Career-technical education is a vital part of Ohio’s system of public education for students in grades seven through twelve. As public education entities that receive federal funds, CTCs are prohibited from discriminating against their students on the basis of a protected class. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin; Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; while Section 504 and the ADA prohibit discrimination based on disability.

This duty under Federal law also prohibits CTCs from working with private entities that discriminate. But are all standards for private employers the same as they are for public education? And if not, what kind of impact may that have on Ohio students working in internships and co-ops with private business partners through their CTC programs?

These issues might commonly come up in the admissions/hiring process. Federal law requires that public schools provide equal access to any career and technical programs that they offer. However, vocational programs may impose criteria that are “essential for participation” in a particular program even if it has the effect of disproportionally excluding persons of a protected class. Standards for a private employer is different. Private employers do not have to hire an employee if their disability prevents them from performing the “essential functions” of the job even with reasonable accommodations, or if hiring them would pose a significant risk to the health and safety of others in the workplace. This is particularly important for students with disabilities. Schools must provide equal access to career tech programs, but private employers may permissibly turn down a student for an internship or co-op position based on the nature of the particular program and the extent of that student’s disability.

Other areas where CTC programs and private business partners may clash are connected to employer rights. Employers generally have the right to set reasonable work expectations, establish workplace policies, and discipline employees for misconduct. Private employers are not required to yield to the CTC if the two have conflicting policies on a particular issue. For example, an employee may allow ICE agents to enter their property to arrest someone with an administrative warrant, even though school policy may not. Or a private employer may discipline a student with disabilities for violating company policy and have a much lower risk of liability for discrimination. These potential differences need to be considered when determining which outside business partners a CTC should work with, as well as what options might be a good fit for a student, and both the student and their parents should be informed of the potential impact on a student’s rights as part of their participation in the program. 

What does this mean for your district? We must recognize that business partners are often playing by their own rules, even if school districts and their students are typically given special protections under state and federal law. Private employers, despite being part of a career tech program, often have significant control over how they handle their business. Control that may be used against our students in a way that a CTC typically would not, or legally could not, do. This is not to say that districts should avoid working with private business partners, but we should strive to ensure that all participants are informed citizens, and the fact of the matter is that students and staff need to know that these premises are not under the CTC’s control.

Senate Bill 29 has caused its fair share of headaches since it went into effect in October. Passing out some much-needed proverbial ibuprofen, the state legislature passed an amendment that took effect immediately on December 9, 2024. The amendments included numerous changes to some of SB 29’s more troubling provisions, most notably the student notice requirements, requirements for technology provider contracts, and directions for when the state board may act against an individual’s license.

Notice requirements

SB 29 restricted districts from monitoring or accessing student activities on school-issued devices and accounts. While districts were largely prohibited from accessing location tracking features, audio/visual receiving, transmitting, or recording features, and data about student interactions, they could still access the device under limited exceptions. The bill set forth two separate notice requirements for school districts: (1) A requirement for schools to provide general monitoring notice annually to parents; and (2) an individual 72-hour notice after one of the bill’s exceptions were triggered.

While much of the law remains the same, HB 432 modified the exceptions to ease notice requirements for school districts. Districts may still monitor a device if the activity “is limited to a noncommercial educational purpose for instruction, technical support, or exam-proctoring.” Additionally, the exception for judicial warrants was expanded to include subpoenas. Finally, the new law significantly limits the requirement for the 72-hour notice. HB 432 clarifies that the district must only send notice within 72 hours if:

1. The district initiates responsive action in response to

1. Judicial warrant or subpoena;
2. Device is missing or stolen; or.
3. (Or prevention of) a threat to life or safety.

Only when responsive action is taken by the district, must the school notify the student’s parent and provide a written description of the triggering circumstance within 72 hours. Even then, the notice is NOT required at any time when the notice itself would pose a threat to life or safety.

HB 432 also introduced a new provision regarding notice requirements. Under the newly amended language, all contracts between a school district and a county board of developmental disabilities, educational service center, joint vocational school district, another school district, or an informational technology center for services, “shall indicate which entity is responsible for providing notice under this section.”

Tech provider contracts

SB 29 as it was originally enacted incorporated a definition of “educational records” which failed to align with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or its corresponding state law (R.C. 3319.321). HB 432 modified the definition of “education records” to align with these laws. The bill also narrowed the definition of “student” to only apply to students currently enrolled in grades K-12 so that SB 29 no longer applied to former students or applicants.

In another attempt to relax the burden SB 29 placed on districts, the definition of “technology providers” has been changed to exclude county boards of developmental disabilities, educational service centers, informational technology centers, assessment providers, curriculum providers, and other city, exempted village, local school districts, and joint vocational schools that enter into service contracts with the district to provide school-issued devices. While the requirements for tech providers have not changed, the group that qualifies is now much smaller. This is particularly beneficial as many districts rely heavily on information technology centers for technology services.

State Board licensure clarification

HB 432 narrowed the State Board’s authority to act against an individual’s license or licensure application for releasing or discussing certain information. The State Board had previously been authorized to reject an application, suspend, revoke, or limit the license of an individual who uses or releases information deemed to be confidential under state or federal law concerning a student or their family members for any purpose other than student instruction. HB 432, however, specifies that the State Board’s authority is only triggered when an individual “purposely uses or intentionally releases” confidential information.

What does this mean for your district? While SB 29 is here to stay, many of the more demanding requirements under the act have been relaxed. The requirements for technology providers may not have changed, but who qualifies for that group has been significantly restricted. ITCs, for example, are now excluded from many of the tech provider requirements. Further clarification to the law limits its reach to current students only, and brings the definition of “education records” in line with the definition established under FERPA. Perhaps most significantly, the 72-hour notice requirements now need only be given to a student’s parents when the district initiates responsive action in those limited circumstances described above.