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.

In late December Congress passed, and on January 5 President Biden signed into law, the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82). This is the first significant expansion of Social Security benefits in over 20 years. This landmark legislation repeals two long-standing provisions that had reduced benefits for former government workers. Specifically, retirees who worked for an extended time in both a Social Security covered position and a public pension position, as well as their survivor beneficiaries, are impacted.

The law eliminates both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) from 1983, and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) from 1977. These provisions had previously reduced Social Security benefits for public sector workers who also received public pensions, with some retirees experiencing benefit reductions of up to 50% or more.

This change particularly benefits three million retired public servants like police officers, firefighters, and teachers in states with public pension systems. In Ohio alone, nearly a quarter million residents will see their benefits restored to full levels. Ohio has one of the highest number of beneficiaries who will see increased benefits due to the state’s robust public pension systems.

The Social Security Administration estimates that affected recipients, including survivor beneficiaries, could see average increases of nearly $1,200 per month. Current retirees may be eligible for payments retroactive to the 2024 benefit year.

While the act received strong bipartisan support, it has faced some criticism regarding its fiscal impact. The legislation is projected to add $195 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. However, supporters note that given the vast scale of the Social Security program, this increase only accelerates the Trust Fund’s projected depletion date by approximately six months.

This reform represents a significant victory for public sector workers who have long advocated for fair treatment in their retirement benefits, though it does not address the broader challenges facing Social Security’s long-term solvency.

InnovateOhio has developed the “AI Toolkit: Guidance and Resources to Advance AI Readiness in Ohio’s Schools,” which aims to help educators, parents, and school leaders prepare students for a world shaped by artificial intelligence (AI). The toolkit offers practical guidance on integrating AI in education safely and responsibly. It provides a step-by-step framework for policy development, alongside resources for policymakers, teachers, and parents to foster AI literacy and address potential risks. While not a mandate, the toolkit serves as a trusted resource to ensure Ohio’s educational system can effectively harness AI technology, helping students thrive in the evolving technological landscape.

InnovateOhio is an initiative founded by Lt. Governor Jon Husted, whose vision for InnovateOhio is to “look at every state service through the eyes of customers – Ohio citizens and businesses – and create a culture of innovation in state government by using technology to improve people’s lives, transform services, and ultimately, save money for taxpayers.”

The toolkit is broken into seven parts which are described as follows:

Part 1: Policy Development for AI in Education – A Step-By-Step Approach. An overview of a five-step process for deriving concrete policies from aspirational values and objectives.

Part 2: Introduction to Resources for Policymakers, Teachers, and Parents. An introduction to the survey of resources provided in Parts 3 – 7 of the Toolkit.

Part 3: Resources for Policymakers – A Functional Overview. An overview of the resources policymakers may draw upon in executing the policy-development steps identified in Part 1.

Part 4: Resources for Teachers. An overview of resources available to teachers seeking to integrate AI in their classroom instruction and practices.

Part 5: Resources for Parents. An overview of resources available to parents seeking to partner with schools in ensuring that their children are well-equipped for an AI-enabled world.

Part 6: A Guide to Guidelines. An inventory of key guidelines for the responsible use of AI, covering their scope, intent, and significant contributions.

Part 7: Summary of Resources. A summary of the areas of focus for each of the guidelines discussed in the toolkit.

The toolkit can be located here.

What does this mean for your District? AI is moving quickly and becoming more and more relevant to career-technical education. This resource, among others, could be a source for harnessing the power of AI in the curriculum and staying on the cutting edge of developing technology.

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (“ODEW”) recently adopted changes to the procedural safeguard rules in the Ohio Operating Standards for the Education of Students with Disabilities (“Operating Standards”). These changes, which are likely to take effect this school year, will significantly alter the responsibilities for educational agencies such as joint vocational school districts (“JVS”) and educational service centers. The proposed changes were initially published in July and were finalized in October after the last round of public comments closed. Although the changes are significant, the ODEW received only two public comments before the regulation was sent for final approval to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (“JCARR”).

The procedural safeguard rule, codified in OAC 3301-51-05, establishes legal protections and rights that must be provided to students with disabilities and their parents under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). These rules ensure that students receive a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and that parents are actively involved in their child’s education. Procedural safeguards provide a framework that encourages collaboration and accountability in the special education process.

Under the current version of the rule, a student’s district of residence is generally responsible for ensuring that procedural safeguards are provided to eligible students. When parents and students believe that they have not received the procedural safeguards to which they are entitled, they may file for due process against the district of residence, even if the student is enrolled in a joint vocational school district program. This may be about to change under the new rule, where the term “district of residence” has been replaced by the term “educational agency” throughout the rule. The term “educational agency” appears to include a JVS as well as other entities such as an educational service center.

These “educational agencies” are now listed as the parties responsible for all of the following under OAC 3301-0-51-05:

• Obtaining parental consent on evaluations and services;
• Sending notice about transfer of rights at a student’s age of majority;
• Assigning surrogates to students;
• Paying for or filing due process when a parent requests an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense;
• Considering results of an outside evaluation that is obtained by the parent;
• Drafting and sending Prior Written Notices;
• Being named in due process and state complaints; and
• Participating in facilitation and mediation.

This is where things get more complicated and confusing. The other rules in the Operating Standards have not been changed, and now appear to conflict with the Procedural Safeguards rule. For instance, rule OAC 3301-51-02 declares that a district of residence and not any other “educational agency” is ultimately responsible for providing FAPE. While a due process complaint may now be filed against a JVS rather than a district of residence, it seems that the district of residence still has a lot at stake and may still be responsible for addressing any FAPE deficiencies that are discovered through the hearing process. It remains unclear how ODEW and hearing officers will harmonize the conflicting provisions.

 In the meantime, joint vocational school districts should contact member districts and discuss how both entities may work together to ensure that Procedural Safeguards are provided to all students who receive protections under the IDEA. It may be helpful to set aside some time in upcoming professional development sessions to help JVS staff learn more about the procedural safeguards that they may not have been directly responsible for or involved with in the past. Stay tuned for further updates.