State ex rel. School Choice Ohio, Inc. v. Cincinnati Pub. School Dist. (Slip Opinion)
63 N.E.3d 1183
Ohio2016Background
- School Choice Ohio, a nonprofit that contacts parents about educational alternatives, requested student and parent contact information from Springfield City School District for 2013–2014.
- Springfield’s prior (2012–13) policy treated nine categories (name, address, phone, DOB/place, activities, awards, weight/height for athletes, attendance dates, graduation date) as "directory information" with presumed consent unless parents opted out; for 2013–14 it relabeled these categories "personally identifiable information" and required parents to sign a consent form to allow future disclosures.
- The 2013–14 consent form limited disclosure to superintendent-approved purposes and to certain third-party categories (community/school-related organizations, nonprofit programs). Springfield denied School Choice’s October 2013 request under that policy but disclosed similar data to other organizations that year.
- School Choice filed for a writ of mandamus under Ohio’s Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43) and the Student Privacy Act (R.C. 3319.321), seeking the records and changes to Springfield’s policy; it also requested statutory damages, fees, and costs.
- The Supreme Court granted relief in part: it held records for students whose parents had signed Springfield’s consent form are public records subject to disclosure; it denied mandamus relief under the Student Privacy Act and denied the request to compel policy amendments; it awarded statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees for the Public Records Act claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested student/parent contact data are public records under R.C. 149.43 | School Choice: data are public records; no federal/state law prohibits release for students whose parents consented | Springfield: FERPA and R.C. 3319.321 prohibit release; its consent procedure prevents disclosure absent superintendent approval | Court: Data for students whose parents signed Springfield’s consent form are public records and may be disclosed; other requested items outside the nine categories remain protected by FERPA |
| Whether FERPA bars disclosure because Springfield relabeled directory info and required written consent | School Choice: relabeling cannot expand FERPA privacy; directory categories remain those in FERPA and may be disclosed if consent procedure complied with | Springfield: by not calling the items "directory information" it limits application of FERPA’s directory exception | Court: FERPA’s category definitions control regardless of label; Springfield’s consent form satisfied FERPA for students whose parents signed it, and disclosure to School Choice fits the consent limitations |
| Whether R.C. 3319.321(B)(2)(a) entitles School Choice to records or prevents district restrictions | School Choice: statute prohibits imposing restrictions on release of designated directory information to third parties unless uniformly applied | Springfield: its policy restrictions are permissible; School Choice not within listed categories | Court: The statute’s "uniform restriction" applies only to armed forces, employers, charitable institutions, and institutions of higher education; School Choice did not show it fits those categories, so mandamus under R.C. 3319.321 denied |
| Whether court should order Springfield to amend its policy to allow disclosures to School Choice | School Choice: policy unlawfully restricts release and must be amended | Springfield: policy lawful and within FERPA/regulatory discretion | Court: FERPA and regulations do not create a private right to force policy changes; no clear legal right to compel policy amendment, so relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Physicians Commt. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is appropriate to compel compliance with Ohio Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 142 Ohio St.3d 392 (2015) (relator must prove clear legal right and respondent clear duty to produce public records)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (FERPA’s nondisclosure provisions do not create enforceable private rights)
- State ex rel. DiFranco v. S. Euclid, 138 Ohio St.3d 367 (2014) (failure to timely respond to a records request can support mandatory award of attorney fees under R.C. 149.43)