Bruce Baker and Andy Rotherham brought my attention today to the issue of the public release of school data used in value-added teacher assessments (which are becoming popular, spurred by Race to the Top- Scott and my previous posts on the subject). This stems from a report out of New York today that the New York City Schools are set to release this value added data on 12,000 teachers ... tomorrow.
First, the basics. Public schools are public ... meaning taxpayer owned. Generally, then, the taxpayer owners (meaning the general public) have access to all the information produced and stored by these entities. In a democracy such a concept would make sense, right? Well, except when we are planning to bomb another country or when we are surveilling a criminal or when ... well, you get the idea, there are lots of exceptions. One other important point before we begin is that there is a federal Freedom of Information Act, but for this analysis we are concerned with state laws, as schools are state entities and school personnel are state employees. Here is a nice starting point for your state to get the basics.
The exception at issue today is that of personnel information. They cover the gamut from very restrictive to very broad to non-existent. Let's start with Wyoming's quite broad protection against release of personnel records (Wyoming Statutes 16-4-201):
(iii) Personnel files except those files shall be available to the duly elected and appointed officials who supervise the work of the person in interest. Applications, performance ratings and scholastic achievement data shall be available only to the person in interest and to the duly elected and appointed officials who supervise his work.
Then there are some provisions in the middle. For instance, here's Delaware's relevant provision (Del. Code Ann. 29 - 10002):
(1) Any personnel, medical or pupil file, the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, under this legislation or under any State or federal law as it relates to personal privacy; ...
Arkansas is another similar to Delaware. But, other states are more restrictive in their provisions. Take Georgia, for instance (50-18-72):
(5) Records that consist of confidential evaluations submitted to, or examinations prepared by, a governmental agency and prepared in connection with the appointment or hiring of a public officer or employee; and records consisting of material obtained in investigations related to the suspension, firing, or investigation of complaints against public officers or employees until ten days after the same has been presented to the agency or an officer for action or the investigation is otherwise concluded or terminated, provided that this paragraph shall not be interpreted to make such investigatory records privileged.
Other states, such as Illinois recently, considered adding such an exemption for public employees to their Open Records Acts. This story out of Illinois puts the number of states with some type of personnel evaluation exemption at around 35 - and without better data or time to investigate it myself, we'll go with that - meaning that perhaps 10-15 states may have no exemption at all for such records.
Thus, even without considering the issue of value added data sets, in some states there is not even an opportunity to argue that such evaluation data is exempt. Therefore, before any teacher (or more likely union) argues that such data cannot be released they need to be familiar with their state's law governing open record exemptions.
Now, turning to the issue of whether raw value-added assessment data is exempt from public record laws let's consider a few different options.
Option 1: raw data contains information capable of linking to particular students = FERPA protects against release. But, putting FERPA aside ...
Option 2: raw data does not contain link to identifiable teachers (or students) = Grant open records request as no exemptions are likely to apply.
Option 3: raw data does contain link to identifiable teacher = probably release. Obviously this looks like the New York situation and the one Bruce and Andy were highlighting. However, the data is not an evaluation, it is simply raw data. That it affects an employee's future evaluation criteria is probably not relevant if the open records request is only for raw data. Obviously this is going to be the case most dependent on the statutory language. For instance Wyoming's inclusion of "scholastic achievement data" seems a good bet to open the door for exemption even of the raw data. Delaware's "relates to personal privacy" is a crack, but a small one and one I don't think most courts would extend such a amorphous concept to this extent. Georgia, Illinois and other states, though, would have no legal avenue available to block release. At best, the teacher or union might be capable of delaying the release. Given the fast-paced news cycles, though, and the lack of persistence among researchers, delaying the release even a few weeks might be good enough.
Option 4: post-analysis, teacher-specific data leading to evaluation ratings = probably protect. This is where the easiest case is made to exempt the records, but still not in all states. If you are in a state with a personnel records protection provision, the evaluation analysis of the data is probably protected as I think most rational people consider job performance ratings to be personal in nature. This protection is not trivial, however, as working with the raw data is not a simple task and puts a much larger burden on journalists, researchers or other individuals requesting access. Obviously it is just much easier for them to publish the school's analysis and evaluation of the teacher. So, still not totally protected in this instance, but the easiest legal case to make as the statutes seem to imply, if not explicitly state, that such evaluations are protected.
Option 5: I think it is possible to visualize a hybrid between Option 3 & 4 - or perhaps several (help me out Bruce as you know the data better than I do). The analysis of the value-added raw data would likely involve several steps, each of which would get us closer to protection as the data goes from unaggregated to aggregated to compared against previous years to compared against similar classes to graphed to assigned a rating code to translated to an evaluation statement. Where along that line of analysis protection begins ... well, that's the kind of question that takes decades of litigation. Each specific instance will be different, meaning there could be minimally 50 and potentially thousands of different scenarios possible as individual districts begin rolling out value-added systems.
Okay, getting back on track then, this explains the New York story, for now anyway. New York has a mid-to-narrow exemption (see Section 87(2)) putting it somewhere between Delaware and Georgia (if I'm missing something, New York readers, let me know). Thus, as New York City's attorneys have concluded, the likely position is that the raw data should probably be released.
That's not the end of the story, though, for the union. Their next play, in the absence of a protective statute or regulation, is to attack the raw data as unreliable and thus (1) lacking a rational basis, (2) a violation of due process, (3) unconstitutionally vague, (4) discriminatory or some such effort. Remember, though, this is not an open records issue, it is attacking the facial validity of the entire value-added evaluation system (read the posts that Scott, Bruce, & myself wrote before). As Scott explained these efforts rarely win, but I kept the door slightly open if there is overwhelming evidence of statistical error. This is going to be an uphill battle, however, because the overriding public policy at play here dictates open government over privacy. That the rationale behind open government statutes is so clearly stated and privacy law is such a legal morass is not going to help this situation either.
Anyway, summarizing, I think the raw data is generally going to be made publicly open following FOIA requests. I think New York City is currently correct in their assessment that no exemption exists under New York's Freedom of Information Law. However, this is just my analysis after considering this issue for a single day and I want to caution against over reliance on my initial assumptions. A thorough analysis needs to be conducted of all 50 state policies, interpreting regulations, attorney general opinions, and previous case law. Further, data experts such as Bruce must assist the analysis with a complete understanding of each state's dataset and the possible links to both teachers and their evaluations within the datasets. Thus, there is still a lot of work left to be done.
This is a legal frontier (another one of those enabled by technology) that most legislatures would not have contemplated as possible in enacting their open records laws. Thus, it is a great topic for us to debate further to inform future policy actions on open records personnel evaluation exemptions.
Justin Bathon on 
;)
