Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.
For years, Erin Moon-Walker recorded parent-teacher meetings, both for her own children and for other parents as part of her work as a special education advocate.
In her experience, Moon-Walker said recordings serve as a memory aid. They can also help family members who can’t attend an in-person meeting, and settle disputes.
So she was alarmed when her school district, West Lafayette Community Schools, brought forward a policy to increase restrictions on the practice. The proposed policy increased notice for recording from two to three days, required permission from the superintendent to record all parent meetings — and, most concerningly, specified that parents who didn’t comply could be removed from school grounds and even face a trespassing violation.
Such rules appear to run afoul of Indiana law’s one-party recording laws, which allow conversations to be recorded if only one party consents.
The outcry about the broader proposal led the West Lafayette school board to table it until community concerns could be addressed. But a Chalkbeat survey found restrictions on recording parent-teacher meetings are in effect in at least eight other school districts — and legal experts question whether the policies are lawful and enforceable.
“You can’t penalize someone for something that is not illegal, that they have a right to do,” said Julie Slavens, senior counsel and director of policy service at the Indiana School Boards Association.
Attorneys with the law firm hired by these districts to craft the policies say they’re necessary to protect student confidentiality. Furthermore, they said notice can help staff prepare and preempt parent concerns in meetings about things like individualized education programs, or IEPs.
The tension between Indiana law and districts’ concerns isn’t just theoretical. In one recent case, a district barred a parent from her daughter’s school campus after the parent posted a recording of her meeting with a principal about a school bus safety issue. The district, Whitley County Consolidated Schools, said recording her meeting with the principal without permission violated a board policy.
Moon-Walker expressed concern that parents who inadvertently violate such a policy — especially if they share a recording in a special education due process hearing — could find themselves in legal trouble down the line.
“Your child is the most important thing in the whole wide world. Maybe they’re in conflict, or they’re not getting the services they need, but it’s hard to think and plan and judge in the moment,” Moon-Walker said. “Recording allows you to recall all the details because during the meeting, you’re managing those emotions.”
Is parent distrust leading them to record meetings?
Recordings of heated exchanges between members of the public and school leaders, largely at school board meetings, have drawn significant attention and polarized reactions in recent years.
But the Indiana School Boards Association said there’s been no associated increase in distrust between parents and schools that would necessitate more stringent rules about recording parent meetings.
Terry Spradlin, director of the association, said that he has not heard of any conflicts over recording policies in the last five years.
“This is not all of the sudden a confrontational issue between districts and parents,” Spradlin said.
It’s possible some districts are seeing more parents who want to maintain their own records over fears that schools will edit their copies of recordings, Slavens said, especially in cases of previous conflicts between a school and an individual family.
Other districts that have also adopted policy language drafted by the law firm Church Church Hittle and Antrim (CCHA) require parents to give notice they plan to record and get authorization. The policies include consequences for violating it, including trespassing.
Chalkbeat found the same language about recording in the board policies of Blue River Valley, Westfield Washington, Mount Vernon, Delaware, Franklin, Noblesville, Muncie, and Hamilton Southeastern schools.
None of the districts Chalkbeat contacted indicated that there had been issues that led them to seek stricter recording guidance.
Spokespeople for Noblesville and Westfield Washington schools confirmed that the districts had recently worked with CCHA on revised recording policies.
School board worries recordings increase tension in meetings
So why put such a policy in place?
A spokesperson for Muncie schools said the district has had a policy on the recording of meetings on school property for several years “to make clear the boundaries in place for different kinds of meetings.”
“It is consistent with state law and, from all accounts, has been working fine,” Muncie spokesperson Andy Klotz said in an emailed statement.
West Lafeyette’s current recording policy applies only to IEP meetings. It requires parents to give two days’ notice and receive approval for recording the meetings, which they can only do if it’s necessary “to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.” The proposed update would have applied to all parent-teacher meetings, in addition to extending the minimum time required for parents to notify schools about their intent to record.
In discussing the revised policy, CCHA attorney Amy Matthews told the West Lafayette school board at a May meeting that requiring parents to give notice can signal to staff that the parent has concerns.
“That can prompt the school not to get them to not record, but to work through what are the potential concerns of why they need to record and how can we make it collaborative,” Matthews said.”
Board member Rachel Witt agreed, saying that unexpected recordings can “raise the fuel level” of a meeting. And Superintendent Shawn Greiner said if there is mistrust, he would want the district to record as well.
The West Lafayette board hired CCHA to update its policies in January after the firm proposed a $16,000 flat fee or an hourly fee option to write new legally mandated policies, and policies for issues that the district would be likely to be sued over, among other things, according to board documents.
Parent recordings: What the law and experts say
Andrew Manna with CCHA said the firm does not see the policies as counter to Indiana recording law. He said they’re similar to how a doctor’s office will try to protect a patient’s privacy.
“A school is obligated to protect the confidentiality of student information. In an attempt to manage that responsibility, which is a mandate by federal law, this policy language informs visitors how recordings can work on school property,” Manna said in a statement.
Matthews, the CCHA attorney, explained to West Lafayette board members in May that a trespass violation was the only authority that a school held over parents. And Manna said despite the language about trespassing, there “is no criminal penalty against the school visitor and there is really not anything that a school might do other than consider asking the parent to comply.”
Still, the West Lafayette board ultimately tabled the proposal after some community members expressed concern about it.
Selene Almazan, legal director of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, which advocates for the civil rights of students with disabilities, said she would not advise schools to use the threat of a trespassing violation to enforce their recording policies.
“It is a parent’s right to participate in an IEP meeting. Any threat might impede parents participating in a meaningful way,” she said.
Yet Almazan also said she would not advise parents to record surreptitiously.
No federal law specifically bars parents from recording audio school meetings, nor does one explicitly grant them that right.
Federal special education law does encourage states to adopt rules governing the process of institutions recording meetings about IEP and 504 plans.
In contrast to Manna’s comments about district policies protecting student privacy, Slavens said the federal law governing student privacy applies to recordings made by institutions, not parents.
Slavens has advised districts that parents have a right to record meetings without telling all the participants. At the same time, she said schools may want enough notice to make their own records in case of questions or legal issues.
A trespassing violation should not apply when a parent has been invited to a school for a meeting as long as they’re not being disruptive, said Slavens.
“I don’t know that recording a meeting without telling them would qualify,” Slavens said.
Indiana law is ultimately clear on the legality of one party recording another without the other’s consent, said Kris Cundiff, an attorney with the Reporters Committee Local Legal Initiative.
“I’m not convinced that parents and guardians need to worry about ending up in court over noncompliance with a school district’s recording policy,” Cundiff said in an email.
Nonetheless, Cundiff — along with Slavens and Almazan — said ideally schools and parents would agree on how and when to record a meeting.
“It makes sense for parents and school officials to work together to balance their respective interests,” Cundiff said.
Before the West Lafayette policy returns to the board, Dacia Mumford, a West Lafayette school board member, said she wants to see a policy committee made up of community members draft the policies first before they go to legal review.
“That’s where it should start,” Mumford said, noting that she was speaking for herself and not the board. “These policies are about our community, what works and is best for them.”
Aleksandra Appleton covers Indiana education policy and writes about K-12 schools across the state. Contact her at aappleton@chalkbeat.org.
