House education panel advances bill to centralize student records, create statewide threat-assessment structure

The Georgia House Education Committee on Thursday advanced House Bill 268, a wide-ranging school-safety measure that would require the transfer of a student’s academic and disciplinary records to a receiving school within five days of enrollment, establish statewide behavioral threat‑assessment systems and create a state-level repository for students deemed a safety concern.

Sponsor Representative Matt Persinger, who introduced the bill, told the committee the measure “codifies the definitions for a student's critical records and requires the transferring of students' entire academic and disciplinary record to be sent the receiving school system within 5 days.” The bill also conditions enrollment on a five‑day records timeline and authorizes a behavioral screening if records are not received.

Why it matters: supporters said the changes are a response to the school shooting in September 2024 that prompted statewide hearings, and that faster sharing of records plus formalized threat‑assessment teams could help identify students who need intervention. Opponents including civil‑rights groups, parents and some educators warned the bill, as written, risks privacy violations, over‑policing of marginalized students and inconsistent implementation across Georgia’s hundreds of local systems.

Key provisions - Records transfer and conditional enrollment: The bill requires a receiving school to request and receive a student’s “critical records” (academic and disciplinary) and sets a five‑day target for transmission. If the records are not received, the student remains conditionally enrolled and the school may require a behavioral screening under guidance from the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD). - Behavioral threat‑assessment teams: HB 268 mandates that local systems create multidisciplinary behavioral threat management teams and integrate them into school safety plans reported to the state. The bill provides a statewide structure and training requirements for those teams. - State repository (referred to in testimony as “S3”): The bill instructs the state to create a protected repository for students flagged as concerns so authorized agencies can share information when legally permitted. Witnesses discussed using federal CJIS security standards for that repository. - Qualified mental‑health coordinators and grants: The bill establishes tiered mental‑health coordinator positions (number by system population) and creates grants to fund them. Sponsors described these coordinators as responsible for coordinating interventions for students with or at risk for mental‑health concerns.

Debate and concerns Supporters — including school safety advocates, educators and sheriffs — argued the bill fills gaps identified after the Apalachee High School shooting and would standardize threat assessment statewide. Representative Persinger said the measure is the product of months of listening sessions across the state.

Privacy and equity concerns were raised throughout the hearing. Civil‑rights groups, parents and several students warned that broad language about records and patrol‑style data sharing could label children unfairly. Aska Mahmood, a parent, said the bill “fuses student safety with bias and profiling” and urged lawmakers to avoid measures that would worsen disproportional discipline.

Several witnesses questioned what data would be placed in the S3 repository, who would see it, and how it would be protected. Brock Wilson, CEO of K–12 Solutions Group (the regional Infinite Campus partner), told the committee Infinite Campus holds records for roughly 1,250,000 Georgia students and said current interdistrict transfers work electronically for many districts, but statewide APIs and universal connectivity do not yet exist.

Law‑enforcement and implementation issues Sheriff Ron Freeman (Forsyth County) and other sheriffs asked for mandated collaboration among agencies and for clearer definitions to avoid producing an unwieldy database. Freeman stressed that some juvenile cases are lost to local law enforcement after adjudication and asked for better monitoring of known offenders. He also warned that overbroad reporting of “official encounters” could overwhelm systems with low‑level incidents that are not safety threats.

Districts representing large urban systems (Cobb and Gwinnett) asked that state deadlines for local implementation be staggered to give large districts time to operationalize requirements and that security compliance reports not expose vulnerabilities if posted publicly.

Amendment adopted Committee members adopted an amendment from Representative Townsend to clarify that if a receiving school does not receive critical records from prior schools for the previous 24 months, the receiving school “shall be authorized to temporarily assign such student to an alternative placement including but not limited to virtual instruction until such critical records are received or the screening assessment … is completed.”

Public testimony The committee heard about 18 public witnesses including students, mental‑health advocates, school district leaders, civil‑rights groups and sheriffs. Student speakers urged clarity and strong privacy protections. Georgia Appleseed, the Southern Poverty Law Center and advocacy groups urged stronger due‑process safeguards and limits on what disciplinary history may be used as a proxy for safety risk.

Next steps After roughly three hours of questions and public comment, Representative Cox moved that HB 268 “do pass.” The committee agreed by voice vote and advanced the bill out of the subcommittee. Sponsors and several members said they expect continued negotiations and possible technical changes as the measure moves forward.

Closing quote Sheriff Ron Freeman summarized a recurring concern about follow‑up after law‑enforcement action: “I don't have a clue where they're at. I don't have a clue where they're going.” That uncertainty helped frame many of the committee’s questions about how the bill would work in practice and who would be accountable for interagency data sharing and monitoring.