[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SAFEGUARDING STUDENT PRIVACY AND
PARENTAL RIGHTS: A REVIEW OF
FERPA AND PPRA
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 3, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
[RAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-246 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia,
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Ranking Member
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARK TAKANO, California
JAMES COMER, Kentucky ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BURGESS OWENS, Utah MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam GREG CASAR, Texas
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania JOHN W. MANNION, New York
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington ADELITA S. GRIJALVA, Arizona
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
RANDY FINE, Florida
R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION
KEVIN KILEY, California, Chairman
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
BURGESS OWENS, Utah JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam JOHN W. MANNION, New York
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana ADELITA S. GRIJALVA, Arizona
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 3, 2025................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Kiley, Hon. Kevin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education............. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
WITNESSES
Sharp, Mr. Matt, Senior Counsel and Director, Center for
Public Policy, Alliance Defending Freedom.................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Powell, Mrs. Laura, Founder and President, Californians for
Good Governance............................................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Venzke, Mr. Cody, Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil
Liberties Union............................................ 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Figliola, Mrs. Deborah, Retired Secondary Special Education
and English School Teacher, Harrisonburg City Public
Schools.................................................... 96
Prepared statement of.................................... 97
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Lee, Hon. Summer L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania:
Report dated December 2024, entitled ``The Rising Use of
Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education''............ 120
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Mr. Matt Sharp........................................... 161
Mr. Cody Venzke.......................................... 164
SAFEGUARDING STUDENT PRIVACY
AND PARENTAL RIGHTS: A REVIEW OF
FERPA AND PPRA
----------
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and
Secondary Education,
Committee on Education and Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in
Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kevin Kiley
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Kiley, Miller, Owens, Moylan,
Harris, Messmer, Walberg, Bonamici, Hayes, Lee, Mannion, Adams,
Grijalva, and Scott.
Staff present: Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
Technology; Maren Emmerson, Legislative Assistant; Halle
Greenbaum, Staff Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of
Education and Human Services Policy; Libby Kearns, Press
Assistant; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director;
Danny Marca, Director of Information Technology; John Martin,
Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/Counsel; Audra McGeorge,
Communications Director; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and
Digital Director; Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Katherine
Anne Russo, Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Brad
Thomas, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Ann Vogel, Director of Operations; Thomas White, Deputy Clerk;
James Whittaker, General Counsel; Ilana Brunner, Minority
General Counsel; Carrie Hughes, Minority Director of Health &
Human Services Policy; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press
Secretary; Kwesi Matthews, Minority Einstein Fellow; Marie
McGrew, Minority Press Assistant; Eleazar Padilla, Minority
Staff Assistant.
Chairman Kiley. The Subcommittee on Early Childhood
Elementary and the Secondary Education will come to order. I
note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to call a recess at any time. Research consistently
shows that when parents are engaged students do better,
academically, socially, mentally.
The Supreme Court, likewise, has affirmed the vital role
parents play in raising and guiding their children. Congress
has long recognized this too. In 1974, Congress passed two laws
to reinforce the importance of parental rights. First, the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA,
guarantees parents access to their child's education record and
ensures that their child's information will not be shared
inappropriately with third parties.
Second, the Protection of Pupil's Rights Amendment, or PPRA
requires public schools to obtain consent from parents before
administering the students any survey, analysis or evaluation
that addresses certain sensitive topics. The PPRA also requires
public schools to make curriculum available to parents for
review, and protects other parental rights.
Unfortunately, some states and school districts are failing
to uphold the protections for parents contained in these laws.
For example, Defending Education maintains a data base that
shows that as of earlier this year 1,215 school districts
educating more than 12 million students maintain policies of
allowing or requiring school personnel to hide basic
information from parents, such as the name their child uses in
school, and the gender the child identifies with.
In some cases districts are even creating dummy files on
students for the specific purpose of deceiving parents on these
matters. In addition, school districts are evading the PPRA by
making it difficult for parents to access curriculum. For
example, some school districts evade obligations under the PPRA
by forcing parents to pay fees to review curriculum, under
State or Federal Freedom of Information laws.
The growing use of education technology can also lead to
FERPA and PPRA violations when safeguards are not in place to
protect students' information. Now, to be clear, this
discussion is not about situations where a child's safety is at
risk. Existing State and Federal laws, along with mandatory
reporting requirements for educators already addressed those
issues.
Rather, the issue before us is how best to protect and
support children by respecting the rights of parents. This
should not be a partisan issue. FERPA and PPRA were enacted
decades ago with strong bipartisan support because members of
both parties believed in the central role of parental
engagement when it comes to a child's education, and well-
being.
I hope through this hearing we can return to that
consensus, recognizing that transparency and partnership with
parents are essential, and that keeping parents in the dark is
wrong. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how
these laws are working, and the threats to parental rights
currently faced in our Nation's schools.
With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member for an opening
statement.
[The statement of Chairman Kiley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
to the witnesses for being here. First and foremost, I want to
make abundantly clear that parental engagement is important to
student success. It has been proven that when families are
involved in their children's education, students perform better
academically, have better behavior, and develop stronger social
skills.
We all want the best for our children, and that includes
strong, supportive relationships between home and school. On
that Mr. Chairman, we agree, and I think we all agree on that.
I expect that the conversation we are having today is not about
finding new ways to get parents involved in their children's
education.
Unfortunately, normally it would be about protecting
student's privacy, which is also what we should be doing. It is
about parents who think it is their right to impose their
beliefs on everyone, so instead of empowering parents to be
engaged in their children's education, this is about forcing
teachers into situations where they are expected to violate the
trust students place in them.
That kind of breach has the potential to undermine the
foundation of the student teacher relationship, which is a
relationship based on trust and care. Students need to feel
safe and be safe and supported in school, and that begins with
the teacher who is there to guide them without fear of
compromising that trust.
The reality is that in some circumstances when teachers are
forced to disclose information they may jeopardize a student's
safety or well-being. That may result in risking that student's
trust, but also risking their academic and emotional success.
When students cannot trust their teachers, it affects their
ability to learn, grow and succeed. It is as simple as that.
It is also important to remember that children are
constantly changing and evolving. I know, I raised two of them.
They may experiment with names, identities and interests, and
forcing teachers to out every student every time they want to
go by a different name, or engage in some form of self-
expression is an unrealistic expectation, and disrupts the
teacher student bond.
Here is an example, children like Robert who prefers his
nickname Bobby, right, that is just one example of the shifts
that students make as they grow. I used to be Susie, and then I
was Sue, and now I am Suzanne, and I am sometimes called Susan.
Why should a teacher be forced to notify parents every time a
child chooses to be called something different, and more
importantly, why are we putting teachers in the uncomfortable
position of quashing a student's curiosity and growth, and
betraying that student's trust?
This is not a small matter. In some cases this could
possibly lead to forced outing, which could have very harmful
consequences. We know that some students, particularly those in
vulnerable situations, face homelessness or abusive
circumstances when they are outed, before they are ready.
Research shows that LGBTQI youth are at least 120 percent
more likely to experience homelessness than their non-LGBTQ+
peers. The right to privacy, and the ability to trust one's
teacher is especially critical for those students who do not
have, or do not feel that they have a trusted adult at home.
I want to express, and this is a difficult thing to talk
about, but it is important to say. It would be very ideal if
all parents were supportive of their LGBTQI kids. Sadly, that
is not the reality. We must protect all children, especially
the most vulnerable, who may not have a safe and supportive
home environment. We hope all children enjoy it, but sadly do
not.
I also want to touch on something larger. I remain deeply
concerned about the political agenda driving this conversation.
This hearing is being framed about an issue that misrepresents
the concerns of parents, and educators. I hope we can resolve
these issues and really work together on finding common ground
on how we protect privacy rights, and strengthen PPRA and
FERPA, but I do not want to have another divisive culture war
that distracts from the urgent needs of our students and
families.
We are seeing this administration's ongoing effort to
dismantle the Department of Education through six
unconstitutional interagency agreements that shift crucial
responsibilities to other departments, including the
Departments of Interior, State, Health and Human Services, and
Labor. The transfer of these programs is not only highly
inefficient and wasteful, but will result in inconsistent
enforcement of Federal education policy.
When education programs are scattered across a large number
of Federal agencies it has led to fragmented, duplicative, and
often inconsistent policies regarding education. I hope we can
focus on building stronger partnerships between families and
schools, and not on divisive measures that threaten to
undermine the student-teacher relationship and hinder student
outcomes.
We stand firmly on this side of the aisle in support of
parental rights, but we also stand for the rights of students
to feel safe, supported, and respected in their classrooms. We
stand for the rights of teachers to do their job without being
forced to violate the trust of their students, and we stand for
the idea that education should be about nurturing the whole
child, and not about creating political disruption.
Mr. Chairman, I do look forward to the testimony, and I
yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), all
members who wish to insert written statements into the record
may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days
after this hearing. Without objection, the hearing record will
remain open for 14 days, to allow such statements, and other
extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted
for the official hearing record.
I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is
Mr. Matt Sharp, a Senior Counsel and director of the Center for
Public Policy at the Alliance Defending Freedom in
Lawrenceville, Georgia. Our second witness is Mrs. Laura
Powell, the Founder and President of Californians for Good
Governance, from Pleasant Hill, California.
Our third witness is Mr. Cody Venzke, a Senior Policy
Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union from Falls
Church, Virginia, and our fourth witness is Mrs. Deborah
Figloiola, a retired Secondary Special Education and English
School Teacher, who taught at the Harrisonburg City Public
Schools. Deborah is from Penn Laird, Virginia.
We thank our witnesses for being here today, and we look
forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee Rules, I would
ask you each limit your oral presentation to a 3-minute summary
of your written statement as Committee members have many
questions for you.
The clock will countdown from 3 minutes. However, pursuant
to Committee Rule 8(d), and Committee practice, we will not
cutoff your testimony until you reach the 5-minute mark. I
would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of your
responsibility to provide accurate information to the
Subcommittee.
I will first recognize Mr. Sharp for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. MATT SHARP, SENIOR COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM,
LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA
Mr. Sharp. Thank you, Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member
Bonamici, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. Parents are the first and most
important caregivers, protectors, and educators of their
children. Long before a child enters the classroom, parents
nurture their development, guide their values, and help them
grow into responsible adults.
Our laws and Supreme Court precedent have long reflected
the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and
education of their children. Today, that foundational
relationship is being increasingly undermined in America's
public schools, where some districts disregard Federal law, and
push parents out of the equation.
Two Federal statutes, The Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act, and the Protection of People Rights Amendment were
passed 50 years ago to ensure transparency, and reinforce the
role of parents in education. FERPA gives parents full access
to their child's educational records.
While PPRA ensures that parents can review instructional
materials and shield their children from intrusive surveys and
evaluations. At their core, both laws recognize that parents
cannot effectively guide and protect their children, unless
they have accurate information and are fully involved in their
child's education.
In recent years, a wave of secret transition policies has
swept the Nation. As we heard, these policies are found in over
1,000 school districts. They direct staff to conceal
information from parents if a child expresses an identity of a
different gender, such as using a different name or pronoun.
These policies not only violate FERPA and PPRA they
deliberately sever the relationship between parents and
children, at moments when young people may be experiencing
profound emotional and psychological distress. These harms are
not theoretical.
At Alliance Defending Freedom, we represent families harmed
by these unlawful policies. A Michigan school district treated
a middle school girl as a boy, then scrubbed the child's
education records before sharing them with her parents. In New
York, a mother who noticed that her daughter was struggling
with depression and anxiety, reached out to school officials
asking if they noticed anything about their daughter's
emotional struggles.
The school assured the mother nothing was happening, yet it
was concealing that it had been treating the young girl as a
boy for months. That mother's case was argued at the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. As FERPA's bipartisan
sponsors explained, parents need access to such information in
order to protect the interest of their child.
When school officials defy Federal law by hiding
information in shadow records, or by conducting informal
psychological evaluations of a child without a parent's notice
or consent, parents are denied the information and involvement
needed to determine what support their child may need, and that
jeopardizes children's well-being.
Congress must treat these violations with the seriousness
they deserve. Safeguarding parental rights by guaranteeing full
transparency and involvement for parents is not a partisan
issue. It is a matter of moral responsibility and
Constitutional principle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thanks very much. I will next recognize
Mrs. Powell for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MRS. LAURA POWELL, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT,
CALIFORNIANS FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE, PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Powell. Thank you to Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member
Bonamici, and the other distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Laura Powell. I am the Founder of
Californians for Good Governance, which is a non-partisan
group, devoted to civil liberties and government
accountability.
I am also an attorney, and I am the mother of two children
in public schools. I am here today to share information about
practices and policies in California that may violate FERPA and
PPRA. I want to emphasize that these issues are not unique to
California, nor are my personal experiences exceptional. What
is unusual is that I pay close attention to what goes on in my
children's schools, while most parents are simply unable to do
so.
Before turning to specific privacy concerns, I want to say
a few words about parents' rights and children's rights. We
often hear the suggestion as if the two are in conflict, but
that framing is wrong. At the foundation of children's rights
is the right to be protected by their parents.
FERPA and PPRA reflect this, protecting children's rights
by empowering parents. The current approach that we see in
California represents a radical break from this long-standing
consensus. The first practice I want to draw your attention to
is the constant surveying of children's emotional states, often
through social emotional learning, or SEL.
Teachers, not trained therapists, ask children to share
their feelings on a near daily basis. This may sound harmless,
but experts and common sense tell us that constant self-
reflection does not promote good mental health. At times these
probing questions effectively turn classrooms into group
therapy sessions.
In addition, using online SEL surveys, third party
platforms record and track children's responses to personal
questions. Next, I want to highlight the issue of access to
curriculum. The increased use of digital materials means less
comes home in backpacks, leaving parents in the dark.
In my experience, when a parent asks to review
instructional materials related to sensitive topics, schools
drag their feet, and erect unnecessary barriers. Finally for
years, the State of California has instructed schools that they
are legally obligated in some circumstances to hide so-called
unofficial records from parents, in clear violation of FERPA.
Schools also use technology to keep information out of
parent's reach, denying access to electronic records, such as
in emails and student information systems. Taken together,
these practices represent a troubling trend. Educators
increasingly act as if it is their role to guide children's
emotional and morale development. Teachers are not parents, and
schools are not families.
When schools move beyond their core mission of academic
instruction, they risk intruding on the sacred domain of the
family. Above all, safeguarding parents' rights protects
children who are not equipped to act as their own advocates
when it comes to privacy issues. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Powell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Mr. Venzke, you are
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. CODY VENZKE, SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA
Mr. Venzke. Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonamici, and
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on student privacy, family rights, the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil
Rights Amendment.
This issue is a salient one for me. I began my professional
life as a high school math teacher, spent 3 years of my legal
career focused heavily on student privacy, and wrote a treatise
for LexisNexis on these very laws. Today I will cover three
topics. First, reviewing the basic requirements of these laws.
Second, evaluating their application to recent events, and
third, suggesting next steps for this body and the U.S.
Department of Education. As applied to elementary and secondary
education FERPA and PPRA provide the panoply of rights
primarily to parents.
However, both laws transfer rights to students under
certain circumstances, and permit states and schools to provide
students with more robust rights in addition to those awarded
to parents. Those rights fall roughly into three categories.
First, under FERPA, an educational agency or institution may
not disclose personally identifiable information from a
student's education record without prior consent.
Education records extends beyond students permanent files,
and reaches any physical or digital record directly related to
a student, and maintained by the educational agency or
institution. The consent requirement, however, is subject to 18
exceptions. The school should carefully limit disclosures even
when an exception is applicable.
FERPA does not permit broad, blanket disclosures of student
information. Second, FERPA establishes rights to access
education records upon request. As the Department recognized
just this year, FERPA does not provide an affirmative
obligation for school officials to inform parents about any
information.
The PPRA similarly provides rights to parents to inspect
instructional materials and certain survey instruments upon
request. Third, the PPRA imposes proactive notice and consent
obligations on schools regarding the administration of certain
surveys, medical procedures, and the sale of student data.
These rights apply even as the technological and policy
landscape evolves at a rapid pace. New technology, including
artificial intelligence may result in risk to student data,
school surveillance, or unfair or discriminatory decisions
about students.
FERPA requires that student data be used only for a
legitimate educational purpose, and remain under the direct
control of schools. States have supplemented these protections
in part by developing guidance on AI in the classroom. States
and schools are often best positioned to address the specific
needs of students, families and educators, and efforts at the
Federal level to preempt State efforts to regulate AI are
misplaced and pernicious.
On the policy front, the Department has launched
investigations into states for policies regulating when school
staff may inform parents about a student's gender identity.
Those laws, however, do not facially violate FERPA. For
example, California Assembly Bill 1955 merely prohibits schools
and other local entities from mandating that employees
proactively disclose student's sexual orientation, or gender
identity.
As long as a policy and its implementation do not interfere
with parents' ability to access education records upon request,
there is no direct conflict with FERPA, and these policies
serve a sound purpose, not to cut out parents from
decisionmaking about students, but to allow schools flexibility
in responding to families' unique circumstances.
Finally, FERPA and the PPRA merit attention from Congress
and the Department to ensure those protections keep pace with
new challenges. Several priorities stand out. First, this
Committee, or the Department, should highlight best practices
as they are developed at the State and local level to address
AI in the classroom.
Second, the Department should undertake rulemaking to
ensure that the term education records is construed broadly to
cover modern electronic records, such as emails sent by school
employees regarding students and metadata collected by Ed tech
platforms. If necessary, Congress should amend FERPA to support
that reading.
Finally, written agreements with technology platforms help
ensure that the data shared with those platforms is controlled
by schools and used only for legitimate educational purposes.
Written agreements, however, are not generally required in
these circumstances, and Congress should hold a hearing to
examine whether making written agreements may further student
privacy goals.
My written statement reviews additional reforms that will
help ensure that FERPA and the PPRA serve as a foundation for
students and families to exercise their right to a public
education without fear of surrendering their privacy. Thank you
again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Venzke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thanks very much, and finally, Mrs.
Figliola, you are recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MRS. DEBORAH FIGLIOLA, RETIRED SECONDARY SPECIAL
EDUCATION AND ENGLISH SCHOOL TEACHER, HARRISONBURG CITY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, PENN LAIRD, VIRGINIA
Mrs. Figliola. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Kiley,
Ranking Member Bonamici, and members of the Subcommittee. It is
an honor to be with you today. My name is Deborah Figliola. I
am a wife, a mom, a grandma, and yes, a teacher. I have been an
educator for 28 years, the last 11 years as a middle school
teacher in the Harrisonburg City Public School District in
Virginia, as a special education teacher and an eighth grade
English teacher.
I loved the kids I taught. In particular, I loved teaching
students to read. I loved also the parents I worked with. I
enjoyed partnering with parents to help students with special
educational needs grow and thrive at school. In 2021, the
partnership and trust I have developed with families was
jeopardized by a new district policy.
During the mandatory training, all faculty and staff were
told that we must hide information about a student's social
transition from the parents unless we had the explicit
permission of that student. If we disclosed to parents that
their child was using different names or pronouns at school,
then we would be subject to disciplinary action, including
termination.
I was appalled. Throughout my time teaching I have known
and taught many students who either identified as transgender,
or were questioning their identity. My experience reinforced my
belief in the importance of parental involvement, which allows
moms and dads to guide their children through these tumultuous
years.
I felt that this new policy forced me to betray the trust
that parents placed in me. Parents are ultimately responsible
for their child's care and upbringing. They are a crucial
component for a student's educational development and success.
That is why as educators we always talked to parents. We
tell them when a student is in trouble, or getting an award,
when a student is failing, and when they are suddenly
succeeding, or when we notice a major change in their demeanor,
or their behavior.
To ensure that I could continue to maintain complete
honesty and transparency with parents, I brought a legal
challenge against the new policy and won. My school district
agreed that it is does not support hiding or withholding
information from parents. That is exactly how it should be.
Parents are too important to be kept in the dark about
critical issues in their child's life. Parents know their
children best. Parents know their child's medical history, any
emotional issues they have had, and their academic struggles.
They bring a wealth of necessary information to support and
help students navigate the challenges of being a child today.
Parents are the ones who will be there long after kids
finish school. Teachers will not. School counselors will not,
and those parents have a right to know what their child is
feeling and experiencing as they go through middle and high
school. Kids thrive with informed and involved parents, and our
laws should support them as they prepare their children for
adulthood. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Figliola follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Under Committee Rule
9, we will now question witnesses under the Five-Minute Rule,
and I will first recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here, and I think Mr. Chairman, I have come up
with a solution to all of this. We simply pass a law requiring
that only teachers are allowed to be parents, but Mr. Sharp I
think you messed that up because you already said that parents
are the first and longest lasting teachers in a child's life.
It certainly was what my wife and I were, as we
supplemented our teaching with teachers in public and private
schools during the tenure of our children's experience, and so
I guess I did not come up with a solution that we are talking
about today, but I wish we could see even as Mrs. Figliola
said, that working that relationship together works, works, and
ought to be encouraged.
Mr. Sharp, some, including the Biden administration have
asserted that FERPA and other Federal laws confer on minor
students an independent privacy right that requires schools to
conceal gender transitions from parents. Is this a correct--
anywhere near a correct reading of the law?
Mr. Sharp. Mr. Chairman, not at all. In fact, the Courts
have routinely rejected that interpretation. In one case they
specifically noted that under FERPA a child's right to privacy
is secondary to a parent's right to know because that is
recognizing, as you said, children are best served when their
parents are their primary educators and making decisions. To do
that parents need that knowledge and information.
Mr. Walberg. Yes, yes. Appreciate that. Wish we all
believed that. Mrs. Powell, it is a refreshing bit of air
coming from California to hear your statements and your
experience. You note in your written statement that the Supreme
Court has consistently affirmed that the government may not
treat every parents as a presumptive threat. It hurts to even
say that, a presumptive threat to their own child.
In your view, do policies that encourage or require
teachers to conceal gender transition, or other information
from parents treat every parent as a presumptive threat?
Mrs. Powell. Yes. I think that was reflected in the Ranking
Member's opening statement where she spoke about the concerns
about some parents being abusive. That is obviously a concern
that exists. That is a real thing, but you cannot----
Mr. Walberg. We are all concerned about that.
Mrs. Powell. You cannot set policies that apply to every
child and every loving home that have in mind that worst case.
The abusive house that is where the government appropriately
does step in, but that needs to be done on a case by case
basis. There is a high level of due process for the parents
before the government can step in and interfere, and that is
not what is being done.
I do not think that really people think that these are
abusive parents, because if they did the teachers would be
mandated to report it. It would be unconscionable to just send
the children home at the end of the day to an abusive
household. I do not think we are talking about actual abuse
here, but the policies are crafted as if this is a serious
abusive threat to these children, and yet they are not really
addressing that.
This is really the central theme of my testimony is that it
is really schools overstepping, going out of their lane when
they really should stick more to their role, and not try to
parent the children because they think that maybe they know
better how to support the child who expresses gender identity
confusion. They think their solution is the only one, and they
do not trust parents to know their children, and to know the
best way to deal with that individual child.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Figliola, I appreciated
your testimony. From what you experienced, how seriously did
school officials take their responsibility to communicate with
parents about their FERPA and PPRA rights?
Ms. Figliola. Not very seriously at all. As far as I know
parents were not made aware of that, and their rights, and
certainly teachers were not given training in how to go into
these situations being respectful of FERPA and PPRA.
Mr. Walberg. Did it seem that there was more attention
given to concealed information from parents?
Ms. Figliola. Yes. Yes, sir. There absolutely was far more
attention giving to concealing information from parents. We
were taught how to do it. We were taught how to make sure that
we always used the name that was the name on the record for the
child, and we were never to communicate with parents, whether
it was through a phone call, or a parent teacher conferences,
or anything written by any other name, even if a name was used
always in school. We were never to use that name in contact
with the parents.
Mr. Walberg. What a waste of tremendous teaching resources
that parents could provide.
Ms. Figliola. Um-hmm, yes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Ranking Member Bonamici of Oregon is
recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and again,
as I said in my opening statement, sometimes these are
difficult conversations, and I certainly in response to the
comment by Mrs. Powell, do not presume that all parents are a
risk to their students, and none of us do.
We all agree that parental engagement is an important
thing. That is not the issue here. If students are not talking
to their parents about their gender identity, maybe there is a
good reason for that. There is nothing that prohibits teachers
from talking to the student about the importance of talking to
their parents, but sometimes students are afraid to do that
because they are, as I said, a lot of homeless youth are LGBTQ,
and they get kicked out of their house when they reveal their
gender identity.
I want to say that parental engagement, as I said, that is
a key to student success, but if we want to protect student
privacy and parental rights, we should talk about dismantling
the Department of Education, the problems with that.
We should talk about the six new illegal and
unconstitutional interagency agreements to move major education
programs to different agencies, and how that will make it more
difficult for the Federal Government to enforce FERPA and PPRA.
It is going to be a nightmare for accountability.
You know, the Department of Agencies--new interagency
agreements fragment responsibility for student data. Spreading
those programs across multiple agencies is going to blur who is
accountable for interpreting and enforcing FERPA and PPRA in a
consistent way.
It increases the risk of data sprawl, and as Mr. Venzke
said, we need to update these laws, not weaken them. With the
weakened department, or non-existent department, what is going
to happen with guidance, technical assistance and oversight? In
an increasingly more complex data world, and despite the outcry
for stronger parental rights, the majority is still supporting
actions that are going to make it harder for parents and
students to rely on FERPA and PPRA, and will leave data more
exposed, rather than protected.
Mr. Venzke, we were talking before the Committee started
about maybe there's some ways we can update FERPA and PPRA and
find that common ground. What do you think about the effect of
moving all of this to other agencies that lack the staff
experience and expertise to address these issues? What is that
going to mean?
Mr. Venzke. Thank you for the question. Dissolving the
Department of Education is going to raise serious obstacles to
enforcement and updating FERPA to keep pace with modern,
technological challenges. The Department of Education Inspector
General issued a report some number of years ago highlighting
that FERPA enforcement was lagging.
Complaints were not being resolved in a reasonable time.
Schools were not being provided guidance to address harms that
were being done to student privacy, and that has largely not
been resolved. By dissolving the Department of Education and
dispersing those enforcement and rulemaking efforts elsewhere
throughout the government, it could critically harm an area
that is already under regulated and under enforced.
There is a huge jeopardy to students if this occurs.
Moreover, FERPA and the PPRA, the two statutes we are touching
on today, they are premised on receiving funds from the
Department of Education.
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Venzke. If those critical grants are disbursed
elsewhere throughout the Federal Government, FERPA and PPRA
become worth no more than the paper they are printed on.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. I have another question,
briefly. Plyler versus Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
students in this country have the right to public education,
even if they are undocumented. I wanted to point out that
immigration raids at or near our schools, that has been
restricted for about 30 years across administrations.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration rescinded the
sensitive location policy and recently schools have become
scenes of aggressive immigration enforcement activity. Students
and their families are increasingly concerned for the safety on
the way to school or in school. Student absences are
increasing. Immigrant student enrollment is decreasing, and I
hope every member on this Committee would agree that children
should feel safe in schools.
Mr. Venzke, are you aware of any school district or State
agency that is receiving requests from Federal immigration
authorities? How would this type of data be handled?
Would FERPA be interpreted in these situations to protect
student data?
Mr. Venzke. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member.
Although immigration authorities continue to disclaim any
intent to enforce immigration laws within schools, we have seen
at least one reported incident where ICE did request
information on a former student, which remains subject to FERPA
for purposes of immigration enforcement.
FERPA emphatically protects the data of students,
regardless of their immigration status. Moreover, and
critically, FERPA does not have a general exception that says
thou mayest disclose student data to any governmental agency.
Instead, it has 18 exceptions articulated in the regulations
and in the statute, and those are all permissive. Nowhere do
they require disclosure except of course to parents or eligible
students.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. I just want to emphasize
this is a pretty serious issue in the district I represent. We
have ICE stalking students in parking lots. We have ICE agents
point loaded guns at students off campus, but at a coffee shop,
but high school students.
This is not just affecting undocumented students, this is
affecting Latino students, students of color, and it is really
a serious concern for our communities, and I yield back. Thank
you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kiley. Representative Miller of Illinois is
recognized.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. Thank you Chairman Kiley for hosting
this important hearing, and to all of our witnesses for
participating today. Parents have a God given natural right to
know what their children are being taught in school. Quiet
simply, parents know best, and they shouldn't be the last to
know.
Unfortunately, many schools continue to break the law by
dodging disclosure and consent requirements under FERPA.
According to Parents Defending Education over 1,200 school
districts openly State that district personnel can and should
keep a students' transgender status hidden from the parents.
In my home State of Illinois, there are at least 20 school
districts with guidance that specifically instructs faculty to
withhold this type of information from parents. Not
surprisingly, Democrats want to take away parental rights. For
example, when parents voice concerns about what their children
were being taught during the pandemic, Joe Biden's Department
of Justice labeled them domestic terrorists.
I call that promoting a divisive culture. In July of this
year, Illinois Governor, J.B. Pritzker, signed a bill mandating
so-called mental health screenings in public schools. The law
only allows parents to opt their children out by navigating an
undefined, ambiguous process.
Last, numerous universities across Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Wisconsin abused a FERPA loophole during the 2024
election by sharing students' protected data with the left
leaning voter registration organization called All In Campus
Democracy Challenge.
My first question is to Mr. Sharp. In your written
testimony you mentioned numerous examples of how school
districts across the Nation have violated FERPA. How, if at
all, are they being held accountable under these laws?
Mr. Sharp. Thank you. As we have heard for many years these
complaints that parents were filing with the Department of
Education were going unanswered, ignored. In fact, in March of
this year Secretary McMahon sent a letter to school districts
saying that there was a backlog of complaints, and that parents
were being forced to sit and wait on the Federal Government to
take action to protect their rights. That is not okay.
We are very encouraged to see this administration taking on
the mantel and saying we are going to vigorously enforce FERPA
and PPRA violations, but I think it is also an opportunity for
this Committee and Congress to look of whether there are other
remedies that ought to be available, other opportunities,
including giving parents themselves the ability to hold school
officials accountable when their rights are violated.
Mrs. Miller. Absolutely. My next question is to Mrs.
Powell. You mentioned in your written testimony that California
schools are dodging the Supreme Court's Mahmoud ruling. How can
we hold them accountable to ensure parental rights are
protected?
Mrs. Powell. Yes, for those who do not know, Mahmoud v.
Taylor was a Supreme Court decision from June that reaffirmed
parents' right to guide the religious development of their
children, and the right to opt out of instruction that
interfered with their religious development.
In that case it was LGBTQ books for kindergartners. It does
not just apply to LGBTQ books. It could apply to any kinds of
issues. In California, what they are doing is they are
burdening parents with figuring out what aspects of the
curriculum they might find offensive, and yet it is very
difficult to get access to that curriculum.
The Mahmoud case actually had a requirement that parents be
notified of these kinds of materials. I would like to see
schools in California take that requirement seriously, and also
stop dragging their feet when parents inquire about curriculum.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. My next question is to Mrs.
Figliola. In your written testimony you describe instances in
which Harrisonburg City public schools directed faculty to
violate Federal law, and withhold a child's gender transition
from their parents. Why do you think the district adopted this
policy, and why create such a blanketed district wide policy?
Mrs. Figliola. I do not know why they would think that this
was a good policy personally. I do think that they think they
know best, and I can recall in my own teacher training decades
ago I was taught exactly that. Parents do not really know the
best for kids. We as educators know best. That did not sit
right with me then, and it still does not sit right with me.
Mrs. Miller. That is most unfortunate. I can tell you that
this administration and all of us on this side are here to
protect parental rights. Mr. Sharp, while I have you here, are
you aware of universities abusing FERPA, specifically the
instances in which they allowed student data to be released to
voter registration organizations?
Mr. Sharp. Thank you. I have not tracked that issue, but I
think we can all be very concerned when students' information
is being released, whether for young children without their
parents' consent, or students at the collegiate level as well.
Mrs. Miller. Absolutely, and I hope that issue moves
forward, and we can find a solution for that. Thank you, and I
yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Dr. Adams of North Carolina is recognized.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. Before I begin my questions, I
need to speak plainly about what is happening back home in
Charlotte. Last month Border Patrol agents descended on
Charlotte in unmarked cars, wearing tactical gear, carrying
long guns, making arrests across churches and groceries stores
and school neighborhoods.
No warnings, no coordination, and the fear was immediate.
Families kept their children home, workers stayed inside, and
parents told me that they were afraid to even open their doors.
By Monday, November 19th, by that morning more than 30,000
Charlotte-Mecklenburg students were absent from school, nearly
1 out of every 4 students in my district.
These children did not stay home because of a book in the
library. They did not stay home because of a curriculum
dispute. They stayed home because they were terrified. While we
sit here today debating whether parents can access curriculum,
something they already have the right to do, the real crisis
hurting students right now is fear in our communities, food
insecurity, housing instability, and the loss of trust between
families and schools.
This is not hypothetical for me. I am a 40-year retired
professor. I represent these children, and I am a mother and a
grandmother as well. I represent these families, and when
students are too afraid to walk through the school doors there
is no FERPA, reform or PPRA amendment that will matter.
Today I want to focus on student safety and student
privacy, and the real consequences of getting this wrong. Let
me just turn to our witnesses, and Mr. Venzke, so thank you
first of all for being here. You have written extensively about
FERPA was created. Can you explain why FERPA was necessary when
it was enacted? Before this law, were student records, grades,
discipline, even personal information sometimes shared casually
or without limits?
Mr. Venzke. Thank you for the question, Representative.
FERPA was enacted to address two twin harms. One, as Senator
Buckley, a conservative from New York put it is to address
secret student records that might be used in ways that are
harmful to students, whether they be disclosed to employers, or
be used in law enforcement proceedings.
These are particularly harmful when parents and students do
not have the opportunity to access those student records, or
request their correction. The idea of access and correction of
records became core to the rights that FERPA established, but
there was a second harm as well, which was the disclosure of
information without parental consent, or consent from adult
students.
This particular harm was one that surfaced in ways where
for example, Senator Buckley described student records being
used in FBI proceedings, or in instances where it was being
disclosed for sale and marketing. FERPA was largely drafted
along with the PPRA to address those two twin concerns of one,
secret records, and two, unlawful disclosure.
Ms. Adams. Right, thank you. If FERPA had not existed,
could a student's immigration status have been shared in ways
that put that child, or an entire family at risk?
Mr. Venzke. I would think so. Prior to the enactment of
FERPA there was no great regulation of with whom student
information could be shared. Some states have passed laws to
that effect, many had not. I think there was an underlying
assumption that sharing with other governmental agencies, no
matter what reason the information was collected for originally
was permissible.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Finally, do you see any gaps in how FERPA
protects or fails to protect immigrant students and mixed
status families who are living with real fear today?
Mr. Venzke. Two major concerns stand out. One, of course,
is lack of understanding about how FERPA applies among school
officials. I am a former teacher. I do recall my FERPA
training, which was largely when you have a conversation with a
parent make sure the papers on your desk are turned over.
There was no deep concern what to do if a law enforcement
officer shows up demanding student files, so deeper guidance
and training is always necessary. I want to point to one
exception called the directory information exception, which I
think is probably what Representative Miller was referring to,
that allows the disclosure of student addresses without their
consent.
It applies to other information, but I think it is
important that Congress and the Department of Education take a
hard look at that exception, and see if it needs to be updated.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. We have heard claims that parents
cannot see what their children are learning. As a former
professor, a parent, I have always understood that parents can
ask questions, meet with teachers, and review curriculum, and
under a current law can a school district refuse a parent
access to curriculum? You have got 1 second.
Mr. Venzke. No, they may not.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Thank you for your brevity. Mr. Harris of
North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of
you on the panel for your expertise, and taking the time to
share with us today. As a father and grandfather, I understand
firsthand how essential it is for parents to be fully engaged
in every aspect of their children's upbringing.
That is precisely why Congress enacted FERPA and PPRA to
ensure that parents have a meaningful access to information
about what is happening in their child's education. As we have
heard today, despite these clear Federal protections, some
State governments and school districts are adopting policies
that seem designed to limit transparency, and reduce parental
involvement.
Ms. Powell, in your testimony, as I have read it and then
listened to you today, you walked through multiple California
State laws that appear structured in ways that could undermine
FERPA's intent, especially regarding information connected to a
student's so-called gender identity.
While California State laws AB 1266 and AB 1955 do not
technically violate FERPA on their face, they do create real
risks. I would ask you to take a moment if you would and
explain whether State officials are issuing guidance based on
these laws that in your view effectively discourage schools
from sharing important information with parents.
Mrs. Powell. Yes. They are. In California for sure they
are. As I said in my written testimony, AB 2066, which was from
2013, had nothing to do with this issue. Nonetheless, the
California Department of Education used it to issue guidance to
all the school districts in the State telling them that they
were legally obligated to keep gender identity secret from
parents if the children requested it.
Then AB 1955 was signed into law just last year, and that
is created just more confusion because the proponents say that
it codifies that rule, and yet in the body of the law it says,
while there is an exception for any conflicts with Federal law.
We have had a couple of Courts say well, there is no conflict,
and as Mr. Venzke said, that is an argument that can be made,
but at the same time this has been the policy throughout the
State from the Department of Education.
The Attorney General of California has filed lawsuits
against school districts that refuse to follow these secrecy
policies, so it is the policy throughout the State regardless
of what any of the State laws say.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you. As you know, I want to just
kind of followup on what you touched on. It was a 2021
California Department of Education FAQ on AB 1266 that
instructed schools to, I want to quote, ``To prevent accidental
disclosure of student's transgender status, it is strongly
recommended that schools keep records that reflect a
transgender student's birth, name and assigned sex, example
copy of birth certificate, apart from the student's school
records. Schools should consider placing physical documents in
a locked file cabinet in the principal's or nurse's office.''
That seems to me that they are directing schools to
withhold information from parents. Ms. Powell, I will ask based
on your expertise, do policies like this tend to encourage
schools not to inform parents when their child may be
experiencing gender dysphoria?
Mrs. Powell. Absolutely. I want to correct. I believe that
was the frequently asked questions existed prior to 2021. It
has been long, long standing policy, and it was only recently
removed due to a lawsuit, and, but they have never disavowed
that guidance, and I believe every educator in the State has
received that guidance as being, according to the State of
California, it is required by law.
Mr. Harris. Well, I agree. While these radical State laws
and policies may not violate the text of FERPA, it certainly
violates the intent of the law, and does so, I believe, in a
shameful way. Mr. Sharp, real quickly, in the last 45 seconds,
in your written testimony you laid out the Supreme Court's
juris prudence with respect to the right of parents to direct
their children's upbringing.
Do you believe State or district policies that directly or
indirectly encourage schools to withhold information are
consistent with the Supreme Court's view of parental rights?
Mr. Sharp. Those policies violate Court precedent on
parental rights. The Court has long recognized that parents
have the constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing
of their children. That includes being able to make decisions
impacting their child's mental health, their educational
welfare and physical welfare.
Mr. Harris. 100 percent. As you mentioned in your testimony
it is up to parents, not the State to direct the upbringing of
their children. Thank you all for sharing today, God bless you.
I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Thanks so much. Representative Grijalva of
Arizona is recognized.
Mrs. Grijalva. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here. I spent 20 years in Southern
Arizona's largest school district governing board as a
governing board member. I am a proud product of our public
schools, as our my three children, and I have many, many
friends who are teachers.
Teacher training emphasizes the importance of parental
involvement and how critical it is, not that educators know
best, but that it should be a partnership and collaboration. I
have never heard of some of the situations that were brought up
by Ms. Figliola ever, not ever, in any of the 20 years that I
have been there, so I am very concerned with some of the
rhetoric that is being thrown out as if it is common place when
it is not.
FERPA and PPRA already give parents broad rights to inspect
their children's education records, review instructional
materials, consent or opt out of certain surveys and data, and
uses that as a condition of Federal funds. Some recent disputes
appear to reflect confusion about procedures in requesting
information from schools, not an absence of Federal parental
rights.
As a mom of three children in our public schools, I get
information about everything that they are doing. I have the
option to opt out of any information, and most of the
information requires active parental consent for my children to
be a part of it. I think that if we had more people involved in
our public schools, more parents and grandparents that are very
intimately connected to what is happening in our public
schools, the fallacy and rhetoric around this issue wouldn't
come out. It would not be this confusing.
I am asking Mr. Venzke, what can the Federal Government do
to support consistent, equitable implementation of the laws and
protect parental rights and student privacy?
Mr. Venzke. I think three things come to mind. One is
updating regulations to reflect current trends and situations
that schools and educators face every day. Unfortunately, for
example, the FERPA regulations remain out of date, where two of
the exceptions that were passed by this body into law had not
been incorporated into those regulations.
Similarly, key definitions, like what is an education
record, are prone to misapplication in the digital world.
Similarly, the PPRA regulations have not been updated since
1984, and no longer reflect the current version of the statute.
Those would be key for insuring that schools are aware of their
obligations.
Similarly, reiterating existing guidance and providing in-
depth training, which is something that the department strives
to do, but have minimal staff to do so will be key. There is
extensive department guidance, for example, on what fees can be
charged for requests under FERPA or PPRA. You have to dig.
I have written a book on these laws, and I had to dig to
find that guidance.
Mrs. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Venzke. I think making that more accessible would be
very beneficial for schools, parents and students.
Mrs. Grijalva. Thank you. This Republican obsession with
gender identity is frightening to me, it really is. Time and
time again the Republican majority have chosen to promote
bigotry, fear mongering and marginalization of vulnerable
students under the guise of parental rights instead of
prioritizing issues that would help families, students and
schools.
In contrast, Democrats stand for true parental rights. We
also stand for the rights of students to feel safe, supported,
and respected in their classrooms. We stand for the rights of
teachers to do their jobs without fear of being forced to
violate the trust of students, and we stand for the idea that
education should be about nurturing the whole child, not
creating political distractions.
Mr. Venzke, is the relationship between teachers and
students and the trust they build important to a student's
development, growth, and educational career?
Mr. Venzke. It is critically important. When I was in the
classroom parents were my first partners in educating their
children. They were the ones that I called when something went
well, when something went poorly, and they were always my
allies there.
Of course, students also turn to teachers among other
trusted adults for advice, and those are important
relationships to maintain, and that's why some policies that
have been enacted at the State and local level that require,
and mandate disclosure are so dangerous because they will
jeopardize that particular relationship, and not provide
flexibility for schools or educators to determine how to relay
that critical information to parents.
It is not about blocking parents out. It is about ensuring
that schools have flexibility about when to bring them in.
Mrs. Grijalva. Yes, and there are so many situations where
school districts and teachers are dealing with unfunded
mandates. I would hate for us to look at some of these really
rare situations that may or may not have come up, interpreted
different ways, for us to change wholesale some Federal
policies when really I think your suggestion on looking at how
to improve those policies makes the most sense. Thank you and I
yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Representative Messmer of Indiana is
recognized.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. Mrs. Figliola, thank you for
providing your testimony. It seems to be alarming that school
districts are trying to undermine parents' rights to know what
is happening to their child during the school day.
After the conclusion of your case did the school board
change its policy, and communicate that change to parents, or
did they deny that it was ever the policy?
Mrs. Figliola. Thank you for your question. The school
district refused to agree that there was every a policy,
despite the districtwide training. Every teacher and every
staff member was at that training. We were trained to always
address students by their preferred names and pronouns, and to
never tell parents without explicit direction from the student.
They hide behind the fact that it was not in their policy
handbook, even though it was taught in required training
meetings to all staff. The district did State in the final
statement about my case a year ago, that it does not support
hiding or withholding information from parents, but I do not
know since then if they have changed anything.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Are you confident that the school
district's stance toward the parents has fundamentally changed?
Mrs. Figliola. No. I am not confident of that at all.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. It also seems that a policy having
teachers lie to, or conceal information from parents would
affect teacher morale. From your testimony it is clear that
your colleagues were uncomfortable with the mandate from the
administration.
Mrs. Figliola. Yes.
Mr. Messmer. What does it do to teacher morale to be in
your position where your school district has placed you?
Mrs. Figliola. Well, it is very demoralizing because we do
take very--every teacher knows that our responsibility is to
teach our kids and to work with families, and to support
families however we can. Here we have to hide information,
which does not make sense when the people who could make a huge
difference in children's lives, people who know their history,
they know their medical history, all their history, their
family history, their emotional history.
People who love them, quite honestly. Teachers love their
kids, but we are not there when the child graduates high
school. Who is there? It is the parents, hopefully it is still
the parents because when parents are kept out of the picture
there is a wedge put between that child and those parents, and
it grows. It grows when that child does not have the
relationship with the parent, but has it with others, and then
they feel more and more separated from that parent.
In the end when that child finishes school, gets out of
school, and that parent wants to support that child, if parents
are kept in the dark all that time, how can they know how to
support the puzzle that is their child as a young adult? They
do not have all the pieces, and they do not know what to do,
so.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you.
Ms. Figliola. Thank you.
Mr. Messmer. Mrs. Powell, in your written statement it
contains a section discussing the alleged conflict some states
and school districts see between parents' rights and children's
rights. Could you elaborate on the damage done to children,
families and society when children's rights and parents' rights
seem to be in conflict?
Mrs. Powell. Yes, the whole framing that puts parents'
rights and children's rights against each other is just wrong
because the way it works, I mean this is reflected in FERPA as
I said. It is also reflected in the U.N. convention on the
rights of the child that is a widely known, the document on
children's rights. It is framed around parents' rights as well.
It is the right to be protected by a parent, and when a
child does not have a parent who can protect them in those very
unfortunate circumstances, that child is very vulnerable, and
that is the only case where the government can step in and
assume that role that a parent normally would. It is very
dangerous to undermine that.
The children on their own, it does not empower a child to
put them in charge of protecting their own rights. It renders
them vulnerable. It is a scary situation. A child needs the
support of their parents, and that is why parents' rights are
children's rights.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Kiley. Representative Hayes of Connecticut is
recognized.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Students are more successful when
they have involved and engaged parents. As a teacher, I am a
teacher, that's how I came to Congress, I saw firsthand the
importance of strong parent teacher partnerships, constant
support in and out of the classroom is what leads to stronger
academic outcomes.
I, like my colleague, take issue with some of the rhetoric
and the phrasing around having teachers lie to parents. I can
tell you that as a teacher, and as an adult professional, I
have enough of a moral compass to understand, and a level of
discernment to know that even if someone asks me, or gives me a
directive, much like our military, if I know it is wrong I am
not going to follow it.
FERPA and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendments are
essential to protecting students and empowering parents, and
they are built on the principle that parents should be involved
in the education of students. Strong Federal laws and a robust
Department of Education are necessary to protect the rights of
parents across the country.
I am deeply concerned about the reorganization at the
Department of Education, and how this may impact the protection
of parental rights, the protection of student data, privacy,
and whether FERPA would apply to programs administered by the
other agencies.
Mr. Sharp, you referenced earlier how Secretary McMahon had
said there was a backlog of complaints and parents could not
get answers at the Civil Rights Division, but that is contrary
to the position taken by the Department where they have
dismissed over 3,400 of the 4,800 Civil Rights complaints that
are there, with only 100 of those cases having been resolved,
and firing most of the staff since she came into office.
I really question if there is a commitment to addressing
the complaints of parents. On November 18th of this year the
Department of Education announced six interagency agreements
between the Department, the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Interior, Labor and State. This is another phase
in the illegal dismantling of the Department of Education.
I have to ask how will these other agencies administer
FERPA, and how will it be enforced? Mr. Venzke, in your
testimony you mentioned the importance of robust guidance,
enforcement, requiring staffing capacity and adequate and
appropriate levels at the Department of Education to ensure
FERPA enforcement.
Do you believe that the HHS, Interior, State or Labor
Departments will have the expertise or capacity to provide this
robust guidance, and ensure that FERPA is enforced?
Mr. Venzke. Unfortunately, I have severe concerns about
exactly how that would be structured, and whether those
agencies have the capacity or expertise to carry out FERPA's
mandate, and enforce those laws. It is worth noting that across
all these witnesses there is an agreement that FERPA needs to
be enforced, and schools need to be supported in that
enforcement.
I do not know if transferring the Student Privacy Policy
Office, or the Privacy Technical Assistance Center, key organs
within the Department of Education to elsewhere is going to
help achieve that.
Mrs. Hayes. Can you speak a little bit to what are the
benefits about having this under one agency as opposed to split
up across five different agencies.
Mr. Venzke. Not long ago rulemaking enforcement within the
Department of Education regarding FERPA and the PPRA were
separated, and there was a conclusion that those policy
apparatuses and enforcement apparatuses needed to work in
conjunction.
That is absolutely correct because often what we are
looking for is not to punish schools and take away Federal
funding that is much needed to support students, but to help
coach them and support them, ensuring that they understand the
law, and can follow the law.
By dividing up those enforcement mechanisms outside the
Department of Education you are going to hinder providing well-
rounded support to schools.
Mrs. Hayes. You referenced the five investigations that the
Department launched into FERPA as misplaced and appearing not
to violate, to actually violate FERPA. What do you believe is
the rationale for the administration launching these
investigations into states, and why do you believe that they do
not violate the spirit of FERPA?
Mr. Venzke. The underlying reason is because FERPA settled
on the fact that schools are responsible for their
administration, but parents should not be denied access to
records. The bipartisan sponsors of FERPA developed the
approach that is currently embedded in the law, which is that
parents may request access to those records, and then request
their correction if there are errors embedded in the laws.
Some of the policies that are at the center of the
discussion today do not address or affect that ability to
request records whatsoever. They simply say that teachers
cannot be mandated to disclose student information even when
they judge it inappropriate otherwise.
Mrs. Hayes. Very different conversation. With that, I yield
back.
Chairman Kiley. Representative Owens of Utah is recognized.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, thank you so much. Education is one
of the most important aspects of childhood. While children are
young we teach them things they need to know, and how to think.
Their education is most important, most meaningful and
impactful when parents, teachers and schools work together in
harmony.
However, some schools increasingly see parents as an
obstacle that needs to be ignored or overcome. Cutting out
parents not only is bad for the long-term well-being of our
children, but more importantly it is not their job.
Unfortunately, some families will feel the effects of those who
have overstepped their bounds long after the students have left
the schools.
Today we are here to strengthen the partnerships between
parents and schools, so the needs of students are met. I thank
the witnesses for testifying. I look forward to your insight. I
will just say this before I get started. This is why we need
school choice. We have a sense of arrogance when strangers who
have our kids for a couple of hours a day think they are the
parents.
The fact that we are having this conversation is crazy to
me. My parents both were educators, and the reason why they
respected a teacher is because teachers are not the parents.
Together they work as a team. If I got in trouble in school I
was in trouble when I got home, so we have to start with that
premise, that there is only one set of parents, and they are
not in the school system unless it is their kids, all right.
OK. Ms. Powell, we talked about the barriers schools put in
front of parents like you have seen that exercises a right to
review your child's curriculum. You made a point that
ironically use of digital instructional materials actually make
it harder for parents to know what is being taught. Do you have
suggestions for parents seeking to navigate these barriers, and
examples of ways school districts should make it easier?
Mrs. Powell. Well, it is not easy for parents who live in
districts like mine where the districts seem reluctant to share
this information. One thing I want to tell parents is, you
know, go ahead and make these requests. Sometimes I feel like I
am the only parent making these requests, based on the
responses I get.
Do not worry that you are not a lawyer because I assure you
that I have written detailed letters citing the law, and those
get ignored too. Do not be afraid to be persistent. Actually,
the first line of defense is your children. Keep the lines of
communication open with your children, make sure you are
instilling your values in your children.
They are, you know, your spies on the inside. My children
report things to me when they see things in the curriculum that
seem wrong to them. That is how I get alerted. Short of that, I
worry if you live in a district like mine, lawsuits become
necessary.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Ms. Figliola, the Democrats argue
that concealing gender transition information with parents is
necessary to protect the children's well-being. Would you make
an important point that honesty with parents is important
because it allows children and parents to have difficult
conversation about sensitive issues.
What are the potential long-term negative effects of
policies and practices that encourage children not to trust
their own parents?
Mrs. Figliola. They are the most important. Thank you for
your question. One of the most important things that I would
like to get across is that educators need to partner with
parents. That has been the grounding for me from the beginning
of my teaching for years. I have known all along about how
important that is, and now as a mother, and now a grandmother,
I know how important it is for educators and parents to work
together because I have seen special education students meet
their potential.
The ones that have the parents that are most involved are
the ones that meet their potential--have the greatest
possibility of meeting their potential. That applies to all
kids, not special education students. What I can say to you is
that what it does when we do not communicate with parents, and
when children do not communicate with parents, or they are not
encouraged to communicate with parents, like I said before, it
creates a wedge between that child and that parent, or those
parents.
That wedge gets bigger and bigger as time goes on, as more
and more of the issue that they are dealing with--that child is
dealing with, becomes more and more important and more embedded
in them. It becomes harder and harder. The separation between
that child and the very people who know them the most, love
them, for the most part that is what parents do.
They love their kids. Most of the parents that I have
worked with--I have worked with a lot of parents, and I have
seen parents that are not as involved with children become
involved with children when they are encouraged, when I spend
time with them, when I interact with them. I have always had
parents' phone numbers in my phone so I could text them and
give them information as needed, and it makes a huge
difference.
To get rid of that wedge is really important for kids'
mental health.
Mr. Owens. Thank you so much. I just want to say this. This
should not be a debate. When parents see something is wrong at
school, if it is systemic and they have to debate you, find
someplace else to take your kids. That is why choice is so
important my friends.
Choice would give us the best options across the board, and
those who do not do it right, they go out of business, and that
is the way it should be, so thank you so much, and keep up the
work. I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. Representative Mannion of New York is
recognized.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, to the
witnesses here, to my colleagues from both parties, to the
staff behind us, our visitors. I can tell you almost to the
person that you love the schools you attended, that your
children love those schools, and that you trust the teachers in
those schools. What I have listened to in this hearing and
others is a false narrative that is being perpetuated that we
do not trust our teachers, that we cannot trust our teachers,
that our teachers are arrogant and feel like they know best.
I can almost guarantee to everyone in this room that that
was not your experience when you dealt with teachers, when you
dealt with school administrators, when you dealt with school
boards, that that was not a true reflection of what is actually
happening in schools.
Issues of student privacy and parents' rights have come up
many times in this Committee, and they are very important
issues. In fact, the argument that I think we would all agree
on is there may be in many ways no more important issue. The
way that this narrative is being perpetuated is just a
disconnect from what is happening in schools.
I was a public school teacher for almost 30 years. I am a
parent. I was also a teacher's association President in a
conservative community, in a suburban school district for the
last 8 years that I was teaching.
I have seen these issues from every single angle, and I
care deeply about how parents are engaged in their children's
educational process, and the transparency that all schools
should have, and to assure that students feel supported in that
educational setting.
I started teaching in 1992. If a parent wanted to know how
their child was progressing, they might get a report once a
quarter, or they would have to call the teacher or they would
have to call the administrator. If they wanted a curriculum,
they would have to get a hard copy of that curriculum, or maybe
they would ask their child, or rummage through their backpack
for information.
Now, in 2025, we have greater access to teachers, school
administrators, and school board members than ever before.
Parents can and are more involved and hold teachers and
administrators more accountable than ever before, access to
FERPA and other State and Federal laws are clearly displayed on
websites.
There are more teacher conferences than ever before.
Teachers hand out their cell phone numbers to parents because
they care, because they work in partnership with the parents
because they want to make sure that there is academic progress
occurring in that partnership that parents know about the
behavior of their students.
Parents have access to negative behaviors, disciplinary
actions, they have access to all of those things. Access like
they have never had before. It is important to realize that
when we hear about parental rights, we should be clear that
parents have greater access to their child's education than
ever before.
The teachers that I represented were a true reflection of
the district that I taught in. They were not all Democratic
members. They were Republicans, Democrats, independents, some
more politically engaged than others, but politics was not
happening in the classroom, education was happening in the
classroom.
I go back to my original statement, which is about think of
your experience in the classroom, your own personal experience,
your relationship with the teachers. That is what is happening.
That is what continues to happen in the classroom. Parents
should not be excluded from their child's education, and they
are not excluded from their child's education.
That was not only what I experienced, but I watched to make
sure that fellow teachers, administrators, school board
members, held each other accountable to make sure that those
rights were protected, and that's the parents' rights and the
student's rights. I have no questions, I yield back.
Chairman Kiley. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I always like to try to build consensus in these hearings, and
obviously, this is an issue where there are very strong
opinions, but I think we have identified some points of
consensus today, so maybe I will just list a few at least that
I have gathered, and any of the witnesses that disagree with
any of these principle, feel free to speak up, and correct me.
I think we can all agree that parents have a compelling and
far-reaching right to know when it comes to their child's
education. I think we can all agree that teachers and school
personnel have a legal obligation to report when they have
reasonable suspicion that a child is being abused in their
home. We agree with that.
We can agree that immigration enforcement has no place in
our schools, can we agree with that?
Mrs. Powell. Absolutely.
Chairman Kiley. We can agree that Federal laws pertaining
to parent access to records do or ought to include electronic
records. Can we agree with that? Parents have a right to access
their child's curriculum that is being taught in schools.
Parents have a right to opt their child out of sensitive parts
of that curriculum, and that indeed, districts ought to let
parents know proactively about these sensitive areas, and the
right to opt out. Can we agree with that one?
How about this one, that it is unlawful for districts to
require that teachers conceal information related to a child's
chosen name or gender as Mrs. Figliola has described. Do we
agree or disagree with that one?
Mr. Venzke. Laws that mandate that educators provide notice
to parents about a child's sexual orientation, gender identity,
without regard to the child's specific situation, the family's
situation, or procedures for bringing the parent into that
conversation can put the child in danger. They can strain them.
Chairman Kiley. That is not exactly what I asked, right, so
that what she has described is a policy that requires
concealment. Can you agree that that is unlawful?
Mr. Venzke. As opposed to not mandating disclosure?
Chairman Kiley. Correct. We agree?
Mr. Venzke. Yes.
Chairman Kiley. Okay, great. I think that there is quite a
bit of agreement here, and you know, I think that with some of
these issues when it comes to the issue of the name and the
chosen gender, I mean these are increasingly common issues
actually that we are seeing that are on the rise.
I think they also sort of highlight this broader concern
that in some cases, you know, it is not just the decisions of
the students that are being concealed from parents, but also
there is a sense that perhaps what the student is experiencing
in the school might influence the decisions that they make, and
that is in a sense a larger concern. Have you seen that in your
work, Mrs. Powell?
Mrs. Powell. Could you repeat that?
Chairman Kiley. That parents are concerned not only that
information is being kept from them about their students'
decisions, but that the school might be playing a role in some
sense in influencing those decisions?
Mrs. Powell. Yes. In fact, I wanted to suggest one more
point of agreement that Ranking Member Bonamici spoke about the
importance of having parents not impose their beliefs on
other--on the classroom. That is exactly what my concerns are
where you have ideological beliefs being imposed on the
children.
The schools would be better focused on the academic
instruction and leaving that part to the parents.
Chairman Kiley. Yes, that is a great point, you know, and
when I think about what is happening in California, this has
become sort of a hot button issue the last few years, but it is
really an issue that has been provoked by statewide elected
officials, and by the California legislature, like the norm
over the last several decades has not been for schools to
actively conceal information from parents.
The notion that they would do so is sort of a new
phenomenon and you have had, you know, statewide elected
officials in California going around suing school districts,
even passing statewide laws on the matter. You know, my
personal view is that this is an attempt by them to create a
distraction from the fact that our public schools are failing
to adequately educate our kids.
California has the highest illiteracy rate in the country.
UC San Diego just announced that a significant share of their
incoming freshman cannot do even basic math, and this is
despite the State now spending almost 40-billion-dollars more
per year on education than when Gavin Newsom became Governor
just a short time ago.
What do you think of that, Mrs. Powell? Do you think that
this is an attempt by politicians to provoke a kind of culture
war issue in an attempt to evade accountability for failed
academic outcomes?
Mrs. Powell. Yes, I would agree with that. I mean you were
in Sacramento for a while and you see how things operate there,
and there is a lot of that goes on, and not a lot gets done
that actually benefits the children. I mean I am in a district
with kids performing below grade level, most kids, and yet so
much energy is spent on things like social emotional learning,
and not on the academics that the kids really need.
Chairman Kiley. Thanks very much. My time has lapsed, and
oh, do we have another?
Ms. Lee. We do.
Chairman Kiley. Ah, Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania is recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start by stating
what I think is the obvious, which is that if we want to
safeguard student privacy, we can start by keeping the agency
responsible for students' privacy intact. The Department of
Education holds states and districts accountable to the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, and the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, or PPRA.
If other agencies are administering the Department of
Education's programs, students and families may lose those
protections, the next obvious point I would make is that
parents already have rights. The National Parent Teacher
Association was created in 1897. Parents had rights before all
children even had access or the right to a public education.
PPRA already gives parents and guardians the right to
inspect instructional materials using their students'
curriculum. FERPA already guarantees parents and guardians
access to their children's educational records. This is
essentially a bad solution in search of a problem.
By successfully galvanizing parents behind this idea that
they do not have right, Republicans can rebrand pre-existing
education access and transparency obligations, including those
that have been mandated by FERPA and PPRA since the 70's, as a
new parental right.
Republicans are weaponizing these so-called new parental
rights to target transgender students, suppress inclusive
curriculum, ban books and fear monger about indoctrination from
teachers who can barely afford rent, and still use their own
money to pay for school supplies for their students.
Hearings like this one elevate the hateful and baseless
demands of a small set of parents, while ignoring the very real
needs of parents who have legitimate concerns about their
children's privacy. In 2025, the privacy risks facing students
include things like students being profiled by discriminatory
artificial intelligence algorithms, or large-scale data
collection by for profit education technology contractors.
There are countless for profit education technology
companies lobbying schools to implement their surveillance
systems. These systems compel sensitive data, excuse me,
sensitive details about students' lives using biased AI tools
like facial recognition and so-called behavioral aggression
detection.
They monitor students' devices, chat messages, social
media, geolocation, and those with access to this vast amount
of student data can use it to surveil, to sensor, to punish and
criminalize children.
Ed tech companies not only have access to the sensitive
data, but they can profit off of it. I request unanimous
consent for a report by the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights titled, ``The Rising Use of
Artificial Intelligence in K through 12 Education,'' to be
entered into the record.
Mr. Moylan. (presiding). Without objection.
[The information of Ms. Lee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lee. Thank you. This report highlights a FERPA
loophole, where for profit education technology companies who
contracts with schools can be deemed school officials, and are
granted access to sensitive student data with no real
oversight.
Mr. Venzke, in your testimony you talked about the
loopholes that permit the monetization of student data. Can you
tell us what Congress can do to close these loopholes, and
address actual concerns about protecting students' privacy?
Mr. Venzke. Thank you for the question, Representative. The
threat posed by technology in the classroom can bring of course
benefits, but a risk to student privacy as well. There are a
number of steps that Congress or the Department of Education
can take immediately to address this.
One is ensuring that two key definitions in FERPA are
broadly construed, that is educational records and personally
identifiable information. The key here is to make sure that
this law from 1974 is very clearly extended to modern digital
records, whether that be the metadata that ed tech platforms
collect on students as they are using the services, or things
like emails regarding students.
There are additional measures that can be used as well,
such as passing a Federal version of the law known as SOPIPA,
which guarantees that education technology platforms do not
sell or monetize student data. A number of avenues available.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. By focusing on parents' rights to
access student data that they already have a right to access,
Republicans are shifting the narrative away from ed tech
companies profiting from students' data without their consent.
In addition to closing loopholes, we have to protect students
from biased AI that exacerbates the school to prison pipelines.
We can start by passing the AI Civil Rights Act that I
introduced yesterday with Senator Markey and Congresswomen
Clarke and Pressley, and several other colleagues. Among many
of the safeguards, this bill will prohibit ed tech companies
from selling schools biased algorithms that inform
consequential actions like suspensions or expulsions, or
referrals to law enforcement.
As technology advances, we need to ensure children's safety
is at the forefront, and I mean safety from actual harm, not
from a book that has characters reflecting the diversity in
America, or makes a student think critically about our
country's past. I would love to see our Committee discuss some
of those. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Venzke. Thank you, Representative, for supporting the
AI Civil Rights Act.
Mr. Moylan. I thank the gentlelady, and I wish to yield 5
minutes to myself for questioning. Thank you for the panel
coming here today. Mr. Sharp, in your written testimony you
included an extended quote from Senator Orrin Hatch, describing
Congress' intent in passing PPRA.
You described this expression of congressional intent as
``prescient.'' Can you further explain why Senator Hatch was
correctly illustrating the importance of PPRA?
Mr. Sharp. Yes. At the time he introduced that statement he
was very concerned, along with other Members of Congress about
schools asking very invasive questions, and evaluations of
kids, asking about their behavioral patterns, their beliefs
with the intent to sort of manipulate these kids.
Some of the questions were also designed as he described
them to sort of drive a wedge between parents, and actually
question kids to paint their parents as the bad guy. That is a
lot of what we unfortunately see with these secret transition
policies across the country.
I looked at some of ADF's clients, like the Mead family, or
the Visake, or the Foot family. These are all parents that love
their kids and wanted to be invested, but found themselves
boxed out by school officials, who painted the parents as
intolerant or bigoted, that is how one set of family parents
were described when they simply told schools stop trying to
transition our kids. Stop trying to use inaccurate names and
pronouns over our wishes.
That is the exact thing that Orrin Hatch was worried about
when he introduced this, and why it is so important that we
need PPRA and FERPA reinvigorated today to protect parental
rights, and to make sure that these loving, caring families are
not boxed out and painted as villains by schools.
Mr. Moylan. Very true. Thank you. Ms. Powell, you mentioned
in your testimony that parents' rights is often quoted as a
right-wing cause. Could you tell us about your own political
history, and how you came to be involved in these issues in
California?
Mrs. Powell. Yes, thanks for the question. I am born and
raised in Oakland, California, which is the most liberal place
you can find anywhere. Right next door to Berkeley, right by
San Francisco. I was a registered Democrat for I guess 30
years. I would have considered myself pretty far to the left of
the party, and I found in recent years that the values that I
associated with liberals or progressives were being abandoned.
I had worked in human rights law originally, and that is a
field dominated by liberals, and now increasingly you find
people are talking about Civil Rights issues, they are more
likely to be Republicans or identify as conservatives, which is
why I am here at the invitation of a Republican.
I do not see how there is still among many liberals,
liberal values. I mean to me this came in sharply during COVID,
where I saw authoritarian policies being promoted by people who
were considered liberals. I really like to reclaim that word
for something that has to do with liberty.
To me, parents' rights may have long been a conservative
issue to some extent, but it was never the understanding that
parents' rights are at the foundation of children's rights has
been around for many decades, forever, and that was something
progressives all agreed on.
When you see parents being actually cut-out, that is a very
radical, extreme move that I see happening in schools, and
despite some comments where former educators say that this is
not happening in schools, respectfully I think perhaps they
have not been paying attention in recent years. This is a new
development, and it is not what I saw when I was in school.
I am pretty shocked to find out the sort of attitudes from
the schools that we see now as a parent.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you so much. The whole panel was terrific
in providing your explanations. I found this really helpful,
and I appreciate you all coming on in today. I now wish to
recognize Ms. Bonamici for her closing remarks.
Ms. Bonamici. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank
you to the witnesses for being here today. As we wrap up, I
want to reiterate what I said before, and emphasize that
Democrats are unwavering in our support of parental rights. I
do not see it as a left or right or Democrat or Republican
issue. It is a right or wrong issue.
Parents are involved. Families are essential partners in
their children's education. There is no doubt about that, and
we want what is best for kids. The conversation we are having
today is not about empowering parents, it is about the balance
of trust and safety that needs to exist in schools.
Teachers are trained professionals and trusted with the
responsibility of guiding and supporting students. That
relationship is built on the foundation of trust. When we place
teachers in the position of being forced to compromise trust,
whether by disclosing personal information about students, or
being forced to out a child, that creates real harm,
particularly to some of the most vulnerable students in our
schools.
We cannot ignore the effects of policies that place
teachers in such a difficult position. Unfortunately, even
though some would like to, we cannot create or order by
legislation good relationships between students and their
parents. That is not something we can do.
One of the things I want emphasize is that statements made
by the administration and sometimes by Members of Congress that
demonize or disparage LGBTQI+ people are not only mean and
discriminatory, but also counter productive to open dialog
between students and parents.
I want to note that in 2023, 86 percent of trans or non-
binary youths said that recent debates regarding anti-trans
bias negatively affected their mental health. That was 86
percent. There is no more recent research on that because the
Trump administration has ended research on LGBTQI health, but
it is really something that we need to keep in mind.
I also want to say that we cannot let divisive political
agendas distract us from real challenges. I want to go back to
something that Mrs. Powell said, a child needs the support of
their parents. Absolutely. We do not disagree with that. Just
real quickly, two stories.
In this very room, a mom named Kimberly sat where you are
sitting today and said I am from--this is what Kimberly said--I
am a hard-core conservative Republican from rural Texas, and
ever since my child was born my child has been saying: I am a
girl mom, I am a girl.
Kimberly said, we tried everything. We prayed. We tried
conversion therapy. Then I heard my child threaten suicide. At
that point Kimberly took her family and moved to a place where
her daughter Kai is now supported and healthy, and doing well
in school, so they could talk about where Kai was excelling,
not where Kai was doing something wrong.
That is a courageous parent who did the best for her child
to support her child. Not every parent is like that.
The other story is Secretary Vilsack, when he was
Agriculture Secretary, sat in this room, in this very room, and
somebody said why should parents not be taking care of their
kids? Why should the government feed them?
Secretary Vilsack said, well, let me tell you what happened
to me. I was an orphan. I went from orphanage to orphanage, and
then I was finally adopted, but my adoptive mother was good to
me when she was sober, but that was not very often. The reason
Secretary Vilsack said I am here today is because he had food
to eat at school.
It is an analogous situation. Not every parent is going to
help and support their child, and that is what we need to be
aware of. Again, we cannot order or create a good relationship
between parents and students, as much as we would like to. What
we need to do is focus on, in this Committee, addressing what
people really care about.
Can they afford their healthcare? Can they afford their
housing? We have had some good bipartisan hearings in this
Committee about screen time and about hands on project-based
learning and career and technical education, and the benefits
of those.
Let us work together on the many issues and the privacy
issues, many of which we identified today, Mr. Chairman, where
we agree. Let us all agree that creating a safe and supportive
environment where students can thrive, and where parents and
educators can work together, that is to the benefit of all
children.
I look forward to the ongoing conversation, Mr. Chairman,
and witnesses, again, thank you for being here, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Kiley. Thanks very much. I am glad that we have
had a fair amount of bipartisan agreement, both on specific
policies and on the foundational importance of parental rights.
You know, I would like this issue to become one that is not a
source of ongoing contention, that is just kind of the default
and the law is that parents have a right to know what goes on
in their kids' classrooms.
That is why we had these two landmark pieces of legislation
that have been on the books for decades with bipartisan
support. I think that, you know, the issue where we actually
are seeing attacks on parental rights that occur in states like
California, as I said before, you almost always find that it is
in places where the underlying school system is not performing
well.
It becomes this sort of smokescreen to distract from the
failure to teach kids reading and writing and math. I think
that is unfortunate.
I think that hopefully though we can as a Committee, work
on making sure that these issues do not continue to flare up in
places like California that we can agree on protecting the
rights of parents, and that we can return our focus in our
school system to 100 percent of what it should be on, and that
is making sure that every child has access to a great
education.
I want to thank our truly exceptional witnesses for your
testimony, and without there being no further business, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mr.
Matt Sharp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mr.
Cody J. Venzke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]