally speaking. If you've never seen one and don't know what it is, how could you know what the value of it is?

And why is it so wrong to THEORIZE that a rec could have a negative affect on a PNMs recruitment, or at least initially be looked at as something strange/off/weird? Regardless, I don't see how theorizing this = sticking your nose up at schools that rely heavily on recs.

But maybe I'm missing something?

I am not trying to offend you, and I feel certain you aren't trying to offend me. I think the difference may lie not only in how some schools value recs over others, but also in how one sorority values recommendations over another in membership selection. Every sorority has different criteria that they value over others. A recommendation doesn't guarantee someone a bid to a sorority, but it is something considered in the process and some organizations may place more weight on the rec than other sororities. I guess I am now understanding that for some sororities, a rec is just a rec, and for others, it carries varying degrees of weight in actual selection.

A PNM cannot stand on a rec alone, but it may help her secure a bid in concert with other factors where she is otherwise well-qualified. If there are 100 girls with similar grades and attributes, a rec will help them. If there are 100 girls with similar grades and attributes (including recs), then not having one will hurt them. However, if your particular organization places no value on recs (and given the above conversations they may be wise to do so!), it doesn't matter either way. But if your organization provides alumnae with a vehicle to recommend PNMs, the sorority members should be trained on how to process them, and how much weight, if any. should be given to them. This all treads into the territory of private membership selection though.

ETA: When I say "value," I mean actual valuation (e.g., predetermined weight) of a factor considered in the selection process, not that you don't value the opinions of your alumnae. For example, every chapter puts value (weight) into a minimum GPA.