Why aren’t parents told when a kid who made threats returns to school? What is shared?
Shannon Sullivan was surprised to hear recently that a student accused of threatening a shooting at her daughter’s elementary school in September had been allowed to return to campus in the Puyallup School District.
She kept her daughter home from first grade at Firgrove Elementary School for a few days following the social-media threat of a shooting at Firgrove and Ballou Junior High School in September, she said.
“We were told that there was a student who made the threat on social media and that they were working on tracking that student down, and that they would notify us with more information when they had it,” she said.
Her 6-year-old returned to school when the district sent families a message a few days later that they’d found the student, she said. Sullivan said she didn’t think about it after that and that she thought “that these students get expelled and that they’re no longer on school grounds.” She thinks many parents assume the same.
Then she saw an anonymous Facebook post from someone who said they thought parents deserved to know that the child had returned to school and was studying by themselves with teachers in a portable classroom.
Sullivan said she sent a screenshot to her daughter’s principal and asked if it was true and was told privacy laws prevented the district from sharing that information.
“These laws are in place to protect the rights and privacy of all students, and we have a duty to uphold them,” Puyallup School District spokesperson Sarah Gillispie told The News Tribune via email. “While we cannot comment on specific cases, we can assure you that Puyallup School District follows a rigorous threat assessment process to address any potential safety concerns, taking appropriate actions as needed. Our primary goal is to ensure a safe learning environment for all students while respecting the rights of every child to receive a public education.”
Sullivan emailed The News Tribune and planned to rally outside her daughter’s school with a sign last month that said: “The Puyallup School District allowed the kid who threatened to shoot our children back on school grounds and are refusing to tell parents! Stand with me and demand transparency.”
When she told the district her plan, she said a security official reached out and told Sullivan that the student was no longer on campus in the district.
She said he explained that they have to handle each situation differently, and that she understands that.
“There are always gray areas, but it’s the transparency I’m looking for,” she said.
Sullivan said she believes privacy is important and that she also believes that parents need to know if a child in these situations is returning to campus “in order to be able to make an educated decision about whether they want their student to return to school,” she said.
Making notifications without using the student’s name or grade could be a way to maintain privacy, she said. She believes there’s a way districts could word such notifications without outing the child in question.
“We recognize the importance of maintaining transparency and trust within our school community,” Gillispie, the school district spokesperson, wrote. “However, we must also protect the privacy of our students and maintain the integrity of our investigative procedures.”
What do school safety experts with OSPI say?
Asked what information school districts are allowed to give families in such a situation, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction spokesperson Katy Payne shared information from the agency’s School Safety Center.
“The student’s return to school is technically the communication of the student’s discipline record which is protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),” her email said. “Even if the school doesn’t identify the student by name, the circumstances are too specific and likely would be considered personally identifiable information (PII). The student’s parent/guardian would need to provide consent for this information to be shared with other parents/guardians.”
There are certain circumstances in which schools can share information with other school officials without consent. Payne shared a link to studentprivacy.ed.org, which goes into the specifics of FERPA.
“Under FERPA, a school may share PII from education records with school officials within the school whom the school has determined to have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of a student who has been disciplined for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other students, or other members of the school community,” the website says.
Schools can also share information with officials at another school, when necessary.
“For instance, if a school official knows that a student, who has been disciplined for bringing a gun or knife to school or threatened to hurt students and/or teachers, is planning to attend a school-sponsored activity at another high school, FERPA would allow that school official to notify school officials at the other high school who have been determined to have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student,” the website says.
Attorney Michele Earl-Hubbard, who has represented The News Tribune in various public disclosure matters, said in an email that the arguments she hears from school districts that decline to disclose information are FERPA; Title 13 of Washington state law, which has to do with juvenile courts and juvenile offenders; the right to privacy in the state constitution; and “the catchall privacy test” in the Public Records Act.
The test of whether someone’s privacy has been violated requires that the disclosure “be highly offensive to reasonable people” and that it be of “no legitimate concern to the public,” she wrote. “The latter is a hard sell when it deals with someone who has made a threat and has been returned to school or is on the loose.”
FERPA, she wrote, shouldn’t cover threat disclosures but “might cover the specifics of discipline the student received.”
She argues Title 13 doesn’t apply to school districts when it comes to public safety.
“Title 13 is why a lot of government agencies do not name juveniles but it is supposed to be limited to law enforcement,” and agencies responsible for juvenile justice and care, she said, such as courts and Child Protective Services.
