Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )

November 8, 1974
The Honorable C. C. Nolen Opinion No. H- 447
President, North Texas State
Univerrity Re: Meaning of and acceee to
Denton, Texan 76203 “rtudent recordr”‘under Open
Record8 Act.
Dear Preaident Nolen:
Your opinion request present0 two quertionr concerning Section
3(a) Q4) of the Texan Open Record6 Act, Article 6252-178, V. T. C. S. :
(a) All infdrmation collected, lseembled, or
maintained by governmental bodies purerun&
to lrw or ordinance or in connection with the
traneaction of official buaineee ie public infor-
mation and available to the public during normal
bueiness hours . . . with the following excep-
tione only:
. . .
(14) student records at educational inntitutiol:e
funded wholly or in part, by state revenue; but
euch records shall be made available upon re-
quest of educational inetitution perbonnel , the
student involved, or that rtudent’s parent, legal
guardian, or spouse.
You ark fir&, what ir the meaning of the term “rtudent records”
ae ured in the above section, and recondly, who haa access to ruch
student records.
We have been unible to .find a judicial determination of the term
“student records. ”
p. 2058
The Honorable C. C. Nolen page 2 (H-447)
Thin office har held that not all inform*tion about a student ia
exempted aa a “student record. I’ Open Record8 Decision No. 16 (l974),
held public the namea and lddresrree of individual students. Open Records
Decision No. 34 0974) implicitly held that both individual rtudents’
anonymous evaluations of their profeasorr and summaries by course of
those evaluations were not “student recordr. ” Finally, in Open Records
Decision No. 30 (1974), we advised a univerrity that the exception for
“rtudent records” could not justify withholding from the public the
inatitution’a correspondence with ‘a rtudent group named Gay Awareness.
However, it icl our opinion that 8 “rtudent record” would generally
include information concerning the student himrelf and his individual relation-
rhip to the education81 inrtitution. A 1% of rtudent record6 would include,
but not necea#rrily be limited to, the following: applicationr for rdmirsion,
standardized achievement test acore*, attendance data, #core8 on standard-
iced intelligence, aptitude, and psychological teata, interert inventory
results, health data, family background information, teacher or counselor
ratings and obrervations, and reportr of behavioral pattern0 or disciplinary
rctionm.
You next’ark who hao access to student recorda. Section 3(0)(14)
of the Open Recorda Act Etatea that etudent record8 “shall be made
available upon requert of educational institution personnel, the rtudent
involved, or that rtudent’s parent, legal guardian or apouae. ” Under
this rection educational inetitution personnel have acceaa to student
records. For analogy, Bee S. B. 160, Oregon Lawr 1971, ch. 512,
p. 835, rec. 2(4).
The student himrelf ir granted acceor to hir student records.
V.T.C.S., art. 6252-17a, eec. 3(a) (14). Thin ia harmonious with,
though perhapr expansive of, his right8 under the common law. See
Morris v. Smiley, 378 S. W.2d 149, 152 (Tex. Civ. App. --AurtinT64,
l writ ref’d. n. r. e. ).
Section 3(a) (14) of the Open Record0 Act alro providen for parenta)
acceea to student records. Recently, we faced one facet of the question of
what ir a parent. In Open Record0 Decision No. 42 (1974), we held that
p. 2059
.
The Honorable C. C. Noien page 3 (H -447)
even though the requesting parent was divorced and not a managing
conaerv*tor, i.e., custodian, of the child under Section 14.02 of the
Texas Family Code, he or ahe atill had a right of access to the off-
spring’s student records, ao long aa the requesting parent’s parental
righta had not been terminated under Chapter 15 of the Family Code.
While none of our publiehed opinions have examined whether
limitationr exist on the parental right of accela, we believe that recent
federal legirlation, H. R. 69, 93d Gong., 2d Seas., Title V. Sec. 513
(1974), amending Part C of the General Education Provisions Act, which
was signed into law, Auguet 21, 1974, should be conridered. H. R. 69
requires all educational institutions, on pain of termination of federal
monies, to provide to parenta complete acceea to all official files,
records, and data related to their children. This io subject to one
particular limitation (Sec. 437(d) of Part C of the General Education
Provisions Act, aa amended by H. R. 69): upon the attainment by the
student of eighteen yeare of age, the right6 previously belonging to the
parents would be accorded solely to the rtudent.
Section 3(a) (14) of the Open Record8 Act also grant8 access to
student records to the student’d legal guardian and apoume. We consider
the court appointed legal guardian to stand in much the same position as
the parent, whose rights were discussed above.
The spouse ia granted accea~ out of recognition of the rpecial
relationship that exists in mrarriage. As the federal statute [H.R. 691, which
limits parental access to records of students under 18, doee not speak to
any right of acceB8 that the apouee might have, we conclude that Open
Records Act is controlling in thilr regard.
Of course, acceen to rtudent records under Section 3(a)(14) may be
limited by Section 3(a) (1) if any information contained in the record8 is
. made confidential by law.
SUMMARY
A “cltudent record” generally include8 information
concerning the student himrelf and hir individual
p. 2060
’ .
The Honorable C. C. Nolcn page 4 (H-447)
relationship to the educational institution. Under the
Open Records Act ciuch student records are made
available to educational inetitution personnel, the
C student, the student’s parent or legal guardian at
leaat until the student reacher, the age of 18, and the
C etudent’e q pouee.
c
Very truly youra,
c
r
.
L4Rlghzye
DAVID M. KENDALL. Chairman
Opinion Committee
k
p. 2061