Warning - long post incoming. I put this together because of two specific reasons - I had two people threaten me with lawsuits if I didn't take their records down from the TAS site. Me being me, I took them down and promptly started investigating. What I discovered caused more questions than answers. So I went digging more into the territory of "how could this have happened". What you see below is a result of me seeking answers to those questions. Federal law stops one thing: helping a person get the next school job. It does not stop a hush agreement (NDA), and it does not stop a resignation or a certificate surrender from ending the case. States that are actually trying to prevent “pass the trash” wrote their own rules. They did not write the same rule (see how Florida and Texas have made laws in totally different directions and somehow are still not comprehensive enough IMO). Federal law 20 U.S.C. § 7926, in force since December 10, 2015. If a state or district takes federal K-12 money, it must have a law, regulation, or policy that says an employee, contractor, or agent may not help a school employee get a new job, other than by sending ordinary personnel files, when they know or have probable cause of sexual misconduct with a minor or student. Personally speaking - it should be a law - period - "regulation" and "policy" are in so many cases inconsistently applied. That ban lifts if the matter was reported to law enforcement and the other authorities the law requires, and then one of three things is true: the case was closed or police said there was not enough probable cause; the person was charged and acquitted or exonerated; or the case stayed open and no charge was filed within four years of the report to police. The Secretary of Education is forbidden to require any particular method. A policy on paper meets the federal condition (but does not mean anyone will actually get booted from a school or face real consequences). Federal guidance Guidance is not a second statute or law. It does not void a nondisclosure agreement. It does not make a district finish an investigation after a resignation. It does not stop a state from accepting a certificate surrender. It does not create a do-not-hire list. It does not follow the person into every private school or across a state line. A state can comply with federal law and still allow both exits parents mean by “pass the trash.” A hush deal (Non disclosure agreement - NDA). The district agrees not to say why the person left. A walk-away. The person resigns, or turns in their teaching certificate, before anyone makes a finding. The next school sees a clean file (this happened a TON and still happens in many states today). States that restrict a hush agreement The agreement itself is void, banned, or tied to a penalty. The limit is often narrower than every secret deal. Florida, 2018. A confidentiality clause that hides misconduct affecting a student’s health or safety is void. Since 2021 the person must sign a sworn reason for leaving, and the next district must read it. This is district law, not a rule for every private school. Pennsylvania, December 21, 2014. The applicant discloses investigations, resignations while allegations were pending, and license actions, unless the allegations were found false. A suppression agreement is void. Public, charter, and private schools. A willful violation can draw a civil penalty of up to $10,000. Connecticut, July 1, 2016. Same shape. Extended to nonpublic-school supervisors in 2017. Unsubstantiated cases are carved out. New Jersey, June 1, 2018. Twenty years of child-contact jobs, plus disclosure of investigations, resignations, and license surrender. A suppression agreement is void. Districts, charters, nonpublic schools, and contractors (as a prior dig into New Jersey found out - then penalty here for lying on these forms is $500 - PENALTY - as in not a crime like it is to lie on a federal form). Maryland, July 1, 2019. County boards, nonpublic schools, and contractors. An agreement that hides a child-sexual-abuse or sexual-misconduct investigation, signed on or after that date, is void. Washington, September 1, 2004. Districts must ask current and past employers, including out of state. An agreement that suppresses sexual misconduct is void. “Sexual misconduct” here means the district determined it happened and the employee left because of it. Idaho, September 1, 2011. Public-school employers must request conduct records, including from out of state. An agreement that suppresses unethical conduct is void. Unsubstantiated cases can still be removed from the file. Oregon, July 1, 2010. Districts, charters, and private schools. A clause that suppresses a substantiated report of abuse or sexual conduct is void. The same set of laws bars helping the person get the next job. Vermont. A confidential separation agreement that hides conduct jeopardizing a minor is void if signed on or after June 3, 2010. In 2018, districts and recognized independent schools were required to give the next employer a factually correct employment record. Illinois, July 1, 2023. Public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools may not sign an agreement that suppresses a pending sexual-misconduct investigation, or a finished one in which the allegation was substantiated. Tennessee, July 1, 2018. A district may not use a nondisclosure agreement to settle sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment or sexual assault. The same law bars helping the person get the next job. Michigan, May 8, 1996. Districts, charters, and nonpublic schools may not suppress “unprofessional conduct,” which is broader than sex cases. The required call is the current employer, or the last one if the applicant is unemployed. Iowa, July 1, 2023. Districts, accredited nonpublic schools, and charters may not gag discussion of past allegations, discipline, or a resignation with a government agency or the next employer. Kentucky, April 10, 2026. Public districts and charters may not sign a nondisclosure agreement about misconduct involving a minor or student. Nebraska, July 18, 2026. Hiring duties start in the 2027–28 school year. Districts and approved private schools may not sign a resignation deal that suppresses a child-abuse or sexual-misconduct investigation. Indiana, July 1, 2023. A school may not hire someone whose settlement of a student-safety allegation included a nondisclosure agreement, unless the board approves that hire as its own agenda item. Nevada, July 1, 2017. The secrecy ban applies when the person was convicted of a sexual offense involving a minor. An agreement about an uncharged allegation can still exist. California, January 1, 2026. Schools may not agree to block a mandatory report of egregious misconduct, and they may not expunge a credible complaint or a substantiated investigation. The statewide data system is not operating. It is aimed at July 1, 2027, and only if the legislature appropriates the money (given it's California - how much do you want to bet this somehow misses getting budgeted?). Colorado, 2021. A district or charter may not settle a case in a way that blocks sharing a conviction for child abuse or a sex offense against a child. New Mexico, 2021. An agreement that weakens the duty to keep investigating after the person leaves is void. The compiled section number was not confirmed on the code site. New York, 2000. An agreement to hide a child-abuse allegation from police, in exchange for a resignation, is a class E felony and a civil penalty of up to $20,000. That is a ban on burying the report. It is not a general nondisclosure ban, and it does not require a work-history check. Missouri, current text 2019, originally 2011. If a district lets someone who has contact with children resign instead of being fired, and then omits sexual-misconduct allegations from a reference, the district can be liable to a later student. The contract is not declared void. The consequence is damages. Arkansas, 2023. Probable cause of sexual misconduct with a minor means the superintendent may not give a favorable recommendation. The separation agreement can still exist. Texas is absent from this group. The 2025 Texas law does not void a hush agreement. States that stop a resignation or surrender from ending the case Texas, June 20, 2025. During an investigation of abuse, a sexual or romantic relationship, inappropriate communications, or a boundary violation, the state may not accept a certificate surrender unless the person agrees to the Do Not Hire registry. The district must finish that investigation even if the person resigns. That finish-the-investigation duty dates to 2017. Drugs, theft, and a fraudulent certificate sit outside the surrender rule. Private schools are outside the discharge duty. A surrender from 2018 predates this statute and the registry (it was a surrender from years earlier that prompted me digging into this). Hawaii, 2024. The school must finish the investigation after a resignation. A harm-to-students registry exists. It is not a public list (I'd argue that this list should be public - otherwise how are parents supposed to know?). Public and private schools are covered. Listing requires a finding and a chance to appeal. Maine, April 15, 2026. The school must finish a covered investigation even if the person resigns. The statute PDF still online shows the older text. The 2026 session law controls. Maine still allows a separation agreement. Iowa. The licensing board must finish a complaint even if the person resigns or turns in the credential. Arizona. A district may not accept the resignation until a suspicion of reportable conduct involving a minor has been reported to the state board. A 2025 amendment lets the next school request that file. The file stays confidential. Arizona has no hush-agreement ban. Florida, the second tool. Separate from the voided agreement: a district may not put the person in a student-contact job after a termination, or a resignation in lieu of termination, for sexual misconduct with a student, and must report them for the state disqualification list. North Carolina, only in part. Teachers who earned career status before August 1, 2013 can be treated as having surrendered the license for up to 45 days if they resign during a dismissal case. A 2023 law makes failure to report specified misconduct by a licensed employee a felony. That misconduct is automatic-revocation crimes or a non-accidental physical injury, not the broader sexual-misconduct hiring rules other states use. States that mostly copied the federal sentence These laws say do not help the person get the next job. A hush agreement and a quiet resignation can still stand, unless the state is also listed in a group above. Virginia, 2018. Public school boards must adopt the federal policy. Accredited private schools are in a later subsection. Unaccredited private schools are outside it (I've seen this in many states, why not "all schools"?). A 2024 law sets a 10-day deadline for one board to answer another. The answer does not have to include sexual misconduct. West Virginia. Public and private school employees are covered. The exceptions match the federal rule, including four years with no charge. The year is not printed on the code page. The session citation is 2017. Wisconsin, December 10, 2017. School boards, private-school governing bodies, and charter operators. Helping the person get the next job is “immoral conduct” for licensing purposes, unless police closed the case without a conviction. Montana, 2019. Public and nonpublic schools. A knowing violation is a misdemeanor: a fine up to $1,000, up to a year in jail, or both. North Dakota, signed April 11, 2019. The ban also applies while an investigation is underway. A violation is a class B misdemeanor. The open-case exception is one year with no charges, shorter than the federal four years. Ohio, September 30, 2021. The job-help ban covers districts, chartered nonpublic schools, and certain county-board education jobs. Since 2008, a resignation or retirement during an investigation into conduct unbecoming must be reported to the state superintendent. That report is not a public do-not-hire list. Oklahoma. A state-board rule copies the federal job-help ban for districts and charters. A resignation during an investigation that could cost the certificate must be reported to the State Board. The file is not an open record. A hiring district may request it. Delaware, 2023–24 school year. Districts and charters must adopt a policy that substantiated adult sexual misconduct is reported in later reference checks. The statute does not void the agreement. District of Columbia, April 11, 2019. The job-help ban covers public, charter, private, and parochial schools, with the federal four-year exception. DCPS and charters must also check former employers for the longer of seven years or the last three jobs. Separation agreements are not voided. Oregon, Tennessee, and Nevada sit in this group and in the hush group. States with no dedicated hush law and no do-not-hire rule Federal § 7926 still applies where the district takes that federal money. The official codes show background checks or a license bar after a conviction. They do not show a voided school nondisclosure agreement, a required sexual-misconduct work history, or a rule that a resignation forces the case onto a do-not-hire list. Alabama. Criminal-history checks for school employees with unsupervised access to children, including nonpublic schools that request them. A revoked certificate ends the job. Alaska. Fingerprints for a teaching certificate. No certificate after listed crimes against a minor. “Immorality,” as a firing ground, means a crime of moral turpitude. Kansas. The state board may not license a person convicted of listed sex crimes. The bill that would ban hush agreements and create a registry is not law. Georgia. The education code has no job-help ban and no voided school nondisclosure agreement. The credentialing commission investigates if an applicant admits resigning over a felony, a crime of moral turpitude, or a certificate sanction. Sex with a student is a crime. A separate labor statute still treats a nondisclosure agreement as a reason the former employer may stay silent. Massachusetts. The bill is still in committee. Minnesota. A report to the licensing board is required within ten days when a teacher or administrator resigns during an investigation. That is a license report. Mississippi. No enacted hiring or hush statute in the personnel chapters or in bill titles from 2008 through 2026. New Hampshire. Criminal-history checks, and revocation of certification after a felony involving children. Rhode Island. Criminal-record checks and abuse-awareness classes. No employment-history or separation-agreement statute in the education-title section list. South Carolina. The full education title was searched. No matching statute. South Dakota. The education title, as published by the legislature, does not contain the hiring or secrecy phrases. Wyoming. No matching hiring statute in the education title. The nearby rule is a certification criminal-history check, and notice to the teaching-standards board if a certificate holder is dismissed or resigns because of a felony conviction. What still slips through A law in the first groups often stops at the public district. The next state does not have to honor it (this is key in many cases as teachers seem to have a habit of changing states and getting a job again in the same profession). “Unsubstantiated” and “false” are real exceptions. Texas can list someone as not eligible for hire, and Florida can bar them from student contact, while a district in the last group can still fail to hear either fact. A voluntary surrender is a closed hearing. It is not a decision that the state will skip the investigation. In the states that closed that exit, the investigation continues, or the surrender itself puts the person on a list. In the states that did not, a resignation and a quiet reference are still available. So when you look at all the laws across all the states you can see how in many cases one state can ban a teacher, and a new state can hire them despite any malfeasance on record in the first state. This is a problem that unfortunately needs a national law because it's clear many states will simply ignore what happened elsewhere in a great number of cases.