Board reviews policy on confidential student communications; legal limits and who qualifies clarified

The Mount Lebanon School District reviewed draft policy 2.07 on confidential communications of students at its Sept. 8 policy meeting, discussing which employees are covered by the privilege and how the district must respond when a student’s health, safety or welfare is at risk.

The draft notes that “certain written and verbal communications between students and confidential school personnel must be confidential,” and lists examples of confidential school personnel as defined by law, including guidance counselors, school nurses, school psychologists and home and school visitors. The presenter said that teachers are not typically included among confidential school personnel under the statute.

Why it matters: the policy governs whether staff can be compelled to disclose student communications and how the district balances confidentiality with mandated reporting and safety obligations.

Key points and clarifications - Who is covered: The policy follows statutory definitions and identifies guidance counselors, school nurses, school psychologists and home and school visitors as confidential school personnel. The presenter clarified that a principal generally is not treated as a confidential employee under the statute. - Disclosure exceptions: Confidential information may be revealed without student or parental consent when the health, welfare or safety of the student or others is clearly in jeopardy; in those qualifying circumstances staff may inform the building principal, the superintendent or appropriate authorities, including law enforcement. Nothing in the policy limits mandated reporters’ legal obligations to report suspected child abuse. - Contracted providers: Board members asked whether contract employees (such as those providing services through the Bradley Center) are covered; the presenter said coverage depends on the nature of the relationship to the district—if the district controls the individual or the person functions as an agent of the district, statutory protections may apply.

Discussion and next steps Board members asked whether the policy should include a definitions section; presenters noted the statutory definitions are broadly written and that case law has interpreted the privilege narrowly to the categories listed. The policy was presented for review, with adoption to be considered at the upcoming voting meeting. No vote was taken on Sept. 8.

Ending The draft seeks to align district practice with state law by limiting confidential‑communication privilege to specified categories of personnel, clarifying when disclosures are permitted for safety or legal reasons and addressing contracted service providers on a case‑by‑case basis.