Legislature on Summer Recess Passes Bills Before Leaving

Legislature on Summer Recess Passes Bills Before Leaving

Bills with last-minute impacts on education were passed as the Legislature ended its session and left for summer break.  No data center legislation was passed, but this topic will likely resurface in the lame-duck session in the fall.

The bills passed included many last-minute amendments, and some proposals did not make it to the next round, such as math intervention plans.

HB 455 and SB 19 were the vehicles for many additions and became a repository of miscellaneous education provisions.

Following is a summary of highlights of HB 455.  This bill has not yet been signed by the Governor, and therefore, it is possible there could be some vetoes.

It is not a comprehensive review of the contents or potential impacts of the bill’s provisions due to the newsletter format. If you have questions about any provisions, please contact an Ennis Britton attorney for further information.

Finance

Investment of interim funds:  School district treasurers will no longer need to submit a report to the ODEW or the state auditor the August 31 investment report listing the investments made in the preceding fiscal year, income from those investments and fees and commissions paid. It must still be submitted to the board of education.

School district opening for financial reasons: The entirety of existing sections of law regarding schools being unable to open for financial emergency has been removed, including applying for a loan from the state or commercial bank, issuing notes in anticipation of collection of voted levies.  Other references throughout the Code have been removed.

Levies: Under 5705.212, incremental/renewal levy, a section of the law allowing anticipation notes to be sold remains, but the section requiring a reasonable competitive bidding opportunity before the notes may be sold if the auditor has certified a deficit pursuant to the now-rescinded debt section of the law discussed above has been removed from the law. For R.C. 5705.213 current expense renewal levies, that same section has been removed.

Students

Habitual truants: Students adjudicated unruly due to habitual truancy may see court supervision of their cases for an additional school year to monitor their attendance.  On that subject, parents may now be convicted of the offense of contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a student for habitual truancy (a misdemeanor of the first degree) without an adjudication of the student as unruly or delinquent.

Graduation tests: Ohio’s graduation tests in the form of the five high school achievement assessments have been eliminated from the law along with all references throughout the Code. There will still be achievement assessments as outlined below.  Related language on practice tests has been removed. College and work ready assessments are still in place.

Graduation intervention: Districts with 3-year average graduation rates of 75% or less will no longer have to provide intervention services to 9th graders who do not pass the graduation tests (removed from the law, see above).

Waiver of end of course exams: Students who previously were able to avoid end of course exams if they met certain criteria will no longer be able to do that, as the exemption language has been removed from the law.

Scholarship: For purposes of obtaining the scholarship, any student entering K-12 is eligible without being enrolled in the resident district or a community school.

Attendance and tuition:  Ohio law has finally recognized that for purposes of attendance and tuition, many parents are unmarried.  The new law adds to the definition of “parent” for attendance and tuition purposes that for parents never married to each other, parent means the parent who is the residential parent and legal custodian of the child.  This change will reduce flexibility regarding enrollment for fathers who are unmarried but are caring for their children in a different district.

Internet or computer based community schools: Students enrolled in these schools may take state assessments remotely with a remote proctor upon meeting certain conditions. These schools will now be required to meet with parents in the first two weeks to discuss available testing options and describe the preferred method.  If parents do not attend the meeting the school may administer its preferred testing option. If an IEP provides for in person testing, it shall be provided.    ODEW will produce a public report by Sept. 15 of the results to review discrepancies.

Age and schooling certificates:  Added to the list of things the superintendent must have and review prior to issuing an age and schooling certificate now includes a minor work hours notification form signed by the student’s parent or guardian.  This form will be created by the Department of Commerce and provided.

Student work hours: Adds a provision that a student may be employed between 7-9pm on a day before school is not in session and the parents approve. The will need to sign the minor work hours form mentioned above. (Note, this provision may conflict with of 29 C.F.R. § 570.35).

Preschool: Students will be eligible to participate in the early childhood education grant program if a slot is available, if the child has exited Part C early childhood intervention services as documented by an Individual Support Plan, the child is a Medicaid recipient or  part of a family group that participated in Ohio Works First or receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Families may choose to use this grant program rather than other sources for state funding for child care.  If the early learning program used EMIS to track attendance prior to the amendment it will continue to do so.  Funds distributed for the program will be used to provide early learning and development services and any remaining funds may be awarded in high need areas to allow more children to participate in the program or support expansion, innovation, or other enumerated initiatives.

State-level changes

Composition of State Board of Education: The State Board of Education will have seven members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The additional members will have their term begin January 1, 2027 for four years. Changes to the language on appointing the members requires that at least one appointed member have experience as a representative of rural, urban, suburban, community and nonpublic schools.  The additional members on the State Board opens the possibility that two members will be from nonpublic or community school or any of the other categories, or none of those categories.

ODEW annual school report: The  Director of ODEW will no longer be required to submit an annual report to the Governor and General Assembly on the status, needs and problems of Ohio schools with a ten-year enrollment projection for public and nonpublic schools by grade level.

ODEW employees: ODEW will no longer need to employ a full time physical education coordinator to assist districts in implementing the physical education standards.

Report cards:

ODEW will no longer be required to provide preliminary report card data by July 31 of each year.

Letter grades were removed.

Students with IEP’s who have satisfied the requirements for a diploma but have deferred graduation will be included as graduates on the 4 and five year adjusted graduation cohort.

Changes to the report card’s calculation of post-secondary readiness measures will now include attaining remediation free scores in ELA and math by either achieving accomplished or advanced on the end of course exams in ELA and Algebra II and geometry or on a nationally standardized test.

Calculation of this measure also includes changes to earning twelve (12) college credits through advanced standing CCP programs and a score of 3 or more AP and 4 or more IB course equals 3 college credits.

The requirement that JCARR approve the college, career, workforce and military readiness rules each year was removed.

Waiver of requirements based on ratings: ODEW now may remove districts from specified state mandates only for districts that receive five star ratings.

District ranking and report cards: The ranking of public schools calculation has removed the value added performance growth and other student growth measure from the calculation.

Innovative pilot programs: Community schools and STEM schools were added to the list of school types that may submit innovative pilot program plans to ODEW  requiring exemptions from state statutes or rules. On a similar note, ODEW now is required to promote innovative educational programs and provide support for developing them, publicize other projects, and promote the availability of waivers of state statutes and rules for those programs.

The law removed a section on schools being required to restructure under an academic distress commission.

Board member vacancy:  The board member vacancy statute has been amended to ensure that a board of education may not declare a seat vacant for nonattendance if the reason for that nonattendance at meetings is that the board member is deployed outside the district or ESC territory as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or National Guard.  It adds educational service centers as entities that may declare a vacancy on the board for nonattendance pursuant to the statute.

Teachers

Licensure: Expansion of alternative resident educator licensure to any grade level if conditions are met. The employing board must inform the State Board it plans to hire the employee in a grade level outside their licensure, the educator is teaching an area aligned to their bachelor or graduate degrees or their  professional experience, or if they passed a subject matter competency exam, and they complete any required pedagogical training, and certain other requirements.

Licensure revocation or denial of license renewal:  Strangulation, grooming, domestic violence added to the list of revocation offenses.

STRS teacher defined: The definition of “teacher” was revised to remove an employee of an ESC acting as a tutor with registration under R.C. 3301.28 for STRS purposes.

Conduct unbecoming reports to State Board: Previously, districts could request misconduct referral information from the State Board’s Office of Professional Conduct, including reports submitted under R.C. 3319.313, when evaluating a candidate for employment. House Bill 455 amends both R.C. 3319.313 and R.C. 3319.393, which together governed the reporting and disclosure of that information. As a result of those changes, the prior framework allowing districts to obtain referral information from the State Board appears to be narrowed or altered, and districts may no longer have the same ability to access that information prior to hiring.

Miscellaneous

The definition of “challenged school district” has been removed from the law.

All references to college preparatory boarding schools have been removed from the law.

Community school ratings and closure standards were extensively revised.

Certain school district fiscal emergency designations were removed from the law.

DPIA funding and expenditures reports: ODEW will develop a way for districts to report DPIA funding and expenditures and will by Oct. 31 of each year produce a report detailing the same.  The current reports due from each district at the end of the fiscal year will no longer be due; however, the information still will be required to be reported in the manner selected by ODEW.

Science of reading training options: ODEW will select training courses more rigorous than the science of reading basic courses that may be taken in place of that course.

City school districts: Section 124.011 added language that a city and a city school district may by agreement determine that the civil service commission does not apply in whole or in part to the city school district, regardless of any other language in the Ohio Revised Code.

Suspension and expulsion policy, truancy policy, cell phone policy, suspension from school bus riding privileges:  Districts may now post their suspension and expulsion policy, truancy policy, cell phone policy, and school bus suspension policy on their website in lieu of posting it in a central location.

Diabetes data collection and reporting:  Districts will no longer need to collect information and report to ODE about the number of students with diabetes and incidents of administration of medication.

Nutrition annual report:  This annual report will no longer need to be sent to the ODEW regarding the district’s compliance with nutrition standards; it still must be produced, however.

Criminal background checks for all school employees: School districts may not employ a person who has been convicted of or pled guilty to with a long list of offenses, but the offenses of strangulation, grooming, and engaging in prostitution (unless the offender was coerced into that offense) have been added to the list.

 

Transportation Update:  Responding to Transportation Complaints Through TEM System

Transportation Update: Responding to Transportation Complaints Through TEM System

The ODEW has changed the way it is administering transportation complaints to require districts to respond through an electronic system called TEM (transportation enforcement management).

According to the ODEW, when a person submits a complaint about a school district transportation issue to the Department, the District will be notified by email that a complaint has been filed and that the District needs to log in to the electronic TEM system to review the complaint. The District will select if it disagrees with the complaint, and all responses must also be entered into the TEM system.

Once a complaint is received, a district should promptly log in to the system to review  the complaint as the District only has five calendar days to respond. The District may include any supporting documentation with its response by uploading those items into the system.

It is important for the District’s response to cover all the issues raised in the complaint, as there are no other opportunities to respond or appeal, unless additional documentation is requested by the investigator.

Once the response is submitted through TEM, an investigator will review and if necessary, seek additional documentation, also through the TEM system. The District will receive an email if additional information is being requested, and must log in to the system to review the request and submit its supplemental response.

The investigator has forty-five calendar days to issue a determination on the complaint. Districts will be notified of the results through email. If a funding deduction is part of the determination, the result will also be sent to the Office of Budget and School Funding for further action.

As a refresher, districts could be found noncompliant based on a complaint if the complaint alleges that for five consecutive days or ten days throughout the year, district transportation arrived more than 30 minutes late to school or are picked up the student more than 30 minutes after school has ended, if no transportation arrives at all, or if the district is noncompliant with “any other transportation requirements in 3327 of the Revised Code.” (R.C. 3327.021)

The enforcement process currently provides that a complaint that is found valid will require the District to develop a corrective action plan for the first occasion of noncompliance within a week. The second, third and fourth instances of noncompliance allows ODEW to withhold 25% of the District’s daily payment for student transportation funding for each day of determined noncompliance. The fifth instance of noncompliance allows the ODEW to withhold 100% of daily student transportation funding “until the department determines that the district is no longer out of compliance.”

ODEW has published a PowerPoint formatted guide to using the TEM system for complaint responses.

What this Means for Schools:

After conversion to the DRIVE system, schools should ensure that transportation staff and administration understand the process for response to TEM complaints, including strict compliance with any response deadlines. Since schools may have only one opportunity to explain their actions and positions, responses must be thorough, and decisions must be well documented.

 

 

 

 

New Legislative Proposals Target School Funding, Pension Pickup and Parental Rights

New Legislative Proposals Target School Funding, Pension Pickup and Parental Rights

The legislature was active during this year’s end-of-session, which would affect school district finances, retirement system contributions, and parental rights in education.  Property tax reform occupied the floor with several bills passing this November. This follows previous property tax reform action from July 2025, with the legislative override of a line item veto from HB 96, the budget bill.  That override goes into effect January 1, 2026, and ends the ability to place replacement, emergency, substitute, and combined income tax and fixed-sum levies on the ballot.

Current expense or current operating expense levies are prohibited where there is a carryover balance of over 100% of general fund expenditures in the preceding fiscal year with the exception of renewal levies, in addition to changes to ballot language and election notices.

House Bill 473, which would have prohibited employers from picking up the employee share of contributions to the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) and the School Employees Retirement System (SERS), never made it out of the House Public Insurance and Pensions Committee.

HB 496 passed and became effective in April 2025.  It made changes to how county auditors certify levies, to tax levy ballot language, and election notices.  County auditors now certify the annual estimated collection to a school district based on rounding to the nearest dollar, not $1,000 as in prior law.  The estimate of tax rates for bond and fixed-sum levies will now be based on the most recent tax list (prior law based the rates on the current year tax list or county auditor estimate.  Residential/agricultural rates for renewed or extended levies will now be based on the last known rate, not the estimated effective rate assuming approval of the levy, according to a July publication of the Ohio Secretary of State.

Property Tax Reform Bills Passed

HB 124 passed and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. It gives county auditors (as opposed to the state tax commissioner in existing law), the authority to select local properties for purposes of calculating the sales assessment ratio data. The county auditor will provide the representative sampling of sales to the tax commissioner, and the tax commissioner is to use that data only to determine the common level of assessment and for equalization.  The data provided to the tax commissioner by the county auditors are to consist only of open market arms’ length sales during the three years prior to the tax year. It changes the date by which the auditor’s assessment must be submitted to the county board of revision from the second Monday in June to the second Monday in May.

If the tax commissioner disagrees with the representative sample provided by the county auditor, it may appeal the county auditor’s determination of the sales included in the representative sample.  The county auditor will be required to submit the evidence it used to develop the representative sample.  The appeal must be determined by the last day of the tax year in which the appeal was filed.  If the appeal is successful, the determination or sample may be modified by the Board of Tax Appeals.

The new process applies to tax year 2026 and each year thereafter.

HB 129 passed and is awaiting Governor’s signature at this writing. It will revise the calculation of the 20-mill floor by including fixed-sum levies (such as existing emergency and substitute levies) in the calculation. It would also restrict when districts may seek new fixed-sum levies. Under the bill, a district may seek a new fixed-sum levy only if:

    1. The district has an emergency levy approved before 2026, which may be renewed once as a fixed-sum levy; or
    2. The district is in fiscal emergency, fiscal watch, or fiscal caution, or is subject to a presidential or gubernatorial emergency declaration.

The 20-mill floor calculation now will include incremental growth levies, conversion levies, and the property tax portion of combined income tax and property tax levies. Emergency (fixed sum) or substitute levies continue to be excluded from the 20-mill floor calculation until the applicable territory undergoes its first reappraisal or triennial update starting in tax year 2026. The LSC fiscal analysis projects that due to the operation of the bill slowing property tax growth, school districts will lose “…$162 million in TY 2026, $223 million in TY 2027, and $224 million in TY 2028. The magnitude of these losses will increase more slowly over time as fewer districts are able to collect additional revenues from rising taxable property values.”

It is estimated that when the bill becomes effective, 237 school districts will be above the 20-mill floor.

HB 186 passed. After it is signed by the Governor, it will provide a property tax credit to owners of property located in districts at the 20-mill floor. This credit would limit those districts’ total property tax revenue growth to the rate of inflation.

Uncodified language in the bill provides a temporary “make whole” provision for districts who will be affected by a reduction from reappraisals conducted in 2023 or 2024.  The difference between the amount that would have been collected and the reduced amount will be certified to the DEW,  which will pay the school district that amount on or before Aug. 15, 2026 and Aug. 15, 2027.  The funds will be transferred from the Expanded Sales Tax Holiday Fund  to the newly-created School Revenue Temporary Offset Fund. There will be no expanded sales tax holiday in 2026.

Joint vocational school districts also will be affected by the tax credit, with a projected $174.5 million loss over three years.

HB 309 passed and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. This bill permits the county budget commission to reduce voted millage so “…as to bring the tax levies required therefor within levels the commission finds reasonable and prudent to avoid unnecessary or excessive collections. Before reducing the amount or rate of any tax pursuant to this division, the commission shall provide the taxing authority of the levying taxing unit and the levying taxing unit an opportunity to present, at a public hearing, information that either considers relevant to the questions of if and to what extent the levy should be reduced.” (R.C. 5705.32)

Reductions may not cause a district to fall below the 20 mil floor or to cause the amount collected from that levy to be less than the previous year unless the district has funds available from reserve balance accounts, nonexpendable trust funds, or carryover amounts.

The legislation further provides new language that the tax commissioner will make a determination each year of the rate a fixed sum levy must be changed, if any, to generate the amount specified in the levy by the first of September.

HB 335 passed and awaits being sent to the Governor. It will cap inside millage growth to the rate of inflation for tax year 2026 and going forward.  County budget commissions are empowered by the new legislation to adjust the rate of inside millage to ensure that it does not exceed the sum of the past three years of inflation.

The law contains a process for school district to appeal a rate reduction to the county budget commission demonstrating that the taxing authority (school district) requires the rate approved.

Parental Rights, Report Cards, and Governance Changes: House Bill 455

HB 455 is a broad bill that would make several substantial changes, including modifications to state report card measures, revisions to district-of-residence rules, board of education vacancy procedures, and an expansion of parental rights.  This bill passed the House, but was not assigned to a Senate committee before the holiday break, therefore it remains in stasis as the current session of General Assembly continues.

What Does This Mean for Your District?

The financial impact of the property tax bills should be closely monitored for the impact on your district’s forecast and preparing for collective bargaining in 2026.  Your attorneys at Ennis Britton are closely monitoring these bills, their impact, and all education-focused legislation introduced in Ohio. Please contact us with any specific questions about how these proposals may affect your district.

 

 

 

 

New OCR Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

New OCR Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

The United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently issued a resource providing examples of how the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational or security software could result in discrimination on the basis of disability, race, or sex.

The guidance titled  “Avoiding the Discriminatory Use of Artificial Intelligence” is available here.

The guidance uses twenty-one (21)  examples of the use of AI in schools and how it may have discriminatory outcomes which could cause OCR to investigate upon receiving a complaint.  It specifically addresses the use of AI to write 504 plans or IEPs and also how the use of security software may have discriminatory impacts.  All of the examples indicate that OCR might open an investigation, but also notes that the decision to do so would be based on the individual facts and circumstances of each case.  It is also important to note this guidance does not have the force of law and does not create new legal standards.

The resource includes examples shedding light on how OCR views some of the new uses for AI in the educational setting and potentially what educational leaders should be aware of in evaluating vendors offering AI-based educational or security products.

For instance, the resource includes an example involving the use of AI products designed to flag plagiarism or prevent cheating.  According to OCR, the AI products have a low error rate for evaluating essays written by native English speakers, but a high error rate when evaluating essays written by non-native English speakers.  might evaluate non-native English speakers.  According to the resource, “OCR would likely have reason to open an investigation if a person filed a complaint based on these facts.”

Another example involves potential harassment on the basis of race.  In this scenario.  an AI security vendor used facial recognition technology, that has issues with identifying Black individuals. The facial recognition technology could result in disparate treatment based on race in violation of Title VI, if students are misidentified and questioned or pulled from class as a result of the faulty software.

Yet another example surrounded the use of risk assessment software utilizing historic discipline data (which may present disparities in discipline based on race) to score student’s risk of future discipline issues and recommend discipline.  The use of a “risk score” based on data, even if the data does not include student race, may still recommend more severe discipline outcomes for students of color, and may result in different treatment based on race.

One more example involved using AI software to create academic schedules for students.  The software relies upon historical data and student demographics to determine course enrollments.  The use of such software could result in treating students differently on the basis of sex.   OCR would have reason to open an investigation under these facts.

The above examples frequently mention that when complaints are made, the school district does not investigate or act, instead completely relying upon the software.  This reinforces the need for school districts to act upon complaints, conduct an adequate investigation, and take remedial action if necessary.

These examples should be reviewed and discussed as AI software is being considered for implementation.  OCR is clearly signaling that it expects schools to evaluate the potential discriminatory impact of the use of this evolving technology in the school setting.

 

 

Federal Judge Blocks FLSA Final Rule

Federal Judge Blocks FLSA Final Rule

A new Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Rule took effect July 1, 2024, which significantly increased the salary minimum that non-teaching, salaried supervisors and administrators must make to be considered exempt from overtime pay.   

On November 15, 2024, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Department of Labor from implementing the new rule in its entirety.  The court reasoned that the Department of Labor exceeded its authority and effectively displaced the “duties test” in the law.  As a result of the ruling, the entire new rule, including the July 1 salary increase is no longer in effect, and the upcoming January 1 increase to the salary minimum will not take effect. 

The court stated, “… the Department’s 2024 Rule contemplates sweeping changes to the … regulatory framework, designed on their face to effectively displace the FLSA’s duties test with a predominate – if not exclusive – salary-level test,”  Continuing, the court concluded, The Department simply does not have the authority to effectively displace the duties test with such a predominant salary-level test.” (State of Texas v. Dept. of Labor, E.D. Tex. No.4:24-CV-499)

The Department of Justice could appeal the ruling, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court could lift the injunction and reinstate the rule.  Due to the changing administration, it is likely that even if an appeal were filed, it could be withdrawn. 

It is interesting to note that very similar circumstances occurred in 2016 when the same federal district court in Texas blocked another DOL rule raising the minimum salary for the executive, administrative professional (EAP) exemption.

 What this means for your district:

The ruling means the minimum salary threshold for meeting the executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) exemption will remain as it was prior to the new rule taking effect: $684 a week (or $35,568 annually) for the EAP exemption and $107,732 for the highly compensated employee exemption.

If districts were planning to raise the salaries for nonteaching, salaried supervisors and administrators to ensure the salary basis test was met for purposes of the EAP exemption, there is currently no need to implement those changes.  If salary increases had already been given, if reductions were contemplated, they would need to be part of a uniform plan affecting the entire district.  If you have specific questions about how the EAP exemptions might apply or how the ruling affects a specific situation, please contact counsel.