Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let Montana schools adopt vetted model contracts to speed protections for student data
Summary
Representative Bob Carter’s HB 255 would allow K–12 districts to satisfy contract obligations by adopting model vendor agreements vetted by state standards and private/public consortiums, aiming to reduce legal costs and speed teacher access to digital tools. Opponents say it could dilute district responsibility to craft protective contracts.
Representative Bob Carter opened the House Education Committee hearing on House Bill 255 by saying the bill would let school districts adopt a state-approved, consortium-vetted model contract for K–12 online applications to ensure student personally identifiable information (PII) remains private while reducing time and legal fees in vendor negotiations.
Proponents from school administrators, technologists and the Montana School Boards Association said the bill preserves Montana’s privacy requirements but speeds procurement. Rob Watson, executive director of the School Administrators of Montana, said the 2019 law already set the privacy baseline and HB 255 “would just save a lot of time and attorney fees.” Isabel Melton of the Montana School Boards Association told the committee that MTSBA would review, publish and annually review model contracts as a dues-based service for members.
Witnesses representing educational technology groups said many smaller districts lack in-house technologists and that negotiating individual vendor agreements can delay classroom access to instructional tools. Paul Koslowitz, president of the Montana Education and Technologists Association and IT manager at the Montana Digital Academy, said the bill is a “logical, reasonable, and cost effective update” that would relieve workload and enable safer, faster adoption of instructional technology.
An opponent, Don Cates of the Coalition for Safety and Justice, urged the committee to reject the bill, arguing it “is nothing more than a get out of jail free card for school districts.” Cates said model contracts could allow vendor privacy policies and affiliate terms to be incorporated into districts’ legal frameworks, potentially exposing student voice-recognition or facial-recognition data and creating a false sense of security for families.
Committee members questioned how HB 255 interacts with the existing 2019 statute, liability standards, and the role of school attorneys and associations in reviewing agreements. Rob Watson and other proponents said the bill does not repeal the state’s privacy standards passed in 2019 and that any adopted model contract would have to meet or exceed those requirements. Proponents argued the change would lower legal costs and administrative delays, particularly for rural districts that lack dedicated technologists.
No formal action or vote was recorded in the hearing. The committee closed the HB 255 hearing and moved to the next agenda item.
