FERPA for School Communications: What You May Send, and to Whom
FERPA is forty years older than group text messaging and it has aged better than you would expect, because it is written about records rather than about technology. The difficulty is not that the statute is unclear. It is that most district communications happen at a speed the records framework was not designed for, and the decisions get made by people who have never been shown the framework.
| Route | What it permits | Comms example | What it does not cover |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written parental consent | Whatever the consent says | Sending a student's records to an outside programme | Anything beyond the stated purpose or recipient |
| School officials with a legitimate educational interest | Access by staff, and by contractors performing an institutional service | A vendor processing your sends under district control | Curiosity. The interest must be tied to the person's duties |
| Designated directory information | Disclosure of designated elements after notice and opt-out | A name in a public honour roll message | Anything not designated, and anything for a family that opted out |
| Health or safety emergency | Disclosure to appropriate parties during an articulable emergency | Telling responders which students are unaccounted for | General reassurance messaging after the emergency has passed |
| Judicial order or lawful subpoena | Disclosure per the order, usually with notice to the parent | Producing message logs in litigation | An informal request from an agency without an order |
| De-identified information | Disclosure where identification is not reasonably possible | Reporting reach rates by language, in aggregate | Small-cell aggregates that re-identify a family |
Route two — the school official exception applied to contractors — is the one that makes a communications vendor lawful at all. It carries conditions: the vendor performs a service the district would otherwise use employees for, is under the district's direct control as to use and maintenance of the records, and does not redisclose. Those conditions are contract terms, not vendor characteristics.
Which messages are education records, and which are not
The test is not the channel. It is whether the item is directly related to a student and maintained by the district or a party acting for it. Applying that:
- A district-wide snow day robocall names no student and is not maintained about one. Not an education record.
- An attendance letter naming a student is directly related to a student and is maintained. Education record.
- The send log — the row saying this guardian, this student, this message, this channel, this outcome, this date — is an education record, and it is the artefact districts are most likely to treat as telemetry. It is not telemetry. It is the most complete contemporaneous record of school-family contact your district holds.
- A teacher's text to one parent about a grade is content-dependent and usually is one.
- A sole-possession note stays outside the definition only while it is genuinely sole-possession. Forwarding it to a colleague ends that.
The practical consequence: your communications platform is a records system. It belongs on the records inventory, it needs a retention position per artefact type, and the people who administer it need to know that deleting a message thread is a records decision rather than a housekeeping one.
The school official exception, and the four contract terms that carry it
A vendor is only inside the exception if the district has done four things in writing.
- Stated in its annual FERPA notification that contractors may be treated as school officials, with the criteria for determining legitimate educational interest. This is a district document; a vendor cannot supply it.
- Bound the vendor to use the records only for the authorised purpose. Watch for “and to improve our services”, which is where product analytics, model training and benchmarking quietly live.
- Prohibited redisclosure, and required sub-processors to be bound on the same terms with a named list.
- Retained direct control over use and maintenance. In practice this means the district decides what is held, for how long, and when it goes — and can evidence that it decided.
Two vendor answers should stop an evaluation. The first is a claim that the vendor owns or has a licence to use aggregated district data for its own purposes; that is redisclosure with a friendly name. The second is an inability to say what happens to your data if the company is sold. Our answer to the second is clause 11.2: on a change of control or a material change to data terms you may terminate within 90 days, with export and a prorated refund and no penalty. Whatever your vendor's answer is, read the clause rather than the reassurance.
The health-or-safety emergency exception, used properly
The exception is narrower than crisis practice usually assumes and wider than nervous districts usually assume. It permits disclosure to appropriate parties, including parents, where knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or others, in connection with an actual, impending or imminent emergency. The department's position has been that districts get deference on the judgement, made on the totality of the circumstances at the time.
Three rules that keep it clean.
- It is time-bounded. The exception covers the emergency, not the week afterwards. A follow-up letter to the community is ordinary communication and must stand on its own footing.
- It is recipient-bounded. Appropriate parties means people who can act. A responder can act. A neighbouring district's mailing list cannot.
- It should be recorded. Note what was disclosed, to whom, and what the articulable threat was, at the time. That record is worth more than any policy document if it is ever questioned.
What a comms platform should be able to prove, and what ours does. For any message: who received it, at which contact point as it stood on that date, on which channel, in which language, and what the delivery outcome was — not “sent”, which is not an outcome. Kastr writes each of those into a per-district append-only audit log, hash-chained with SHA-256 so each entry covers the one before it, with UPDATE and DELETE revoked at the database role. The gap you should know about: we do not have a self-serve export tool. Getting that record out is a contract right under clause 7.1, exercised by asking us, and that is a weaker thing than a button. We are not going to describe it as one.
This page describes what a statute asks of a vendor. It is not legal advice, statutes are amended, and section numbering moves. Confirm the current text with your own counsel or your state education agency before you rely on any of it in a contract or a procurement file.
Questions people actually ask
Are text messages to parents education records under FERPA?
The content decides it. A message directly related to an identifiable student and maintained by the district or its contractor is an education record; a district-wide notice naming nobody is not. The send log, which links students, guardians and messages, is an education record in almost every case and should be treated as one for retention and access.
Can a school district share student information with a communications vendor without parent consent?
Yes, through the school official exception, provided the district has stated in its annual notification that contractors may be treated as school officials, the vendor performs a service the district would otherwise use employees for, the district retains direct control over use and maintenance, and redisclosure is prohibited. Those are contract terms, and a vendor without them is not inside the exception.
Does FERPA stop a school from texting families during an emergency?
No. The health or safety emergency exception permits disclosure to appropriate parties where it is necessary to protect health or safety in connection with an actual, impending or imminent emergency. Keep it time-bounded and recipient-bounded, and write a contemporaneous note of what was disclosed and why.
Who can see a message log — can a parent request it?
A parent has the right to inspect and review their child's education records, and the portion of a message log relating to that student is generally within that. Practically, this means you need to be able to extract one student's message history without exposing anyone else's, which is worth testing in a demo rather than discovering during a request.
Does FERPA require us to keep message records for a set period?
FERPA is about access and disclosure, not retention length — retention is set by your state's records schedule and your own policy. What FERPA does require is that you not destroy a record while a request to inspect it is outstanding. Put the communications platform on the same records schedule as your other student systems.
One price. Every feature. Locked for three years.
$3.50 per student per year under 5,000 students. No tiers, no add-on modules, no per-message fees. Published on the site because you should not have to book a call to learn a price.