House committee narrows, approves bill requiring schools to release student records to parents

The House Common Education Committee on Monday approved House Bill 26‑96, which directs schools to release certain student records to parents, guardians or adult students in a timely manner and at no charge, after members added an amendment limiting the scope of “personal communications” to items “related to IEPs, behaviors that result in a disciplinary action or official school activity, including student‑teacher meetings.”

The bill’s author, Representative Jamee Ford, said the measure responds to constituent reports that some districts either declined to provide requested records or charged parents fees. "Several parents throughout the state ... said that they are having trouble getting information about their kids and schools," Ford said. She described one family that the member said was charged $1,300 to obtain school records.

Supporters framed the bill as restoring parental access to information. Vice Chair Justin Caldwell, who offered the floor amendment that narrowed the definition of covered communications, said the change “gets us closer to addressing the concerns of the members here, but while also retaining the intent of the bill.”

Opponents and cautious members pressed about privacy and the logistics of the law’s application to personal devices and informal staff communications. Representative Anthony Provenzano asked whether the measure would govern messages on teachers’ personal phones, calling that his “sticking point.” Representative Provenzano said he was concerned the bill could reach conversations on private devices that staff use off duty.

Ford said district practice typically involves asking staff whether they have responsive communications and having them produce the records; she said she understood school districts do not physically seize personal phones to comply with open‑records requests. "That's the way how it is done. That's the way I understand," Ford said. Members asked the author to tighten the language; Ford agreed to refine the bill and said she would either accept tightened language or not run the measure on the floor if the concerns remained.

Members ultimately adopted Caldwell’s amendment by division vote and then gave the bill a favorable recommendation, “do pass as amended.” The committee recorded a 9‑0 vote on the amended bill and will forward it to the next stage.

The measure remains subject to change on the House floor and in the Senate; Ford told members she would work to “tighten it up” to address privacy concerns before broader consideration.

Ending: The committee’s amendment narrows the bill’s coverage to IEP‑related communications, disciplinary behavior resulting in formal action, and official school activities; the author committed to further refine language before floor consideration.