Comwlth. Charter Academy Charter School v. S. Spicka & Education Voters of PA
217 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Susan Spicka and Education Voters of PA requested access to Community Class Registration (CCR) Forms from Commonwealth Charter Academy under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
- The Charter Academy partially denied the request, arguing the forms are protected by FERPA, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and certain RTKL exemptions.
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) ordered the school to provide redacted CCR Forms, finding that de-identified education records can be released under FERPA.
- The school sought review by the trial court, which affirmed OOR’s order, rejecting the claim that parent handwriting on forms constitutes protected PII.
- The Charter Academy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, maintaining that parent handwriting is PII and that an alternate format (Excel) should be permitted due to privacy concerns.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed issues of federal privacy law (FERPA), the right to informational privacy under the state constitution, and the requirements of the RTKL for record disclosure and format.
Issues
| Issue | Charter Academy's Argument | Requesters' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are CCR Forms exempt from disclosure under FERPA if redacted? | Even redacted forms reveal PII through parent handwriting, violating FERPA. | PII can be fully redacted; parent handwriting is not covered as PII. | Redaction suffices; parent handwriting does not constitute PII under FERPA. |
| Must school provide forms in requested medium? | Excel format is reasonable to prevent misuse, even if originals exist. | RTKL requires provision in original format if available. | Originals (CCR Forms) must be provided in the requested medium per RTKL. |
| Does parent handwriting implicate the constitutional right to informational privacy? | Parent handwriting is private and could reveal identities/choices. | Disclosure of handwriting does not reveal private information like home address or SSN. | No heightened privacy interest in handwriting; disclosure permitted. |
| Adequacy of requesters’ appeal to OOR | Appeal did not sufficiently address denial grounds due to use of standard form. | Standard RTKL form is valid for appeals. | Requesters’ appeal met RTKL requirements; no error by OOR/trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller, 232 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2020) (FERPA permits disclosure of de-identified education records; redaction process under RTKL)
- Central Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. Hawkins, 286 A.3d 726 (Pa. 2022) (Education records presumed public under RTKL subject to redaction; FERPA protects only PII)
- Pa. State Educ. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Cmty. & Econ. Dev., 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (Right to informational privacy under PA Constitution requires agency-conducted balancing test)
- In re Casale, 517 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 1986) (Handwriting generally has no expectation of privacy)