SB 118 revises Montana law governing education and workforce data, with a primary focus on student privacy. The bill creates a “right to be forgotten” for students and parents, allowing them to request deletion of a student’s education data from the statewide K-12 data system, subject to exceptions for legal compliance, contracts, and court orders. It also requires the Office of Public Instruction and the Education and Workforce Data Governing Board to provide accessible request methods, verify requests, delete data within specified timelines, and disclose the deleted data to the requester free of charge.
The bill also expands and clarifies the duties of the statewide education and workforce data governing board and the K-12 data task force. It requires stronger privacy and security policies, annual privacy-rights notifications, public data inventories, data security planning, breach procedures, retention/disposition policies, and rules limiting the use of a student’s Social Security number as a unique identifier. It further reinforces FERPA compliance and authorizes continued sharing of education and workforce data for approved purposes while adding new privacy safeguards.
In addition to privacy provisions, SB 118 updates the statewide K-12 data system requirements and school district reporting obligations. It continues to require OPI to maintain a statewide data system, publish district profiles and longitudinal data, and support data linkages with higher education and workforce systems. The bill also preserves existing reporting on district staffing, compensation, finances, extracurricular spending, union agreements, and dropout-related data, while directing the system to better support local control, transparency, and data-driven decisionmaking.
The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history appears generally favorable in the Senate and early House action, with strong margins for passage through several stages. However, the bill ultimately died in a House standing committee after an appropriations-related motion failed, suggesting that while privacy protections and data governance reforms had support, the measure faced procedural or fiscal resistance late in the process. No committee transcript was provided, so the specific arguments for or against the bill are not available.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope of data deletion rights, the administrative burden on OPI and the governing board, and the balance between privacy and the state’s ability to retain and use education/workforce data for funding, contracts, accountability, and research. The bill’s requirement to prohibit direct use of Social Security numbers as identifiers and to impose new security and notification duties may also have raised implementation concerns. Supporters likely emphasized student privacy, parental control, and transparency, while opponents or skeptics likely focused on feasibility, cost, and preserving data utility for state programs.
SB 118 would amend multiple sections of Montana law governing the statewide K-12 data system and the education and workforce data governing board. It would add a new statutory right for students and parents to request deletion of education data from the statewide system, require new privacy and security policies, and prohibit the direct use of a student’s Social Security number as a unique identifier in linked education/workforce data systems. It also expands reporting, rulemaking, and public-notice obligations for the Office of Public Instruction and the governing board, while preserving existing exceptions for legal compliance and authorized data uses.
The bill appears to have had broad support in the Senate and enough support to advance through several House stages, indicating general agreement with its privacy and transparency goals. The final failure in the House standing committee suggests that support weakened when the bill reached a later procedural or fiscal hurdle. Overall, the sentiment was favorable toward stronger student-data protections, but not unanimous on implementation or cost.
The most notable contention centers on how far the state should go in allowing deletion of student education data and whether that could interfere with required recordkeeping, funding compliance, contracts, subpoenas, and data analysis. Another likely point of dispute is the administrative and technical burden placed on OPI and the Education and Workforce Data Governing Board to verify requests, maintain security controls, publish notices, and manage retention/disposition policies. The bill also raises broader tension between privacy advocates, who favor stronger student control and FERPA-plus protections, and data-governance or accountability interests, which rely on linked data for research, reporting, and system management.