Student‑rights bill draws sharply split testimony on privacy, parental rights and school enforcement

The committee took public testimony on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 12 96 on April 4, a bill that updates school responsibilities on student rights, parental notification, staff protections and a complaints process for alleged violations.

The bill would require school districts to develop student-focused materials listing rights, expand technical assistance and investigative authority at OSPI (the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction), and provide protections for school employees who support students’ legal rights or use approved instructional materials. The bill also includes expedited parental notification requirements for allegations of abuse or misconduct by school employees and creates an OSPI complaint procedure and potential consequences for districts found out of compliance.

Students, educators and child‑health professionals testified in favor of the bill, saying it reinforces privacy protections and clarifies district obligations to keep vulnerable students safe. Student speakers described real-world examples where forced disclosure of a student’s gender identity to their parents could put the child at risk. Eunice Ingermanson, a student, testified that “minors being outed to their parents can and do put them in danger of parental violence, exclusion, homelessness, and suicide.” OSPI staff told the committee they would need roughly 3.6 additional FTEs over time to implement the bill’s complaint and compliance functions and that most staffing costs were included in the Senate budget proposal.

Other witnesses, including some parents and conservative groups, warned the bill would weaken parental rights and said the state has recognized parental decisionmaking authority in previous initiatives. They argued the statute as written could create new administrative costs and legal exposure. Jennifer Heine Whitney, a parent, testified the bill “puts the state in the place of parents” and argued it would increase litigation and other downstream costs.

Committee staff summarized the fiscal note: OSPI estimated roughly $1.16 million in implementation costs across the 2025–27 biennium, rising to $2.16 million in the 4‑year outlook for additional staff to run investigations and support districts; the House budget included $100,000 for initial implementation. The fiscal note also flagged possible withholding of up to 20% of basic education funds if a district repeatedly failed to come into compliance, creating an indeterminate cost risk for districts.

Ending: Testimony revealed a stark fault line between student-safety advocates and parents wary of diminished notification rules; the committee asked for clarifications and OSPI cost detail before moving the bill further.