7(1)(j)
FOIAEducational testing/evaluation records
Educational testing/evaluation records (general)
Read the full statute text on /statutes →
Jump to the 6 issues decided under this provision, with a drafting brief ↓
0 upheld (no violation found) · 1 rejected (violation found), out of 1 documents.
Not legal advice, and not a per-exemption ruling — this reflects each document's overall disposition. See the FAQ disclaimer.
How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(j)
At a glance: 1 document(0 binding opinions, 1 determination letter). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(a) (Confidential under other federal or State law) (1); 7(1)(b) (Private information) (1); 7(1)(d)(vi) (Would endanger the life or safety of law enforcement or others) (1); 7(1)(g) (Trade secrets and confidential commercial/financial information) (1); 7(1)(j)(iv) (Faculty course/research materials) (1).
All 1 document citing 7(1)(j)
Issues decided under 7(1)(j)
Individual questions the Public Access Bureau decided under this provision, with the rule it applied, grouped by outcome. Extracted automatically from the letters; check each source letter.
6 issues across 5 determination letters:3 violation found · 3 no violation.
Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.
Authorities the Bureau cites most on this issue
- Curriculum materials on gender and sexuality education from a third-party vendor (PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 78019) cited 1 times
- Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 844 N.E.2d 1 (2006) cited 1 times
- Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 407 (1997) cited 1 times
How to challenge a denial on this issue
AI-generated summary of the decisions listed on this page, with each point linked to the letters it comes from. Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice. Open the letter and check the PDF before relying on any point.
When a challenge is strong
- The public body relies on the student disciplinary adjudication exemption but cannot demonstrate that a formal hearing adjudicating student rights happened. Under the interpretation in D960.2, the exemption applies only if a formal hearing took place. Without that, the records are not exempt.Based on: Security camera footage from a school event
- The public body withholds records as peer evaluation materials, but the records (such as IRB results) pertain to research monitoring, not faculty performance evaluation. As D913.3 explains, peer evaluation materials must relate to faculty performance. IRB review does not evaluate faculty, so the exemption fails.Based on: An internal investigation into a professor's re…
- The public body claims the research materials exemption for records that were not generated by or used to conduct research, like IRB review results. D913.4 held that research materials must be generated by or used in conducting research. Mere oversight records do not qualify.Based on: An internal investigation into a professor's re…
When the public body usually wins
- The requested record is a lecture recording prepared for use in teaching a university course, even if it was shared beyond that specific course. D1134.1 confirms the course materials exemption covers such recordings, and sharing beyond the course does not remove the exemption.Based on: A university lecture recording used in a course
- The requested records are course materials used by faculty, and the requester argues that public funding negates the exemption. D1024.1 establishes that payment with public funds does not affect the course materials exemption; the records remain exempt.Based on: Curriculum materials on gender and sexuality ed…
- The records are data and observations used by faculty in testing a medical device or drug. D857.1 held that such records fall under the research materials exemption because they are used to conduct research.Based on: Animal research protocol and medical records
Points to put in your letter
- State that the public body must prove a formal hearing adjudicated student rights before it can claim the disciplinary adjudication exemption.Based on: Security camera footage from a school event
- Argue that the records do not evaluate faculty performance, so the peer evaluation exemption does not apply (for example, IRB results monitor research, not instructors).Based on: An internal investigation into a professor's re…
- Show that the records were not generated by or used to conduct research; merely being related to a research project is not enough for the research materials exemption.Based on: An internal investigation into a professor's re…
Common mistakes
- Assuming that a lecture recording shared outside the course loses its status as exempt course materials.Based on: A university lecture recording used in a course
- Arguing that the use of public funds for course materials eliminates the exemption.Based on: Curriculum materials on gender and sexuality ed…
- Believing that any record reviewed by an institutional review board qualifies as peer evaluation material.Based on: An internal investigation into a professor's re…
- Treating all research-related records as exempt, when the exemption only covers records generated by or used to conduct research.Based on: An internal investigation into a professor's re…
Facts to gather first
- Whether a formal hearing adjudicating student rights occurred.
- Whether the records were created as part of a process that monitors research rather than evaluates faculty performance.
- Whether the records were generated by or used to conduct research, or are instead administrative oversight.
These notes rely on non-binding Attorney General determination letters; each case depends on its facts. Review the full PDF of any cited decision before relying on it.
Drafting brief for an AI assistant
Copy this into your assistant to help draft a request, appeal, or challenge to a denial that turns on this issue. It carries the rules and decisions, not your facts: add those yourself. Machine-readable version: foia-7-1-j.json.
Violation found (3)
Section 7(1)(j)(iii) student disciplinary adjudication exemption
Rule: CPS did not show a formal hearing adjudicating student rights occurred, so the disciplinary adjudication exemption did not apply.
Violation found Security camera footage from a school event · April 19, 2022
Withholding IRB results as peer evaluation materials
Rule: IRB review results are not exempt as peer evaluation materials because the IRB process monitors research, not faculty performance.
Violation found An internal investigation into a professor's research and IRB process · February 1, 2019
Withholding IRB results as research materials
Rule: IRB review results are not exempt as research materials because they were not generated by or used to conduct research.
Violation found An internal investigation into a professor's research and IRB process · February 1, 2019
No violation (3)
Denial of lecture recording under course materials exemption
Rule: A lecture recording prepared for use in teaching a university course is exempt as course materials even if shared beyond the specific course.
No violation A university lecture recording used in a course · October 2, 2025
Withholding course materials under section 7(1)(j)(iv)
Rule: Course materials used by faculty are exempt from disclosure, and payment with public funds does not affect the exemption.
No violation Curriculum materials on gender and sexuality education from a third-party vendor · January 5, 2024
Animal medical records as research materials
Rule: Records consisting of data and observations used by faculty in testing a medical device or drug are exempt research materials.
No violation Animal research protocol and medical records · July 14, 2015