Bill would let Ohio school boards withhold student directory information, sponsors say

House Bill 127 would give local school boards permissive authority to withhold student directory information from public release, sponsors told the House Education Committee during a first hearing.

The bill’s sponsors said the measure would clarify current law around directory data defined in Ohio Revised Code section 3319.321 and reduce ambiguity that allows anonymous public‑records requests for students’ names, addresses and other directory items. "This simple and straightforward bill would protect the privacy of Ohio students by granting school boards the permissive authority to withhold student directory information from public release," a sponsor said during opening testimony.

Under current statute, student directory information is defined to include a student’s name, address, phone number, birth date, major field of study, participation in sports and extracurricular activities, weight and height, dates of attendance, date of graduation and awards received, testimony said. Sponsors told the committee the bill is permissive: a board that wishes to continue releasing directory information could do so, but boards would be able to adopt policies limiting release to protect students.

The bill preserves the existing requirement that, unless a student or parent elects to withhold it, a school must provide a student’s name and address to military recruiters, sponsors said. They also said the measure requires any release to be made uniformly — for example, if a board shares directory information with employers, it must do so uniformly rather than on a case‑by‑case basis.

Committee members pressed sponsors on several points. Representative Piccolantonio asked whether the bill’s change would impede the Ohio History Connection’s ability to use old school directories for historical research. A sponsor replied that preserving historical‑research access is the intent for that exemption but said, "that is the intention. That is what we believe is written there, but we will confirm and get back to your office." Representatives also asked for examples of misuse; sponsors said they would present proponents with specific incidents and cited reporting about problems in the Big Walnut School District.

Committee members asked whether private schools are covered. Sponsors said private‑school directories are not included because those directories are not public records under current law. Other questions focused on the practical scope of a directory and whether schools follow a common practice or code defining the fields included; sponsors said they would provide any existing rule language for the committee’s review.

The hearing closed with sponsors and committee members agreeing to follow up; proponents were expected to testify at a later date.