The U.S. Department of Education has asked California and Washington to explain how they will revise student-record policies following recent court decisions involving parental access, student privacy and gender-identity information.

Editorial Note

This article examines an active legal and policy dispute involving parental access to education records, student privacy and protections for transgender students. The issue involves competing constitutional, statutory and student-safety arguments, and several legal questions remain unresolved.

The U.S. Department of Education’s July 30 announcement reflects the federal government’s position. California and Washington maintain their own laws and guidance intended to protect students from discrimination and involuntary disclosure. New To Education does not take a position on a student’s gender identity or a family’s personal beliefs.

Federal Officials Request Updated Information From Two States

The U.S. Department of Education has asked education officials in California and Washington to explain how they plan to revise policies governing parental access to student records.

The Department’s Student Privacy Policy Office announced the action on July 30, 2026. It requested updated information from the California Department of Education and Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Federal officials said the request follows recent court decisions that strengthened certain parental-rights claims involving information maintained by public schools.

The Department is not announcing a new court ruling or immediately withdrawing federal funding. It is seeking information that could influence the next steps in existing federal reviews.

What the Federal Government Is Examining

The dispute centers on whether schools may withhold records or information related to a student’s gender identity from a parent.

The federal Department of Education argues that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act generally gives parents the right to inspect their minor children’s education records and request corrections to inaccurate information.

Federal officials contend that state or local policies should not prevent parents from accessing records that would otherwise be available under FERPA.

California and Washington have approached the issue partly through student privacy, nondiscrimination and safety protections. Their policies recognize that automatically disclosing a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression could expose some students to rejection, punishment, harassment or other harm.

The legal conflict is therefore not simply about whether parents have rights or whether students deserve protection. Both principles are recognized. The unresolved question is how they apply when a student asks a public school not to disclose sensitive information to a parent.

California’s AB 1955 Is Central to the Dispute

California enacted Assembly Bill 1955, known as the SAFETY Act, in 2024. The law became effective January 1, 2025.

The law prevents school districts from requiring employees to disclose information related to a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression without the student’s consent, unless disclosure is otherwise required by state or federal law.

AB 1955 also invalidates local policies that broadly require employees to disclose that information and prohibits retaliation against educators who support students’ rights under California law.

Importantly, California’s own guidance states that AB 1955 does not create an absolute prohibition on disclosure in every situation. Instead, it prevents school systems from adopting blanket policies that require disclosure without considering other legal requirements or circumstances.

The federal government maintains that California’s approach may conflict with parental rights under FERPA and the Constitution.

California Guidance Already Reflects Ongoing Litigation

The California Department of Education has already added a court-ordered notice to its AB 1955 guidance.

The notice states that parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed when their child expresses gender incongruence at a public school. It also says teachers and school employees have a right to provide that information accurately.

However, the procedural posture remains complicated.

California’s guidance explains that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a temporary stay affecting portions of a lower-court injunction while litigation continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

That means the underlying dispute has not necessarily reached a final resolution on every legal question affecting every school and employee.

Schools should therefore avoid treating a press release, preliminary injunction or appellate order as though it has automatically produced one simple nationwide rule.

Washington Is Reviewing Its Guidance

Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction has stated that it is reviewing guidance and resources for school districts following recent court action.

Washington continues to recognize protections against discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. State guidance also generally supports students being treated consistently with their gender identity at school.

At the same time, Washington officials have acknowledged parental rights involving religion, family decision-making and a child’s medical care.

The state’s gender-inclusive school guidelines are currently under revision, making the federal request particularly significant.

The Department of Education is asking Washington to explain how that revision process will account for recent court decisions and federal record-access requirements.

What FERPA Does and Does Not Do

FERPA is a federal law governing access to and disclosure of education records.

For most students younger than 18, FERPA gives parents the right to inspect and review records maintained by a school. Those rights generally transfer to the student when the student turns 18 or attends a postsecondary institution.

However, not every conversation or personal observation automatically becomes an education record.

FERPA generally applies to records that are directly related to a student and maintained by a school, district or party acting on the institution’s behalf.

That distinction may become important in this dispute. Courts and agencies may need to examine whether a particular name, pronoun, counseling note, communication or administrative entry qualifies as an education record and whether another law permits or limits its disclosure.

FERPA also does not eliminate every obligation schools have under state privacy laws, civil-rights protections, child-abuse reporting rules or emergency exceptions.

Why the Recent Court Decisions Matter

The federal Department of Education cited recent decisions involving parental authority over the upbringing and education of children.

Federal officials argue that these rulings make it more difficult for states to defend policies that prevent parents from learning about certain information maintained by schools.

California and supporters of student-privacy protections may argue that students also possess constitutional and statutory rights, particularly when disclosure could expose them to discrimination or harm.

The legal result may depend on the scope of the policy being challenged.

A blanket policy requiring disclosure in every case may raise different legal questions from a policy allowing educators to evaluate individual circumstances. Similarly, a blanket rule prohibiting parents from seeing official education records may be treated differently from a school employee respecting a student’s privacy during an informal conversation.

What This Means for Teachers

Teachers should not attempt to resolve this legal conflict based on personal political views.

Educators should follow current district procedures, state guidance and instructions from authorized legal or administrative officials. They should also document questions and request written clarification when policies appear to conflict.

Teachers should avoid promising a student complete confidentiality when school rules, safety concerns or mandatory-reporting obligations may require disclosure.

They should also avoid independently disclosing sensitive information without understanding the applicable policy and the possible effect on the student.

When a student raises a concern involving possible abuse, self-harm, threats or another immediate safety issue, staff should follow the district’s established reporting and emergency procedures.

The safest professional response is to remain neutral, protect the student’s dignity and refer difficult legal questions to trained administrators, counselors or legal staff.

What This Means for Parents

Parents generally have substantial rights to participate in their children’s education and review education records.

However, the exact information available through a records request can depend on what the school maintains, how the information was created and whether another legal protection applies.

Parents who believe records are being withheld should use the district’s formal records-request and complaint process rather than directing anger at individual teachers.

They may also request written explanations identifying the policy or legal authority the district relied upon.

This creates a record that can be reviewed by the district, state education agency, federal Student Privacy Policy Office or a court if the disagreement continues.

What This Means for School Districts

Districts in California and Washington may need to review several areas at the same time:

Policies governing parental inspection of student records

Rules concerning names, pronouns and gender markers in school systems

Guidance for counselors, teachers and administrators

Procedures for responding to student requests for privacy

Emergency, abuse-reporting and student-safety exceptions

Employee training and protections against retaliation

Districts should distinguish between official education records and informal communications. They should also avoid policies written so broadly that employees cannot determine when disclosure is required, permitted or prohibited.

Written guidance should explain who makes the decision, how safety concerns are evaluated and when legal counsel should be involved.

Federal Funding Is Not Being Immediately Terminated

The Department of Education noted that FERPA violations can ultimately place federal funding at risk.

That does not mean California or Washington has already lost federal education funding because of the July 30 announcement.

The federal government requested information and said the responses would guide its next steps.

Before imposing major sanctions, federal officials would generally need to continue the administrative process, identify specific violations and provide an opportunity for compliance or review.

Headlines suggesting that the states have already been financially punished would therefore overstate the current development.

New To Education Analysis

This dispute demonstrates the difficulty of turning broad rights into workable school procedures.

Parents have legitimate interests in understanding what is happening in their children’s education. Students also have legitimate interests in privacy, dignity and protection from discrimination or harm.

The challenge is that both concerns can be present in the same case.

A policy that automatically excludes parents from important education records may conflict with federal law. A policy that automatically discloses every private statement may also fail to account for student safety and individual circumstances.

School systems need clear procedures that distinguish records access from forced disclosure, routine support from medical decision-making, and ordinary privacy concerns from immediate safety threats.

Educators should not be placed in a position where they must personally interpret competing constitutional claims during a classroom conversation.

The most responsible approach is written policy, reliable training, individualized review and access to legal guidance when rights appear to conflict.

Key Takeaways

The U.S. Department of Education requested updated information from California and Washington on July 30, 2026.

The request concerns parental access to student records involving gender identity and how state policies will respond to recent court decisions.

California’s AB 1955 prevents schools from requiring blanket disclosure of a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression without consent, unless another law requires disclosure.

Washington is currently reviewing and revising its gender-inclusive school guidance.

The federal action is part of an ongoing review. It is not a final court judgment, a completed enforcement action or an immediate loss of federal funding.

Teachers should follow current written policy, avoid making personal legal judgments and seek administrative guidance when parental-access and student-privacy rules appear to conflict.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the federal government order California and Washington to change their policies immediately?

The Department requested updated information about how the states plan to revise their policies. The announcement did not itself replace state law or complete the enforcement process.

Is California’s AB 1955 still in effect?

California continues to publish AB 1955 guidance, although parts of the legal framework are being challenged in court. Schools should follow current official guidance and any applicable court orders.

Does FERPA give parents access to every conversation a student has with a teacher?

Not necessarily. FERPA generally applies to education records maintained by a school or an authorized party. Whether a particular communication becomes an education record depends on the circumstances.

Can a teacher promise complete confidentiality?

Teachers should not promise complete confidentiality because safety concerns, mandatory-reporting laws or school policy may require them to share information.

Have California or Washington lost federal funding?

No immediate funding termination was announced on July 30. The Department said the states’ responses would inform its next steps.

Does this issue only affect transgender students?

The current dispute focuses on gender-identity information, but its outcome could influence broader questions involving parental access, student privacy, counseling records and school recordkeeping.

Final Thoughts

The federal request places California and Washington at the center of a developing legal conflict involving parents, students and public schools.

The issue should not be reduced to political slogans.

Parents deserve meaningful access to their children’s education. Students deserve safety, dignity and protection from discrimination. Teachers deserve policies that are clear enough to follow without risking discipline for making a good-faith decision.

The legal system will continue defining where those rights begin, overlap and sometimes conflict.

Until the dispute becomes clearer, schools should rely on accurate records, written procedures, individualized safety reviews and professional legal guidance rather than assumptions or political pressure.

Support New To Education

New To Education provides independent reporting and analysis on educational law, school leadership, student rights, parental involvement and public policy.

Visit NewToEducation.com to read more education news, join the community and support our work.

Education Department Launches Nationwide Parental-Rights Enforcement Initiative

New York Begins Rulemaking That Could Reshape Student and Parent Protections