An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in school health services, providing for parental notification of implementation of mental health se . . .rvices digital platform by school entity.
HB252 would amend Pennsylvania’s Public School Code to require school entities to give parents or legal guardians advance written notice before a student is given access to, or the school promotes or facilitates access to, a mental health services digital platform. The notice must be provided at least 30 days before implementation and must describe the platform’s practices, mission, structure, teachings, approach, philosophies, materials, activities, and licenses. The bill also requires schools to provide a written consent/withdrawal procedure and sample forms on-site and online, and it prohibits schools from making it harder to withdraw consent than to grant it.
The bill gives parents or guardians additional control over a student’s use of these platforms. A parent or guardian must give specific written permission before access is allowed, may withdraw that permission at any time, and may request to be present while the student uses the platform on school premises in an authorized school setting. The bill also allows parents to review, refuse further collection of, or delete certain personal information collected online to the extent permitted by federal or state privacy law. If a school denies a parent’s requested presence without documented good cause, the parent may bring a private right of action against the school governing body.
HB252 would create a new section in the Public School Code of 1949 governing school use of mental health services digital platforms. It would impose new notice, consent, disclosure, and parental access requirements on school districts, charter schools, regional charter schools, cyber charter schools, intermediate units, and area career and technical schools. The bill would also create potential civil liability for school governing bodies if they fail to comply with the parental presence requirement. Its practical effect would be to limit school entities’ ability to independently deploy or promote digital mental health tools for students without affirmative parental approval.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded sentiment from legislative discussion in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed around parental rights, transparency, and oversight of student mental health technology rather than opposition to mental health services themselves. The overall tone of the proposal is protective of parental control and privacy.
The main points of contention likely concern whether schools should be required to obtain affirmative written parental consent before students can access digital mental health platforms, and whether parents should have the right to be present during use on school premises. Supporters would likely emphasize parental notification, transparency, and control over student data and counseling-related tools. Potential opponents may argue the bill could create barriers to student access, complicate school mental health programming, and raise privacy or practical concerns about parental presence, especially for students who may seek confidential support.