Could South Carolina release student SAT data after removing student identifiers?

Plain-English summary

In a 1996 informal opinion, an assistant deputy attorney general addressed whether the Commission on Higher Education could release student information such as SAT scores after withholding a "student identifier." He cited the federal education-records law's restriction on releasing records or personally identifiable information without consent. Authority he cited indicated that removing identifying details might permit release, but the remaining information could still be personally identifiable.

The author expressly declined to decide the particular data request. Whether the proposed release would identify students was a question of fact beyond the scope of an AG opinion. The letter therefore did not grant approval for any specific SAT dataset.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Was deleting a student ID enough by itself to authorize release?
A: The author did not say so. Other details in the data could still make a student personally identifiable.

Q: Did the AG decide whether the commission's SAT data could be published?
A: No. He said identifiability was a factual question beyond his opinion's scope.

Q: Could information from student records ever be released without identifiers under the letter's analysis?
A: The cited authority indicated it might be possible if the released information was not personally identifiable, but the letter did not determine that for this dataset.

Background and statutory framework

The commission asked about releasing student-level data while withholding a student identifier. The author quoted the federal restriction at 20 USC §1232g and cited decisions addressing identifiable information in education records. He stopped at the factual limit: the contents and context of the proposed release would determine whether students could be identified.

This was an informal opinion signed by an assistant deputy attorney general, not a formal opinion personally reviewed by the Attorney General.

Citations and references

• Federal education-records provision: 20 USC §1232g.

Official title

Requesting advice as to whether the Commission of Higher Education may release data concerning students such as SAT scores when the “student identifier” is not released.

Requester

The Honorable Fred R. Sheheen, Commissioner, South Carolina Commission of Higher Education

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/november-18-1996-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96nov18sheheen.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF T HE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHAR LES MOLONY CONDON
ATTO RNEY GENERAL

November 18, 1996
The Honorable Fred R. Sheheen
Commissioner
South Carolina Commission on Higher Education 1333 Main Street Columbia, SC 29201 Dear Fred: You have requested the advice of this Off ice as to whether the Commission on Higher Education may release data concerning students such as SAT scores when the "student identifier" is not released. You reference the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 USC §1232g, which provides that "[n]o funds shall be made available ... to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of releasing education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein .. . ) without ..• written consent .... " The following authority indicates that the removal of identifying information may permit the release of information in student records, but that whether the released information is "personally identifiable" is a fact question. Doe v. Knox County Board of Education, 918 F. Supp. 181 (E.D.K.Y. 1996); Kryston v. Board of Education, 77 A.D. 2d, 430 N.Y.S. 2d 688 (1980). Accordingly, whether the requested information is not "personally identifiable" so as to be subject to release appears to be a fact question which is beyond the scope of an Opinion of this Offic e. Ops. Atty. Gen. (December 12, 1983). This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents t he opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has ·not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I hope that this information is of assistance to you.

~~~

POST OFFIC!i Box I 15-l9

•

COLDIBIA.

s.c. ~92! 1-1 5-l9

•

T El.F.PllO\'.E: 803-734-3970

•

F\l'Sl\111.!:: N03-2:-3-628J

The Honorable Fred R. Sheheen

November 18, 1996

Page 2

.-··)

Yours .<;;~ry··~JIJ.,Y,
.·· .

J.

/

"

.·

Ehn_g.i:·:f · s~it:fi·, Jr.

Assistant De.p uty Attorney General
JESjr