Student Privacy, Freedom of Information, and School Safety

By Paul Feist

In the United States we walk a fine line between the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to be protected. If we share observations or even “hard” information we can be accused of violating the person’s right to privacy. If we don’t share there can be serious consequences.

This issue comes into sharp focus when analyzing students who become active shooters at their school. In many cases one or more people in authority who interacted with the student had concerns, but never expressed them to another faculty member or administrator. A teacher was aware of violent writings, the school psychologist identified emotional disorders, there were court records of minor legal troubles, but no one was able to put the whole picture together until it was too late.

In after action interviews we find remarkable similarities in how those in authority dealt with their observations and concerns. They assumed someone else would deal with it, that it was outside the scope of their power or responsibility, or wasn’t as important as they might have thought at first. The bottom line is that the information was dropped, or “fell between the cracks.”

It is hard to find fault with the teacher or administrator who has done this. In most cases the people we have placed in positions of authority in our schools are constrained by regulations that restrict their ability to share information with each other. The court cannot notify the school of a problem with a student, the school cannot involve law enforcement if the issue is outside the direct “letter of the law.” Teachers and staff are not allowed to talk among themselves about an individual student, or compare notes to see if others have witnessed similar behavior. Even if a principal is aware of a problem, he or she can’t warn the teachers.

The shootings at Virginia Tech University demonstrated the problem quite graphically. Many people who knew the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, had information and concerns about his behavior. They were not allowed to share this with others until it became a criminal incident.

Another fact we find in deconstructing an active shooter event is how many of their fellow students had concerns. In some cases they knew, either through direct conversation or social media posts, that the person was about to do something. In some cases they just didn’t take the threats seriously, but in most felt constrained by the unwritten “code of silence” that would not allow them to express their concerns to someone in authority.

So where do we draw the line between our individual right to privacy and public’s right to be protected? How can we make it “safe” for a student to go to a faculty member or administrator while preserving their anonymity?

A possible solution is to create a central information hub that is not accessible by the teachers and staff working directly with the students. This would be a third party resource at the district level, or even an adjunct to law enforcement. The person who manages this “information clearing house” would be someone trained in psychology who can understand red flags when they see them. As they “connect the dots” and have concerns about a specific student that could follow up with other students, parents, teachers, and authorities in a non-invasive way. These professionals could then follow up with recommendations to the proper authorities.

The challenge of protecting the rights of the individual and the safety of the community is not going to go away. It is a price for living in an open society. There are steps that a school district can take to maintain a proper balance, and doing so could prevent a future incident and save lives.