Can a Delaware school district redact parent names from special education settlement agreements released under FOIA?
Plain-English summary
A News Journal reporter asked Indian River School District for every settlement or legal release signed by district officials since 2020. The district produced seven agreements; six involved students (most or all in special-education contexts) and were redacted to remove parent names and dates, and one involved an employee and was produced unredacted. The reporter petitioned, arguing that parent names are not "education records" and that the public interest in transparency around school governance overrides any privacy concern.
The Delaware AG sided with the school district. Settlement agreements that resolve disputes about a particular student qualify as "education records" under both the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g) and Delaware's own confidentiality statute (14 Del. C. § 4111(a)). FERPA's definition of "personally identifiable information" expressly includes parent names, because a parent name is an indirect identifier that could let a reader trace the document back to a specific student, particularly in a small school district. Delaware's FOIA exemption for records made confidential by other statutes (29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(6)) imports those FERPA and Delaware-law confidentiality rules straight into the FOIA analysis.
Importantly, the AG framed this as "the District reasonably determined" the settlements were education records. The opinion does not foreclose disagreement; it just declines to override the district's judgment in a FOIA proceeding. A requester who disagrees with the FERPA classification has to go to court, not back to the AG.
What this means for you
If you're a journalist requesting school district settlements in Delaware
Expect parent names to be redacted on any settlement that resolves a special-education or student-discipline dispute. Don't argue under FOIA that the agreements aren't "education records"; the AG won't second-guess that call. Better strategies: (1) ask for employee-related settlements separately, since those can come unredacted; (2) ask for the bottom-line dollar amounts, which courts and AGs sometimes treat as not personally identifying; (3) request aggregate annual settlement totals; (4) if you need names, file a court action under 29 Del. C. § 10005(b) within 60 days of the denial.
If you're a Delaware school board member or administrator
Document the FERPA analysis when redacting. The AG explicitly relied on the Superintendent's affidavit attesting that the records were determined to be education records and that parent names were redacted as personally identifiable information. Make this a documented policy, not a one-off judgment call, so the same redaction logic survives an audit.
The opinion's sworn-affidavit pattern (post-Judicial Watch) is now standard. When you deny or redact, expect that you will need a sworn statement from the records custodian or counsel attesting to the basis for each redaction.
If you're a parent of a student with disabilities or in a settlement-driven dispute
Your name in a settlement agreement is treated as protected student information. A school district that releases your name without your consent can be denied federal education funding under FERPA. If you receive a notice that your settlement may be disclosed, you have a right to consent or object before release. If a journalist or member of the public requests your settlement, the standard response is redaction.
If you're a special-education attorney
The AG's reasoning treats the settlement itself, not just the underlying special-education file, as part of the "education record." That's a strong shield in negotiation: your client's name and identity are protected regardless of where the settlement is filed. Note also the AG's acknowledgment that schools can't publicly identify students as having a disability, useful framing in negotiation if the district pushes for unredacted releases.
Common questions
Q: Are school settlement agreements public records in Delaware?
A: They're public records under FOIA, but the personally identifiable information about students (including parent names) must be redacted. The agreements come out, but with names blacked out where they would identify a student.
Q: Why are parent names protected?
A: FERPA's definition of "personally identifiable information" includes both direct identifiers (student name) and indirect identifiers (parent name, address, birthdate). A parent's name is an indirect identifier because it can be used to figure out which student the document concerns. In a small district, this is especially powerful.
Q: Can a parent consent to disclosure?
A: Yes. FERPA allows release of education records with the parent's written consent. If a parent wants their settlement made public, they can authorize the district to release it unredacted.
Q: What if I disagree with the district's classification of a record as an 'education record'?
A: The AG won't override the district's reasonable classification in a FOIA petition. You have to file suit in Superior Court within 60 days under 29 Del. C. § 10005(b).
Q: Are employee settlements treated the same way?
A: No. The opinion notes that one of the seven agreements involved an employee rather than a student and was produced unredacted. Settlements with district employees over employment matters generally aren't education records and aren't shielded by FERPA.
Q: Can a school refuse to release a settlement entirely if redaction would gut the document?
A: Not under this opinion. The district produced redacted agreements, which the AG found acceptable. Wholesale withholding would require a different legal basis.
Background and statutory framework
Delaware FOIA imports federal and state confidentiality statutes through 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(6), which excludes from the definition of "public record" anything specifically exempted by statute or common law. 14 Del. C. § 4111(a) makes student educational records confidential and routes any release through FERPA's framework. FERPA's regulatory definition of "education records" is broad: anything maintained by a school that contains information directly related to a student. A negotiated settlement agreement resolving a dispute about that student fits squarely within the definition.
Indian River School District is a southern Delaware district that has been the subject of multiple FOIA petitions and lawsuits, including high-profile disputes over teacher conduct, board governance, and special-education compliance. The reporter who filed this petition has covered the district extensively for The News Journal/Delaware Online. The denial here was procedurally clean: the Superintendent's affidavit established the FERPA review, and the AG applied the deferential Flowers/Judicial Watch standard.
Citations and references
Statutes and regulations:
- 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) (pupil files)
- 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(6) (other-statute exemption)
- 14 Del. C. § 4111 (educational records confidentiality)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA)
- 34 C.F.R. Part 99 (FERPA regulations)
Cases:
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021), sworn-evidence requirement for FOIA denials
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/07/29/25-ib37-7-29-25-foia-opinion-letter-to-shannon-marvel-mcnaught-re-indian-river-school-district/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2025/08/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-25-IB37.pdf
Original opinion text
PRINT VERSION: Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB37
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB37
July 29, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Shannon Marvel McNaught
The News Journal/Delaware Online
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Indian River School District
Dear Ms. McNaught:
We write in response to your correspondence, alleging that the Indian River School District violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed more fully herein, we determine that the District did not violate FOIA by redacting the parent names from the settlement agreements it produced in response to your request.
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2025, you submitted a FOIA request for "all settlements or legal releases signed by school or district officials from Jan. 1, 2020 to present." [1] The District replied with a production of redacted settlement agreements. You then asked for the records to be sent unredacted, because you believe "FOIA does not permit the redaction of parent names or dates." [2] The District responded that they "believe the agreements meet the definition of educational records under [the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA")] and that the redactions to remove personally identifiable information were appropriate and required under the law" and "[y]ou are not entitled to unredacted versions containing personally identifiable information and/or information from which the identity of an individual student, and/or their status [as] a student who qualifies for special education services under the IDEA, could be derived." [3] This Petition followed.
In the Petition, you argue that redacting parent names is not appropriate under FOIA's exemption for "pupil files . . . the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, under [FOIA], or any State or federal law, as it relates to personal privacy." [4] You believe that disclosing parent names does not invade the student's personal privacy, as it creates "merely a possibility of identification." [5] Further, you contend that settlement agreements do not constitute education records and are not entitled to the same level of privacy. You believe these agreements "touch on school governance and student welfare, making the public interest in transparency far more compelling than the mere possibility of privacy intrusion from naming parents." [6]
The District, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition ("Response"), including the affidavit of the Superintendent who attests to having personal knowledge of the facts in the affidavit. In its Response, the District argues both FERPA and FOIA's exemption for pupil files in Section 10002(o)(1) are applicable. The District explains that FERPA denies federal funds to any educational entity that has a policy or practice of releasing any personally identifiable information in education records without written consent of the parents. Education records are defined as materials containing information directly related to a student, which are maintained by an educational agency or institution. The District states that Delaware law provides that student's educational records are confidential and may only be released in accordance with the Department of Education regulations, which incorporate FERPA. The District asserts that personally identifiable information is defined under FERPA to include both direct identifiers, like a student name, and indirect identifiers, like a birth date, which can be used to distinguish or trace the identity of the student.
In this instance, the District states that it provided seven agreements to you, one of which is unredacted, as it involved an employee, rather than a student. For the remaining six agreements, the Superintendent attests that the District determined the settlements were "education records" under FERPA and redacted the personally identifiable information therein. Additionally, the District maintains that school districts are prohibited from publicly identifying students as being disabled. The District argues that releasing redacted settlement agreements met the intent behind FOIA while still protecting Delaware's students from the unlawful disclosure of their personal information.
DISCUSSION
Delaware's FOIA law "was enacted to ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware's citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities." [7] FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. [8] The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records. [9] In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. [10]
In this case, you allege that the parent names were improperly redacted, arguing the settlement agreements are not "educational records" and thus not entitled to the same level of privacy as educational records. Section 10002(o)(6) excludes from the definition of "public record" any records that are "specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute or common law." Under 14 Del. C. § 4111(a), "[e]ducational records of students in all public and private schools in this State are deemed to be confidential," but "[e]ducational records may be released, and personally-identifiable information contained therein disclosed, only in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act . . . under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g and its implementing regulations set forth in 34 C.F.R. Part 99 and, with respect to records for students with disabilities, in accordance with Chapter 31 of this title and its implementing regulations." [11] The Delaware regulations require "[e]ach school district, charter school, and private school [to] develop, adopt, and maintain a written policy regarding the educational records of its students," and this policy must comply with FERPA and its regulations. [12]
FERPA defines "education records" as "those records, files, documents, and other materials which – (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution." [13] FERPA further provides that "[n]o funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a)) of students without the written consent of their parents." [14] Personally identifiable information includes direct identifiers such as a student or parent name, and indirect identifiers, which can be used to link a student identity to the record. [15]
Upon reviewing these settlement agreements, the District determined that these agreements, including the parent names, fall within the scope of "education records," and the parent names in these agreements are required to be kept confidential under this state and federal legal authority. While we find the District's rationale to be reasonably determined, to the extent you disagree with the District's analysis of legal authority outside of the FOIA statute, you may wish to seek relief from the courts. [16]
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the District did not violate FOIA by redacting the parent names from these settlement agreements.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General
Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis
Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor
cc: Michelle G. Bounds, Attorney for the Indian River School District
[1] Petition.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1).
[5] Petition.
[6] Id.
[7] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
[8] 29 Del. C. § 10003(a).
[9] 29 Del. C. § 10005(c).
[10] Judicial Watch, Inc., 267 A.3d at 1008-1012.
[11] 14 Del. C. § 4111(a).
[12] 14 Del. Admin. C. § 251-2.0.
[13] 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a).
[14] 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b).
[15] 34 C.F.R. § 99.3.
[16] 29 Del. C. § 10005. Section 10005(b) states "[a]ny citizen denied access to public records as provided in this chapter may bring suit within 60 days of such denial."