John Merrow’s PBS segment about suspensions of 5- and 6-year old children at Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy created quite a stir.

Eva was outraged by Merrow’s interview, even though he said some very positive things about her schools, pointing to very high test scores, parent satisfaction, and the arts.

What outraged her was Merrow’s focus on suspensions, especially his on-camera interview of a child who had left Success Academy after multiple suspensions, as well as his mother.

Eva responded with a long angry letter, revealing in full detail the disciplinary record of the boy and demanding an apology to her from PBS and Merrow. She called boy “John Doe” but his name and face were on PBS.

Jersey Jazzman was shocked that Eva had released the boy’s confidential records. Doing so without the written permission of his parent violates the federal student privacy law called FERPA.

He writes:

“I’m not a lawyer so I can’t offer an opinion as to whether FERPA was violated here. But even if it was, there’s probably not any recourse for the parent under federal law: the worst that could happen is that SA could be denied federal funds.

“Something tells me that a school that can raise over $9 million in one night isn’t going to worry too much about that…

“But whether the law was broken isn’t even the most important issue here. What Moskowitz did was an inexcusable lapse of judgment. Eva Moskowitz has put her need to protect her brand over the privacy of a child who, by her own account, has challenges in a school setting.

“This is yet another problem with the “market reform” theory of education. How much money does any corporation spend to maintain its public image? How hard will they fight if they perceive that image is being threatened? How little reluctance do they show to go after a critic of their company or their products?

“Schools, however, are not corporations (at least, not yet). Parent complaints are not threats to a brand; they are advocacy for a child. I’m not at all suggesting that school leaders don’t have the right to defend themselves, either in court or in public. But it would have been more than enough for Moskowitz to say: “We dispute these allegations; however, we will not discuss any individual case publicly, as all parents and children have a right to privacy in school.”

“Not only would this have been less questionable legally and ethically: I’d wager it would have been better for Moskowitz in the eyes of the public. Her attacks on this boy — and that’s exactly what they are — come off to me as petty, unthinking, and, worst of all, cold. And I can’t believe I’m the only one who feels this way.

“It’s very strange that a woman who has worked so hard to cultivate her public image is willing to risk having it trashed just so she can win a PR fight with a 10-year-old boy. She must think the stakes are very high.

“And that’s the problem.”