Opinion ID: 4427793
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A statement indicating whether the section

Text: incorporated includes future supplements and amendments. 35 2. Where and how a copy of the section can be obtained. [N.J.A.C. 1:30-2.2(c).] N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(g) contains no cross-reference to any federal regulation enacted under FERPA, let alone the specific regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1), that addresses the disclosure of educational records after redaction of personally identifiable information. It cannot be read to substantively import that regulation into New Jersey student privacy law. Significantly, as to a subset of student records -- student health records -- the regulation requires that “[a]ccess to and disclosure of” such records “meet the requirements of” FERPA. N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(d). Even that limited provision does not incorporate the redaction procedure prescribed by 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1) into New Jersey’s rule. Moreover, the Commissioner of Education has issued no rule, or even informal guidance, providing that the redaction of personally identifiable information from a student record is sufficient to satisfy the NJPRA’s student privacy goals. See In re Request for Solid Waste Util. Customers Lists, 106 N.J. 508, 518-520 (1987) (discussing informal agency action). In short, although N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5 generally refers to FERPA, neither 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1) nor the redaction and disclosure procedure that it prescribes has been made part of New Jersey law. 36 To date, the Department of Education simply has not taken the regulatory steps necessary to provide that a “student record” under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1 loses its privacy protection if a school district redacts the document in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1) -- or to give parents, students, requestors and the public notice of such a provision. Accordingly, we concur with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5 does not support the contention that a “student record” loses that status if it is redacted to remove personally identifiable information. 3. Our dissenting colleagues contend that, in its amicus curiae brief, the Department of Education expressed its intention to integrate the FERPA regulations’ provisions for redaction and disclosure, 34 C.F.R. § 99.3, into the NJPRA’s student privacy regulations. They urge deference to what they characterize as the Department’s position. Post at ___ (slip op. at 10-15). Our dissenting colleagues may be correct in that the Department of Education may indeed intend to incorporate FERPA redaction and disclosure procedures into New Jersey’s student privacy regulations, subject to exceptions such as those explained by its counsel at oral argument in this appeal. If it is the Department’s intention to incorporate FERPA regulations into their New Jersey counterparts, however, it cannot accomplish that 37 objective in an appellate brief. The Department has yet to “adopt and file as a rule appropriate language indicating . . . [w]hat is incorporated” from federal law into New Jersey even in general terms, much less the precise terms that N.J.A.C. 1:30-2.2(c) requires. Accordingly, the setting of this case is distinct from the ordinary administrative setting in which the agency has promulgated rules under the APA, and its interpretation of those rules is afforded considerable deference. The provision of clear and specific guidance to the public is a core regulatory function; “[t]he regulated community . . . has a reasonable expectation that known and uniform rules, standards, interpretations, advice and statements of policy will be applied to them.” Catholic Family & Cmty. Servs. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Paterson, 412 N.J. Super. 426, 442 (App. Div. 2010). In the rulemaking setting, the Department will have ample opportunity to reconcile the compelling interests of public disclosure, parental and student rights of access, and student privacy, and to unmistakably identify any federal regulatory provisions that will be made part of New Jersey student privacy regulations, as N.J.A.C. 1:30-2.2(c) mandates that it do. We anticipate that the rulemaking process that will follow this decision will afford essential guidance to the parties and the public. 4. 38 We offer two additional comments about the Appellate Division’s analysis of the regulations promulgated pursuant to NJPRA. First, we agree with the Department that the term “student records” in N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1 should not be construed to generally bar public disclosure of aggregate data such as average standardized test scores for a school or district, or similar statistical information. 7 Indeed, a restriction on access to aggregate test score data by those authorized to access student records under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5 could run afoul of the NJPRA, which charges the Department to ensure “the opportunity for the public schools to have the data necessary to provide a thorough and efficient educational system for all pupils.” N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19. We do not view the Appellate Division’s decision to undermine the Department’s policy of publicly disclosing certain categories of aggregate data. As the Department’s counsel explained, pursuant to that policy, the public has access to information about student achievement test scores, district graduation rates, district violence and other safety issues, as well as other areas 7 At oral argument, counsel for the Department explained that the Department and districts make aggregate test score data publicly available on their websites, but that data is withheld if the sample size from which the aggregate data is derived is so small that the aggregate data may reveal a test score of an individual child. 39 of concern identified by our dissenting colleagues. Post at ___ (slip op. at 3). Our colleagues’ suggestion that public access to such composite information is somehow at stake in this appeal is simply wrong. Second, although neither L.R. nor Innisfree claimed to be a “bona fide researcher” authorized to request “student records” pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(16), or asserted “bona fide researcher” status in the OPRA requests, the Appellate Division remanded for a determination of whether either plaintiff constituted such a “researcher.” L.R., 452 N.J. Super. at 87-88. As counsel for the Department explained, school districts must comply with FERPA regulations that govern “researcher” access to personally identifiable information in educational records. See, e.g., 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(6)(i) (addressing “researcher” status of “organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutes to: (A) [d]evelop, validate, or administer predictive tests; (B) [a]dminister student aid programs; or (C) [i]mprove instruction”); id. § 99.31(a)(6)(iii) (imposing requirements on researchers). It is unclear whether the Appellate Division considered federal regulations when it suggested that L.R. and Innisfree might be authorized, as “bona fide researchers” under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(16), to have access to the documents requested. 40 If, on remand, either L.R. or Innisfree seeks authorization to view student records based on “bona fide researcher” status under N.J.A.C. 6A:32- 7.5(e)(16), we caution the remand court to carefully consider both federal and state standards that govern requests by researchers for student records such as those at issue here.