California and Washington face new federal pressure on parent access to records

The U.S. Department of Education on July 30 told California and Washington to explain how they will revise school policies on parent access to student records, escalating a dispute over what schools must disclose to families about gender-identity-related information and putting districts in both states on notice just as the new school year approaches. In a department press release, the agency said its Student Privacy Policy Office wants updated information from the California Department of Education and Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction about policies governing disclosure of records to parents.

What changed is not FERPA itself. The federal law still gives parents of students under 18 the right to inspect and review education records, and the Education Department’s own March 2025 annual notice says schools may not deny that access and must provide it within 45 days of a request. What has changed is the enforcement posture around that baseline, after the Supreme Court’s March 2, 2026, order in Mirabelli v. Bonta said California policies likely violated parents’ constitutional rights, and after a June 18 Ninth Circuit ruling in City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom gave parents preliminary relief against parts of California’s AB 1955, according to K-12 Dive’s reporting on the order.

That distinction matters for school leaders. The live legal question is no longer only whether a parent can obtain a record after asking for it. It is increasingly whether state guidance, local procedures, or staff training that discourage disclosure or separate some gender-related documents from ordinary files can survive federal scrutiny. California officials have argued for months that FERPA is an access-on-request law, not a general parental-notification mandate, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in February that the federal government was trying to force “corrective actions” not required by FERPA. (oag.ca.gov)

California’s guidance now contains two messages at once

California’s official position has been that AB 1955 does not itself require secrecy from parents. In an April 1 letter to districts, the California Department of Education said the law bars districts from requiring staff to disclose a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without consent, unless state or federal law requires disclosure. In an April 11 response to federal investigators, the state again argued that there was “no conflict” between AB 1955 and FERPA. Then, in a February 11 letter, CDE told districts that support plans related to gender identity remain subject to parental inspection under FERPA even if they are kept outside a student’s cumulative file.

But California’s own AB 1955 guidance page now opens with an “important notice” saying parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public-school child expresses gender incongruence. The page says that notice was added on March 3, 2026, and that publishing it was compelled by a district court injunction in Mirabelli v. Olson. The same page also says the AB 1955 guidance itself is nonbinding. For district administrators, that combination is striking: the state has not abandoned its reading of AB 1955, but it has already had to post federally compelled language on top of it. (cde.ca.gov)

That is why the federal department’s July 30 move matters even without a new regulation or statute. Washington may be under active investigation and California may already have a FERPA finding against it, but both states are being asked the same practical question: what, exactly, are districts supposed to change in written policy, records procedures, and staff guidance after the courts’ recent rulings? The press release did not publish a deadline or specify the sanctions that would follow if the states refuse. (ed.gov)

Washington is revising guidance while insisting it already complies

Washington is in a slightly different position. OSPI has not conceded any conflict with federal law. In a July 30 statement, Superintendent Chris Reykdal said Washington law already gives parents and guardians access to their child’s school records and that the state’s civil-rights laws are fully compliant with federal law. OSPI’s student and parent rights page likewise says districts should implement ESHB 1296 consistently with FERPA, HIPAA, and other federal law.

At the same time, Washington has already begun revising materials. OSPI’s gender-inclusive schools guidance says the agency is reviewing its resources for consistency with Mirabelli and has temporarily removed a webinar and training handout. Yet that same page still says students have the right to be addressed by their requested name and pronoun and that school records should use the student’s requested name, pronoun, and gender designation unless there is a legal reason not to do so. That is the kind of mixed message local districts now have to navigate: nondiscrimination guidance remains in force, but some supporting materials are being pulled back for legal review.

The immediate compliance work is in records systems, not slogans

For principals, counselors, student-services leaders, and privacy officers, the most urgent task is unlikely to be rewriting a board-level ideology statement. It is checking where information lives and how staff are trained to handle it. California’s February 11 letter expressly says a support plan does not escape FERPA just because it is kept in a separate location, and the federal annual notice says parents must be allowed to inspect education records within 45 days of a request. Districts in both states should assume that any document directly related to a student and maintained by the school could become part of this fight: student information system fields, parent-portal visibility settings, counseling referral forms, support plans, internal instructions on names and pronouns, and the scripts front-office staff use when parents ask for records. (cde.ca.gov)

The second-order effect is that compliance risk now runs in two directions. A district that classifies gender-related documents too narrowly may draw federal scrutiny for denying parents access to education records. A district that reacts by broadly disclosing information without reviewing state nondiscrimination rules, local policy, or the facts of a particular case may invite state complaints or litigation. Washington’s current framework adds another pressure point: effective July 1, 2026, OSPI says it is responsible for investigating complaints alleging willful noncompliance with certain state laws. (ospi.k12.wa.us)

What remains uncertain is whether the federal government is ultimately trying to force access to records on request, proactive parent notification, or both. California’s February court fight with the department underscored that gap. In official filings and press statements, state officials said the federal findings tried to attach new conditions to about $4.9 billion in federal education funding, and a federal court temporarily blocked the department from withholding that money while the case proceeds. The July 30 press release raises the temperature again, but it still does not answer the operational question districts care about most: what exact revision will satisfy Washington and California regulators at the same time as federal enforcers? (oag.ca.gov)

For now, schools in California and Washington are left with a narrower but unavoidable assignment before students return: audit record-access practices, compare them with the latest state guidance, and be ready for more rewrites. The next concrete development to watch is not another broad political statement. It is whether either state issues updated model language for districts — or whether local systems will once again be left to sort out parent access, student privacy, and staff obligations one records request at a time. (ed.gov)