Seattle Schools Student Data Privacy Breach
Update: The Times is saying that the guardian did not just bring it to the law firm's attention weeks ago that he received unasked for student data but that he told the district. And yet got even more student data after that notification.
If true, this would support the guardian's thought (and mine) that the district and the law firm were trying to bury him with masses of data. That would mean that somewhere in the district someone did not bother to redact anything, possibly not thinking of the consequences of sending out a huge volume of data.
Because if some of the records had been redacted, that would have been an accident. To me, that none were, then it seems a deliberate action, possibly done in a lazy fashion.
The Times also reports that "the district asked (the guardian) to return or destroy the records so that they can be replaced by a set that doesn't reveal confidential student information." I'll have to ask if that means he would get 8,000 more records but redacted.
They also report the district has used this law firm for 10 years. The district has only pulled this one case from the firm and is assessing other work assigned to the firm.
End of update
It's worse than we may have thought. I really thought this was a fairly contained incident to just one high school. It appears to be a colossal failure on the part of the district and the law firm involved, Preg O'Donnell & Gillett. (The firm was named by the guardian of the student in question in an e-mail to the Seattle School Board.)
(I Googled the firm and frankly, they sound like a very solid citizen firm. However, in this particular case, something went very, very wrong.)
Let's start with the particulars, gathered from multiple sources.
There is a 17-year old student at an SPS high school with Special Education needs. This student's guardian, her older brother, was trying to obtain documents related to her services. He was acting as his sister's lawyer. I believe the district had obtained the services of POG to handle the issue. (I am unclear when or why the law firm came into it.)
He made a discovery request "pursuant to a due process hearing" regarding his sister's IEP and Sped services. (I don't know if the brother was trying to force the district to explain his sister's services under Sped, just for understanding or in pursuit of a lawsuit.)
He was sent "numerous e-mails with embedded attachments" allegedly from the law firm that were irrelevant to his sister's case.
The documents contained information about 8,000 SPS students, both Sped and General Ed.
Information included:
- discipline records including infractions, disciplinary measures taken and race of students
- disability
- schools
- names
- addresses
- pick-up locations for Transportation
- complete IEPs for at least 38 high school students
- one high school's roster for EOC exams, AP scores and other scores
- student ID numbers
- student schedules and class room numbers
The guardian told the Board in an e-mail dated November 11, 2014 that this is NOT the first time that he has received FERPA protected information.
He told the Board that the information he was sent had no bearing on his sister's case nor did he request it.
He alleges that he had a conversation with one of the PO&G attorneys about this issue when he got the first batch of e-mails (apparently there were several). Apparently, wires got crossed or he was ignored or the law firm was told something by someone but he received even MORE student data in the next batch.
Apparently, the district does not know why or how this volume of personalized data was sent to PO&G. They are investigating.
KING 5 had a report this evening and the guardian showed the reporter item after item on a computer. The guardian told KING 5 that he had contacted the district about this issue the first time it happened. (Not clear who he contacted.) He said "The district has not responded at all really."
KING 5 says the district is blaming the law firm. The district says they are "sorry" and working with families. They say the guardian is the only person who has the records and they want a judge to order him to destroy them.
It is unclear what the guardian will do with the data.
My take? Until the district shows some real proof of what they are doing with this incident, the guardian should hang on to the data to prove what has happened.
Questions:
- are all parents/guardians being notified of this problem and how?
- it is laughable to say only the guardian has the data because the law firm had it (and the district says it is working to ensure that all improperly released records are retrieved or destroyed.)
- in the end, how do you ever know data has been destroyed especially by those who appeared careless with it?
- how does our district make SURE that data is transmitted properly and that every single entity who gets student data handles it properly? Do they check or just ask or assume?
SPS statements:
First statement
Late Tuesday night Seattle Public Schools learned that a law firm retained by the district to handle a complaint against the district inadvertently sent personally identifiable student information to an individual involved in the case.
The district promptly removed the law firm from the case and is working to ensure that all improperly released records are retrieved or destroyed.
Protection of student privacy is of critical importance, and this inadvertent release of student information is unacceptable. Confidential information about several thousand of our students was improperly released. They are primarily Special Education students. Seattle Public Schools is reporting the release of student information to the U.S. Department of Education and is asking for their assistance in investigating how this happened.
Seattle Public Schools is looking into the exact extent of the disclosure and will be sending follow-up communications to affected families.
We appreciate the action of the individual who received these documents in reporting this to the district so that we could quickly move to retrieve the student information and notify families.
Dr. Larry Nyland
Interim Superintendent
Second statement
Third statement
The district responded quickly to notify parents of the improper release of student information by an outside, contracted law firm.
If true, this would support the guardian's thought (and mine) that the district and the law firm were trying to bury him with masses of data. That would mean that somewhere in the district someone did not bother to redact anything, possibly not thinking of the consequences of sending out a huge volume of data.
Because if some of the records had been redacted, that would have been an accident. To me, that none were, then it seems a deliberate action, possibly done in a lazy fashion.
The Times also reports that "the district asked (the guardian) to return or destroy the records so that they can be replaced by a set that doesn't reveal confidential student information." I'll have to ask if that means he would get 8,000 more records but redacted.
They also report the district has used this law firm for 10 years. The district has only pulled this one case from the firm and is assessing other work assigned to the firm.
End of update
It's worse than we may have thought. I really thought this was a fairly contained incident to just one high school. It appears to be a colossal failure on the part of the district and the law firm involved, Preg O'Donnell & Gillett. (The firm was named by the guardian of the student in question in an e-mail to the Seattle School Board.)
(I Googled the firm and frankly, they sound like a very solid citizen firm. However, in this particular case, something went very, very wrong.)
Let's start with the particulars, gathered from multiple sources.
There is a 17-year old student at an SPS high school with Special Education needs. This student's guardian, her older brother, was trying to obtain documents related to her services. He was acting as his sister's lawyer. I believe the district had obtained the services of POG to handle the issue. (I am unclear when or why the law firm came into it.)
He made a discovery request "pursuant to a due process hearing" regarding his sister's IEP and Sped services. (I don't know if the brother was trying to force the district to explain his sister's services under Sped, just for understanding or in pursuit of a lawsuit.)
He was sent "numerous e-mails with embedded attachments" allegedly from the law firm that were irrelevant to his sister's case.
The documents contained information about 8,000 SPS students, both Sped and General Ed.
Information included:
- discipline records including infractions, disciplinary measures taken and race of students
- disability
- schools
- names
- addresses
- pick-up locations for Transportation
- complete IEPs for at least 38 high school students
- one high school's roster for EOC exams, AP scores and other scores
- student ID numbers
- student schedules and class room numbers
The guardian told the Board in an e-mail dated November 11, 2014 that this is NOT the first time that he has received FERPA protected information.
He told the Board that the information he was sent had no bearing on his sister's case nor did he request it.
He alleges that he had a conversation with one of the PO&G attorneys about this issue when he got the first batch of e-mails (apparently there were several). Apparently, wires got crossed or he was ignored or the law firm was told something by someone but he received even MORE student data in the next batch.
Apparently, the district does not know why or how this volume of personalized data was sent to PO&G. They are investigating.
KING 5 had a report this evening and the guardian showed the reporter item after item on a computer. The guardian told KING 5 that he had contacted the district about this issue the first time it happened. (Not clear who he contacted.) He said "The district has not responded at all really."
KING 5 says the district is blaming the law firm. The district says they are "sorry" and working with families. They say the guardian is the only person who has the records and they want a judge to order him to destroy them.
It is unclear what the guardian will do with the data.
My take? Until the district shows some real proof of what they are doing with this incident, the guardian should hang on to the data to prove what has happened.
Questions:
- are all parents/guardians being notified of this problem and how?
- it is laughable to say only the guardian has the data because the law firm had it (and the district says it is working to ensure that all improperly released records are retrieved or destroyed.)
- in the end, how do you ever know data has been destroyed especially by those who appeared careless with it?
- how does our district make SURE that data is transmitted properly and that every single entity who gets student data handles it properly? Do they check or just ask or assume?
SPS statements:
First statement
Late Tuesday night Seattle Public Schools learned that a law firm retained by the district to handle a complaint against the district inadvertently sent personally identifiable student information to an individual involved in the case.
The district promptly removed the law firm from the case and is working to ensure that all improperly released records are retrieved or destroyed.
Protection of student privacy is of critical importance, and this inadvertent release of student information is unacceptable. Confidential information about several thousand of our students was improperly released. They are primarily Special Education students. Seattle Public Schools is reporting the release of student information to the U.S. Department of Education and is asking for their assistance in investigating how this happened.
Seattle Public Schools is looking into the exact extent of the disclosure and will be sending follow-up communications to affected families.
We appreciate the action of the individual who received these documents in reporting this to the district so that we could quickly move to retrieve the student information and notify families.
Dr. Larry Nyland
Interim Superintendent
Second statement
Thank you for your email regarding the
unauthorized release of student information by an outside law firm
contracted by the district. We fully appreciate and acknowledge the
concern this has created for you and your family.
We realize our initial communications with
families may not contain sufficient information to help alleviate your
concerns and that is because we are currently in the process of
confirming which students and families are impacted, what
type of information was shared, and working to retrieve and destroy
these information files. However, we did feel it was important to inform
parents of the situation as soon as possible and for them to hear
directly from us regarding this important matter.
We do want to confirm a few important facts for you:
1.
The student information that was shared by the law firm
was given to a family member who is representing the student. At this
time, we believe no other individuals have access to this information.
We immediately requested that files
be returned or destroyed.
2.
A large majority of the student information released involves special education student files.
3.
We have removed the responsible law firm from this case
and have been in contact with the appropriate state and federal agencies
to confirm the appropriate course of action.
Families should know that the district takes
this incident very seriously and are working quickly to confirm more
details in order to communicate directly with our parents and families.
Families of impacted students will receive a subsequent
communication, and all families will get an update on the districts (sic)
response to this issue.
We appreciate your support and patience as we
carefully investigate and respond to the critically important need to
protect student information.
Sincerely,
Dr. Larry Nyland
Superintendent
Third statement
The district responded quickly to notify parents of the improper release of student information by an outside, contracted law firm.
·
We have no reason to believe the student
information has been released to any others beyond the family member who
initiated the student information request.
·
The district is working to assure the information
is returned or destroyed. We will we follow up with family members of
the effected students.
·
Seattle Public Schools is committed to communicating directly with those students and families directly impacted by this error.
·
We are also planning a follow-up communication to
inform all district families of the resolution of this student
information issue.
·
We deeply apologize for any inconvenience this
incident may have caused for our students and families. While an outside
law firm released the information, we recognize that the district is
ultimately responsible to safeguard student
information.
Comments
uhghh!
--Wondering
Wondering, that's part of the district investigation.
I have heard that in cases in the past against the district - not just Sped ones - that the district might try the tactic of giving the other side so much information that it overwhelms them trying to pick thru for relevant information.
Or it could be one massive error on the part of the district.
Pissed off
When you say: I will not sit and let this go., what does this mean? I truly would like to know, because I can't think of a darn thing an individual can do about this, short of rallying LOTS of people - enough to get the popular media interested.
This particular instance was clearly a mistake by the district, first and foremost. They screwed up. Let's hope for once they man-up to their mistake and don't just hit all the CYA buttons (I know, wishful thinking). Sure, the law firm screwed up as well, but they should never have had all that data.
But the district is giving away massive data all the time, with no notification, let alone a way opt-out, or what it should allow in many cases: opt-in. They give data to whatever shiny new company comes along, like ConnectEdu, CCER/RoadMap, Blackboard Inc. (Fusion), community colleges, the list goes on and on. We need to put a stop to ALL of it, but how? Privacy breach issues posted here on the blog that can affect thousands tend to get a handful of comments, while other issues get dozens or hundreds of comments. Until this changes, I don't see the district changing.
I'll add, perhaps of their own doing (meaning, they intentionally sent out that volume of data, not realizing it was not redacted) or someone clearly did not know what he/she was doing.
I agree about parents being less than worried but we'll get there.
There's a board meeting next Wednesday, 11/19. I'd recommend that people protest that and notify the media of it beforehand. Disciplinary records, medical diagnoses, home addresses, etc, of students should never be released to the public (as seen on KING5). SPS hasn't told us why a law firm would have that information.
I found one SPS policy--3231SP on student data disclosure, but maybe there are other relevant policies? This one also hasn't been updated since Enfield was superintendent. 3231SP is quite casual with student information and that's assuming that SPS is actually following their own procedure.
@Pissed off
The district should have destroyed your kid's SPED records if they left the district, I think.
The school records officer shall "Upon transfer ofthe student to the next level (elementary to middle school, middle school to high school) or upon graduation or transfer outside the district, remove for retention, preservation or destruction in accordance with applicable disposition procedures any records no longer pertinent to educational program placement" (3231SP, bold mine).
Obviously the law firm stuffed up, but why did the district pass on the records 8000 kids anyway. It was dealing with a complaint relating to 1 child and the information it received from the district should have related to that 1 child only. What scenario could exist where it would be appropriate or necessary for the records for all SPED children to be disclosed to a lawyer in response to 1 child (whether they are redacted or not). Could it be if searching to see if that kid is receiving equitable services compared to other with the same disability??? But would that even be allowable. I mean could I say - I want to see everyone else's records to make sure they aren't being treated differently than me - isn't that like requesting protected information about another person (I bet you couldn't get info from your hospital to determine the treatment you received was the same as accorded to other patients with same illness for example).
WHo in the district gave out these records to the law firm and why. Accountability rests with SPS - the records belong to SPS and were given to the other party by SPS. SPS cannot totally control what happens once data is in the hands of another party although it should expect a law firm would know better.
My big question is that given the steady stream of small and large scandals and stuff-up that SPS makes, how likely is it that this happens on a regular basis? And have they even realize it has or have they covered it up.
What little confidence I have in SPS to keep my kid safe and my kids personal information safe is being eroded even more.
SPS sucks
SPS wrote, "We have severed our relationship with the law firm in the handling of this case." The limiting language, "in the handling of this case," worries me and leads me to believe that SPS did not terminate all relationships with the law firm.
-midnight
Seattle Public Schools
Annual State of the District 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
4:30 pm – 6:00 pm
(wine reception to follow presentation)
Group Health Headquarters
320 Westlake Ave. N., Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98109-5233
-I'm attending
"Parents and eligible students who need assistance or who wish to file a complaint under FERPA or PPRA should do so in writing to the Family Policy Compliance Office, sending pertinent information through the mail, concerning any allegations to the following address:
Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-5920
Phone: 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327)"
Dear SPS families,
A few days ago I notified you of the inappropriate release of student information through our law firm and I promised to let you know when we had more information.
The student information that was given to a parent by mistake includes directory information on over 7,400 students, including date of birth, grade and school assignment. The files also include student identification number, special education assignments, disability categories and special education transportation information. We believe this information includes substantially all of the special education students in the district.
In addition, some data on Roosevelt students was released. That information, for smaller numbers of students, includes discipline data, test results, service models, and scholarship information. At this time, we are not aware that any information was disclosed about general education students who do not attend Roosevelt. The district continues to review all files disclosed by the law firm.
Release of this information is of great concern. We have severed our relationship with the law firm in the handling of this case. Although we don’t believe the information been given to anyone other than the one individual parent, we are taking legal steps to insure that the student record information is returned.
On behalf of the district, I apologize for this breach of privacy. Our goal is to contain any further disclosure of this information and have the data returned to the district and any potential additional copies destroyed as soon as possible.
We will continue to update our families as we have additional information.
Sincerely,
Dr. Larry Nyland, Interim Superintendent
HP
OUT OFCONTROL
I'm attending, I am going to both (I hope).
Out of Control, understand this is all part of what I believe is a bigger plan. People at the top are NOT stupid.
We are to believe this happen:
- guardian initiates some kind of action against the district for his sister. Case assigned to this law firm.
- guardian asks for data on his sister (or possibly some SPed stats but nothing specific to other students)
- the law firm tells the district this, district sends data on many students w/ personal information, law firm (doesn't look at it?) and passes it along to guardian
- guardian tells district and/or law firm that they made a mistake and sent too much data.
- district responds by sending law firm MORE data and telling them to send it to the guardian?
Both the district and the law firm ignore what the guardian told them the first time?
Please.
Discovery allows for large amounts of information to be given to law firms.
The parents of the other students need to be notified in advance of releasing any PII protected information and could ask the judge to deny. It's very rare for courts to allow 3rd parties access to other students non-redacted SPED records.
The district had no business compiling an entire schools SPED case load documents into one file then transmit it unsecured around the district's network then transmit it again unsecured to the law firm. Yes I know for a fact that SPS and PGO both send emails unsecured.
I'm betting these types of documents are currently saved on district employee's unsecured home computers, which is a violation.
The magnitude of this issue calls for the termination of all persons who direct the district's PII compliance which would be the legal dept.
Heads mustroll
Ha! Now, if this had pertained to the private records of nearly a tenth of the GenEd students in SPS, well maybe. That famous SPS double standard.
Realist
Tim P.
connect dots
We've had problems with receiving info intended for other families, such as phone messages or correspondence.
More on Lara:
http://www.pregodonnell.com/attorneys/seattle/lara-r-hruska/
2013 – Author | Case Study: Strategic Plan Implementation by Seattle Public Schools (Gates Foundation)
First of all, the guardian does not legally have the right to retain documents which are in his possession unlawfully. Melissa, I am really surprised that you would recommend that the guardian retain documents which he received in violation of FERPA. He does not need to retain the documents to prove anything, since he doesn't have a case and he has no standing. He should destroy the documents, and he will likely receive and order from the judge to do so soon.
Second of all, Tim P., no lawyer would take a case against the district. There is no case to make. There is no right of action. If you've got someone on your yahoo list (a yahoo on a yahoo list--I like it) who claims that they want to do this, go ask them about it.
Third, connect dots, unless you have received a communication from the guardian indicating that the specific lawyer you name is at fault, I would suggest you delete your post. There are five lawyers at PODG who work on school litigation, and your implied accusation could be seen as libelous. Of course, you are posting annonymously, but I still think it is irresponsible.
Anybody who suggests filing a FERPA letter, what is it that you think you are going to get? The DOE has already been asked to investigate. Don't waste your money sending them a letter asking them to come and investigate. They aren't going to set up 8,000 investigations of this incident, only one.
Face Palm
They have a documented pattern of FERPA violations which by themselves where minor like little holes in a dike. The dike has catastrophically failed.
As far as libel goes, I'm very confident. Oh and you should know that its now impossible to destroy the information since it lives on multiple servers owned by very large corporations.
I can find no law the would force those corporations to purge their servers of this data, but you said like you might known something? So post the law!
Connect thedots
The dike has not catastropically failed. You are clueless if you think a) you have damages or b) FERPA will allow you to sue. The Catholic Archioces of Seattle had a far bigger issue on its hands earlier this year when some maleovent hackers got the ID's including social security numbers of thousands of volunteers in their schools. That information was used to file false tax returns and open credit accounts, and destroyed people's credit. Has anyone successfully sued them? No, because they have no basis, even though many of them have suffered serious losses and may have worry about identify theft for the rest of their lives. The laws are flawed. In this case, there is proof that pii went to one known individual. In the Catholic Archdiocese the PII went to ID thieves. Tell that to your yahoo lawyer. Maybe he or she can find some work there.
I agree with you and Melissa that there is probably more to this case then the attorney at the PODG dumping a lot of files on the guardian; the actions and involvement of the school district are still relatively unknown. It isn't clear to me that the district did not just allow the law firm electronic access to its databases. It also isn't clear to me why personally identifiable information is being sent around in relatively insecure emails.If this is the standard way that SPS has been relaying confidential information, it needs to stop. Previous privacy breaches, if any, should also be looked at.
But I am going to say this again, if you are accusing Lara Hrsuka of this action, then you better either be or have spoken to the guardian. And you yourself better know for sure that only she is at fault and she isn't taking the fall for the district's legal department. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions.
Face Palm
The school district should inform them of this option in another letter!
Ben
If POG can't produce documents w/o proper review and redaction then they (in my opinion) shouldn't be handling any legal work for the district. Every legal case has protection of confidentiality.
Electronic productions can be incredibly complex and lawfirms handling work for the district must have the capacity (expertise, software, litigation document management databases, production protocols in place) to do execute them properly. There are lots of tools and precautions in place at other firms to prevent this from happening.
And whoever sat on the info of the inadvertent production (at SPS or the firm) needs to be fired too. Mistakes can happen but you claw back those productions the minute you know it has happened.
-sps mom
Have you heard of malpractice?
I know for a fact the district did not have permission from parents to allow the 3rd party to view these records.
I know the Buckley amendment and that the supreme court ruled usually it can't be used to sue. The only remedy is for the DOE to pull federal funding and in this case that's exactly what should happen.
In my opinion this situation is NOT "usual" due to the extent of the information, repeated releases even after notification and the release has the appearance of an act of retaliation against a person suing.
The district will need to prove that it had in place polices and systems to safeguard FERPA protected data plus that it enforced those polices.
They will not meet this test and in light of their current IDEA non compliance this just adds fuel to the fire.
Connect thedots
It would be better for parents to file OSPI citizen complaints because OSPI must respond and go thru the motions.
Even a few hundred complaints would cause enormous pressure.
In 2013-2014 there where only 5 complaints.
In 2013-2014 there are currently around 16. If OSPI received 100 more this would influence the metrics being used by the DOE to grade SPS in IDEA compliance.
This is exactly why SPS said THEY were reaching out to DOE for help. SPS is trying to run damage control hoping not to see more complaints from this.
--Michael
He has shown no sign of wanting to use it at all except to show the lack of good judgment and ineptness of the district.
Face Palm, we are all entitled to go thru the roster at the law firm. That one of the lawyers seems to have an ed reform background and did work for the Gates Foundation is quite pertinent to SPS. It's public information.
I agree that parents may not be able to sue (but I'm not a lawyer). BUT what parents can do is file a complain with the Washington State Bar association. I"ll give them a call and see what they say. I think if they got hundreds of complaints against one law firm, it might get their attention.
And I note that the rules say you cannot file a complaint based on (partial):
"Errors in judgment: Disagreements about the way a case should be handled, or a mistake."
Well, once is a mistake. Twice? Not so much.
FYI, to the best of my knowledge the DOE has virtually NEVER upheld a FERPA complaint (but there's always a first time). I do not hold much faith in that.
"So Ron English and his team needs to be in the forefront of accountability here. Somebody gave the data to the lawfirm."
Absolutely. But again, the law firm NEVER looked at the files for a random check of redaction? Because the district hired them not as data collectors but as lawyers who you might think would check what information they are given.
Connecting you said this:
"..in light of their current IDEA non compliance this just adds fuel to the fire."
You and I are connecting the same dots.
People, externally and internally, want this district to look very, very bad. Not just your run-of-the-mill bad but really bad.
Almost like someone should do something about it.
wow. that one pager is something else.
In my review I only found one footnote (on the draft report) that mentions FERPA, privacy, safety, security. And it's re: the report itself. Not the data warehouse.
ugh.
http://teambrainbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Brainbox_CaseStudy_SPS_final_v2.pdf
(katydid)
You actually think that this Lara Hruska would risk her license to practice law and purposefully send this guardian a boatload of docs during discovery because she worked on the Gates Foundation and she's trying to make the district look bad? And using lax privacy regulation to do so? Is that what you are asserting?
You've gone off the deep end suggesting that this guardian should go to the expense of retaining a lawyer so that he can retain documents that he shouldn't have and that have been widely acknowledged as being present. What purpose would continuing to unlawfully possess them serve? Do you really think he should fight a judge's order to retain them, which I would assume is why you think he should retain a lawyer? He doesn't even have a lawyer for his due process hearing. You have really lost your perspective on this. He doesn't have any more rights to this data then the Gates Foundation does, and I object to you pouring forth bad legal advice to him. If he did hire a lawyer, the lawyer would tell him to destroy the documents.
Neither you nor other poster on this blog can run an investigation. Let the DOE do their job. Then write about the results.
Face Palm
I'm not asserting anything. Other readers are adding pieces to the puzzle (some of which may not fit but are interesting) and I am commenting on them.
Do I think it odd that the law firm - on multiple occasions - received info from the district, didn't look at it - if only for its own protection and its duty to confidentiality when handling sensitive information - and sent it out to an individual? I do.
I don't know what "...that have been widely acknowledged as being present." means.
I also didn't say the guardian should retain the records if a judge orders him to (somehow) return/destroy them.
Readers, some of you really need to READ before you comment and not put words into anyone's mouth.
And what an odd thing to say that the guardian doesn't have any more rights to the data than the Gates Foundation? What does Gates have to do with this issue?
You can object all you want but I have never said I'm a lawyer. I'm offering an opinion. In fact, I'm telling him to GET a lawyer.
I'm not doing an investigation per se but reporters rarely sit back and wait for things to play out and then "write about the results."
It isn't my job to do an investigation but yes, my job is to see that ALL facets are examined, follow what happens each step along the way and THEN report on that.
I sense a whiff of someone trying to protect the law firm and its lawyers.
These violations where reported timely to SPS legal dept. I have asked SPS to provide the following evidence to the board;
1. What changes did SPS make to the way FERPA compliant information is handled after being notified of violations in 2013.
2.Where the affected students parents notified of the disclosures ASAP.
--Michael
SPS worries only when the city outrage gets to a certain level. It won't reach that level this time. The incident will be marked as a one time failure and largely forgotten by majority of staff and SPS parents by the end of the year. My prediction.
Just Sayin'
https://www.scribd.com/doc/246814944/Ospi-Ferpa-Complaint-13-37
Face Palm
We can wait for Arne's DOE until we're blue in the face. The recipient's not taking legal advice from Melissa, nor from you. I suppose it boils down to who has the balls to force the district to follow the law - obviously the regulators won't, at least public opinion makes SPS legal uncomfortable.
BTW, one needn't have standing to file an OSPI complaint of the IDEA violation. I suggest the angry do it.
Almost like someone should do something about it.
I said something rather similar to a friend earlier today. I don't know what went on here -- I don't have all the information -- so I'm working with possibilities here, not conclusions. Here's what I know:
1. The mayor is angling to bring the school district under his control.
2. Some people with plenty of money would like to see charter schools come to Seattle.
3. SPS has a nasty history of FERPA violations.
4. SPS has a history of occasionally making incredibly stupid decisions.
I'm seeing two possibilities.
1. Someone in SPS and/or the law firm made a massive mistake. We don't know why the law firm had unredacted data for over 7000 students. It's obvious that the law firm made a mistake by sending the data to the girl's brother.
2. Someone is trying to make SPS look bad so that charters or mayoral control will look like a better option.
I generally assume, when these things happen, that the "mistake" (by all parties) was actually a mistake, because incompetence in far more common than conspiracies. After all, the 2002 $35 million shortfall in SPS was caused by an accounting error. But this...this seems like too much to be mere incompetence, even SPS. I don't know.
I don't know anything about the law firm and have no data on them. I'm pretty sure that they're more competent than SPS, since they would have gone out of business or been sued out of existence otherwise.
Do we trust the DoE to do their job and get to the bottom of this? Well, that depends on how much you trust educational administration at the federal level vs. the state level. I don't know much about the DoE but I highly doubt that they would pull federal funds from SPS, even for over 7000 FERPA violations. I very much doubt that SPS will get more than slap on the wrist. Negative PR is going to be much more effective at getting SPS to fix the problems, I think.
Sorry, meant city, not state.
All 4 are disclosure of other students information.
Today I received an email from the district's legal dept offering to come to my home and retrieve the documents. How ironic because just last Friday the district told KOMO4 I was basically lying about FERPA violations.
Maybe they should have started being serous about FERPA years ago and if you think about it maybe if they would have just followed the IDEA all those SPED records would never have been compromised.
The districts win at any cost legal strategy is hurting students and needs to end.
--Michael
Daniel Schreier
Education Program Specialist
United States Department of Education
daniel.schreier@ed.gov
(202) 245-6552
--Michael
I am not going to comment on all the back and forth about the FERPA violations. But I do know that many SpEd parents are claiming that they did not receive any emails from SPS regarding this issue. I believe they should probably send out snail mail notifications, with translated versions for families who do not speak English.
f you plan to attend the next SPS Board Meeting on Wednesday, sign up for public testimony is from 8am MONDAY MORNING!
E-mail boardagenda@seattleschools.org &/or call (206) 252-0040 with:
- legal name
- telephone number
- e-mail address
- topic you would like to address
http://www.seattleschools.org/.../sch.../publictestimony.pdf
That is one crazy statement. I hope that's NEVER the case.
I mentioned Daniel because at the core this is related to SPED and should be used to ascertain SPS compliance. I believe Daniel should consider this FERPA issue along with the other FERPA issues with documents SPED parents receive when trying to advocate for their children.
Like I said, SPS legal dept win at any cost strategy is harming students.
--Michael
The document containing the 2013-2014 SPED roster was an EXCEL spread sheet. It was created by a district staff member then emailed out to SPED administrators/staff as an attachment.
Since the spread sheet contains the names of every SPED student in 2013-14 school year it's likely when the request for information was worked the email was retrieved since the students name was in the spread sheet.
My understanding is, SPS legal was delaying releasing the information and I'm guessing there was a "compel to release" motion made which the judge granted. In a rush to comply nobody thought to check the attachments or thought anyone would be so careless as to send out this information in the first place.
A simple use of the word "confidential" in the subject line would have allowed someone to perform a second level of filtering and probably prevented this.
Tim P.
The district should make every effort, whether via phone call or US mail - to contact parents/guardians in the parents' native language.
And along with the Ron English review of Title IX compliance, he should take a close look at FERPA and IDEA compliance. Then he should resign.
"...thought anyone would be so careless as to send out this information in the first place."
Again, a mistake is one time. The district made a mistake and then the law firm did. (I would have thought the law firm - if only to protect itself - would have opened it and randomly checked it.)
But there was a second time and that kind of "rush", to me, sounds negligent.
Btw, it's ironic to see this group getting upset that someone might be out to make the district look bad. I don't know anyone who trashes the district more vehemently than the commenters on this blog - other than ideologues who hate all things public and who say we shouldn't fund SPS because it's an incompetent horrible wasteful filthy union-ridden guv'ment bureaucracy. You're practically in cahoots. Did I see someone actually say that the DOE should revoke funding to punish the district? Oy.
I also have direct information. Know that, while this blog is a good place to vent, there are numerous ways many of us try to work with the district. On another occasion, I obtained IEPs and signed consent forms by accident and returned them with constructive suggestions on how to avoid a reoccurrence. In the end, we must strive to have a district that has internal controls and sound procedures. No more C-CAPs or RC-CAPS, just quality education please.
'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.'
horses mouth
-- Michael
I didn't suggest that the DoE withdraw federal funding. I pointed out that the only thing that the DoE can theoretically do here is withdraw federal funds -- which they are not going to do, for obvious reasons -- so there's really nothing that the DoE can do to enforce FERPA compliance. I don't want to see the DoE pull funds. I do want to see SPS comply with federal law.
I'd love to live in a world where we could trust SPS to always do its job, or to be honest about its failures, but we don't. SPS manages to get many things right -- or else the schools really would be failing, instead of some of them being pretty good -- but SPS also fails frequently (often spectacularly).
They need to be terminated from all cases.