Professor William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Distinguished Alumnus, Central Washington University, College of Education and Professional Studies, Ellensburg, Washington.Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the United States and world-wide. Some international travels include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Switzerland, Grand Cayman, Haiti, St. Maarten, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Freeport, Jamaica, Barbados, Martinique, Canada, Curacao, Costa Rico, Aruba, Venezuela, Panama, Bora Bora, Tahiti, Latvia, Spain, Honduras, and many more. He has been invited to lecture and serve as a guest professor at many universities across the nation and abroad.

1. Privacy Issues:
Community,
Educators, and
Students
William Allan Kritsonis,
PhD

2. The Definition
• The definition of the right of privacy
is simply “ the right to be left alone”.
But in our society there is often a
countervailing right to know.

3. The Purpose
• The purpose of this chapter is to
examine the interplay between
privacy and the right to know in the
context of Texas public schools.

4. The Legal Framework
• The most specific reference to privacy in the U.S
Constitution is found in the fourth Amendment,
which states that “ the right of people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.

5. The Legal Framework
cont.
• The federal privacy law affecting education
is the 1974 Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act, also known as the Buckley
Amendment. Unlike the fourth and the
fourteenth amendments, FERPA applies to
any educational institution receiving
federal funds. FERPA regulates student
record keeping activities by giving parents
and students access to student records,
and the right to challenge the material
contained therein.

6. The Legal Framework
cont.
• The law of torts (civil wrongs committed by
one person against another) has had the
most to do with privacy.
• Texas courts recognized four personal
privacy torts but have been restricted
damage awards to situations where the
person bringing suit can show.

7. The Texas Open Meetings and
Public Information Acts

8. The Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)
and Texas Public Information Act
(TPIA)
• The Texas Open Meetings Act
(TOMA) and the Texas Public
Information Act (TPIA) seem to be in
state of tension with evolving privacy
law because they are designed to
further public access to government
business.

9. Texas Open Meetings Act
• Chapter 551 of the Texas
Government Code requires that
meetings of governmental bodies,
such as the school board and a
special education co-operative, be
open to the public.
• Ch. 1 states that TOMA applies to
the governing boards of open-
enrollment charter schools, as well.

10. Texas Open Meetings Act
cont.
• The law applies to a committee composed
of one or more members of the board of
trustees of a school district that meets to
discuss public business or policy.
• The TOMA definition of “meeting”
encompasses staff briefing sessions where
board members receive information from or
give information to a third party, including
employees, as well as engage in questioning.

11. Texas Open Meetings Act
cont.
• The law explicitly spells out the
notice requirements regarding open
meetings. Written notice of the date,
place, and subject of each meeting
must be posted on a bulletin board
convenient to the public in the
central administration buildings at
least seventy-two hours before the
meeting.

12. Texas Open Meetings Act
cont.
• Public meetings are those at which
public business or public policy is
discussed or at which formal action
is taken.
• A closed meeting is required when a
school board discusses academic
skills assessment instruments.

13. Texas Public Information
Act
• Formerly known as the Texas Open
Records Act and modeled after the
federal Freedom of Information Act,
the Texas Public Information Act is
a companion to the complex open
meetings measure.

14. Educator Privacy Rights
• Lifestyle behaviors related to marriage and
procreation, which have long been
recognized as Fourteenth Amendment
liberty right, usually are accorded at least
some constitutional protection .
• The court of appeals ruled that a teacher
has the right to breast-feed a baby on
school grounds, though school officials can
determine where it can take place.

15. Educator Privacy Rights
cont.
• School boards have expressed a desire to
use drug testing with employees,
particularly those in certain positions.
Federal regulations adopted by the
Department of Transportation require drug
testing of school bus drivers.
• Drug testing may also cause legal issues to
rise to surface (right of privacy).

16. Educator Privacy Rights
cont.
• The law of defamation and privacy invasion is
most likely to surface in the education setting in
the context of revealing the content of personnel
records.
• Four Texas statutes convey a qualified privilege
to employers with respect to employee decision-
making.
• Teachers also have privacy rights in connection
with information stored on a school computer.
• It now appears that teachers have a diminished
expectation of privacy in information stored on
school district- owned computers. (Voyles vs. the
State of Texas (2004) )

17. 17
Student Privacy Rights:
involve both judicial and
statutory law
• Student personal privacy
– Critical Period of Intervention(CPI)
• Student Records
– 1974 (FERPA)(20 U.S.C. §1232g)
• Child Custody Issues
– Section I53.377 of Family Code
• Student Dress and Grooming
– Fourteenth Amendment (Lansdale v. Tyler Junior
College,. 1972)
– Public school got rejected

18. 18
Student Search and
Seizure• Standards for searches
– U.S. Supreme Court 1985 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protects
from unreasonable searches.
• Locker and Desk Searches
– Shoemaker v. State – Students still need to be told that random
searches can occur.
• Sniffer Dogs
– U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said Sniffer Dogs are not
considered searches- Police should be called if not granted access
• Strip Searches
– Doe v. Renfrow, 1980 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Student Drug Testing
– Vernonia School District v. Acton Testing program in 1989
• Use of Magnetometers, Metal Detectors, and breathalyzers
– People v Dukes New York City 1992