[ARCHIVED] New FERPA requirements for cross-listed courses!

[John_Lowe]

With this statement that just came out today from LeRoy Rooker, what will be Instructure’s take on this interpretation of FERPA?  What will your institution's take be on this interpretation?

Ask the FERPA Professor| resources| AACRAO

Essentially, LeRoy Rooker’s statement is that an institution can allow a student to see other students in a course for which the student is officially registered, but cannot allow a student to see (or be seen by) other students in another (cross-listed) class in the LMS.  To me, it sounds like the door remains open for true cross-listed, in-person courses (like a Psychology and Neuroscience course which are really one-in-the-same, but some students register as PSY and others as NEU) since those students meet at the same time in the same physical classroom with each other.  But this new interpretation seems to shut down courses where one instructor teaches 4 sections of the same Accounting course and simply wants to cross-list those into one course shell in Canvas for the sake of their own convenience and the students would not normally see each other in the physical classroom since they are 4 separate Accounting classes.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Alternate interpretations of LeRoy's answer?  How will you adapt in Canvas?

Deactivated user​, Deactivated user​,  @Renee_Carney ​,  @scottdennis ​, mitch​,  @jared ​

[richard-jerz · Accepted solution]

"I can think of many reasons why a student in Class A would not want to be identified by students in Class B, but reasons do not matter, .."

Kelly, out of curiosity, might you be able to give some reasons?

In a physical classroom, a student in class A can be identified by any other student in Class A, and this doesn't seem to be a problem.  Also, a student in Class B can walk by the Class A classroom and see who is in it.  In fact, anyone can walk by a classroom and see who is in it.  (Will schools need to cover all classroom windows?)

Yes, reasons do not matter, but if there is not solid logic behind the reason, maybe the rule should be challenged.

(I am probably the only one who does not understand this, so I look forward to some explanations.  I anticipate being sorry that I asked.)

[kmeeusen]

Having worked in compliance for many years in a past life (with much experience in the HIPAA privacy regs) , and having further researched this provision of FERPA, I believe this interpretation to be accurate. Faculty convenience does not trump FERPA privacy protections. I can think of many reasons why a student in Class A would not want to be identified by students in Class B, but reasons do not matter, what matters is the student's right to opt out of directory disclosure. A simple expediency might be to give the student a pseudonym, but the choice to do so would still rest with the student. We need to seriously rethink cross-listing. A solution that cross-listed courses be listed in the course schedule is workable and acceptable if students are advised clearly that the rosters will be combined and available for student review. In our student FERPA notices we should mention the possibility of course cross-listing (if we do that), and what it means in regards to the availability of student directory information. If unsure of this interpretation and the actions needed, we should consult with our AAGs and document their opinions, keeping that documentation on file.  I will be opening conversations with our Registrar (our Keeper-of-all-things-FERPA).   when I return to work next week. We do manually cross-list, and our policies and procedures will need to change, and I would rather have the bad news come to faculty from her, than from us.

KLM

[ltscal2]

If you guys do make a feature request for this, please make the option so you dont have to restrict cross listed course roster sharing. FIPPA/FERPA in other countries outside of the US do not yet have this restriction.

Our FIPPA is more concerned about storage of data more so than access.

[ProfessorBeyrer]

Thanks Keroleen ​for mentioning FIPPA. You reminded me of a similar awareness-raising experience I had at tpriester​'s excellent session at InstructureCon this year where I learned the regulations for Australian primary schools are not quite the same as they are for American colleges. Learning "how the coffee tastes in other empires" is one of the best parts of being in an international community. After reading your suggestion I would recommend making this an option at the sysadmin level, where each client could set a default "limit this user to only see...." setting that best serves their institution's local laws.

[richard-jerz · Accepted solution]

"I can think of many reasons why a student in Class A would not want to be identified by students in Class B, but reasons do not matter, .."

Kelly, out of curiosity, might you be able to give some reasons?

In a physical classroom, a student in class A can be identified by any other student in Class A, and this doesn't seem to be a problem.  Also, a student in Class B can walk by the Class A classroom and see who is in it.  In fact, anyone can walk by a classroom and see who is in it.  (Will schools need to cover all classroom windows?)

Yes, reasons do not matter, but if there is not solid logic behind the reason, maybe the rule should be challenged.

(I am probably the only one who does not understand this, so I look forward to some explanations.  I anticipate being sorry that I asked.)

[dbastedo · Accepted solution]

I am in agreement with this comment.  There is simply little logic behind these interpretations.  FERPA does trump convenience, but let's apply FERPA logically.  Any student in a course on campus could be identified as being in that course by someone simply seeing them in a classroom.  Our student email systems within the whole college allows any student to message any other student.  There is nothing isolating about students being in separate courses.

The entire conversation hinges on whether a student might be in danger or find offense in being in a course with another student that would be dangerous to them.  When a student enrolls in a course, they don't know who will be in that course when the course finally meets.  If they fear associating with another student, then they might look at the course roster after they have registered.  The student doesn't have control over the registration process, nor would we alter the entire process for a single student.  The essential element is does the student have the ability to know who is in the class and can they freely decide to change their situation if they find a problem.  This interpretation is about students having the knowledge and the ability to keep themselves safe.

Just as students won't know who is registered in a course before or after they register, if courses were merged, there is no way that they would know.  Just as a student would solve the issue by looking at a roster of their registered class and make a decision for their own safety, they can look at the roster for a merged set of sections and make a decision as to their safety.  It is the exact same process.  How do we extend danger to merged sections but not use the same logic for a student simply registering for a single course?  Something is not logical here.  I believe that the only issue for the student would be awareness.  If the college or instructor clearly states that several sections will be or are merged and that you could be associating with students in other sections of the same course, you have now given the student the same awareness that they would have had from simply registering for any single section of a course.

Please someone shoot down my logic.  Have I missed something?  It seems like we are trying to use FERPA to eliminate the fraction of a gram of danger for a student.  I am committed to that reduction as well, but it is not possible to do that in the real world.  The answer is to give students the knowledge that they need to keep themselves safe.  The solution to this issue is to make students aware and if they find an issue to help them resolve that problem by every means possible.

[bgibson]

Maybe not cover all classroom windows, but if the institution posted a class schedule (not class roster, just course ID & section & day/time each meets) on or by the door of a classroom, and someone walked by, wouldn't they be privy to Personally Identifiable Information regarding the students they see in the class at a certain time?

Can a student "sign away" their FERPA rights in order to participate in a cross listed course?

[jbrady2]

Referring to my previous post, while I would not ask students to "sign away" all of their FERPA rights, if they were asked to opt-in to a feature in order to participate in some aspect of a course that the instructor feels all students might gain something from, I do not see an issue with this. We are asked to do this all the time when we agree to use certain services online that might use or sell our information for marketing purposes in exchange for using their services, which to me is a much more egregious violation of an individual's privacy than whether one student know which students are in another section of the same college course.

Again, as I stated in my previous post, I believe the important aspects here are 1) to provide the students with adequate information about what they would be opting into to make an informed decision as to whether or not to participate and 2) to also provide adequate means for the students who choose not to opt-in to obtain, as close as possible, an alternate source for the same or a similar educational experience.

[richard-jerz]

Maybe we are talking about the same thing.  At my university, class schedules, times, and locations are public.  So if a student wanted to see if someone they know is taking a certain class, all that they have to do is physically go to where this class is being held and either look in the door's window, or wait to see who enters or leaves this room.  I really don't understand how a university can keep this private.

[John_Lowe]

The difference is disclosure.  When an instructor/institution cross-lists two disparate courses, the instructor/institution is responsible for that disclosure.  To me, this is like saying that you saw kids in the college cafeteria discussing their final exam grades around the table with each other VS the instructor posting final exam grades in the hallway.  One is a disclosure from the institution, and one isn't.

The section-based privacy wall in Canvas can -- at a technical level -- help prevent institutional disclosure.  Canvas already has this feature available at the user-level.  It is just extremely difficult to set and has to be set on a user-by-user basis.  A simple solution would be to make this a section or course-level setting that can be configured by the institution's Canvas Admin to be "on" by default but would allow individual instructors to disable to section-based privacy wall on a course-by-course basis if there is a need for a legitimate academic purpose.

[John_Lowe]

When you manually enroll a user into a course in Canvas, we have the option of making that user only see other users in their own section.  Unfortunately, that same option doesn't seem to exist for cross-listed sections.  Instructure may need to create that as an option for cross-listed courses ASAP and allow institutions to set that as the default.  That would at least keep students in Class A from seeing students in Class B in cross-listed courses, and would give institutions the power to enforce or at least default that privacy-first behavior. 

[jared]

Very interesting; thanks for bringing this up. I would love to hear other perspectives confirming or challenging this interpretation of FERPA. In the meantime...

First, it's worth stating the problem that convenience cross-listing in Canvas solves:

Teaching multiple sections of the same course is more time-consuming than it needs to be when all sections have the same content and same activities. (I specify convenience cross-listing, because I think  @John_Lowe  is right: Officially cross-listed sections from different departments or with different course numbers seem to be, conceptually, the same class.)

We're actually pretty close to enabling this, I think. I need to dig a little bit more, but as John points out, you can, in fact, restrict students from seeing students outside their section, if you check the right box at the right time E.g. this feature request (open for voting Jul 6): " modifiedtitle="true" title="Edit Section: Restricting students to see own section only. Enhancing Canvas based on that capability seems like the easiest solution, but I will need to look into this before I confirm.

Finally, I want to note that it may be possible to address this FERPA concern without technology at all, if institutions were willing to change how they define courses and sections, and make it clear to students that signing up for any section of a course means you could have classmates from any of x sections. Maybe some institutions do this already. I bring this up not to avoid a Canvas solution, but because this FERPA interpretation may be further reaching that just convenience cross-listing in the LMS.

Thoughts?

[John_Lowe]

If this section-based privacy-wall gets implemented, will this option be the default?  Meaning that the professor who wants to deliberately expose students across sections has to do the deliberate action to tear down the privacy-wall between sections (uncheck a box in section settings I presume) essentially making this a privacy-first setting.  As Kelley mentions, training and institutional policies are incredibly important, but it will be far easier for us to train professors how to violate privacy when there is a legitimate educational need rather than hoping that everyone else remembers their training and remembers where to go to select a checkbox likely buried in section settings to protect privacy if the technology can default to the higher privacy settings first.  Or at least allow individual institutions to set whether or not that privacy-wall is enabled by default in the Account or Sub-Account settings.

UPDATE:  We can negotiate royalty payments later if you end up calling this feature "privacy-wall". 

[myanalunas]

I agree that the solution of asking institutions to change their definition of privacy when course sections are combined would inform students clearly that they will be seen by other course sections. Making that language very clear might be a challenge, as institutional changes seem to require so many levels of edits and approvals 🙂 So that is one solution that could be addressed at the institution-level.

As a learning designer, I have a concern that students believe that they can attend all online courses anonymously. Learning communities are an important part of how we all learn; and to give students the expectation that to be anonymous in every course is an acceptable way to complete their learning would be short-changing their learning experiences.

[kmeeusen]

Hi  @myanalunas 

Unfortunately, college/school policy does not supersede Federal law no matter how well written and disseminated. This isn't an issue of anonymity; but rather, and issue of a legally mandated right to privacy. Students have the right to opt out of dissemination of their directory information, and their name when associated with a specific course at a school is considered directory information. FERPA regulations provide a legal exemption for traditionally delivered courses in a brick-n-mortar classroom, because that is /was the time-honored traditional way of delivering instruction. The regulations do provide that same exemption for an online section, but not for multiple sections in which the student is not enrolled.

A better technological solution is required, so that at the course-level, and for the entire course, not just one student at a time; a toggle can be set that limits student visibility and participation to just their section. That setting must carry to the InBox, Rosters, Chat feature, etc.

I hope this helps,

KLM

[sboldt]

I have no issues with a toggle button being implemented but I hope it is done on a system level and not within the individual course. Or, the option for the institution to turn it on or not as a feature and then it could be within the individual course settings. I would not want our faculty having the option to utilize this when cross listed courses are not allowed on our system unless it comes directly from the SIS.

Taken from:

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Final Rule

34 CFR Part 99

Section-by-Section Analysis

December 2008 page 14

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ht12-17-08-att.pdf

§ 99.37(c) Student identification and communication in class.

Current regulations do not address whether a student who opts out of directory information disclosures may prevent school officials from identifying the student by name or from disclosing the student’s electronic identifier or institutional email address in class. The final regulations provide specifically that an opt out of directory information disclosures does not prevent a school from identifying a

student by name or from disclosing a student’s electronic identifier or institutional email address in class. This change clarifies that a right to opt out of directory information disclosures does not include a right to remain anonymous in class, and may not be used to impede routine classroom communications and interactions, whether class is held in a specified physical location or on-line through electronic communications.

[kmeeusen]

sboldt 

I agree, that I would want account-level control of this functionality, but I do not want to have to shut it off for all students across my campus. We have many cohorts for which cross-listing is permitted under FERPA, and I would not like to have to limit their access to a communication tool. However, I do not trust faculty to not remove the restriction - their concern is teaching and they often do not recognize the importance of legal requirements.

Whatever solution is implemented, limiting student access to other sections one tedious student at a time is just not workable.

KLM

[CindiKerns]

Thank you for sharing this information. However, I do not think it addresses the problem of combining sections online that are taught in separate physical spaces. If I am incorrect please help me understand how this applies.

I also agree with Kelley that we cannot rely on faculty to make sure this setting is correct. At our institution only the Admins are allowed to combine courses and only after verifying with the Registrar that it is indeed within the parameters of our legal obligations to students.

[John_Lowe]

 @jared ​, I don't know why your post just disappeared, but I might make one more suggestion to yours.  Canvas could expand the "can interact with users in their section only" functionality to entire sections instead of making that a new-enrollment-only option as it exists right now.  With that box checked, you are already half-way to a great solution to this problem.  The problem now is that this can only be selected on a user-by-user basis upon enrollment creation either through the +People button in a course GUI or through essentially the same process via the API.  It cannot be done to an entire section, it cannot be done to everyone by default, and it cannot be done through the SIS Import process -- which makes it great for some things like keeping a TA limited to just their section of students, but makes it impractical to address this campus-wide FERPA privacy concern.

[jared]

Yep, that's why my post disappeared -- I hadn't seen your follow-up, which cued in on a feature that I had actually forgotten existed. Thanks,  @John_Lowe ​ -- stay tuned...

[John_Lowe]

For the sake of discussion,  @jared , if you still have a draft of your original ideas, some of those were really good too.  Would you be willing to post it back again that lists the other ideas like the individual privacy flag and others?  Others might think some of those are better than the one I proposed.  Even I am really intrigued by the idea on an individual privacy setting that is included in the SIS load.

[jared]

Certainly, as best I can remember them!

One thing that occurred to me is that even though the current "limit_privileges_to_course_section" capability could get the job done, it's actually backwards and "greedy" -- it would need to be used to restrict all users in a section from seeing all users in other sections. What this interpretation of FERPA requires is that a single user can be "unlisted" from students in other sections. Maybe lawyers would decide in favor of that, for simplicity's sake, the all-or-nothing approach is required (i.e. pseudonymous participation doesn't properly protect identity).

But it would get the job done. And implementations of this could be...

1. An SIS import field, either in the enrollment or section metadata. This is nice because even in the case of legitimate cross-listing, logic could be employed based on department or course name.
2. An admin toggle within the UI (this too would be greedy, including the legitimate cross-listing noted above, so some sort of manual or automated override would be necessary).

As for my other ideas:

1. In Canvas, a user could be marked as "private" -- probably starting with SIS import, but perhaps as a separate process via the API. Canvas would need to then automagically make that user pseudonymous to users in other sections. This may be problematic; hiding a user would create gaps, and if the user is not pseudonymous to classmates in their own section, there's the risk that a peer would refer to them by name, in a discussion post, for example.

2. In Canvas, user could make themselves pseudonymous in their Profile, showing only their "Screen Name" to other students. Though this solution overreaches, it seems pretty easy, as I think currently the Screen Name is the default representation of a user -- until someone clicks on their Profile. This could use some testing.

3. In Canvas, a teacher could manage the content from a "master" course to multiple sections more easily, eliminating much of the need of cross-listing. We're actually doing some research on this right now in ProductLand, though this particular FERPA challenge has not yet been part of the conversation.

That was from memory hope I didn't miss anything golden.

[John_Lowe]

 @jared ​, the only other one that I seem to recall vaguely was about doing something with groups to mimic sections or sections to mimic groups. 

[mjennings]

I agree with this. I think that having default limits to see only those in the enrolled section would be great, not just for students but for teachers & TA's. Especially if this translated through the entire course (SpeedGrader, GradeBook, Discussions, etc..). Most of the core courses in our graduate program have 350+ students and are 10-12 sections that are cross listed.  While the Gradebook and SpeedGrader have the ability to filter by section, having the adjunct (responsible for just one section of 35 students) sift though the 300 students that is not in their section is generally a pain point for them (typically in ungraded discussion boards and the additional email the received from  students sending messages to All Instructors).

Matthew

[kmeeusen]

 @jared ​'s comments illustrate a very good point that is the same with HIPAA and health care as it is with FERPA and student privacy - the best privacy protections are not technological; but rather stem from policy, procedures, and training. Technology that supports policy and procedures can be very helpful, but can never replace a considerate policy, well written and enforced procedures and damn good training.

KLM

[rniolon]

I agree - One requirement of HIPAA is that clients/patients can get an accounting of who has accessed their file. This may not be the most accurate way to understand these issues, but I think of several this way.

Student A could walk by the classroom looking for Student B (and how many of us did this in college to see our significant others on class breaks?), but if Student A can see in through the windows, then Student B can see out through the windows, and so Student B has a chance to see that Student A looked for them... or to choose to sit somewhere that is not easily seen through the windows. If the roster of students by name is taped to the door outside class, then Student B cannot know who has gone by the classroom and read that list when they are not in the room.

If a joint learning activity (study meeting, lab, guest speaker, social...) is announced across Sections A and B, then a student from Section A knows it is a cross-section activity and attending means seeing and being seen by Students in Section B. However, if course sections are linked online, the student from Section A may have no reason to know/realize that a student from Section B can see and/or did read their profile, or can contact them.

I am thinking this distinction might not matter to some students, but would matter quite a bit to students trying to avoid discomfort/harassment from interacting with former romantic/sexual partners, or trying to avoid interaction with discriminatory students who make offensive comments, or trying to avoid re-traumatizing after interaction with someone who assaulted them.

The reasons for this may have nothing to do with the concerns I've noted, but I can see why these kinds of concerns could be relevant to consider in policy changes like this.

[CindiKerns]

Thanks for this analogy. It helps me see it from a different viewpoint. I appreciate your clarity and the perspective this brings to the discussion. I'll share this post with my colleagues as we continue this discussion.

[richard-jerz]

Your scenario doesn't make sense to me.  Student A cannot hide from Student B.  All that Student B needs to do is to be outside the door when all students in Section A are dismissed.  Hiding "electronically" is actually easier - just use a code or student id (not name) in Canvas for those who want to "hide."

In the case of sexual harassment, wouldn't their be a (legal/police) restraining order?  Wouldn't that be the way you keep Student B away from Student A?

And you still have the problem of courses that might have only one section which is needed by Student A and Student B.

I might be missing something relative to Canvas and "interactions."  Can't Canvas keep all discussions separated by section?  Can't all posts by Student A remain only viewable by Section A.

Here's another problem.  Let's say Student B has a friend, Student C, and that Student B says to her friend Student C "Tell me everything that Student A is doing and saying in class.  In fact, record it with your smartphone!"  Additionally, Student B says to Student C "Tell me every time you see Student A on campus, including when they are at sporting and other events."

Well, I am nowhere near an expert on this topic.  It just seems to me that we are going through a lot of work with course management (LMS) issues to manage non-academic issues. 

[rniolon]

Hi

These are fair points. I think there's three or four key issues in your questions - I'll respond to what I can

1) "Student A cannot hide from Student B... Hiding 'electronically' is actually easier - just use a code or student id..."

"Here's another problem.  Let's say Student B has a friend..."

In both cases, there is no perfect way to hide or perfect way to know who is watching for you, but the student has some control or active role in matters (for example, introduce Student D who is a friend of Student A and notices...). However, posted lists with student names (either on the physical door or available in canvas under the people link) offer no way to hide and no way to know who has reviewed a person's profile, so essentially no control or active role. You are right that Student C can record class without notice... but recording without notice is generally not allowed, and so Student C can face consequences.

2) "...wouldn't their be a (legal/police) restraining order..."

Maybe there is. Maybe there is not yet. Maybe there won't be because people are sometimes afraid of making things worse... and a restraining order is no guarantee of safety by far...

3) "And you still have the problem of courses that might have only one section..."

This may be the same as point 1).

If Student A is trying to keep a distance from Student B, Student A can choose not to take the class and deal with the consequences if they judge the situation to be that critical. Student A could attend the class with a social support with them before (maybe during) and after class. Student A could discuss their options with their advisor or the professor. These are not perfect options, but they allow the student some control or active role in matters.

4) "Can't Canvas keep all discussions separated by section?"

I don't know what students in cross-listed courses see, and whether permissions for emailing and discussions are handled the same way...

5) "I am nowhere near an expert on this topic.  It just seems to me that we are going through a lot of work with course management (LMS) issues to manage non-academic issues."

I'm no expert either

I agree, some of this is beyond any ethical obligation/duty on our part as we are not tasked with "controlling" the environment for students. However,
1) to the extent that the class and school are "captive" settings under the school's and professor's control,
2) to the extent that we may arrange (even unknowingly) potentially harmful contacts, and
3) to the extent that minor concessions on our part might be implemented to bring significant (and minor and significant are both highly dependent on the situation, I know) benefit to someone else...

I do believe we have some ethical obligation to consider these points before we act.

From a legal perspective... and I'm nothing that's like anything that's like a lawyer... I would think making the effort to give students some control over the situation would go a long way toward showing sensitivity in what could become a high-profile case. I don't say that from a risk-prevention frame, but rather from the frame of looking backward after something has gotten bad and wondering whether things could have been easier on everyone with a little forethought...

From a HIPAA perspective again... you do not have to have a perfect solution to client confidentiality, but you have to have the best solution you can maintain at your level of organizational complexity (scalability).

Just my thoughts...

[reba-anna_lee]

In my experience with another learning management system, we created a document with the school registrar for courses not formally  cross listed. The students in one course signed the document in order  to allow another set of students to see there information within one online course site. The form was sent to the instructor the first week of the course and students were asked to download, sign and send it back and all of them were sent back to my department. Students were given the option to opt out. It wasn't a perfect system but in 4 years no one opt out and the students always returned the forms.

[Nancy_Webb_CCSF]

 @reba-anna_lee ​ I like the idea of a form.  Would you be willing to share the document?  We are considering whether to allow instructors to choose this option.

[czadnik3]

Hi NU-Reba-Anna Lee,

I would really like to get a copy of the document if possible. Would you be able to email me a copy of the document. We are in desperate need for something to get us by temporarily in one instance. My email address is carol.zadnik@solano.edu. Please let me know if this is possible.

Thank you,

Carol Zadnik

[arovner]

 @reba-anna_lee ​  We would love to have a copy of your form as well!  Any chance you can share it?

Thank you!!

Amy

[kristin_bayless]

I realize this may be geared to higher ed, but I can offer a K12 perspective.  We automatically cross-list sections with the same course code and teacher in a building. For example, if a teacher has 4 sections of English 9, they will all be cross-listed.  Our teachers view this as very important to their use of Canvas.

We're not too affected by this opinion as we've locked down our system for other reasons:

1. Our students can only message teachers in their classes.  We originally had it turned on for students to message other classmates, and the students asked us to turn this off after their inboxes were flooded with messages.

2. Students do not have the rights to see the People list in the course.  This is because we don't want students to have the rights to create their own groups.  Without group level permissions, it doesn't provide enough oversight.   We have the permission turned off for students to create groups, but this can be overridden in the course settings.

3. Most collaboration occurs in discussions and Google docs.

We may want to recommend that teachers create different discussion assignments for each section..  In the past, we've primarily associated FERPA with viewing items associated with student achievement.  Jared's upgrade also sounds like it will work for us, but only the course-wide setting.  We maintain privacy settings for students in certain areas as selected by parents on the registration forms.  But a privacy setting to see enrollment (at K12) seems like a can of worms to me. 

[anthonem]

Thanks for posting this  @John_Lowe ​!

Our institution has taken a hard-line FERPA stance for cross-listed Canvas courses. We did our best to accommodate faculty requests to merge multiple sections of the same course (that physically meet at different times).

Here is our help guide that attempts to separate student enrollments between sections: Guide - Complying with FERPA in Merged Courses

The one thing we can't account for is the Inbox -- students are still able to find names in other cross-listed sections. As John mentioned, an automated way to restrict students to their own section would go a long way toward making this whole thing easier for faculty.

[Stef_retired]

 @anthonem ​, theoretically, you could account for the Inbox as well, as long as you're willing to disable the permission that allows students to send messages to one another (Canvas Course Role Permissions PDF).

[anthonem]

Good point stefaniesanders​! Thanks for this additional idea.

[hallmans]

Thanks for posting this document- very interesting points for discussion at our institution.

[gouldt]

Thank you for the great resource Mark. We are in the process of developing guidelines. It's nice to know how other colleges are handling this.

[anthonem]

You're welcome! Our Registrar was great help in creating the document. Hopefully this is a good resource for moving your conversation along