U.S. Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter Regarding Ending Racial Preferences, Demands that States and Public Schools Certify Compliance

U.S. Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter Regarding Ending Racial Preferences, Demands that States and Public Schools Certify Compliance

The U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) has mandated that all Local Education Agencies (LEAs), which include public school districts, provide certification of their compliance with certain legal obligations described in an April 3rd document titled “Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard.” The certifications are due by April 24, 2025, and must be submitted to applicable State Educational Agencies (SEA). ODEW, as Ohio’s SEA is requesting that certifications be submitted by April 18 even though they are not due until April 24th. This order came from the federal government via executive orders issued on January 20 and January 21, 2025, and was clarified to schools via the Department’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter (“Letter”).

Failure to provide certification of compliance may result in a loss of school funding from the federal government. The original deadline was extended to April 24th pursuant to an agreement between the ACLU, National Education Association-New Hampshire (NEA-NH”), and the Department. This agreement came in response to an emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in a New Hampshire lawsuit by the ACLU and NEA-NH against the Department based on the February 14 Letter and request that the court find the Letter and the requirement to end DEI to be unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs in the New Hampshire lawsuit are seeking a nationwide injunction. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for April 17th over the certification requirement. It is certainly possible that the court issues a ruling on the preliminary injunction by the April 24th deadline for certification. As a result, school districts may wish to wait until after April 17th to learn whether the New Hampshire court issues a nationwide injunction preventing the certification requirement.

On February 28, 2025, the Department Provided Some Clarification of the Letter

On February 28, 2025, the Department published frequently asked questions and answers (“Q&A”) in relation to the Letter. The Q&A provides some clarification on the Letter and the potential consequences schools may face if they fail to comply with the Letter.

The Letter stated that schools found out of compliance on February 28, 2025, would face a loss of funding. However, in the Q&A the Department clarifies that the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) will follow its normal process for determining if a school is out of compliance and at risk of a loss of funding.

Clarification Regarding DEI Programs:

As for DEI, the Department clarifies that OCR’s assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, the Department states that “whether a policy or program [fails to comply] does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’ Schools may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races.”

Finally, in terms of “covert discrimination” which is neutral on its face but discriminatory in purpose, the Department clarified how OCR will make this determination. OCR may analyze different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken together, raise an inference of discriminatory intent. The Department outlined a simple test that OCR may utilize:
1. Did the school treat a student or group of students of a particular race differently from a similarly situated student or group of students of other races?
2. Can the school provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the different treatment that isn’t pretextual?

Clarification Regarding What is Deemed Racial Preferencing:

The Q&A also outlines more specifics on the Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”) upon which the Letter states that the Department is relying for the standard of compliance. The Court held that admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by considering students’ race when making admissions decisions. With that, the Court found that the admissions programs were unlawful because they employed racial stereotypes, disadvantaged members of particular races, were not sufficiently measurable, and lacked a logical endpoint.
The Department states that the Court’s decision in SFFA has broad implications regarding racial preferences with students. The first of these implications being that schools cannot, in any competitive admissions process, or other competitive process for a benefit at an educational institution, legally treat membership in any racial group as a plus factor, because a plus factor for one racial group is necessarily a negative factor for those not in that racial group. Second, even when racial classifications or distinctions do not necessarily involve making conscious stereotypes about members of a particular race or placing members of a particular race at a disadvantage in a zero-sum process, they still raise constitutional concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Department mentions that this applies both for admissions and hiring.

The Department also reiterates in multiple answers that schools are responsible for ensuring they are not partnering with third parties in race-based discrimination. They state that “schools may not administer or advertise scholarships, prizes, or other opportunities offered by third parties based on race” and that “[a] school may not engage in racial preferences by laundering those preferences through third parties.”

Clarification Regarding What is Considered Unlawful DEI:

The Department states that “schools must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races, or by creating hostile environments based on race for students who do participate.” The Department also clarifies that First Amendment rights are not being restricted and control over curricula is not being exercised but “the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, and staff, and the curricular prerogatives of states and local school agencies do not relieve schools of their Title VI obligations not to create hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes; nor does it relieve them of their duty to respond to racial harassment that creates a hostile environment.”

The Department further states that “[i]n determining whether a racially hostile environment exists, OCR will examine the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the educational institution, the age of the students, and the relationships of the individuals involved.” The Department provides examples of programs that would amount to creating a hostile environment such as ones that would act to bring shame or intrinsic guilt upon members of certain races or ethnicities. Finally, within this section, the Department warns that schools must not discriminate based on race with “how they discipline in response to complaints or allegations of harassment, or in response to speech that would be protected under the First Amendment, whether through use of bias response teams, mandatory trainings, or compelled statements.”

How This Affects Your District

Unless a court issues an injunction applying to Ohio, all districts have been directed to submit the certification of compliance by April 24, 2025.
However, for Ohio Districts, ODEW is requesting certification by April 18, 2025. This request does not appear to be a legal mandate since the Department has clearly given public school districts until April 24th to submit their certifications. Prior to providing your certification, consider the clarification the Q&A document provides.

Since this Q&A also provides more insight into what the DEI programs are, this gives your District a chance to ensure a “racially hostile environment” is not occurring via school programming or in disciplinary measures for harassment. As for racial preferencing in enrollment or employment decisions, the Department is asking your District to ensure that there is nothing in your practices or policies (or those of a third-party that your District utilizes) that takes race into consideration on its face or under the surface.

For inquiries specific to your school district, and situations you want to review as it relates to this Letter, please contact any of the attorneys at Ennis Britton if you have questions or concerns regarding the Department of Education’s letter and your compliance.

[1] Frequently-asked-questions-about-racial-preferences-and-stereotypes-under-title-vi-of-civil-rights-act-109530.pdf

[1] See our article on the February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter: https://ennisbritton.com/blog/2025/u-s-department-of-education-gives-until-february-28-to-comply-with-new-federal-anti-discrimination-orders-of-risk-loss-of-funding

U.S. Department of Education Gives Until February 28 to Comply with New Federal Anti-Discrimination Orders of Risk Loss of Funding

U.S. Department of Education Gives Until February 28 to Comply with New Federal Anti-Discrimination Orders of Risk Loss of Funding

The U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter  (“Letter”) on February 14, 2025, detailing the federal government’s order for schools to “cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and beyond.”[1] The Letter goes on to talk more specifically about ending the use of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in educational institutions.

In referencing the Letter, the Department stated that schools (preschool, elementary, secondary and postsecondary education institutions receiving federal funds from the Department) have until February 28, 2025, to comply. Any schools found out of compliance face an investigation and potential loss of federal funding.

To ensure compliance, the letter advises that all educational institutions should:

  1. “[E]nsure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law;
  2. cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and
  3. cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.”

In determining what is a discriminatory practice, the Department states that the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) provides a framework for evaluation. The Court in SFFA found the use of racial preferences in college admissions is generally unlawful, and provided that any use of “race” would only be lawful if narrowly tailored or necessary to achieve a compelling state interest (e.g. strict scrutiny test). . The Department clearly stated that racial balancing and diversity are not compelling state interests.

The Department states that it intends to use a simplified version of the test: “If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law.” The Department states that further legal guidance will follow.

How this affects your District:

At this time, for public school districts in Ohio it is unclear how this Letter will impact the day-to-day operations within your school district. For instance, there are typically no considerations for admissions or enrollment relating to race. Race as a factor for consideration is specifically carved out of being considered for open enrollment applications. The Department does specifically mention DEI programs as being “insidious” and “deny[ing] students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.”  Therefore, if your school district has a DEI program (undefined in the Letter), you could be at risk of losing federal funding should the program be investigated and allowed to continue.

For inquiries specific to your school district, and situations you want to review as it relates to this Letter, please contact any of the attorneys at Ennis Britton if you have questions or concerns regarding the Department of Education’s letter and your compliance.

 

[1] Press Release-U.S. Department of Education Instructs Educational Institutions Receiving Federal Funds to End Racial Preferences, U.S. Department of Education, February 15, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-directs-schools-end-racial-preferences

 

 

 

 

Special Education Update: Autism and Jon Peterson Scholarships Will Not Fund Home-Education After Age 18

Special Education Update: Autism and Jon Peterson Scholarships Will Not Fund Home-Education After Age 18

 

According to a recent email from the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (ODEW), as of July 1, 2025, students who are home-educated using either the Autism or Jon Peterson scholarships will no longer qualify for the scholarships following the year during which they turn age 18. This issue arises because compulsory education ends at age 18 which effectively ends home-education.  The email states that while ODEW supports access to Autism and Peterson scholarships through age 21 for home-educated students, ODEW is constrained absent a legislative change.

 Notably, students with disabilities may enroll in their public or private school until age 22. Therefore, providers may begin to encounter parents seeking to (re)-enroll students into their district of residence where they can either attend until graduation/exit at age 22, or engage in searching for an appropriate private school.

What does this mean for your district? Your district may see some instances of students either re-enrolling or enrolling for the first time in their district at age 18+. Absent a legislative change,  parents or the students are free to choose to enroll in your district until age 22. Likewise, if they wish to continue to be home-educated (albeit without scholarship) they do not require excusal from your district since they are no longer considered of compulsory school age.

Once a student is enrolled in the district following aging out of home education, then the process for evaluation and creating IEPs would take place including determining appropriate transition services. The IEP team should also consider whether the student has met graduation requirements or when they expect they may meet graduation requirements. If graduation requirements are not met, then the student would exit from secondary education at age 22 with no diploma. The same rules would apply if the student enrolls in a private school for their final years of secondary education.

 

 

 

HB8 “Parents’ Bill of Rights”: What You Need to Know

HB8 “Parents’ Bill of Rights”: What You Need to Know

Governor DeWine signed House Bill 8 on January 8, 2025, and the law goes into effect on April 9, 2025. This bill, known as the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” not only adds to the decisions that parents can make regarding their children’s education but also contains new requirements for public schools.

New School Policy Requirements:

By July 1, 2025, all public schools must adopt a policy that promotes parental involvement in the public school system and establishes requirements regarding sexuality content, and school-provided healthcare services (including student mental, emotional, and physical health and well-being). This policy must be made publicly available and posted prominently on the school’s publicly accessible website.

In the policy, the school must provide assurances that sexuality content is age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate for the age of the student receiving the instruction, regardless of the age or grade level of that student. Parents must be provided with an opportunity to review any instructional material that includes sexuality content. The act also requires that each public school have a parental involvement policy adopting a procedure to obtain authorization from parents prior to providing any type of health care service to the student.

Each public school must also adopt a policy prohibiting school personnel from directly or indirectly encouraging a student to withhold from a parent information about the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or a change in services or monitoring related to the student’s health. With that, the policy must prohibit school personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification of and involvement in decisions affecting a student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.

The school policies must permit parents to file with the school written concerns related to topics addressed in the policy, notify parents of this permission, and establish a process for a principal or assistant principal to resolve the concern within 30 days of its receipt. A parent may appeal a principal’s or assistant principal’s decision to the district superintendent or equivalent official for a community or STEM school (“superintendent”).

Finally, all public schools must adopt a policy authorizing students to be excused from school to attend a released time course in religious instruction. The school board must also collaborate with the sponsoring entity of a religious released time course to identify a time to offer the course during the school day. When students are released for religious instruction, the sponsoring entity, not the school district, assumes responsibility of the student such as: transportation (including for students with disabilities), funding of the program (school districts cannot provide funding), maintaining records to be shared with the district, and liability for the student during release time. The student will be responsible for making up missed schoolwork for released time.

Furthermore, students who complete religious courses during released time may earn up to two units of high school credit.  HB8 states that, in determining whether to award credit for completion of such a course, the board shall evaluate the course based on purely secular criteria that are substantially the same criteria used to evaluate similar nonpublic high school courses, except there cannot be criteria requiring that released time courses be completed only at a nonpublic school. Finally, a school’s decision to award credit for a released time course of religious instruction must be neutral to religious content or denominational affiliation.

Parent’s Rights

Finally, HB8 amends R.C. § 3313.473 to expand upon parent’s rights regarding the education of their children, including record keeping and healthcare at school. Below is a list of the new parental rights that are listed in HB8:

  • Parents have the right to review the materials of any sexuality content and excuse their children from instruction of any sexuality content. R.C. § 3313.473(B)(1)(b)
  • Parents have the right to be notified of any substantial change in their child’s services, including counseling services, or monitoring related to the child’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being or the school’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the child. R.C. § 3313.473(B)(2)
  • Parents have the right to be notified of and choose whether to authorize a district to provide a health care service (physical, mental, and behavioral health care services) for their children, except for emergency situations, first aid, or minor unanticipated health care services. R.C. § 3313.473(B)(4)
  • Parents have the right to uninhibited access to their children’s educational and health records maintained by the school R.C. § 3313.473(B)(2)
  • Parents have a right to file with the school principal or assistant principal a written concern regarding a topic addressed in R.C. § 3313.473(B).

What does this mean for your district?

Obviously, public school district boards of education will need to adopt new policies by July 1, 2025. However, beyond the policy(ies), school districts will want to ensure their staff understand the language of HB8, the language of the district’s policies and procedures, and how practically this will play out within the schools of your district.

Meetings and training for guidance counselors and administrators are important to understand the practicalities for HB8, as well as implications for how this could affect the student services offered within the schools and to set a common standard for when and how parents will be notified of substantial changes in their student’s services.

As for religious release time instruction, the deadline for updating this policy is April 9th (the effective date of the law).  Practically, this may result in RRTI not being provided until the 2025/2026 school year, but entities could choose to seek applications to provide RRTI once the policy is in effect. Review of any entities seeking to provide RRTI must be neutral without favoring one religion over another, and should comply with the standards set in statute and board policy (background checks, not during “core” instruction (as defined by policy), etc.).

 If you have additional questions on the implications of HB8 or would like training for your staff on the same please contact your EB attorney for assistance.

 

 

 

Special Education Update: Abrupt Changes to Ohio’s New Procedural Safeguards Rule Leave Educational Agencies in a Strange Place

Special Education Update: Abrupt Changes to Ohio’s New Procedural Safeguards Rule Leave Educational Agencies in a Strange Place

On the spur of the moment, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (“ODEW”) refiled it’s new Ohio Operating Standards rule governing procedural safeguards. This meteoric move modifies the effective date from July 1, 2025 to January 24, 2025. The changes have been implemented through an amendment to OAC 3301-51-05.

The rule changes appear to significantly expand duties for other entities such as educational service centers (“ESC”) and joint vocational schools (“JVS”) to provide procedural safeguards protections for students with disabilities, where under current law the student’s district of residence (“DOR”) is responsible.

Specific procedural safeguards in the rule that incorporate this shift include:

  • Adopting policies and procedures to ensure students with disabilities are given procedural safeguards
  • Obtaining parent consent for initial evaluations, reevaluations, initial services, and change of placement
  • Issuing a notice of transfer of parental rights at age of majority
  • Appointing surrogates (an educational agency may appoint the surrogate if a request is made by the DOR)
  • Providing an independent educational evaluation at public expense if requested by the parents, or filing due process if the entity wishes to contest the request
  • Providing Prior Written Notice
  • Participating in mediation
  • Being named as a party in state complaints and due process complaints

As a result of this change for instance, it may now be possible for a family to name an ESC, JVS, or other entity as a party to a due process complaint, where under current law, a district of residence is the party which must answer a due process complaint.  

Interestingly, the regulations still declare that a district of residence is ultimately responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) in accordance with state and federal law. It is not clear what will happen if other agencies are named in a due process complaint, and found liable in some way. It is also not clear whether these other agencies might be held responsible for failing to adhere to procedural safeguards over the past few years while the current rule has been in effect.  

Along with this change to the procedural safeguards, ODEW has also recently released a new Special Education Model Policies and Procedures Manual for Educational Agencies. The Model Policies and Procedures can be found here:

ODEW states that for this school year, each Educational Agency is required to submit their model policies in whole, or alternatively submit their own version for approval by ODEW by March 30, 2025. Every year thereafter, the due date is November 30. The Policies and Procedures outline the Educational Agency’s responsibility for providing FAPE and procedural safeguards.

What does this mean for your Educational Agency? Thanks to this abrupt change in the rule’s effective date, educational agencies have about two months to draft new policies and procedures for your board to ratify and for ODEW to approve, or alternatively adopt ODEW’s model policies and procedures. It is important to recognize that the model policies were drafted largely from the perspective of a traditional school district. It may be worth an ESC or JVS district’s time and effort to consider developing their own policies before adopting what ODEW has published so that the policies better address the role these entities play as compared to a traditional school district. Contact a member of the EB team to discuss this further.