Committee Hears Bill to Establish Kansas Longitudinal Data System; Raises Privacy and Cost Questions

A House committee on K‑12 education budget on Wednesday heard testimony on House Bill 2,303, which would create a Division of Longitudinal Data inside the Legislative Research Department to build and operate a Kansas Longitudinal Data System and a public Kansas Credential and Skills Registry.

The bill would appropriate $3,000,000 from the State General Fund for fiscal year 2026 to the Legislative Coordinating Council to establish the division. It would also amend the Student Data Privacy Act to authorize disclosure of student data to the new division and include a sunset provision that would repeal the act on Jan. 1, 2033, unless reauthorized.

Supporters told the Committee on K‑12 Education Budget that the system would link data already collected by state agencies across time to inform education and workforce policy. Eric (last name not provided), a representative of a regional business advocacy group promoting the bill, said the current state data approach is “fragmented, siloed and providing you a snapshot in time,” and argued a longitudinal system would let policymakers and employers track students’ progress over time. William Wilk, senior director of government affairs for the Kansas Chamber, said the business community supports the bill because “access to workers continue to be a top concern” and employers need data to align training and hiring with demand.

Nick McDonald, appearing as legislative staff, walked the committee through the bill text. He said the division’s duties would include developing and maintaining the Kansas Longitudinal Data System, assigning a director (appointed with compensation set by the Legislative Coordinating Council), collecting and storing de‑identified data from participating agencies and outside entities under memoranda of understanding, conducting research according to a published agenda, and annually reporting to the Legislative Coordinating Council.

Under the bill, participating agencies would include the State Department of Education, the State Board of Regents, the Department of Labor, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Health and Environment, and the Department of Commerce; other public or private entities could enter the system by MOU. McDonald said the division must de‑identify connected data and may limit direct access to the data; direct access would be permitted only for division staff, an LCC‑approved research designee, or other persons approved by the LCC “who have a need to access such data to further the objectives of the act.” The bill includes a provision allowing the division to charge for completing data research requests and makes the division subject to KSA 75‑72‑44 and other breach notification laws.

Committee members pressed proponents and staff on privacy, access and operational details. Several members asked whether parents could opt out of student data sharing; McDonald answered, “No. Not that I’m aware,” and confirmed the bill would expressly authorize disclosure of student data to the division. McDonald and proponents repeatedly said the public Credential and Skills Registry would not include personally identifiable information and that most outputs for requesters would be aggregated or de‑identified. As Nick McDonald summarized, the registry “shall not include any personally identifiable … information” that would let someone identify credential holders.

Members also asked who could receive direct access to raw data. McDonald said the LCC would have authority to approve persons beyond division staff and the research designee if those persons have a need to access the data “to further the objectives of the act.” Representative Poskin asked whether that language would permit the LCC to give direct access broadly; McDonald confirmed the LCC would make the determination.

Operational and fiscal questions included whether the $3,000,000 appropriation would cover full‑time employees and vendor contracting, and whether existing Department of Education data systems could fill the role. Eric and Wilk said $3,000,000 is at the lower end of costs other states have used and that similar offices commonly have roughly six to 10 FTEs at start‑up; McDonald and later testimony by a Kansas Department of Education representative (Dr. Harwood) said the department already holds and links many education data elements and that the department’s system could be connected or used as part of a statewide system, although the bill as drafted puts the division in the legislative branch.

Committee members sought procedural clarity about procurement. McDonald cited competitive‑bid statutes and said contracts for services above statutory thresholds must go through competitive procurement and published notices; he noted publication is generally required when contracts exceed $50,000. Members also asked whether the division could purchase data from private vendors; McDonald said the LCC would govern decisions on outside data procurement.

A recurring point of contention was parent notice and opt‑out. Committee members asked repeatedly whether the bill provides parents a right to opt out of data sharing; McDonald and proponents confirmed the bill does not include an opt‑out mechanism. Members also pressed on safeguards and sanctions for misuse; McDonald said the division could limit access and that the LCC could remove a designated research designee “for cause.”

Proponents pointed to out‑of‑state examples of longitudinal systems used to analyze early‑childhood delivery, talent retention and course‑to‑college readiness. Eric cited Arkansas, Nebraska, Utah and Kentucky as examples where longitudinal systems inform policy and program decisions. William Wilk noted the recommendation for a statewide system came from the 2018 Governor’s Workforce Council and that “33 states have a fully operational statewide longitudinal data system” today, with more under development.

No formal action or votes were taken at the hearing. Committee members and proponents discussed potential amendments and next steps; the committee chair said members would have an opportunity to offer amendment ideas through the end of the week and planned additional hearings and votes later in the session.

The hearing record includes sustained discussion about privacy, governance authority (the LCC’s role), the scope of data to be shared, procurement and the $3 million appropriation. Several committee members said they support the idea of improving data to inform policy but want clearer language on access, opt‑out, procurement thresholds and the division’s relationship with existing Department of Education systems. The bill’s effective date in the draft materials is July 1, 2025, and the appropriation is shown for fiscal 2026.

For now the proposal remains a legislative‑branch division under LCC oversight with statutory authority to receive education and workforce data from named agencies by MOU, to de‑identify and match records, to fulfill data research requests (potentially for a fee), and to publish a public Credential and Skills Registry that will not contain PII. Next committee steps were left open for amendment and further consideration later in the week.