Michael DiPronio v. Natick, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20161028)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor of Records December 5, 2016 SPR16/1028 Timothy Luff Assistant Superintendent Town of Natick Public Schools 13 East Center Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Mr. Luff: I have received the petition of Michael DiPronio appealing the October 11, 2016 response of the Town of Natick-Public Schools (School District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. DiPronio requested a copy of all out-of-district education placement agreements between the School District and the parents of the students. The School District provided Mr. DiPronio with twenty-six agreements, redacted of information that may personally-identify certain students pursuant to Exemption (a) student federal law. The School District redacted the name of the school, the mileage to the school and financial rate of a particular school, due to Mr. DiPronio's familiarity with and special situation with the schools that are the subject of these certain agreements. Mr. DiPronio appealed. Prior appeals The agreements were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR16/350, SPR16/460 and 16/731 Determinations ofthe Supervisor ofRecords (June 15,2016, July 19,2016 and September 27, 2016). In my September 27 determination, I ordered the School District to provide the agreements with the financial information showing the cost of the out-of-district placements. In compliance with my order the School District provided twenty-four agreements, showing the financial costs of out-of-district placements in either specific amounts or percentages depending on how the agreement was written to the agreement of the parties. Current appeal The basis for Mr. DiPronio's current appeal is that the School District redacted certain of the information such as the name of the out-of-district school, the financial rate of the school and the specific transportation mileage to that particular school from the agreement received. In an October 6 conversation, you explained to an attorney on my staff that Mr. DiPronio may be able One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Timothy Luff SPR16/1028 Page2 December 5, 2016 to identify other students of a particular school because he has a personal knowledge and special interest regarding the placements in schools that are the subjects of the agreements, as he has a child in the school system. In the School District's prior responses and in your October 11 letter you state, "Given your situation regarding schools that are the subject in these agreements, the School District has a reasonable belief that you would be able to identify student(s ) to whom the records relate if such information is not redacted. Given your personal knowledge of a specific school in which your child attends, it is reasonable to believe that you can identify other Natick students who may be in attendance in such school, therefore making such information linkable to specific students." The School District explained that it would redact any personally identifiable information that either specifically identifies the student or is information linked to or linkable to a student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who may have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty. The School District cited the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERP A); the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) concerning confidentially of student record information as these statutes operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. "Personally identifiable information," as used in FERPA , includes, but is not limited to, the student's name; the names of the student's parents or other family members; the address of the student or student's family; personal identifiers, such as the student's social security number; and indirect identifiers, such as the student's date of birth. See 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. The definition will also include: other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identifY the student with reasonable certainty. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 (emphasis added). The definition also includes: information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity oft he student to whom the education record relates. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 (emphasis added). Status ofthe requester and reason for the request Mr. DiPronio believes the School District may not base its decision to redact the information simply because of his identity and personal knowledge of the schools that may be the subjects of the agreements. The Supreme Judicial Court has held that "the inquiry as to what

Timothy Luff SPR16/1028 Page 3 December 5, 2016 constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his career." Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427,438 (1983). Accordingly, I find that the School District has met its statutory and regulatory obligation under the Public Records Law. This appeal remains closed. If Mr. DiPronio is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court ofthe Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial rem ies ) 7 Supervisor of Records cc: Michael DiPronio