Federal Education Department Targets District Policies That Withhold Gender Information From Parents

The U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice are taking action against school districts in Maryland and Michigan over policies involving transgender students, parental access to education records, student privacy, FERPA, and the withholding of gender-identity information from families.

Editorial Note

This article examines developing federal enforcement actions involving transgender students, parental access to education records, student privacy, and school-district policies.

The federal government has determined that Anne Arundel County Public Schools failed to substantially comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Ann Arbor Public Schools has been given an opportunity to respond before federal officials decide whether to begin enforcement proceedings against that district.

The Department of Education uses strongly worded language when describing the policies and events at issue. Those descriptions reflect the current administration’s legal and political position. The districts, affected families, students, and advocacy organizations may dispute the government’s factual characterizations or interpretation of federal law.

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes. It does not offer legal advice or encourage families, schools, or employees to disclose sensitive student information without considering applicable federal law, state law, district policy, and individual safety concerns.

Federal Officials Are Escalating a National Parental-Rights Dispute

The U.S. Department of Education is intensifying its campaign against school-district policies that allow employees to withhold information about a student’s gender identity from the student’s parents.

On July 27, the department announced significant action involving Anne Arundel County Public Schools in Maryland and Ann Arbor Public Schools in Michigan.

The Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office is working with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to pursue enforcement against Anne Arundel County. Federal officials say the district improperly treated information concerning a student’s gender identity as confidential medical information that could be withheld from parents.

Ann Arbor received a separate notice stating that its policy likely violates federal law. The Michigan district has until August 10 to explain why the federal government should not move forward with enforcement proceedings.

The dispute centers on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, commonly known as FERPA.

FERPA gives parents important rights concerning the education records of their minor children. The current administration argues that districts violate those rights when they create, maintain, or use records concerning a student’s name, pronouns, or gender identity while refusing to allow parents to inspect them.

The districts and student advocates may argue that schools also have responsibilities to protect vulnerable students from forced disclosure, family rejection, abuse, or homelessness.

The legal conflict is therefore not simply about whether parents matter.

It concerns which information legally qualifies as an education record, when parents have a right to access it, whether students possess competing privacy or safety interests, and how school employees should respond when those interests appear to conflict.

What the Federal Government Says Happened in Anne Arundel County

The Maryland action reportedly began with complaints from parents who learned through a school email that employees were referring to their child with male pronouns.

According to the Department of Education, the parents then approached school administrators for additional information. Federal officials say the principal declined to discuss the student’s gender-related situation and that an assistant principal refused to provide relevant records.

The Student Privacy Policy Office concluded that the district’s policies and practices interfered with the parents’ ability to exercise their FERPA rights.

Federal officials also objected to the district’s reported classification of gender-identity information as confidential medical information. The department’s position is that records maintained by a school concerning a student remain subject to FERPA even when they involve sensitive personal or health-related matters.

Anne Arundel County Public Schools said it first learned about the federal allegations through the government’s press release. The district stated that it had not yet received the formal notice, supporting documentation, findings, or related correspondence necessary to evaluate the claims fully.

The district also said it takes its FERPA obligations seriously and would consult legal counsel before responding through the appropriate process.

That disagreement over notice is significant.

Government agencies generally provide regulated institutions with written findings, evidence, deadlines, and an opportunity to respond. If the district truly received the public announcement before the formal enforcement materials, that sequence could intensify concerns that the action was presented politically before the district had a meaningful opportunity to review the allegations.

It does not necessarily invalidate the government’s underlying conclusion.

It does reinforce the importance of distinguishing a public press statement from the complete administrative record.

Ann Arbor Faces an August 10 Deadline

The federal government has not yet reached the same final position regarding Ann Arbor Public Schools.

Instead, the Student Privacy Policy Office determined that the district’s policy likely violates FERPA and gave the district until August 10 to demonstrate why enforcement should not proceed.

Ann Arbor’s policy reportedly directs employees not to disclose information that could reveal a student’s transgender status to parents, guardians, other students, or employees unless disclosure is legally required or the student authorizes it.

The policy also provides that documents containing a student’s birth name or sex designation may be maintained in a separate confidential file after school records are updated to reflect the student’s chosen name or gender marker.

Federal officials argue that separating those documents does not remove them from FERPA. Their position is that maintaining the records in a different filing system cannot be used to prevent parents from exercising their right to inspect records relating to their minor child.

Ann Arbor must now explain its policy, supporting legal reasoning, recordkeeping practices, and any distinctions it believes FERPA requires.

The district may argue that its rules protect students from involuntary disclosure and that employees must consider student safety.

The government may respond that student safety concerns cannot justify a broad policy requiring employees to conceal records from parents.

The district’s response could help determine whether this becomes a negotiated compliance matter, an administrative enforcement action, or a federal court dispute.

What FERPA Actually Protects

FERPA is frequently described as a student-privacy law, but in elementary and secondary education it primarily gives rights to parents.

Those rights generally transfer to the student when the student turns 18 or attends a postsecondary institution.

Parents of minor students generally have the right to inspect and review education records maintained by a federally funded school. They may also request correction of records they believe are inaccurate or misleading and exercise some control over the disclosure of personally identifiable information.

Schools usually must provide annual notice explaining these rights.

FERPA does not require schools to disclose every conversation, observation, or memory held by an employee.

The law primarily concerns records.

That distinction could become one of the most important issues in these cases.

A teacher’s unrecorded awareness that a student uses a different name with classmates may not automatically become an education record. Once the school documents that information in an email, support plan, student database, counseling note, internal form, or separate electronic file, FERPA may become more directly relevant.

A former federal FERPA official told a Michigan news outlet that parents generally have access to written school records containing information about a student’s preferred gender identity, while information that was never written down may fall outside FERPA’s record-access provisions.

That does not resolve every question.

It shows why school policies must carefully distinguish confidential conversations from records formally created or maintained by the institution.

Calling a Record “Medical” Does Not Necessarily Remove It From FERPA

Federal officials particularly objected to Anne Arundel County’s reported treatment of gender-identity information as confidential medical information.

In K–12 schools, health and counseling records maintained by the school are often still considered education records under FERPA.

This differs from certain postsecondary treatment records and from medical records held by independent healthcare providers.

A school cannot necessarily avoid FERPA by changing the label on a document or placing it in a different office.

If a counselor, administrator, teacher, or school nurse creates and maintains a record directly related to a student, that document may remain an education record unless a specific legal exception applies.

The federal government’s argument is therefore broader than a disagreement over pronouns.

It is arguing that districts cannot design recordkeeping systems for the purpose of preventing parents from locating records to which FERPA gives them access.

Districts must determine whether their confidentiality practices protect students lawfully or unlawfully obstruct parental record rights.

Student Privacy and Parental Access Are Not Identical Questions

FERPA is often misunderstood as granting students complete privacy from their parents.

For most minor K–12 students, that is not how the statute operates.

The parent normally holds the FERPA rights.

However, this does not mean students possess no privacy, safety, or constitutional interests.

Schools routinely handle information involving abuse allegations, mental health, pregnancy, family conflict, sexual orientation, disability, immigration, and other sensitive matters. Employees may need to consider mandatory-reporting rules, state confidentiality laws, professional ethics, constitutional protections, and immediate safety concerns.

A student may disclose information at school because the student is uncertain whether disclosure at home will be safe.

Critics of mandatory parental notification argue that forced disclosure could expose some LGBTQ+ students to rejection, punishment, violence, housing instability, or homelessness.

Supporters of parental notification argue that schools should not facilitate major identity-related changes while deliberately excluding parents from information about their children.

Both concerns deserve serious consideration.

The legal mistake would be assuming that one concern automatically erases the other.

FERPA may give parents a right to records. That does not necessarily require every teacher to immediately report every private conversation.

Student safety may justify careful handling of information. That does not necessarily authorize a district to create a blanket policy requiring the concealment of written records.

The Difference Between Privacy and Secrecy

Schools need to distinguish between protecting sensitive information and actively creating secrecy from parents.

Privacy may involve limiting information to employees who need it, preventing disclosure to classmates, protecting records from the public, and ensuring that a student is not subjected to bullying or humiliation.

Secrecy from parents involves a separate decision: deliberately withholding information or records from the people who hold legal authority over a minor.

There may be rare situations in which disclosure could place a student in immediate danger. Those situations should be handled through established child-protection, counseling, legal, and safety procedures.

A broad district policy is different.

A policy directing employees to withhold gender-related information from every parent unless a student approves disclosure may conflict with FERPA when the information is recorded and maintained by the school.

At the same time, a broad policy requiring immediate disclosure of every student statement may create different safety and legal concerns.

Schools need individualized procedures rather than slogans.

Why Separate Files Have Become a Federal Concern

One of the practices attracting federal scrutiny is the use of separate or confidential files for gender-support information.

A district may argue that keeping a student’s former name or sex designation in a restricted file protects privacy and prevents unnecessary disclosure.

Federal officials may accept restricted access among employees while still insisting that parents retain the right to inspect the file.

The legal question is not simply where the document is stored.

It is whether the school maintains it and whether it directly relates to the student.

FERPA generally does not allow an institution to remove a document from parental access merely by placing it outside the student’s ordinary cumulative folder.

A digital file, counselor record, support plan, spreadsheet, email, or separate database may still qualify as an education record.

District leaders should therefore review every location where employees maintain student information.

The same legal issue extends beyond gender identity.

Schools cannot necessarily use separate systems to hide disciplinary records, disability information, behavioral notes, attendance documents, or academic communications from parents when FERPA applies.

The Federal Government Is Treating the Issue as a National Priority

The actions against Maryland and Michigan are not isolated.

In March 2025, the Department of Education sent state and local education agencies a notice reminding them of their FERPA and parental-rights obligations.

The Student Privacy Policy Office identified policies that withhold a student’s gender identity from parents as a priority concern.

The department has since opened or completed actions involving California, Maine, Kansas districts, and other education systems.

Earlier in 2026, federal officials found that California’s education department violated FERPA through policies and practices that encouraged districts to withhold gender-transition information and maintain separate gender-support records.

The administration has also increased coordination between the Department of Education and Department of Justice, allowing federal lawyers to become involved more quickly when districts refuse proposed corrective action.

This represents a significant shift in federal education enforcement.

Previous administrations may have emphasized the privacy and nondiscrimination interests of transgender students.

The current administration is placing greater emphasis on parental control, biological sex, access to records, and the argument that schools must not facilitate a social transition without family knowledge.

Future administrations could interpret some of the same laws differently.

That instability creates serious challenges for districts trying to adopt durable policies.

Enforcement Could Include Litigation or Federal Funding Consequences

The Department of Education says it and the Justice Department may pursue judicial proceedings against Anne Arundel County.

It has also warned that continued FERPA noncompliance can result in the loss of federal education funding.

That is legally possible, but funding termination is not automatic.

Federal agencies usually begin with notice, document requests, technical assistance, proposed corrective actions, compliance agreements, and opportunities to respond.

Funding termination is generally considered an extreme remedy.

The more immediate possibilities include policy revisions, new record-access procedures, employee training, monitoring, and negotiated assurances that parents can inspect all qualifying education records.

Ann Arbor is still at an earlier stage. The district’s August 10 response could prevent escalation if it persuades the government that the policy is lawful or if the district agrees to amend disputed provisions.

Neither district should be described as having already lost federal funding.

State Law May Not Resolve the Federal Dispute

Some states and districts have adopted policies intended to protect students from involuntary disclosure of gender identity.

Those policies may direct employees to use a student’s chosen name, limit disclosure to parents, or develop safety plans before discussing the matter with family members.

However, federal officials argue that state and local rules cannot override FERPA.

Under the Supremacy Clause, valid federal law generally prevails when it directly conflicts with state law.

That does not mean every federal interpretation is automatically correct.

A district or state may challenge the Department of Education’s interpretation in court. A judge could decide that FERPA does not require the disclosure the government seeks or that the agency exceeded its authority.

Until courts address the issue more definitively, districts face a difficult choice.

Following restrictive state confidentiality rules could trigger federal enforcement.

Following the federal government’s position could expose the district to state complaints, student-rights litigation, or criticism that it endangered vulnerable students.

The law is moving faster than many school policies can comfortably absorb.

School Employees Need Clearer Guidance

Teachers, counselors, administrators, and school psychologists should not be expected to resolve these conflicts individually.

A teacher who learns that a student uses another name should know whether the information must be documented, whether documentation creates a record accessible to parents, and whom to contact if disclosure may endanger the student.

Counselors need guidance on the limits of confidentiality.

Administrators need procedures for responding to parental record requests without destroying trust between students and support staff.

School technology systems must also be reviewed.

A student database may display one name to teachers and another to parents. Email systems, grade portals, attendance systems, library accounts, transportation records, and learning platforms may each contain different information.

Trying to conceal those differences through technical workarounds can create inaccurate records and greater legal risk.

The correct response is not to ask individual employees to improvise secrecy.

Districts need written, legally reviewed, safety-conscious procedures.

Parents Should Know What FERPA Does and Does Not Provide

Parents generally have the right to request access to their child’s education records.

A written request should identify the categories of records being sought, such as emails, counseling documents, support plans, database entries, disciplinary records, and communications relating to changes in the student’s name or pronouns.

Schools typically have a defined period in which to provide access.

FERPA does not necessarily require a school to answer every question about matters that were never documented.

It also does not automatically give parents access to the private notes of every employee. Certain records kept solely in the possession of the person who created them and not shared with others may be excluded under FERPA’s sole-possession exception.

Parents should therefore distinguish between requesting records and demanding disclosure of every conversation.

When a school denies access, it should explain the legal basis for the denial rather than simply describing the information as confidential.

Families dealing with a serious dispute may need advice from a qualified education attorney familiar with both FERPA and state law.

Protecting Transgender Students Must Remain Part of the Conversation

The federal government’s parental-rights campaign should not cause schools to disregard the safety and dignity of transgender or questioning students.

These students may experience bullying, isolation, anxiety, family conflict, or fear about disclosure.

Schools still have obligations to prevent harassment, apply discipline fairly, maintain safe learning environments, and provide access to appropriate counseling and support.

A student should not be publicly exposed, mocked, or used as the center of a political dispute.

Districts should also avoid assuming that every parent will respond negatively.

Many families want to support their children but need accurate information, thoughtful communication, and access to qualified professionals.

School policies should help families communicate where possible while preserving a safety plan for students facing a genuine risk of harm.

Parental involvement and student support do not always have to operate as opposing forces.

The conflict becomes more severe when policies begin from the assumption that every parent is dangerous or that every student disclosure must immediately be reported without context.

When Disclosure May Create a Safety Risk

The hardest cases involve students who credibly fear abuse, abandonment, or homelessness if information is disclosed at home.

A school cannot promise complete secrecy when the law gives parents access to records.

It also should not ignore an expressed danger.

Employees should document the safety concern through appropriate channels, consult child-protection professionals when required, and determine whether mandatory-reporting obligations are triggered.

The district may need to involve social workers, mental-health professionals, legal counsel, or child-welfare authorities.

This is different from creating a routine policy that hides records from all parents.

Safety exceptions should respond to specific risks through lawful procedures.

They should not become a substitute for understanding FERPA.

The Issue Extends Beyond Gender Identity

Although these enforcement actions focus on transgender students, the legal principles could reach much further.

If schools may not place records in separate systems to avoid parental access, the same reasoning could affect records involving mental health, pregnancy, substance use, behavioral intervention, discipline, bullying, and political or religious activity.

If federal officials establish that parents are entitled to all school-maintained records concerning sensitive student support, districts may need to revise many confidentiality practices.

That could strengthen parental oversight.

It could also make some students less willing to seek assistance from counselors or trusted adults.

Policymakers should therefore consider the broader consequences.

A rule developed in a politically charged gender-identity dispute may reshape student-support systems across public education.

Schools Should Conduct Immediate Recordkeeping Reviews

Districts should examine whether any policy instructs employees to hide records from parents, maintain undisclosed support files, or use student-information systems in ways that prevent lawful parental access.

They should also identify which records are covered by FERPA and which may fall under another legal framework.

The review should include:

student databases and parent portals;
emails and internal messaging platforms;
counseling and social-work records;
gender-support or safety plans;
name and pronoun fields;
health-office documents;
teacher notes shared with colleagues;
records maintained by outside contractors.

The district should then develop procedures that protect records from unauthorized disclosure while preserving lawful access for parents and eligible students.

The safest policy is not necessarily the one that discloses the most information.

It is the one that accurately identifies who has the legal right to each record and what safety procedures apply when disclosure may create harm.

These Cases May Reach Federal Court

The involvement of the Department of Justice increases the possibility of litigation.

A federal court could eventually be asked to decide whether FERPA gives parents access to specific gender-related records, whether districts may classify those records as confidential, and whether the Department of Education’s interpretation is legally valid.

There may also be questions about whether FERPA creates rights enforceable through particular legal claims and what remedies the federal government may pursue.

Court challenges could address constitutional issues as well.

Parents may assert rights involving the care and upbringing of their children.

Students may raise privacy, equal-protection, due-process, or free-expression arguments.

Districts may challenge the federal government’s authority or argue that enforcement is arbitrary, politically motivated, or inconsistent with earlier guidance.

The eventual outcome could establish rules affecting schools nationwide.

New To Education and the Need for Balanced Coverage

Gender-identity disputes in schools are often presented in language designed to force readers into one political camp.

That approach leaves families and educators with more anger but less understanding.

New To Education examines these developments because the underlying legal questions affect real students, parents, teachers, counselors, and administrators.

Parents need to know what FERPA provides.

Students need to know that their dignity and safety remain important.

Employees need clear procedures.

Districts need policies that can survive federal and state review.

Balanced coverage does not require pretending that every position is equally supported by law.

It requires distinguishing confirmed facts, agency allegations, district responses, legal uncertainty, and political language.

Key Takeaways

The Department of Education and Department of Justice are taking enforcement action against Anne Arundel County Public Schools over alleged interference with parents’ FERPA rights.

Federal officials say the Maryland district improperly classified gender-identity information as confidential medical information and denied parents access to relevant school records.

Anne Arundel County says it learned about the allegations from the public announcement and had not yet received the formal findings or supporting documentation needed to respond fully.

Ann Arbor Public Schools has until August 10 to explain why federal enforcement should not proceed against its policy limiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to parents.

The government also objects to Ann Arbor’s practice of maintaining certain gender-related records in a separate confidential file.

FERPA generally gives parents the right to inspect education records maintained by K–12 schools, but it does not necessarily require disclosure of every undocumented conversation or personal observation.

The dispute raises competing concerns involving parental authority, student privacy, transgender-student safety, recordkeeping, state law, and federal enforcement.

A district should not broadly conceal records from parents. It also should not disregard a credible threat to a student’s safety.

The cases may lead to federal litigation capable of shaping school privacy and parental-access policies throughout the country.

FAQ

Which school districts are involved?

Anne Arundel County Public Schools in Maryland and Ann Arbor Public Schools in Michigan.

Has Ann Arbor been found in violation of FERPA?

The Department of Education says Ann Arbor’s policy likely violates FERPA. The district has until August 10 to respond before federal officials decide whether to proceed with enforcement.

What did the government conclude about Anne Arundel County?

Federal officials concluded that the district failed to substantially comply with FERPA by obstructing parental access to gender-related education records.

What does FERPA give parents?

FERPA generally gives parents of minor K–12 students the right to inspect and review education records, request amendments to inaccurate or misleading records, and exercise some control over disclosure to outside parties.

Does FERPA require teachers to report every private conversation to parents?

Not necessarily. FERPA governs education records. Information that has not been recorded or maintained by the school may raise different legal questions.

Can a school keep confidential records in a separate file?

A school may restrict employee access to sensitive records, but placing a record in a separate file does not necessarily remove it from FERPA or prevent a parent from inspecting it.

What happens when disclosure may endanger a student?

Schools should follow safety, child-protection, counseling, and mandatory-reporting procedures. A credible danger requires an individualized response rather than a broad policy of secrecy.

Could the districts lose federal funding?

Loss of funding is legally possible for unresolved FERPA violations, but it is generally an extreme enforcement step. Investigations and compliance negotiations usually occur first.

Do transgender students still have rights at school?

Yes. Schools must continue protecting students from harassment, discrimination, bullying, and unsafe conditions while complying with parental-access and recordkeeping laws.

Final Thoughts

The controversy surrounding Anne Arundel County and Ann Arbor reveals how difficult student privacy becomes when schools, parents, and students do not agree about who should know what.

Parents have legitimate legal rights.

They are generally responsible for their children’s healthcare, safety, education, and well-being. A school should not create secret files or technical systems designed to defeat lawful parental access.

Students also have legitimate needs.

A young person who fears rejection, abuse, or homelessness should not be treated as collateral damage in a political campaign.

Schools must take both realities seriously.

The answer cannot be automatic secrecy from every parent.

It also cannot be careless disclosure without considering whether a student faces a real threat.

The strongest policies will protect parental record rights, treat students with dignity, document decisions accurately, involve qualified professionals, and respond individually when safety is at risk.

Federal enforcement may force districts to rewrite their policies.

Whether those changes improve student and family relationships will depend on whether government officials and school leaders can move beyond political slogans and address the difficult human situations beneath them.

Support New To Education

New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, parental rights, student privacy, school governance, civil rights, and federal education policy.

Readers can support this work by sharing our articles, joining the New To Education community, subscribing to updates, exploring our educational and professional services, and contributing through the support options available on our website.

Connecticut’s New Homeschool Law Triggers Federal Student-Privacy Challenge
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/connecticuts-new-homeschool-law-triggers-federal-student-privacy-challenge-6a65ecc3dd584

California Lawsuit Tests Whether Religious Opt-Out Rights Extend to Gender Lessons
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/california-lawsuit-tests-whether-religious-opt-out-rights-extend-to-gender-lessons-6a5d7ab70abb0