Perhaps you’ve heard a lot about how fear of violating Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act rules prevented officials at Virginia Tech from connecting the dots in time to prevent a tragedy.

But Virginia Tech officials were not limited by FERPA, only by their misinterpretations of FERPA, according to last year’s Virginia Tech Review Panel and the separate presidential report.

Both reports did urge greater protections, “safe harbor,” for those breaking the privacy barrier for just cause.

However, this is worrisome. Just cause should be protected, but it already is. Therefore there is no clear reason to expand protections for FERPA violations.

Because officials could have legally shared information at Virginia Tech, educating university officials on their FERPA rights is the best way to protect them and student privacy while still affording officials the capacity to protect their campus.

It was a lack of knowledge about the rules – not the rules themselves – that prevented communication, so why extend a “new standard” of protection for officials who disclose FERPA-protected student information?

As an English department listserv discussion about Topinabee junior Dennis Lennox II demonstrated earlier this school year, expanding the right to talk about suspicions might not be in the best interests of students.

The new standard, according to InsideHigherEd, is an “articulable and significant threat.”

But that is already the standard. FERPA stops officials only from talking about the students’ records, not what officials see the student doing, according to the National Association of College and University Attorneys’ FERPA facts.

The proposals already realize teaching employees about their FERPA rights and roles probably is the best way to get employees comfortable with the process and more effective at using student information.

Other parts of the proposals give parents responsibility instead of shifting it to students. That may be necessary in certain cases of health and welfare (again, already allowed), but tosses the independence-creating argument for college out the window.

Contractors would get greater authority to see student records, given a reason and a university contract. That’s not good, considering the many identity-theft cases as well as two recent questionable CMU contracts with Aramark’s mandatory “donation” and preferred loan lending.

Some of the additional suggestions are necessary: FERPA would extend to distance learners, disclosing Social Security numbers would be taboo, officials suspecting forgery get protection if they check up on the signatory and schools would have to make sure employees aren’t using non-pertinent information.

Changes to FERPA are needed. But the changes that are needed don’t need to go far – just adapt to new technology and make sure everyone knows the rules.

E-mail the author: defaultuser