Releasing students’ private information is a call to arms

If you’ve been keeping up with education news, you may be aware of a major development that potentially compromises the privacy of every public school student, and many former students, throughout California. Continue paying attention, for if ever there’s a situation that warrants parental and community involvement, this is it.

I’m referring to this month’s federal court ruling ordering the release of students’ personal data, which may include Social Security numbers, mental health records and home addresses.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento, was issued in connection with a lawsuit brought by two non-profit organizations against the state Department of Education, which alleges that California is not upholding its legal obligation to provide free and appropriate public education to children with disabilities.

The decision seems to have taken many school districts by surprise. Though opposed to releasing the records, many have nevertheless begun notifying parents that they are legally obligated to comply with the ruling and provide the student data. Newport-Mesa Unified has been alerting families with students in the district of the court order, and the mechanism by which they can object to the release of individual student records.

The reaction in many quarters has been loud and outraged — and rightly so. It’s bad enough that adults today live in a constant state of siege when it comes to protecting their personal data. Now this case threatens to open a Pandora’s Box of possible problems for our children.

The understandable outcry over the court ruling is not meant to deny the importance of providing students with disabilities the educational opportunities and programs they deserve. There just has to be a better way of achieving this goal that doesn’t involve the exposure of personal information of every student in the state.

The case in question was originally filed in 2012 by a group of parents in the Morgan Hill Unified School District in the San Jose area, and was joined by the California Concerned Parents Assn., which claims to represent parents in 80 districts throughout the state. It alleges that the defendant, the California Department of Education, does not force school districts to provide appropriate special-education services.

To prove its case, the plaintiffs contend they need to survey student records from all state schools in order to draw a “meaningful statistical sampling.” The judge agreed, yet in an ironic twist the groups that filed the suit have said they don’t even want the Social Security numbers and other sensitive personal data, but that this information just happens to be kept by many districts in the databases they want to access.

The plaintiffs have also promised to adhere to “tight security provisions” monitored by the court. Mueller imposed several measures intended to safeguard the information, including the requirement that fewer than 10 people would be allowed to search the student records and that attorneys and consultants will only have access to the records through judicial overseers.

“We would like parents to understand that we had offered to mediate a settlement with the California Department of Education many times and have offered to receive the information” with fake names, a statement from the Concerned Parents Assn. read. “The attorneys for the CDE refused, which forced the judge to make this ruling.”

The CDE, however, contends that it has produced documents with sensitive personal information removed. For example, it said, it provided the plaintiffs with all the information, save for personal data, from a state database that includes records of special education students and those being tested for special needs. Despite that, it claims, the plaintiffs continued to seek student information with personally identifiable information.

The CDE website contains a form and instructions on how to submit an objection to the release of individual students’ information. The objections are due into the court by April 1. Even so, an education department spokesman has expressed skepticism, saying it was unclear whether objecting would prevent a student’s data from being included.

Reassurances that the information will be closely guarded ring hollow to parents who know just how difficult it is to keep personal data safe, and that a leak can haunt victims for years to come. It’s like toothpaste: Once it’s out of the tube it’s mighty tough to put back in.

Another aspect of this case that troubles me personally is that the data to be released goes all the way back to January, 2008, a period that includes my two sons, who have long since graduated out of Newport-Mesa. Many other former students might not even be aware that their personal information, provided years ago to their former schools, is about to be shared with outside groups.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, reacting to the court ruling, said student privacy is a top priority of his administration. “We have fought vigorously to protect students’ privacy rights and will continue that fight,” he said.

That may be so, but parents should keep up the fight too. The interests of children with disabilities are extremely important, but they must be pursued in a manner that doesn’t expose every public school student to a potential data-sharing debacle.

Let’s hope it isn’t too late to advocate for a common-sense compromise that doesn’t put millions of students at risk.

PATRICE APODACA is a former Newport-Mesa public school parent and former Los Angeles Times staff writer. She lives in Newport Beach.