LTISD Info

After being identified by the LTISD as the “official who contributed to the discrepancy in the LEA,”^TPIA. Notice how it was left up to the LTISD to decide who was responsible.

Some fundamental questions regarding this issue should be made to the district:

1. The actions taken by the LTISD contradict the text of the November 16, 2006 advertisement published in the Lake Travis View and paid for by the district with your tax dollars.

   In this advertisement, the LTISD states: “In one instance, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) found that no harm had been caused, but that the District had not fully protected the confidentiality of student information.”

   If this were true, why was it necessary to identify Ms. Tolles as the “official who contributed to the discrepancy in the LEA”^TPIA

   The text of the TEA Special Education Complaint Investigation Report of July 28, 2006 actually states: “The LEA (Local Education Agency) does not always ensure the protection of confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information, and records collected or maintained by the LEA in accordance with required procedures.”^TPIA

   How did the LTISD “extrapolate” the fact that “no harm had been caused?”

   Who wrote this and how did they come to this decision?

2. Even after Dr. Kirk’s letter seeking reconsideration of the TEA results, the TEA reaffirmed their decision that the LTISD had committed a violation of confidentiality and further stated:

   “The LEA must ensure instruction and/or training on this issue for all school officials having access to personally identifiable information for students with disabilities attending school in the LEA.” ^TPIA

   Doesn’t this mean that EVERYONE should be required to take confidentiality training?

   Why are the district administration staff and Dr. Kirk exempt from the annual confidentiality training?

   Why doesn’t the Board of Trustees take the confidentiality training?

   Why doesn’t the district administrative staff, Dr. Kirk and the Board of Trustees sign an oath of confidentiality which is required from all other staff members?

3. If the LTISD administrative staff, Dr. Kirk and the Board of Trustees took the confidentiality training, wouldn’t the LTISD be able to alleviate many of their problems?

   Certainly their newly acquired knowledge would lead to compliance with FERPA and other confidentiality requirements. Hopefully, compliance would also have a budgetary impact by reducing the cost of the self inflicted legal expenses borne by the district.

   Of course, if they all took the training and signed the oath of confidentiality, they would be forced to take responsibility for their actions or omissions.

4. Where is the management? Written LTISD Board policies all point to Dr. Kirk as responsible, for example, LTISD Board policy BBE(LOCAL) states:

   “At the time Board members are provided access to confidential records or to reports compiled from such records, the Superintendent or other District employee shall advise them of their responsibility to comply with confidentiality requirements.”
   
   
   How can the superintendent or another member of the administration “advise” the members of the board of Trustees of “their responsibility to comply with confidentiality requirements” if those individuals have not received training and sign an oath of confidentiality?

5. How can this happen if Ms. Tolles had acted after receiving legal advice?

   Dr. Kirk points out in his October 12, 2006 letter to the TEA that: “Prior to Ms. Tolles’ communication, she received legal counsel therefore, she believed her communication was appropriate at the time it was made and was not revealing confidential student information.”^TPIA

Finally, this all leads to the question:

Why hasn’t the administration and the Board taken the necessary steps to protect the confidential information of employees and students in this district?