Rep. English had a simple answer for the parade of school administrators who spent an April morning telling the House Education Committee that her bill was unnecessary: she hadn't gotten the idea from them.
"I actually listen to students in real time," she told the committee, "and not so much the lobby who's not in the schools and in the buildings, who specifically said to me themselves that they're not in the building. So they really don't understand the gaps."
That defiant opening framing — students versus the establishment — defined a hearing that stretched across four bills, produced two party-line votes, and left one of the day's most contentious measures suspended in legislative limbo. HB 26-1264, Rep. English's student safety bill, was laid over without a vote after a wave of opposition from school boards, administrator associations, rural districts, and educators exposed enough legal conflicts to give even her allies pause.
A Bill Born in School Hallways
The backstory of HB 26-1264 is unusually direct. Rep. English described touring schools in Colorado Springs and Aurora, holding focus groups with students, and hearing a consistent message: when something bad happened, the response was slow, inconsistent, or felt retaliatory. The state's anonymous tip line, Safe2Tell, wasn't trusted. Students worried about being labeled a snitch. And when they did report, they weren't sure anyone would act quickly.
The bill she brought to committee would require schools to conduct an initial safety assessment within 24 hours of receiving a report of a student safety incident, make a good-faith effort to notify a parent or guardian within that same 24-hour window, and offer impacted students access to trauma-informed support services within 48 hours. It would also prohibit retaliation against students who report, address credible threats of violence consistent with existing law, and — critically — introduce a new statutory definition of cyberbullying separate from the existing bullying definition.
"This is not creating a new law," English told the committee. "It's just reinforcing the law" and establishing "a minimum standard of response that is not contingent on geography, administrative preference or resource interpretation."
That framing — baseline, not overreach — would be tested relentlessly by nearly every witness who testified.
The Opposition Arrives, Organized and Specific
The witnesses against HB 26-1264 came from across the education establishment. Matt Cook, representing the Colorado Association of School Boards, argued the bill "is completely duplicative of current Colorado law, Department of Education rules and board policy" and asked the committee for a no vote. Colleen O'Neill, representing the Colorado association of school administrators and the state teachers union, agreed the bill "duplicates protections already in Colorado statute" — but went further, warning that the legislation "makes subtle but meaningful changes to bullying and cyberbullying definitions that were carefully negotiated."
Danielle La Platte of the Colorado Rural Schools Alliance, representing 146 districts, testified against it. So did a high school principal, an assistant superintendent, a student support director, and a K-8 principal. The weight of professional education opposition in that room was notable.
Their criticisms were not vague. Rep. Phillips, a civil rights attorney who works with students on exactly these issues in her day job, walked through a list of specific legal conflicts — potential clashes with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, with IEP and 504 plan requirements, with existing Colorado statutes on disciplinary removal. She flagged the term "credible threat" as legally treacherous, noting that a student with autism who repeats something threatening from a movie could trigger that standard. She questioned whether "support services" referred to services under an existing IEP or an entirely new parallel track. She raised concerns about the word "weapon" — which in practice has ensnared students carrying Nerf guns, pocket knives from fishing trips, and bubble guns.
"I'm all about whatever we can do to protect these kids," Phillips said, but the bill "needs to be super, super tightened up to get to the goal."
The Cyberbullying Fault Line
One dispute cut to the heart of the bill's design. Rep. English had included a definition of cyberbullying that was deliberately distinct from the existing bullying definition — because, she argued, students themselves see them as different things.
"Cyberbullying and bullying should be clearly two different definitions just based upon having conversations with students," she told the committee.
Rep. Bacon pushed back, arguing that Colorado's existing bullying definition already covers electronic harm and that creating a separate cyberbullying definition could produce two conflicting legal standards rather than clarity. She asked whether English would be willing to conform the cyberbullying definition to the existing statute.
English said she remained open to the conversation — but hadn't moved from her position. That unresolved tension, multiplied across a dozen similar sticking points, made it impossible for the bill to advance.
"Phone Calls to Make"
By the time the amendment phase opened, the hearing had made the bill's precarious position obvious. Rep. English declined to move her pending amendments. She acknowledged she had "phone calls to make" and that continued stakeholder engagement with school districts, the Colorado Association of School Boards, and the teachers' associations was needed before the bill could come back for a vote.
That acknowledgment was notable for what it revealed: the stakeholding process that typically happens before a bill reaches committee had been compressed or incomplete. English was candid about why. "This came from students," she told Rep. Gilchrist, "and particularly my school district having conversations with my superintendent." The major education organizations, she conceded, were not "an initial part of the conversation."
HB 26-1264 was laid over with the amendment phase and the action phase both open — meaning it can come back, but its future depends on whether English can resolve conflicts that went well beyond cosmetic fixes.
The Easier Wins: Early Childhood and At-Risk Students
The hearing's other three bills moved with notably less friction — though not without argument.
SB 26-19 arrived as a piece of quiet machinery work: eliminating the state's Local Coordinating Organization framework and folding those functions into Early Childhood Councils, creating what sponsors Rep. Sirota and Rep. Gonzalez called a "local lead" model. Of 32 LCOs statewide, 29 are already Early Childhood Councils, making the consolidation largely a paperwork reform. The three outliers — serving Denver, Jefferson/Clear Creek/Gilpin counties, and Adams County — received a transition period through 2029.
Witnesses from councils in Routt County, Custer County, Pueblo, and beyond testified in support, describing a system that forces small rural teams to manage multiple contracts, separate invoices, and different program contacts for what is already one coordinated operation on the ground. Rep. Hartsook challenged the bill's zero fiscal note, pressing sponsors on why consolidation wasn't producing explicit savings given that prior funding levels had been $16.5 million and $14.8 million. Sirota explained that budget committee actions had combined funding lines and that the bill reflects approximately $2 million less than last year — a reduction driven by the current budget environment rather than the consolidation itself. The bill passed the committee 11-2.
SB 26-103 — the ACCESS policy bill — required every district and charter school to adopt a plan communicating how they support at-risk students, primarily through existing documents like Unified Improvement Plans. Rep. Garcia Sander announced a no vote, expressing concern that even a light compliance requirement falls disproportionately on small rural districts where, as she put it, "I don't know that posting plans online is going to guarantee better outcomes. And it doesn't. This doesn't really help support additional funding or staffing or flexibility for our rural schools."
Rep. Richardson echoed that concern, noting he represents districts as small as 26 students where the superintendent may already be driving the school bus and teaching classes. Rep. Bacon and student witness Dr. Angel Gibler Viers pushed back: if districts are already doing this work, publishing it shouldn't add meaningful burden — and if they're not using at-risk funding for at-risk students, "they need to be held accountable." The bill passed 8-5.
Abortion Medication and Amendment 79
The hearing's most charged ideological confrontation came last. HB 26-1335, requiring institutions of higher education that operate student health centers to provide access to abortion medication, drew overflow crowds to a separate room while the committee's first three bills were heard.
Rep. Nguyen and Rep. Garcia argued the bill is a straightforward implementation of Amendment 79, the constitutional abortion-rights measure Colorado voters passed with 61 percent support in 2024. Opponents — including the Colorado Catholic Conference, Colorado Right to Life, Concerned Women for Colorado, and the Colorado Association of School Boards — raised concerns about safety protocols, OSHA compliance, and conscience protections.
The fiscal structure drew particular attention. Rep. Hartsook cited California's expenditure of "just under $6 million" on a similar program, describing it as "about $8,900 per student that used it," and challenged how Colorado could fund this given a zero fiscal note and approximately $1.5 billion in recent budget cuts. Fiscal analyst Christine McLaughlin clarified that the zero state fiscal note reflected an assumption that institutions would use existing revenue and charge students — "it's not that all of those things have no cost. It's that they have no cost to the state because we're assuming they can use institutional revenue, including charging students for these services, like any other health center charges their patients."
Rep. Richardson argued that Amendment 79 prohibits governments from "denying, impeding or discriminating against exercising the right" but that he saw "nothing in there that says that abortion needs to be facilitated by the state." Rep. Garcia countered that "ensuring access to a right" is not "facilitation of a right" and that "ensuring that there is access to abortion care is absolutely our job."
Three Republican amendments failed 5-8: one that would have required abortion-reversal drugs wherever abortion medication is stocked, one that would have allowed institutional opt-outs by written notification, and one requiring discussion of all pregnancy options when abortion medication is discussed or administered. Three Democratic amendments — clarifying federal grant exemptions, off-site prescription authority, and the religious exemption standard — passed on the same 8-5 margin. The bill moved to the Committee of the Whole as amended.
What Happens Next
SB 26-19 and SB 26-103 were both referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendations. As Senate bills that have already passed the Senate, if both pass the House they will go to the governor — SB 26-19 to formally consolidate Colorado's early childhood infrastructure, and SB 26-103 to require every school district in the state to publicly articulate how it supports at-risk students.
HB 26-1335 also advances to the Committee of the Whole as amended. If it passes the House and is signed by the governor, every public college and university operating a student health center in Colorado would be required to provide access to abortion medication — a significant expansion of reproductive health care access for the state's higher education students.
HB 26-1264 remains in committee, its fate unresolved. Rep. English has acknowledged she has conversations to finish — with school districts, with CASB, with CASE, with CEA. The legal conflicts Rep. Phillips identified are real and will require careful drafting to resolve. If the bill dies without those conversations happening, the students who walked school hallways in Colorado Springs and Aurora and told a legislator they didn't feel safe when something went wrong will have their experience acknowledged in one lawmaker's floor speech — and nowhere in Colorado law.