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

[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.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

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.

lol, I agree:

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.

Back to topic, let me ask the question another way (and I would appreciate your legal justification for this practice, in terms of protecting confidential student information):

If Mildred A. Lum from XYZ sorority calls a local high school guidance counselor, and asks for information on a list of senior females, the guidance counselor is free to disclose this information -- including info and potentially negative opinions concerning academic struggles and remedial classes taken (as previously mentioned on this thread) -- without the knowledge or consent of the senior females?

At my local high school, the guidance counselor would probably hang up. In layman's terms of course.

It just seems pretty straightforward to me:

Quick Guide to Privacy of Student Records (FERPA)
http://sja.ucdavis.edu/files/quickguide.pdf

Even parents need written consent from their student on file to access their own child's records once they turn 18.