FERPA Classroom Displays and Disclosure Decisions

Classroom Applications: Peer Grading and Displaying Student Work

Peer feedback and the Owasso decision

In Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo (2002), the Supreme Court held that papers being graded by peers before collection and recording by the teacher were not maintained education records under FERPA. Thus peer grading, including the practice at issue in the case, was not categorically a FERPA violation. That ruling does not make later maintained gradebooks public. Distinguish the legal definition from the professional decision to preserve dignity and avoid unnecessary disclosure.

For peer review, teach criteria, use work appropriate for sharing, avoid sensitive personal content, and offer privacy/accessibility alternatives. Written feedback about evidence or organization is often more useful than having classmates call out scores. A teacher should not infer that one Supreme Court holding approves every public grade display.

Publishing work and performance data

Use secure gradebook views; verify recipients before emailing records; prevent scores/IEPs from appearing on projected screens; and hand confidential records directly to authorized recipients. BCC can help protect addresses in a group message, but it does not cure including a student's private details in the message body. Use district-approved communication procedures.

Sources: Supreme Court opinion, Department of Education FERPA guidance.

---

Realistic Texas Classroom Scenarios

These are fictional teaching examples. Counts, timings, and outcomes illustrate decisions; they are not research findings or promised effects.

Scenario 1: Teacher Lounge Discussion and Legitimate Educational Interest

During a common planning period in the teacher lounge, Ms. Higgins, an eighth-grade math teacher, begins discussing a student named Marcus: "Did you all know Marcus was suspended three times last year for fighting? I looked up his cumulative disciplinary file in the office this morning. He also failed seventh-grade reading, and his ARD paperwork shows an emotional disturbance diagnosis. We need to watch him closely." Sitting at the table are three seventh-grade teachers who do not teach Marcus, an elective teacher who teaches Marcus, and a substitute teacher.

Privacy Analysis: Ms. Higgins committed a severe violation of FERPA and the Texas Educators' Code of Ethics. While Ms. Higgins may have a legitimate educational interest in reviewing Marcus's IEP accommodations because he is in her math class, she has no legal authority to disclose his confidential disciplinary history, past grades, and psychological disability diagnoses to colleagues who do not instruct him. Broadcasting confidential student records in an open staff lounge violates federal privacy statutes and exposes the district to federal compliance sanctions.

Scenario 2: Public Posting of Class Benchmark Data

Mr. Chen, a high school geometry teacher, wants to motivate his students to prepare for the upcoming district benchmark exam. Following the midterm test, he prints an Excel spreadsheet showing the raw scores, percentages, and letter grades of all 150 students across his five class periods. To protect privacy, Mr. Chen deletes student names from the document and replaces them with each student's six-digit school ID number. He posts this printout on the bulletin board outside his classroom door.

Privacy Analysis: Mr. Chen's action violates FERPA. Under federal privacy regulations, a student identification number is personally identifiable information (PII). Other students can easily link ID numbers to individuals through student ID badges, lunch lines, or library checkouts. Posting grades linked to student ID numbers—or partial Social Security numbers—is strictly prohibited under federal regulations. A prudent alternative is to post appropriately deidentified aggregate class averages (e.g., "Period 2 Class Average: 84%") without identifying individual student marks.

---

Applying the Concepts and Avoiding Misconceptions

Names removed does not mean deidentified: student IDs, small groups, and contextual clues can still reveal identity. Never publish identifiable grades using the directory-information exception. A student ID may qualify as directory information only under specific conditions, but the student's grades do not become directory information as a result.

Evaluate sole-possession status and record maintenance precisely. FERPA amendment procedures address inaccurate, misleading, or privacy-violating records; they are not an appeal mechanism for a teacher's substantive grading judgment. Noncustodial parents generally retain FERPA rights unless binding documentation provides otherwise. Peer grading before maintenance is treated differently under Owasso, including the practice examined there of calling scores aloud; still use respectful, appropriate classroom procedures.

---

Applying Record Rights Precisely

FERPA's education-record definition concerns records directly related to a student and maintained by the agency or a party acting for it. Losing a sole-possession exclusion does not create an automatic permanent record in every situation; evaluate direct relationship and maintenance. Authorized school-official access also follows the definitions and criteria in the institution's annual FERPA notice, rather than a teacher's personal curiosity. A former student's teacher may still have an assigned legitimate responsibility; former enrollment alone is not the entire legal test.

The right to request amendment addresses inaccurate or misleading records and privacy violations; it is not a process to contest the teacher's substantive grading judgment. Inspection must be provided within a reasonable period, no later than 45 days. Rights transfer at age 18 or attendance at a postsecondary institution at any age, while lawful exceptions can still permit certain disclosures to parents. Do not confuse transferred rights with an absolute ban on every parent disclosure. Check emergency, dependency, and other exceptions through the records officer.