Legal
the students.” Te appellate court, therefore, concluded “the [v]ideo contains information ‘directly related to’ the students involved in the incident.” Te appellate court next considered whether the video was maintained by persons acting for the school district, and pointed out that, “FERPA requires only that the record be maintained by or on behalf of an educational agency, not that educators themselves maintain the records or review them.” Te appellate court held that the video
contained information directly related to students involved in the incident, other than Bryner’s child, and that Bryner had failed to demonstrate that the video was not “maintained” by the district, affirming “the trial court’s determination that the Video is subject to the protections of FERPA.” Te U.S. Department of Education has
not provided a concrete definition as to whether or not surveillance videos are ed- ucational records. Tough it is not binding,
the U.S. Department of Education’s Final Rule is instructive as the commentary states that, “FERPA is not an open records statute or part of an open records system.” While the purpose of open records laws is to pro- vide records access to the public, “[t]he only parties who have a right to obtain access to education records under FERPA are parents and eligible students.” Tus, unlike open records laws, “[j]ournalists, researchers and other members of the public have no right under FERPA to gain access to education records for school accountability or other matters of public interest, including miscon- duct by those running for public office.” Te appellate court in Bryner determined
that FERPA preempted the State of Utah’s open records law by broadly interpreting educational record to include videos—a reasonable argument for how districts could interpret FERPA. Te decision to grant ac- cess to future requests for video surveillance reviews should always be determined on a case by case basis.
Tis specific case illustrates several im-
portant matters for transportation directors. First, with the increase in the number of video cameras on school buses, recorded incidents will become more frequent. Sec- ond, although state laws will vary across the country, there are some legal considerations that apply to everyone because of federal rulings. Tird, there must be a balance be- tween open records laws and FERPA—this balance can be convoluted, making consul- tation with legal counsel a necessity. Lastly, this individual court case demonstrates the frustration parents will have with “the sys- tem”—directors must be able to adequately explain why one can or cannot view the camera recordings on a bus. l
Author’s note: Tis article is not intended to replace legal representation and should not be construed as legal advice.
See Us At Booth #427 56 School Transportation News • MARCH 2016
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84