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.

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

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.

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.

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.