Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House amends student-privacy bill to require prompt parental notice unless prohibited by law
Summary
Lawmakers amended House Bill 57 to clarify that when a school employee believes a situation poses a serious threat to a student, the parent or guardian must be notified 'without delay' unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law; members debated exceptions for children in Division of Family Services custody.
Representative Shirley D. Jensen on Tuesday introduced House Bill 57, the Educational Rights and Privacy Act, saying it restores classroom flexibility after the prior session's changes to student-privacy law and clarifies when educators may engage with students without risking violation. Jensen said the amendment aims to prevent overly broad restrictions that could inhibit teachers, presenters and classroom discussion.
During floor consideration, Representative Mortimer moved an amendment to change page 3 so that "if a school employee believes that a situation exists which presents a serious threat to the well-being of the student, the parent or guardian shall be notified without delay unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law." Mortimer said the change was intended to prevent the Division of Family Services from "arbitrarily" choosing not to notify parents after a report, while still preserving exceptions when notification is barred by other law.
Representative Stevenson and other members questioned how the amendment would interact with federal requirements for children in the custody of the Division of Family Services (DFS). Jensen and others said federal law creates distinct rules for children in DFS custody and that the bill language had to remain consistent with those federal protections. The sponsor described the amendment as a protective measure that would not prevent DFS from acting when necessary.
After discussion, the House adopted Mortimer's amendment by voice and later carried the amendment through a division as required by floor procedure. Members also moved to "circle" the bill—placing it aside to revisit wording—so sponsors and staff could reconcile concerns raised on DFS interaction and notification timing. The House recorded committee-level votes earlier on HB 57 (committee vote 13 yes, 0 no, 5 absent) and, as amended on the floor, placed the bill on the third-reading calendar for further action.
The debate centered on balancing parental notification rights with statutory and federal limits on disclosure when children are in DFS custody. Lawmakers repeatedly emphasized that notification "without delay" was intended to protect parents' ability to respond while acknowledging legal exceptions where disclosure might be barred.
