Comment on Veronica Ortiz's post:
Your reflection captures two practical insights from the module that often surprise people who work in higher education. The principle that FERPA rights end at death — defaulting to institutional policy and state law — is not widely understood, and it has real implications for how institutions handle posthumous record requests from family members, researchers, or media.
Your point about living former students still requiring written consent stood out as well. Many people assume that FERPA protections weaken after graduation, but the module made clear that former students retain inspection rights, amendment rights, and educational record privacy protections. The only difference is that institutions are not required to honor new Directory Information opt-out requests from former students, though they may choose to.
The employee-student insight you raised is one I'm taking back into my own thinking. Employees who are simultaneously students at the same institution must access their own records through the proper FERPA process rather than through their employee privileges. This protects record integrity and prevents inappropriate use of administrative access. It also models the kind of professional discipline that strengthens institutional trust.
In my context as College Director at an Early College Center, your insights apply in unique ways. Some of our staff members may eventually become students through CVCC's own offerings, and the principle you raised would apply directly. Maintaining clear separation between employee privileges and personal student records is both ethically right and practically wise.
Thank you for highlighting these less-obvious FERPA principles.
With Benevolence, Shannon
