On August 26, the U.S. Department of Education's Student Privacy Policy Office issued a letter that rewrites how schools must manage parental permission for student surveys and mental health screenings. The five-page document, signed by SPPO Director Frank Miller Jr., announces that all such assessments administered by district employees will be treated as "required" by the school, meaning written parental consent is now mandatory and opt-out procedures do not meet the requirements of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.
The letter reverses the long-standing practice in many districts of allowing parents to review a survey and then choose whether their child participates. Miller wrote that schools often frame surveys as optional, but students feel pressure to comply because an authority figure is administering the task. Peer pressure, fear of being left out, and a desire to please adults are cited as reasons students may not independently seek a parent's review, according to reporting by K-12 Dive.
The change covers eight categories protected by PPRA: political beliefs; mental or psychological problems; sexual behavior or attitudes; illegal or antisocial behavior; critical appraisals of close family members; privileged relationships such as with lawyers or clergy; religious practices; and income, except where required for program eligibility.
Mental health screenings affected
The SPPO letter specifically identifies mental health screenings as falling under the written consent rule, even when those screenings are labeled as voluntary. Questionnaires that probe emotional well-being, internalized distress, social interactions, or other indicators of psychological health are covered. The guidance marks a departure from the prior regulatory understanding reflected in SPPO's own previously published model notice, which had framed opt-out as adequate for surveys not funded by federal education programs.
Gender plans and parental access
The August 26 letter also addresses student gender plans, which some schools create as internal documents. SPPO states that FERPA does not recognize a distinction between an "official student record" and other records. Any information directly related to a student and maintained by a school is part of that student's education record and must be accessible to parents on request, according to the letter's text.
The letter follows an earlier enforcement framework set in motion on March 28, 2025, when SPPO issued a letter to chief state school officers identifying gender plans as a priority concern and requiring each state education agency to submit compliance documentation by April 30, 2025. That earlier letter also launched FERPA investigations into the California and Maine departments of education, according to the agency. In Maine, SPPO alleged that nearly 30 percent of local education agencies were concealing students' gender-related health information from parents, and pointed to an apparent conflict between Maine statute 20-A Section 4008, which gives counselors a confidentiality privilege, and FERPA's parental access rights.
Enforcement and Kansas districts
Violations of PPRA or FERPA can lead to termination of a school's federal funding, according to the department's press release. The department has previously investigated districts for distributing sexually explicit surveys even after parents had opted their children out, and for policies that instruct educators to hide records related to gender transition from parents.
The day before issuing the August 26 letter, SPPO announced a resolution agreement with Topeka Public Schools over FERPA violations related to gender support plans. Two other Kansas districts — Olathe Public Schools and Shawnee Mission Public Schools — refused to enter voluntary compliance agreements, the department said. SPPO is now partnering with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to pursue enforcement action against those districts, a process that could result in judicial proceedings and a loss of federal funding. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools also faces a coordinated federal enforcement effort.
Legal questions around an expanded interpretation
That reinterpretation has no basis in the statute's existing opt-out framework, according to the department's own model notice, which had previously treated opt-out as sufficient for non-ED-funded surveys. The practical impact on schools that routinely conduct climate surveys and mental health check-ins remains unresolved, as does the legal defensibility of the letter's reading of the law.