Minnesota school administrators and teachers may have broad discretion to withhold sensitive information about students from parents under a widely used policy promoted by the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA), raising concerns among parental rights advocates.
According to the watchdog group Defending Education, at least 229 school districts across Minnesota have adopted a “Protection and Privacy of Pupil Records” policy. The policy applies to more than 700,000 students attending over 1,600 schools statewide.
The language, based on guidance issued by the MSBA, outlines several categories of student information that school staff may withhold from parents at a student’s request. Among the most controversial provisions are those related to a child’s health information, which the policy says can only be disclosed to parents if “failure to inform the parent would seriously jeopardize the health of the minor.”
Defending Education argues the policy likely conflicts with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which gives parents the right to inspect their children’s educational records.
In a statement to National Review, MSBA defended the policy, saying its guidance is intended to comply with both state and federal law and reflects existing Minnesota statutes.
“As federal guidance, executive orders, and court decisions continue to evolve, MSBA will continue to monitor developments closely, work with legal counsel, and keep school districts informed so their policies and practices can be updated as needed,” MSBA said. “Districts must continue to follow existing law currently in effect, including applicable Minnesota statutes governing student data privacy and parent access to educational records.”
The policy also permits students to request confidentiality if they believe parental disclosure could result in “physical or emotional harm.” Critics say the language gives educators wide latitude in deciding whether parents should be informed.
Although the policy does not specifically mention gender identity, opponents argue its broad wording could allow schools to conceal a student’s gender transition from parents.
“The section of the [privacy] policy in question not only appears to violate federal law but also privileges the state over parents,” said Rhyen Staley, director of research at Defending Education. “Additionally, it is another tool that districts can utilize to justify keeping gender transitions a secret from parents. This is a serious breach of trust, which is why districts should act quickly to eliminate the section from the policy,” said Staley.
Several Minnesota school districts that use the privacy policy have also enacted policies related to gender identity and student social transition practices.
Saint Paul Public Schools, for example, has adopted a policy allowing students to socially transition at school without parental approval. Under the policy, school staff must use a student’s requested name and pronouns “regardless of parental consent,” unless a principal determines the request is offensive.
“Upon written or oral request from a student and regardless of parental consent, a student is to be addressed in classes, announcements, and other school gatherings by the name and/or pronoun requested by the student, unless the student’s principal determines that the use of a particular name or pronoun would be patently offensive,” the policy reads.
The district’s guidance also instructs support staff to ask students identifying as “transgender, gender fluid, questioning, gender queer, gender diverse, or gender creative” how they would like to be referenced in communications sent to parents, including emails, phone calls, and printed materials.