Vermont
Vermont School Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Vermont has no state wiretapping law, so audio recording in schools follows federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. 2511. Any participant, including a student or parent, may record a conversation they are part of. FERPA governs how schools share student education records but does not bar parent recording.
Recording in Vermont schools involves federal recording law, student privacy protections, and school district policies. Federal one-party consent (18 U.S.C. 2511) allows participants to record, and schools must comply with FERPA.
Student Recording
Recording a conversation you take part in is not a crime in Vermont. But beginning with the 2026-2027 school year, every Vermont school board and approved independent school must adopt a policy barring student use of cell phones and personal electronic devices at school from arrival to dismissal (16 V.S.A. 583). Exceptions cover an IEP, 504 plan, or health plan, administrator-approved academic or cocurricular use, and students covered by McKinney-Vento. A student who records on a phone during the school day can be disciplined under that policy.
A recording of bullying can still be useful evidence for a complaint, so ask a parent or administrator how to document it within the school's rules.
Parent Recording
Recording a parent-teacher conference, disciplinary meeting, IEP/504 meeting, or phone call you take part in is not a wiretap crime in Vermont. That is not the same as a right to record over the school's objection. FERPA governs education records and does not itself prohibit a parent from recording an IEP meeting. Under U.S. Department of Education guidance on the IDEA regulations (64 FR 12477, 1999), a school may limit or bar audio or video recording of IEP meetings, but must allow it when recording is needed for the parent to understand the IEP or the IEP process. Tell the team ahead of time and ask about the district's policy.
School Security Cameras
Permitted: Hallways, cafeterias, gyms, parking lots, libraries, entrances. Prohibited: Cameras that view or record students' intimate areas without their knowledge and consent, such as in restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas (13 V.S.A. 2605).
School Board Meetings
Vermont's Open Meeting Law requires a local school board, unless it is an advisory body, to record its meetings in audio or video form and post the recording for 30 days, unless compliance would impose an undue hardship (1 V.S.A. 312(a)(6)). Act 133 of 2024 and Act 51 of 2025 set and revised those rules. The law does not expressly give members of the public a right to make their own recordings, so check the board's rules before you record.
FERPA
FERPA restricts how schools share education records. It does not restrict parents from recording. Your recording is your property.
More Vermont Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Vermont Recording Laws
More Vermont Recording Topics
More Vermont Laws
- Vermont AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Vermont Dashcam Laws
- Vermont Data Privacy Laws
- Vermont Deepfake Laws
- Vermont Employee Monitoring Laws
- Vermont GPS Tracking Laws
- Vermont Police Bodycam Laws
- Vermont Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a teacher in Vermont?
Recording a conversation you take part in is not a crime under federal one-party consent. But Vermont schools must bar student phone use from arrival to dismissal (16 V.S.A. 583), so a student who records can be disciplined. Check school policies.
Can parents record IEP meetings in Vermont?
It is not a crime, and FERPA does not prohibit it, but there is no automatic federal right to record. Under U.S. Department of Education guidance a school may limit or bar recording unless it is needed for you to understand the IEP or the process. Ask the team ahead of time.
Can schools put cameras in locker rooms?
Not where they would view or record students' intimate areas. 13 V.S.A. 2605 makes it a crime to view or record a person's intimate areas without their knowledge and consent where they expect privacy, and locker rooms are such places.
Can I record a school board meeting?
Usually, but the law does not expressly say so. The Open Meeting Law requires the board to record its own meetings and post the recording. It does not expressly give attendees a right to record, so check the board's rules.
Does FERPA prevent recording at school?
No. FERPA restricts how schools share records. It does not restrict parent or student recording.
Updates
We clarified that Vermont's voyeurism law bars school cameras from viewing or recording students' intimate areas, rather than banning every camera that could capture students in a locker room.
We corrected the page to explain Vermont's 2026-27 school phone-use law (16 V.S.A. 583), clarified that parents have no automatic federal right to record IEP meetings, that the Open Meeting Law does not expressly let the public record, and that 13 V.S.A. 2605 bars recording intimate areas rather than banning cameras by location.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 59: Lewdness and Prostitution, Subchapter: LEWD AND INDECENT CONDUCT
§ 2605VoyeurismIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Bona fide private investigator or bona fide security guard” means an individual lawfully providing services, whether licensed or unlicensed, pursuant to 26 V.S.A. §§ 3151 and 3151a. (2) “Female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (3) “Circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her intimate areas would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area. This definition includes circumstances in which a person knowingly disrobes in front of another, but does not expect nor give consent for the other person to photograph, film, or record his or her intimate areas. (4) “Intimate areas” means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of a person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State v. DEVOID (2010) the Vermont Supreme Court reversed an attempted voyeurism conviction under section 2605(b)(1), holding the evidence could not show the defendant, on the ground, was able to see the complainant's intimate areas as the statute defines them, so looking at her window was not an overt act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. DEVOID (Supreme Court of Vermont 2010, 188 Vt. 445)✓A man stared up at a second-floor shower window from the parking lot; a photograph taken inside the bathroom showed the complainant's intimate areas, as the statute defines them, were below the sill, so the court reversed his attempted-voyeurism conviction as unsupported.
- State v. Squiers (Supreme Court of Vermont 2006, 179 Vt. 388)“…r any object into the genital or anal opening of another”); 13 V.S.A. § 2605(a)(4) & (b) (prohibiting the viewing or…”
- State v. Beaudoin (Supreme Court of Vermont 2008, 185 Vt. 164)“…ter 1 includes §§ 2601 and 2602 and a section on voyeurism, 13 V.S.A. § 2605. Section 2601 makes it a felony to enga…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Vermont Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025, Vermont Recording Laws (2026): No Wiretap Statute, One-Party Default, Vermont Medical Recording Laws
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
United States Code Title 20
§ 1232gFamily educational and privacy rightsIn forcecited in 29 of our articles
No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution, as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of their children. If any material or document in the education record of a student includes information on more than one student, the parents of one of such students shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such material or document as relates to such student or to be informed of the specific information contained in such part of such material. Each educational agency or institution shall establish appropriate procedures for the granting of a request by parents for access to the education records of their children within a reasonable period of time, but in no case more than forty-five days after the request has been made.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 981 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have held Section 1232g is enforced by the Secretary of Education, not by suit. Gonzaga University v. Doe (2002) held FERPA's nondisclosure provisions create no personal rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Kate Frazier v. Fairhaven School Committee (2002) held FERPA confers no private right of action, express or implied.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Goss v. Lopez (Supreme Court of the United States 1975, 419 U.S. 565)“…ucation Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-380, 88 Stat. 571, 20 U. S. C. § 1232g (1970 ed., Supp. IV), adding § 438 to t…”
- Gonzaga University v. Doe (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 536 U.S. 273)✓A university official told the state teacher-licensing agency about sexual misconduct allegations against a student, who then lost the affidavit he needed to teach; the Supreme Court held FERPA's nondisclosure provisions create no personal rights enforceable under section 1983.
- Foster Children v. Jeb Bush, Kathleen Kearney, Chuck Bates, Robert Williams, Ester Tibbs (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2003, 329 F.3d 1255)“…Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. In FERPA Congress directed the Secreta…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent for Phone Calls
Sources and References
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- FERPA(studentprivacy.ed.gov).gov
- Vermont Open Meeting Law(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 13 V.S.A. 2605 -- Voyeurism(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- U.S. Department of Education(ed.gov).gov