Senators debate LB31 transparency directive for student-surveillance and education tech; amendments sought to protect security details

The Nebraska Legislature on the thirtieth day of the 100th Legislaturefirst session opened extended debate on LB31, a bill that would direct the State Board of Education to develop a model policy requiring school districts to inventory surveillance and student-monitoring technology, disclose vendor contracts and describe data-collection practices.

Proponents said the measure is a transparency tool aimed at giving parents and taxpayers basic information about what digital tools schools use, how those tools collect and store data and whether parents may opt out. "Parents should and deserve to be put in the driver's seat of their child's education," said Senator Megan Conrad, the bill's sponsor, who told colleagues LB31 carries no fiscal note and advanced unanimously from committee.

Supporters, including Senator Merman, said the bill does not ban technology or force districts to stop using security equipment; instead, it asks the state board to propose a uniform policy so parents can see what tools are in use and how student data are handled.

Opponents cautioned that LB31 as drafted could require schools to publish sensitive security information and thus undermine safety. Senator Mike Von Gillern, who represents large Omaha-area districts, said many districts and associations oppose the billincluding Omaha Public Schools, Millard Public Schools and otherson grounds that mandatory public posting of security-system details could create vulnerabilities. Senator Brandt warned the bill could conflict with federal requirements such as the Children's Internet Protection Act and with contractual nondisclosure terms schools have negotiated with vendors.

Senator Kautz read a letter from Millard Public Schools expressing concern that LB31 "may unintentionally create challenges in maintaining the level of security our schools require" by requiring disclosure of implemented security measures.

The debate repeatedly cited recent national and in-state data incidents. Senator Conrad pointed to the December breach affecting PowerSchool and said that even well-resourced districts found it difficult to determine which students and families had been affected. Several senators, including Conrad and Mikaela Cavanaugh, said incidents like that underscore the need for parent-facing transparency about which vendors hold student records and what safeguards exist.

Conrad offered AM358 as a clarifying amendment; she said an additional clarification amendment was being drafted to address concerns that LB31 could force publication of physical-security schematics. Senator Hallstrom indicated he planned a separate amendment (AM345) that would change parts of the bill to reduce mandatory elements. Several senators urged a narrow fix to exempt physical security schematics while preserving disclosure about data-collection practices, vendor contracts and parental notice.

No final vote on LB31 or its pending amendments was recorded during the session covered by the transcript. Senators described LB31 as a "policy directive" that would not ban school technologies but would ask the State Board of Education to provide a model policy for districts to consider.

Supporters argued the bill fills a gap created when districts designate vendors as "school officials" under federal law, a contractual approach that can authorize vendors to access student data. Opponents said existing federal statutesincluding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA)and vendor contracts already regulate many matters LB31 would address, and they pressed the sponsor to narrow the bill so it would not undermine school safety or add duplicative reporting requirements.

Senators said they expected more amendments and additional committee- or floor-level drafting to resolve those points. The session record shows widespread agreement on the underlying concernlimiting commercial uses of student databut sharp disagreement about what disclosures should be mandatory and whether some security-related details must remain confidential.

Details recorded in the transcript: the bill advanced unanimously from committee; the sponsor said LB31 carries no fiscal note; AM358 was offered by Senator Conrad and a clarifying amendment was being drafted to address security-schematic concerns. No formal final passage or amendment adoption was recorded in the transcript.

Looking ahead, senators signaled willingness to work on narrow language that would preserve parent-facing transparency about vendors, data sharing and opt-out rights while exempting sensitive security infrastructure from public posting.