---
section: aes
publicUrl: 'http://andoverct.info/reports/aes/data-privacy/'
pageTitle: 'When Small Numbers Become Names — Town of Andover, CT'
title: When Small Numbers Become Names
subtitle: 'Town of Andover, CT · Student and staff privacy · Why the disputed preschool benefit figure cannot be released, and why that refusal is the law rather than a stonewall'
attribution: 'A personal report by Scott Sauyet · <a href="mailto:scott@sauyet.com">scott@sauyet.com</a> · Not an official town document'
banner:
  left: '<a href="http://andoverct.info/">Town of Andover, CT</a> · Scott Sauyet''s Reports'
  right: Student & Staff Privacy
footerNote: 'Compiled June 6, 2026 · A civic explainer drawing on federal statute and guidance and Connecticut law.'
pdf:
  author: Personal work of Scott Sauyet · scott@sauyet.com
  footer: andoverct.info/reports/aes/data-privacy/
sectionLabels:
  - - overview
    - Introduction
  - - arithmetic of identification
    - The principle
  - - which privacy law
    - Which law applies
  - - one-on-one paraprofessional
    - The mechanism
  - - staff benefit
    - The request at issue
  - - is the law
    - Synthesis
  - - summary table
    - At a glance
  - - key observations
    - Analysis
  - - what this report does not show
    - Caveats
  - - sources
    - Documentation
  - - other formats
    - Download
formats:
  - icon: "\U0001F310"
    title: HTML
    href: ./
    desc: Interactive version with formatted tables; best for on-screen reading and sharing.
  - icon: "\U0001F4C4"
    title: Markdown
    href: preschool_data_privacy.md
    desc: 'Plain-text version; readable in any editor, ideal for copying into other documents.'
  - icon: "\U0001F4D1"
    title: PDF
    href: preschool_data_privacy.pdf
    desc: 'Print-ready version with all tables, footnotes, and source citations.'
---

When Small Numbers Become Names
===============================

*A personal report by Scott Sauyet · scott@sauyet.com · Not an official town
document*

*Town of Andover, CT · Student and staff privacy · Why the disputed preschool
benefit figure cannot be released, and why that refusal is the law rather than a
stonewall*

*This report explains, in plain language and then in detail, why a specific
request, for the aggregate benefit information of the eight preschool staff,
cannot be filled in detailed form without disclosing private information about
identifiable individuals, and why the same structural problem, in its clearest
form, governs certain student data as well. It draws on federal statute and
regulation (FERPA, the IDEA, and HIPAA), on published guidance from the U.S.
Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on
Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act and the case law interpreting it, and
on the two collective bargaining agreements that define the benefits at issue.
It is a civic explainer, not legal advice; the Board of Education's counsel
speaks for the district on these questions, and where this report and that
advice differ, the advice governs. Compiled June 6, 2026.*

---



Overview
--------

At the June 2, 2026 town meeting, as at several gatherings before it, a familiar
request came up again: the aggregate benefit information for the preschool
staff, four teachers and four paraprofessionals, eight people in all. On its
face it is a reasonable thing to ask. The preschool's salaries are covered by
tuition and state grants rather than the town's general fund, but the staff's
benefits are charged to district-wide accounts the general fund does carry, so
this is the one slice of the program's cost that lands on the taxpayer, and
residents and officials are right to want to know what it comes to. No one
making the request is asking what health plan any individual chose. Let me say
that plainly, because the rest of this report depends on it: no one is asking
for any individual's health information.

The difficulty is arithmetic, not motive. "Aggregate" is supposed to protect the
individuals inside a total: report the sum, and no one can see any single
person's choices. But that protection depends entirely on the group being large
enough. Shrink the group and the total begins to give the individuals away.
Picture the extreme case. A benefit total for a single employee is that one
employee's benefit choice with the word "aggregate" in front of it. Make it two
employees, one on a family plan and one who declined coverage, and the total
together with the published cost-share rates lets a reader work out who did
which. Once a group is large enough, an aggregate genuinely hides the people
inside it; the trouble is how few it takes to fall short of that, and these
groups fall well short.

For the eight preschool staff, that is not a remote risk, for reasons the
contracts make concrete (Part 4). There is also an even clearer version of the
same problem on the student side of the building, where the law is unambiguous:
the dedicated one-on-one aide (Part 3). That case is worth walking through
first, because it shows the principle in its sharpest form before we return to
the staff request that is actually on the table.

None of this treats the request as a trick, or the people making it as acting in
bad faith. The transparency interest is real, and for most of the budget the law
favors disclosure: aggregate spending on large groups is public, and should be.
The conflict is narrow and specific. It appears only where the group described
is small enough that a total, combined with what the reader already has in hand,
becomes a roster. The rest of this report shows where that line falls, which law
draws it, and why the Superintendent's "I can't give you that" is the law
speaking rather than a stonewall.

The argument has five parts:

1. The arithmetic of identification — why small groups defeat anonymity.
2. Which privacy law applies — and a common, understandable mix-up.
3. The one-on-one paraprofessional — the principle in its clearest form.
4. The preschool staff benefits — the request actually in dispute.
5. Why “I can’t give you that” is the law, not an evasion.


---



Part 1 — The arithmetic of identification
------------------------------------------

Privacy law does not protect only names and Social Security numbers. It protects
any information that can be linked back to a specific person, alone or in
combination with other things a reader already knows. The federal
student-privacy regulation defines protected "personally identifiable
information" to include not just direct identifiers but indirect ones, and any
other information that, alone or combined, is linked or linkable to a specific
student such that a reasonable person in the school community could identify the
student with reasonable certainty (34 CFR §99.3).

Two phrases in that definition do the heavy lifting. "In combination" means a
fact that is harmless by itself can become identifying once it sits next to
other facts. "Reasonable person in the school community" means the test is not
whether a stranger in another state could identify someone; it is whether a
neighbor, another parent, or a fellow resident who already knows a little about
the program could. In a small town, people know a great deal.

This is why small groups are the crux. Aggregate data is meant to be a shield:
report the total, hide the individuals inside it. But the shield only works when
the group is large enough that knowing the total tells you little about any one
member. Shrink the group and the shield dissolves. The federal Department of
Education's own guidance makes the point directly: aggregate tables with small
cells can still contain protected information, because it can be possible to
identify specific individuals from uncommon characteristics, and such tables
should not be released until disclosure-avoidance steps have been applied.


### Connecticut already draws a line ###

Connecticut does not leave "how small is too small" to intuition. For public
reporting of student outcomes, the state sets a minimum subgroup size below
which it will not publish figures at all.

| Purpose                    | Minimum group size |
| -------------------------- | ------------------ |
| Public reporting           | 20                 |
| Accountability calculation | 20                 |

> **Notes:** Connecticut uses the same threshold, 20 students, for both
> reporting and accountability, which is stricter than many states that use a
> lower number for reporting. The national range across approved state plans
> runs roughly 10–30. EdSight, the state's accountability dashboard, states
> operationally that the minimum number of students needed to calculate an
> average or a percentage is 20. Source: Connecticut ESSA Consolidated State
> Plan (approved August 4, 2017); CT SDE EdSight.

It is worth being precise about what this number is and is not. The n = 20
threshold is a reporting and accountability convention; it is not itself a rule
about answering a records request, and it does not declare every group under 20
legally secret. It is the state's own judgment, applied to its own data, about
the group size at which published figures begin to expose individuals. The legal
duty to withhold comes from the privacy statutes covered below; the n = 20 line
is simply the state's own answer to the practical question those statutes raise,
which is how small is too small. For staff, as Part 4 explains, there is no
comparable number, and the analysis runs differently.


---



Part 2 — Which privacy law applies
----------------------------------

There is a near-universal habit of calling any health-related privacy question a
"HIPAA" question. In a school, that habit is usually wrong, and the error is
worth correcting carefully, because the right answer depends on which statute
actually governs.

For records a school maintains about its students, the governing law is almost
always FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, not HIPAA. This is
not an accident. The two laws are written to be mutually exclusive for any given
record. HIPAA's definition of protected health information specifically excludes
records that FERPA covers, and the stated purpose of that exclusion, in the
joint federal guidance, is to keep any single student health record under just
one of the two regimes rather than both.


### What this means in practice ###

| The record in question                                           | Governing law                                                        |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| A student's IEP, services, disability status, school records     | FERPA, plus the IDEA (the federal special-education law); see Part 3 |
| Health information a school nurse records about a student        | FERPA, as an education record                                        |
| A town employee's benefit elections, held as employment records  | Not HIPAA; see Part 4                                                |
| Records held by an outside clinical provider who bills insurance | Possibly HIPAA                                                       |

A public school can, in narrow circumstances, also meet HIPAA's definition of a
covered entity, for example if it runs a clinic and bills insurance
electronically. But even then, the federal guidance is explicit that many such
schools still do not have to comply with HIPAA, because their only health
records are "education records" or "treatment records" under FERPA, which HIPAA
expressly excludes. The practical upshot for the preschool: the students'
protected information is a FERPA matter, layered with the additional protections
of the IDEA discussed next. Calling it "HIPAA" is a common shorthand, and the
people using it have reached the right conclusion. It is simply not the statute
that governs school records, and this report uses the one that does.


---



Part 3 — The one-on-one paraprofessional
-----------------------------------------

This is the principle in its clearest form, and it sits on the firmest legal
ground, which is why it comes before the harder staff question.

Children with disabilities receive a second layer of privacy protection beyond
FERPA, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the IDEA). The
IDEA incorporates FERPA's definition of education records and adds
confidentiality requirements tailored to the special sensitivity of disability
information (34 CFR Part 300, Subpart F, §§300.610–300.627). Both laws treat a
child's disability status and the contents of the child's IEP as protected. And
both use the same identifiability test from Part 1: information is protected if
a child can be identified from it with reasonable certainty.

Now connect that to staffing. A dedicated one-on-one paraprofessional is, by
definition, assigned to one particular child because that child's IEP requires
it. The aide's position is not a free-floating budget line; it is the
embodiment, in the staffing plan, of a service written into a specific student's
plan. Federal guidance for paraprofessionals makes the same point from the other
direction: service logs showing that a student with a disability received
specific supports can themselves be protected education records.

So a single fact, "the preschool employs N dedicated one-on-one aides," lives in
two places at once. It is a line on the personnel and budget ledger, which is
the side residents legitimately want to see. And it is a fact recorded in N
identifiable children's special-education files, which is the side the law
protects. The two cannot be separated, because there is no such thing as a
one-on-one aide without a particular child on the other end of the assignment.

The preschool itself is not small; it serves about 67 children across four
classrooms. But the number of children who have a dedicated aide is small, and
that is the group that matters here. Disclose the aide staffing and you
disclose, by inference, that specific children carry IEPs significant enough to
require their own adult. Where the community can observe which child is always
accompanied by an adult, "the budget shows two dedicated aides" closes the loop.
That is identification with reasonable certainty. It is a disclosure of
protected information under FERPA and the IDEA, made without parental consent,
even though no name was ever spoken and no one intended harm.

And here the report's central point is at its plainest: there is no wording of a
request for one-on-one aide cost or assignment that does not reveal that a
particular child needs one-on-one support. The disclosure is not in the
phrasing. The disclosure is the aide's existence. A request cannot be reworded
around a fact.


---



Part 4 — The preschool staff benefits
-------------------------------------

This is the request actually in dispute: the aggregate benefit information for
the eight preschool staff. It needs the most careful treatment in this report,
both because it is the live question and because the law here is harder than on
the student side. Getting it right means neither overstating the protection nor
pretending the concern is imaginary.

Begin with what "benefits" actually consists of, because the word hides the
problem. For these eight employees, a benefit figure is not one neutral number
apiece. It is the sum of a set of individual elections, and the two collective
bargaining agreements that govern them, the teachers' agreement and the
non-certified staff agreement, show that each election maps onto a private fact:

- The medical plan comes in tiers (single, two-person, family). Which tier a
  person carries reflects household and dependent status.
- An employee can decline town coverage entirely, which ordinarily means they
  are covered elsewhere, typically through a spouse.
- Most pointedly, both agreements offer a Health Reimbursement Arrangement in
  place of the Health Savings Account specifically for an employee precluded
  from the HSA "because the [employee] received Medicare and/or veterans'
  benefits." Identifying who is on the HRA therefore discloses that a specific
  person receives Medicare or veterans' benefits, information about age,
  disability, or veteran status that has nothing to do with what the town spends
  in total.

So a sufficiently detailed benefit breakdown for these eight people is not a
financial abstraction. It is a set of facts about identifiable individuals'
households and health status.

The group is also smaller than eight in the way that matters. The four teachers
fall under one agreement; the four paraprofessionals under another, where
board-subsidized medical coverage depends on job classification and scheduled
hours. Full-time and certain part-time classifications receive subsidized
coverage; lower-hour classifications are grandfathered, pay a substantially
higher share, or may only buy in at their own expense. So the subset of the
eight for whom a particular subsidized-tier election even exists may be just two
or three people. The smaller that subset, the more completely a total describes
each person in it. The small-numbers problem is sharper here, not milder.

There is one honest limit on the reconstruction. The dollar premiums are not in
the public contracts: the teachers' insurance-rate grid is left blank in the
posted copy, and both agreements state the employee's share as a percentage
rather than a dollar figure. A member of the public working only from the posted
contracts and salary schedules would know each employee's salary and cost-share
percentage, but not the premium dollars needed to convert a total back into
individual tiers. The reconstruction is not trivial from those documents alone.

That limit largely disappears for the people actually making this request.
Andover's employee health coverage is purchased through a pooled inter-municipal
arrangement of the kind Connecticut authorized in Public Act 10-174 of 2010,
which lets towns and school boards join together to buy employee health
benefits. The negotiated rate results of such an arrangement are public records,
and they are routinely in the hands of the town's own financial officials. The
requesters here include the First Selectman and members of the Board of Finance,
who can obtain the per-tier premium schedule as a matter of course. For them,
the aggregate plus the rate sheet plus the public salary and classification data
is enough to recover the tier mix among a group this small.

This points to a principle worth stating plainly, and neutrally: the more
financial detail a requester already holds, the less additional aggregate
disclosure it takes to reconstruct the individuals inside a total. The privacy
limit is therefore most binding, not least, for the best-resourced requesters.
It does not bend because the person asking is an official; if anything it
tightens.

Which law draws the line is the last question. Two points commonly get the
statute wrong.

First, this is most likely not a HIPAA question. A town is generally not a HIPAA
covered entity; its group health plan may be, but information the town holds as
an employer, in payroll and budget records, is treated as employment records,
which HIPAA's own definitions exclude from protected health information. The
benefit-cost figures in the town's budget are, in all likelihood, employment
records outside HIPAA's reach. The claim is not wrong on a technicality; HIPAA
does not govern these records in the first place.

Second, there is no fixed minimum group size for staff. The number 20 from Part
1 belongs to student reporting. HIPAA's method for declaring data safe to
release sets no group-size figure at all; it works by removing a defined list of
identifiers, or by a documented expert judgment that re-identification risk is
very small. The neat "the group is too small under the law" framing that fits
the student case does not transfer here.

The protection that does apply comes from Connecticut's Freedom of Information
Act, which exempts "personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure
of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy" (Conn. Gen. Stat.
§1-210(b)(2)). That exemption is not automatic. Under the controlling state
Supreme Court test (Perkins v. FOIC, 228 Conn. 158 (1993)), an agency
withholding such a record must show both that the information does not pertain
to a legitimate matter of public concern and that disclosure would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person. The total cost of public employment is a
legitimate public concern, and Connecticut courts have treated some numerical
employee data as not private at all. The public-concern prong, in short, favors
disclosure of the total.

What it does not favor is disclosure detailed enough to expose the tier mix, the
decliners, or the HRA participants among eight people. Those are the private
facts, household composition, coverage held elsewhere, Medicare or veterans'
status, and none of them is what "how much do we spend" requires.

The cure, though, is a larger group, not merely a coarser figure for this one.
It is tempting to say "give the total for the eight, just with no breakdown,"
but among eight people, two or three of them carrying a given tier, the total
itself, set beside the rate sheet and the public salary and classification data,
can still be inverted into the individual elections. Removing the line items
does not help if the bottom line is recoverable. What does help is aggregating
up to a group large enough to clear the line: the benefit total for all
certified staff, or for all non-certified staff, or the district-wide benefit
figure, the kind of number that already appears in the budget. Those answer the
spending question without singling anyone out. It is the preschool-only slice,
eight people or the two-or-three within them, that cannot be safely isolated.


---



Part 5 — Why “I can’t give you that” is the law, not an evasion
---------------------------------------------------------------

Pulling the threads together: when the Superintendent says she cannot release
this information, she is not choosing to withhold an answer she could give. She
is reporting that the law leaves her no lawful answer to release. The obstacle
is structural, a property of the data and the size of the group, and it does not
yield to good intentions on either side.

It is understandable that a flat “I'm not allowed to share that” sounds like a
stonewall. In most budget questions a refusal to produce a number is a choice,
and pressing harder is the right response. This is the uncommon case where it is
not a choice. The figure being asked for does not exist in any form she can
lawfully hand over, because producing it for a group this small would disclose
facts about identifiable people, an employee's coverage tier or HRA status, a
child's need for a dedicated aide, that FERPA, the IDEA, and Connecticut's
privacy law place out of reach. Her “I can't” is fidelity to those statutes, not
opacity. Continuing to read the non-answer as a lack of transparency mislocates
the cause: it is the law that is saying no, and she is the one obliged to say it
out loud.

A useful way to see that the barrier is real, and not a matter of phrasing, is
to imagine shrinking the group until the point is undeniable. Suppose the
preschool had exactly one staff member. A request for "aggregate staff benefit
cost," however carefully it avoids the word "individual," hands over that one
person's health-plan choice. Suppose exactly one child with a one-on-one aide. A
request for "the cost of one-on-one support in the preschool," however neutrally
phrased, names that child to anyone who knows the program has one such child. At
a group of one, everyone sees at once that no phrasing helps. Adding a second or
a third person does not change the nature of the problem; it only changes how
much outside knowledge a reader has to supply. The barrier was never in the
language, so no better wording of the request, and no greater willingness on her
part, could produce the number without breaking the law.

None of this forecloses the legitimate interest behind the request. Aggregate
figures for groups large enough to stay anonymous are public, and the town
should provide them: a benefit total for all certified staff, or all
non-certified staff, or the district as a whole, the figures already carried in
the budget. The line this report describes is narrow on purpose. It is only the
small groups, the eight preschool staff, the two or three within them who carry
a given tier, the dedicated aides, that the law puts out of reach, and only
because at that size a total is recoverable into the people inside it. The
underlying question, what the town spends, has an available answer. What is not
available, from her or from anyone, is the preschool-only slice in a form fine
enough to single people out.


---



Summary table
-------------

| Question                                          | Short answer                                                                                            |
| ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| What is actually being requested?                 | The aggregate benefit figures for the eight preschool staff (four teachers, four paraprofessionals).    |
| Can the town release any benefit totals?          | Yes, at a large enough aggregation (all certified staff, all non-certified staff, or district-wide); those figures already sit in the budget. |
| Why not a preschool-only total, then?              | Eight is small enough that the bottom line, set beside the rate sheet, is recoverable into individuals. A coarser figure for a small group is not safe; a larger group is. |
| Why not a detailed breakdown?                      | Among eight people, the tier, decline, and HRA detail identifies individuals' household and health status. |
| Isn't this a HIPAA issue?                          | Probably not. Town-held benefit figures are employment records, which HIPAA excludes. The limit comes from CT FOIA. |
| Does it matter who is asking?                      | Yes, in one direction: requesters who can obtain the premium schedule can reconstruct more from a total, so the limit binds them more. |
| What about the students?                           | A dedicated one-on-one aide is an IEP service tied to one child; disclosing it identifies the child. That side is FERPA and the IDEA. |
| Is the Superintendent's refusal a stonewall?      | No. There is no lawful version of the preschool-only figure for her to release; the refusal is compliance with privacy law, not opacity. |


---



Key Observations
----------------

**"Benefits" for eight people is a set of individual elections, not one
number.** Plan tier, declining coverage, and the HRA-versus-HSA choice each
encode a private fact about a person's household or health status.

**The HRA election is the sharpest example.** Both agreements offer the HRA only
to employees who cannot use the HSA because they receive Medicare or veterans'
benefits, so identifying HRA participants discloses that protected status.

**The group is effectively smaller than eight.** Subsidized-coverage eligibility
varies by contract and classification, so the subset for whom a tier election
even exists may be two or three people, which makes a total more revealing, not
less.

**Benefit spending is public at a large enough aggregation.** District-wide or
all-staff benefit totals, the kind already in the budget, answer the spending
question; it is isolating the eight-person preschool slice that creates the
problem, and a coarser figure for that small group is not a cure.

**The limit binds well-resourced requesters more, not less.** The more premium
and rate detail a requester can already obtain, the less additional disclosure
it takes to recover the individuals inside a total.

**For students, this is FERPA and the IDEA, not HIPAA.** A dedicated aide is an
IEP service tied to one child, so the staffing line and the protected fact are
the same fact, and no wording separates them.

**A refusal here is the law operating, not an evasion.** The Superintendent
cannot release a lawful version of the preschool-only figure, so reading her "I
can't" as opacity mislocates the cause; the constraint is the statute, not her
will.


---



What this report does not show
------------------------------

This is a civic explainer, not legal advice, and not every question it touches
is fully settled here.

- It does not substitute for the Board of Education's counsel. Where this
  report's reading of the law and the district's legal advice differ, the legal
  advice governs.
- It does not resolve the staff-benefit question definitively. The Connecticut
  FOIA personnel-privacy exemption turns on a fact-specific balancing test, and
  reasonable people, including lawyers, can disagree about where a particular
  figure falls.
- It does not establish that every preschool staffing or benefit figure is
  private. Most are not. The report describes a narrow line; the bulk of
  aggregate spending sits on the public side of it.
- It does not name the specific health-insurance consortium Andover belongs to.
  That name is a matter of public record (it appears in the town and regional
  budget back-up), but it was not confirmed for this report and is not needed
  for the argument.
- It does not address whether any of the preschool's special-education services
  run through Connecticut's Birth to Three program or a similar outside
  provider, which could bring HIPAA into play for that provider's records. That
  would be worth confirming in any specific case.
- It does not assign motive to anyone. The argument is about the structure of
  the data, and it holds regardless of why any particular request was made.


---



Sources
-------

**Federal statute and regulation**

- FERPA, definition of personally identifiable information, 34 CFR §99.3:
  [ecfr.gov/.../part-99](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-99)
- The IDEA, confidentiality of information, 34 CFR Part 300, Subpart F
  (§§300.610–300.627):
  [ecfr.gov/.../part-300](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300)
- HIPAA, definitions including covered entity and the employment-records
  exclusion, 45 CFR §160.103:
  [ecfr.gov/.../part-160](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-160)
- HIPAA, plan-sponsor and de-identification provisions, 45 CFR §§164.504(f),
  164.514:
  [ecfr.gov/.../part-164](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/part-164)

**Federal guidance (U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services)**

- Joint Guidance on the Application of FERPA and HIPAA to Student Health Records
  (December 2019 update):
  [hhs.gov/.../2019-hipaa-ferpa-joint-guidance.pdf](https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2019-hipaa-ferpa-joint-guidance.pdf)
- IDEA and FERPA Confidentiality Provisions FAQ, U.S. Department of Education:
  [studentprivacy.ed.gov/.../idea-confidentiality-requirements-faq](https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/idea-confidentiality-requirements-faq_0.pdf)
- IDEA and FERPA Crosswalk, Student Privacy Policy Office:
  [studentprivacy.ed.gov/.../IDEA-FERPA-Crosswalk](https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/IDEA-FERPA%20Crosswalk_08242022.pdf)
- HHS Office for Civil Rights, Guidance on De-identification of Protected Health
  Information:
  [hhs.gov/.../de-identification](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/de-identification/index.html)

**Connecticut sources**

- Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, exempt records, Conn. Gen. Stat.
  §1-210(b)(2):
  [portal.ct.gov/.../Sec-1210](https://portal.ct.gov/FOI/Regulations/The-FOI-Act/Sec-1210--Formerly-Sec-119--Access-to-public-records--Exempt-records)
- Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993) (the
  controlling two-part test for the personnel/medical-files exemption):
  [leagle.com/.../Perkins-v-FOIC](https://www.leagle.com/decision/1993386228conn1581374)
- Notice-and-objection procedure for employee records, Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-214:
  [portal.ct.gov/.../Sec-1214](https://portal.ct.gov/foi/regulations/the-foi-act/sec-1214--formerly-sec-120a--public-employment-contracts-as-public-record--objection-to-disclosure-o)
- Connecticut Public Act 10-174 (2010), authorizing municipalities and boards of
  education to pool the purchase of employee health insurance:
  [cga.ct.gov/.../2010PA-00174](https://cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/Pa/pdf/2010PA-00174-R00HB-05424-PA.pdf)
- Connecticut ESSA Consolidated State Plan (approved August 4, 2017), minimum
  subgroup size:
  [portal.ct.gov/.../ct-consolidated-state-essa-plan](https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/ESSA/august_4_ct_consolidated_state_essa_plan.pdf)
- CT SDE EdSight, Next Generation Accountability Dashboard (operational note on
  the minimum of 20):
  [public-edsight.ct.gov/.../next-generation-accountability-dashboard](https://public-edsight.ct.gov/overview/next-generation-accountability-dashboard)

**Local documents (public)**

- Contract between the Andover Board of Education and the Andover Education
  Association, July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2029 (teacher salaries and insurance
  benefits):
  [andoverelementaryct.org/.../AEA-Contract-2025-2029](https://www.andoverelementaryct.org/images/forms/AEA%20Contract%202025-2029%20C.pdf)
- Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Andover Board of Education and
  CSEA, SEIU Local 2001 (non-certified personnel), July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2028
  (classifications, wages, and insurance):
  [andoverelementaryct.org/.../2024-2028-CSEA-Contract](https://www.andoverelementaryct.org/images/forms/2024-2028%20CSEA%20Contract%20Final%20Complete%20Doc.pdf)


---



Other Formats
-------------

This report is available in three formats, all located alongside this file:

- **HTML** (interactive, best for on-screen reading): [`index.html`](index.html)
- **Markdown** (plain text, readable in any editor):
  [`preschool_data_privacy.md`](preschool_data_privacy.md)
- **PDF** (print-ready, fixed layout for distribution):
  [`preschool_data_privacy.pdf`](preschool_data_privacy.pdf)