Committee forwards HF22 (Parents Bill of Rights) after debate over parental access and school duties

The Education Policy Committee on Feb. 26 adopted an A3 amendment to House File 22 and voted to re‑refer the bill, commonly described by supporters as a Parents Bill of Rights, to the Committee on Health Finance and Policy. Representative Gilman presented the bill’s education provisions and said the measure affirms parents’ central role in directing their children’s education and upbringing unless law provides otherwise.

The nut graf: Supporters — including parents, homeschool advocates and some school staff — told the committee HF22 would ensure parental access to records and consent for recordings or other actions affecting minors. Opponents, including Education Minnesota, raised concerns that broad language in HF22 could interfere with routine school operations such as vision and hearing screenings, create legal uncertainty for educators when parents disagree, and reduce access to services for students who lack safe home environments.

Representative Gilman said the bill’s education provisions largely echo existing statutory protections (the author referenced statutes including Minnesota Statutes sections 120A.22, 120B.20 and 123B.40 and related cross‑references) and that some language may be moved to more appropriate code sections. The author and nonpartisan staff discussed whether routine, non‑invasive screenings such as vision or hearing checks would require parental opt‑in under the bill; nonpartisan staff said the bill contains a provision requiring consent before physical examinations but said further clarification may be needed.

Testimony for HF22 came from a range of witnesses. Karen Miller, a homeschooling parent, and other parents urged stronger codified parental rights. Christina Barton, a school counselor, described conflicts with district policy she said limited information shared with parents about students’ gender identity and said she had experienced retaliation for raising concerns. Education Minnesota attorney Deb Korhouse (Korhouse/Korthouse in the transcript) told the committee the bill’s phrasing — including a parental “right to direct the upbringing” of a child — could create conflicts for educators, interfere with routine school supports (for example opt‑out vision and hearing screenings), and expose educators to discipline for routine classroom management.

Members extensively questioned how the bill would operate when parents disagree, how schools should act while custody or parental‑decision disputes are unresolved, and how the measure would interact with existing law and court orders. Nonpartisan staff pointed to section 120B.20, which requires districts to provide a procedure for parents to review instructional materials and, when objection is raised, “make reasonable arrangements for alternative instruction.” Staff noted that statute does not specify how schools should resolve disputes between parents.

Representative Gilman said she would work with other committees and nonpartisan staff to refine placement and language; she indicated amendments will follow in the health and public‑safety committee stops. The committee adopted the A3 amendment and re‑referred HF22 as amended to Health Finance and Policy. The motion passed by voice vote; the transcript does not show a roll‑call tally.

The committee’s discussion highlighted unresolved implementation questions — for schools, how to handle routine health screenings and classroom management, and for families with split custody, how to apply the bill when parents disagree. The bill will next be considered by the Health Finance and Policy Committee and then Judiciary on components that intersect with custody and legal process.