US Education Department Finds California Violated Federal Law on Parental Access to Student Gender Records
The United States Department of Education has officially concluded that the California Department of Education violated federal law by maintaining policies that systematically prevented parents from accessing certain student records related to gender identity. This significant finding was announced through a detailed press release issued by the federal department, marking a major escalation in the ongoing national debate over parental rights and student privacy.
Investigation Reveals Systematic Violations of Federal Privacy Law
According to the official statement, the finding was made by the Department's Student Privacy Policy Office, which enforces the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). This crucial federal law explicitly grants parents the right to inspect their children's education records, establishing clear protections for parental access to information about their minor children's educational experiences.
The comprehensive investigation determined that California's education policies created substantial pressure on school districts to conceal information about students' gender identity from parents. This placed local districts in direct conflict with federal privacy requirements, forcing them to choose between complying with state mandates or upholding federal law.
"Our investigation found that the California Department of Education egregiously abused its authority by pressuring school officials to withhold information about students' so-called gender transitions from their parents," stated U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in the official press release. This strong language underscores the severity of the federal department's findings.
Federal Findings Directly Conflict with California State Policy
The Student Privacy Policy Office identified that California laws, guidance documents, and legal actions effectively coerced school districts into withholding records that should be fully accessible to parents under federal law. The press release specifically cited Assembly Bill 1955 as a central point of tension—this California legislation prohibits schools from requiring parental notification of a student's gender transition, creating a direct conflict with federal requirements.
District leaders told federal investigators that state policy left them facing an impossible choice: comply with federal law and risk legal action from the state, or follow state guidance and violate federal privacy requirements. This untenable position placed local education officials in legal jeopardy regardless of their decisions.
The investigation uncovered additional concerning practices, including that some districts maintained separate filing systems for documents known as gender support plans. According to the Department, these plans were deliberately kept outside students' cumulative records with the explicit purpose of preventing parental access.
The Department stated that guidance from the California Department of Education asserting that such plans were not part of an education record directly violated parental inspection rights under FERPA. This interpretation created a loophole that effectively denied parents access to crucial information about their children's educational experiences.
Background and Evidence Cited by Federal Investigators
According to the press release and public records reviewed during the investigation, school staff in California implemented various measures to limit parental visibility into student records. These included:
- Requesting software changes to hide name and pronoun updates from parent portals
- Using different names for students in communications with parents
- Maintaining separate documentation systems for gender-related information
The Department reported that evidence showed at least 300 students were placed on gender support plans, many without parental knowledge or consent. The press release also referenced ongoing litigation and a recent case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a parent who alleged school staff deliberately concealed information about her child's gender identity.
California officials have previously argued that students have a constitutional right to privacy from their parents and that mandatory disclosure could harm transgender students. The Department's finding directly challenges this position, stating unequivocally that federal law requires parental access to all education records related to minor children, without exception.
Proposed Steps to Resolve Federal Violations
The press release indicated that the Department has offered California the opportunity to voluntarily resolve the identified violations. Proposed corrective steps include:
- Issuing statewide guidance clarifying that gender support plans are education records subject to parental inspection
- Publicizing that there is no unofficial records exception under federal law
- Providing written assurances that school districts will be allowed to comply with federal requirements
- Obtaining certification from local education agencies confirming compliance
- Adding federally approved privacy training to existing teacher training programs
The Department issued a clear warning: failure to comply could risk the loss of federal funding for California's education system. This financial consequence adds significant weight to the federal government's position.
What Comes Next in This Federal-State Conflict
The Department stated it will continue monitoring California's response and compliance efforts. In a Dear Colleague Letter sent earlier this year, the Student Privacy Policy Office had already identified the withholding of gender identity records from parents as a priority concern under federal law.
The outcome of this dispute is likely to shape how school districts nationwide balance state guidance with federal privacy obligations. For now, the finding places California's education policies under intense federal scrutiny, with compliance timelines and potential funding consequences remaining unresolved. This case represents a significant test of federal authority in education policy and could establish important precedents for similar conflicts in other states.
