Navigating SB 29: What’s New for Educators Following a Series of Lame Duck Amendments

Navigating SB 29: What’s New for Educators Following a Series of Lame Duck Amendments

by | Jan 16, 2025 | General

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.

 

 

Lawmakers Gear Up for Busy Lame Duck Period

Lawmakers Gear Up for Busy Lame Duck Period

by | Nov 18, 2024 | General, Legislation, School Management

A little over a week has passed since the election, and the Ohio Senate has passed its first piece of legislation affecting Ohio schools. On Wednesday, November 13th the chamber voted to approve SB 104, also known as the “Protect All Students Act” along party lines.

Originally intended to amend the College Credit Plus program, SB 104 will allow students to apply by sending notice in November (rather than just April), allowing them to participate for the spring semester only. Students who apply in April can continue to participate for the full upcoming year without having to provide additional notice in November. Additionally, schools must host an orientation for each participant that complies with the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (ODEW) and higher education requirements. Language was later inserted into the act to prevent transgender individuals from using bathrooms aligned with their gender identities at Ohio schools and universities. Under the act, primary and secondary schools will be required to designate separate bathrooms and changing areas for “students of the male biological sex” or “students of the female biological sex.” However, family restrooms and single-occupancy facilities will still be permitted, and there are exceptions for people with disabilities and children under 10 who need assistance from a family member or guardian. SB 104 now awaits Governor DeWine’s signature, who has previously indicated that he would sign the bill after conducting a legal review.

As the lame duck session continues, we have highlighted several pieces of proposed legislation that could impact Ohio schools if they are passed in the near future. Proposals range from enrollment policies and course requirements to increases in teacher salary and permitted uses of sick leave.

  • SB 208: Requires schools to open enrollment policies to accommodate military children.
  • SB 293: Requires schools to excuse students for religious release time (schools currently permitted but not required to do so).
  • SB 313: Requires schools to equip buildings and staff with a wearable panic device.
  • HB 411: Proposes to increase minimum teacher salary to $50,000.
  • HB 436: Authorizes aides and intervention specialists to provide remote instruction.
  • HB 468: Requires a district to allow civic organizations to provide written information to students about their club and to give them one day a year to present to students provided the representatives pass a background check.
  • HB 506: Requires each school that chooses to stock Naloxone/Narcan to develop a policy about obtaining and maintaining their supply of the drug.
  • HB: 507: Provides protection and safe harbors for political subdivisions that implement cybersecurity measures.
  • HB 520: Permits students to use club sports or other athletic activities to fulfill the high school PE requirement.
  • HB 560: Requires school districts to reimburse teachers for the full cost of completing the number of graduate level credit hours or CEUS for implicit bias training, and ODEW will reimburse the districts for the cost.
  • HB 571: Require schools to include national suicide and crisis hotline numbers on student IDs, planners, and electronic portals.
  • HB 574: Allows a BOE employee to use sick leave for parental leave of absence.
  • HB 585: Provides money to promote food options for students with religious dietary restrictions.
  • HB 623: Requires districts to offer at least one high school computer science class that includes computer programming, and makes it a requirement for graduation (beginning in the 2026-2027 school year).
  • HB 633: requires districts that run elementary schools to hand out an informational brochure to parents developed by the Department of Health regarding Type 1 diabetes.
  • HB 657: Requires schools to make their pledge of allegiance policy public by posting on the school’s website.

As the lame duck session continues, lawmakers will be rushing to pass as many of the remaining bills that they can before the end of the year. There are hundreds of proposals that need to be considered, many of which have nothing to do with education, and it is possible that the bulk of the session will focus on other issues. Governor DeWine, for example, has listed the regulation or prohibition of delta-8 hemp as a top priority as bills addressing the issue have made little progress throughout the year. Ultimately, the lawmakers  decide which bills will be prioritized, and any bill not passed by the end of the session will have to go through the entire hearing process again after the next General Assembly is sworn in.

What does this mean for your district? At the time this article was written, the only piece of legislation listed above that has been passed by both the Ohio House and Senate has been SB 104. The Act imposes facility requirements on all Ohio schools and amends the CCP program to include a second application window. There is no guarantee that the other proposals listed above will become law, but it is worth tracking their movement as the year ends considering the potential changes that may be required for the next school year.

 

 

OCR Announces Resolution of Recent Title IX Investigation in Minneapolis

OCR Announces Resolution of Recent Title IX Investigation in Minneapolis

by | Sep 23, 2024 | General, School Management

While courts across the country issue injunctions and debate the politics and definitions surrounding the 2024 Title IX regulations, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) continues to consider “classic” gender inequities in schools.

On August 8, 2024, the OCR announced a resolution of its Title IX investigation into the Minneapolis Public School District’s high school athletics programs. As part of the voluntary agreement, the district committed to:
• Conducting a full assessment of how the district can accommodate athletic interest and abilities to provide equal opportunities for female students;
• Develop a plan to increase participation opportunities for female students;
• Create a Stakeholder Committee to work collaboratively with the district to create new policies and procedures addressing interscholastic athletics programs;
• Assess and develop a plan with respect to the provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities at each high school in the district that equally and effectively accommodates the athletic interests and abilities of all students; and
• Training its Title IX coordinators, athletic directors, principals, and coaches on their responsibilities under Title IX.

The OCR’s investigation revealed a disparity between the female enrollment rate and their participation in interscholastic athletics. Despite this disparity, the district acknowledged that they had not completed a student athletic interest survey in over a decade, nor did they have any policies or criteria for the addition of sports or levels to their existing programs.

The investigation also revealed significant disparities between the existing athletic facilities, and student access to said facilities, between male and female students. For example, many of the softball fields used by the district were not up to regulation for high school fast pitch and they lacked permanent fencing around the field. The girls’ softball teams were also regularly displaced from competition because the district allowed a men’s adult softball league to use the facilities after 6 p.m. The OCR also raised concerns that a higher proportion of female athletes had maintenance and preparation responsibilities for their sports, such as setting up nets and fencing prior to practice or games, with some teams even being required to set up spectator seating for their home competitions.

Similar issues were prevalent when comparing locker rooms between male and female students. At least two of the high schools reported that the girls’ locker rooms lacked hot water. Others provided additional locker rooms specifically for male athletes, with no offsetting benefits for female participants, and many female athletes across the district reported that their locker rooms were locked throughout the school day while the boys’ locker rooms were regularly available.

What this means for your district:
Regardless of the status of the 2024 Regulations, Title IX continues to be in effect. Districts cannot ignore their basic obligation to prevent sex discrimination in educational programs and activities. In the context of athletics, this generally means districts must demonstrate that they provide opportunities that are substantially proportionate to their enrollment, or if a gender is currently underrepresented, that they can show program expansion that is responsive to addressing that underrepresentation. Districts should consider regular reviews or internal audits for equity among programs considering schedules, practice and competition facilities, utilities, expectations of participants, displacement of teams, involvement of students, etc. It is clear through this resolution that OCR values a proactive approach to equal opportunity in interscholastic athletics programs.

 

The Power of Punctuation: Debate Over Grammar Leads Ohio Supreme Court to Limit Executive Sessions for the Purchase of Property

The Power of Punctuation: Debate Over Grammar Leads Ohio Supreme Court to Limit Executive Sessions for the Purchase of Property

by | Aug 18, 2024 | Board Policy & Representation, General

Look Ahead Am. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2691.

On July 18, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the Stark County Board of Elections misused executive sessions to discuss and plan the purchase of new property, specifically voting equipment. A company filed a complaint based on the Board’s decision to enter executive sessions on four separate occasions to discuss and plan for the purchasing of new voting systems. Both lower courts upheld the Board’s decisions after concluding that executive sessions were permitted for any purchase of property, but the Ohio Supreme Court disagreed. Reversing the decision, the Court clarified that executive sessions are permitted to discuss the purchase of property only to consider information “which would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.”

Ohio’s Open Meetings Act permits a public body to enter executive session for the following reasons:

To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, the sale of property at competitive bidding, or the sale or other disposition of unneeded, obsolete, or unfit-for-use property in accordance with R.C. 505.10, if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.

The courts agreed that the statute had a plain meaning, but they disagreed over what, exactly, that plain meaning was. According to the Supreme Court, the difference is based on punctuation and the rules of grammar. The lower courts both relied on the “rule of the last antecedent,” which applies a limiting clause or phrase to the noun or phrase that it immediately follows. Using that rule, the courts argued that the premature-disclosure clause only applied to the sale of unneeded, obsolete, or unfit-for-use property.

However, the statute’s use of commas modifies the rule of the last antecedent. Relying on several leading treatises on statutory interpretation, the Ohio Supreme Court argued that separating the antecedents and the qualifying phrase by a comma is evidence that the qualifier is supposed to apply to all antecedents. Under this interpretation, the premature-disclosure clause applies to every listed reason to start an executive session involving property, including the purchase of property, and not just the last reason as the lower courts suggested.

What this means for your district? This is yet another reminder that Districts must review and understand the public meeting exceptions rather than rely on memory and past practice. While Districts often recess into executive session to discuss property purchases, Districts cannot call executive sessions to discuss such purchases unless they can show that the premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.

6th Circuit Temporarily Pauses Implementation of New Title IX Regulations

6th Circuit Temporarily Pauses Implementation of New Title IX Regulations

by | Jun 19, 2024 | General, Legislation

Tennessee v. Cardona, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106559

A federal district court judge in Kentucky issued a preliminary injunction on June 17, 2024 against the Department of Education’s new 2024 Title IX regulations that are set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. The injunction issued by the Kentucky judge is limited to the six plaintiff-states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia. There are multiple other lawsuits across the country with pending motions for preliminary injunctions that also may impact when the Department’s Title IX Final Rules will go into effect.

The Final Rules released by the Department in April include an expanded definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 590 U.S. 644, 681–83 (2020), that seeks to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in a Title VII case. The federal district court held that the new regulations will dramatically alter the purpose and meaning of Title IX, and issued a preliminary injunction to pause the implementation of the 2024 Title IX regulations until the case may proceed further for the following reasons:

  • The Department’s interpretation likely exceeds its statutory authority,
  • The Department’s actions were arbitrary and capricious,
  • The Department’s reading goes against the major questions doctrine,
  • The Clear statement rule under the Spending Clause weighs against the new Title IX regulations,
  • The Plaintiffs raised valid First Amendment free speech concerns, and
  • The Department’s reading likely violates parental rights.

According to the court, the original goal of Title IX was to ensure that women have an equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, and participate in society based on their individual talents and capacities, and that before the last decade, the words “sex” and “discrimination on the basis of sex” had universally been understood to refer to biological sex under the statute. The court disagreed with the Department’s reliance on Bostock. The majority in Bostock claimed the decision did not apply beyond Title VII to other federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination, and the dissent warned about how the ruling could be misapplied in the school context. 

Citing last week’s different decision in Texas, in which a federal district court in the 5th Circuit enjoined the Department’s 2021 guidance, the court reminded the Department that federal agencies “…lack the authority to rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate.” Texas v. Cardona, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103452, at 85.

For purposes of Title IX, the court found that the term “sex” unambiguously refers to biological sex, and that Congress did not implicitly delegate its authority to change or expand that meaning to the Department. Similarly, Title IX was enacted as an exercise of Congress’ power under the Spending Clause which requires the government to condition the receipt of federal funds “unambiguously” so that states may be cognizant of the consequences of their participation and exercise their choice knowingly. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). But the court found that the Final Rule’s language provides no indication that an institution’s receipt of federal funds is conditioned on any sort of mandate concerning gender identity.

Lastly, the court cautioned that the new Title IX regulations may infringe on the constitutional rights of students, staff, and parents. The court found that the Final Rules require districts to treat children consistent with their gender identities on school grounds, even if that conflicts with parental preferences.  The court cautions that the Department’s reading of Title IX may require districts to enter the “private realm of family life” that has been afforded both substantive and procedural protections.

What this means for your district

The preliminary injunction issued by the federal district judge in Kentucky within the 6thCircuit this week pauses the Title IX Final Rules implementation in the six states involved, including Ohio, but only temporarily. As the case progresses to a full hearing, the injunction may be lifted or a permanent injunction could be issued. There is also potential that one of the other pending lawsuits impacts how the Final Rules are implemented. We may not have a definitive answer on compliance with the new Title IX regulations until these cases make their way through the court system. In the meantime, districts should continue to prepare for the new rules, even if they are currently delayed, to ensure they are prepared to implement Title IX provisions if and when they go into effect. This decision does not reverse or modify the 6th Circuit precedent concerning Title IX and students within K-12 schools. Consult your legal counsel.