Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates Policy 5‑15 on pupil records; attorneys advise policy aligns with Minnesota statute
Summary
Directors discussed revisions to Policy 5‑15, which concerns withholding student data from parents when in a minor’s best interest. District counsel told the board the current language is consistent with Minnesota law; the board forwarded the item to a June second reading and asked for counsel to attend.
The Faribault Public Schools School Board debated proposed revisions to Policy 5‑15 (Protection and privacy of pupil records) on May 19 after multiple directors raised concerns about the phrase “emotional harm” and the circumstances under which the district may withhold data from parents.
Director Linda Moore said she was troubled by the policy’s use of “emotional harm,” calling the term subjective and expressing concern that, in some cases, the language could be used to withhold information from parents about children who identify as transgender. Moore asked the superintendent and legal counsel to clarify the district’s obligations under Minnesota law and how the district would decide whether withholding records was appropriate.
Superintendent Bente read an email summary from the district’s attorneys. The email, cited by the superintendent, said in part that “current policy 5 15 is consistent with state law” and warned against creating exceptions that are not aligned with statute. The attorney’s note quoted Minnesota Statute 13.02, subdivision 8: “the responsible authority shall withhold data from parents or guardians ... upon request by the minor if the responsible authority determines that withholding the data would be in the best interest of the minor.” The attorneys also referenced Minnesota Statute 144.292, subdivision 7 regarding withholding health records in limited circumstances.
Board members discussed how the district reviews such requests, with the superintendent saying those decisions would involve counselors, administrators and, when appropriate, county social workers or law enforcement. Board members asked that legal counsel be available at the next business meeting to explain the statute and how the policy aligns with it.
The board decided to send Policy 5‑15 to a second reading at the June meeting and requested that the district attorney (or representative from the district legal team) be present to answer board questions. The superintendent and board members emphasized the district is currently operating under policy language that the attorneys have said is consistent with state law; several board members said they want clarification and assurance about when withholding occurs and the standards used to make that determination.
Why it matters: Policy 5‑15 governs sensitive student records and parental access; changes would affect parental access to information about minors in rare and legally fraught circumstances. Directors argued both for protecting student safety and for preserving parental rights.
Next steps: Policy 5‑15 will return for second reading at the June business meeting; administrators will seek to have legal counsel attend and to provide any clarifying language or statutory citations the board requests.
