Career Tech Corner: U.S. House of Representatives Pondering Funding Increase for Career Technical Education

Career Tech Corner: U.S. House of Representatives Pondering Funding Increase for Career Technical Education

by | May 14, 2025 | General, School Finance

Two U.S. Representatives, Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), began to circulate a Dear Colleague Letter (the “Letter”) throughout the House of Representatives that urged lawmakers to consider an increase in funding for Career Technical Education (CTE) in the 2026 budget.

According to the Letter, State grants under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act were funded at $1.44 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 24 and 25. However, the Letter states that, when adjusted for inflation, these numbers are roughly half of the funding made in 1980. This concern comes as there is a growing recognition of CTEs and a high need for more skilled laborers. In fact, the Association for Career & Technical Education (ACTE) projects a deficit of 6.5 million skilled workers by 2030, highlighting the need for growth of CTE programs.

With that, President Trump signed an Order on February 3, 2025, that proclaimed February 2025 as Career and Technical Education Month. As part of that proclamation, President Trump stated, “[m]y Administration will invest in the next generation and expand access to high-quality career and technical education for all Americans. We will unleash the enormous potential of the American people and provide students and workers with the necessary skills training to ensure that our Nation dominates the 21st century.”

What does this mean for your CTC? There is clear recognition for the need for CTEs and the skilled laborer deficits that exist and will continue to grow without CTE growth. The commitment from the federal government to push this recognition further could lead to more students applying to your program. However, at this point, there is no guarantee that additional funding will follow. This also does not mean staffing applications will follow. The increased funding is worth keeping an eye on and potentially finding avenues to advocate for.

 

 

 

HB 106: Paystub Protection Act To Require Detailed Paystubs

HB 106: Paystub Protection Act To Require Detailed Paystubs

by | Apr 17, 2025 | General, Labor and Employment

House Bill 106, the Paystub Protection Act, just recently went into effect April 9 and will require that employers provide detailed pay statements to employees on regular paydays. While employers may already be providing pay statements, there is a new level of detail required that may prompt changes for school paystubs and even require future changes in the state payroll system.

The Act requires that you provide each employee with a written or electronic pay statement that includes the employee’s earnings and deductions for each pay period, on the employer’s regular paydays.

This pay statement must also include:
1. The employee’s name;
2. The employee’s address;
3. The employer’s name;
4. The total gross wages earned by the employee during the pay period;
5. The total net wages paid to the employee for the pay period;
6. A listing of the amount and purpose of each addition to or deduction from the wages paid to the employee during the pay period;
7. The date the employee was paid and the pay period covered by that payment; and
8. For an employee who is paid on an hourly basis, all of the following information:

a. The total number of hours the employee worked in that pay period;
b. The hourly wage rate at which the employee was paid; and
c. The employee’s hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one workweek.

The Act gives a 10-day grace period if you fail to provide the pay statement on the employee’s payday. However, if you fail to provide the required paystub for more than 10 days after the employee requests their paystub, the employee may submit a report of the violation to the Ohio Director of Commerce. The Ohio Director of Commerce will investigate and may issue a written notice of violation to the district. Districts must then post the notice of violation for 10 days in a conspicuous place.

What does this mean for your district?

Districts should conduct a review of payroll processes to ensure that paystubs are consistently sent out on the district’s regular paydays, and that paystubs include the necessary details. If they do not, districts may want to review the requirements with your IT department for your billing software. Additionally, districts may need to make changes to how you toll and count employee leave. Contact an attorney at Ennis Britton if you have any questions or concerns about compliance with this Act.

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_135/legislation/hb106/05_EN/pdf/

 

 

 

OEC Reaffirms Family Hiring Restrictions, Expands Definition to Include Domestic Partners

OEC Reaffirms Family Hiring Restrictions, Expands Definition to Include Domestic Partners

by | Apr 17, 2025 | General, Labor and Employment

In their first formal advisory opinion of the year, the Ohio Ethics Commission (OEC) expanded the definition of family member to include domestic partnerships. A “domestic partner” includes a person who is living with the public official or employee in a common law marital relationship or who is otherwise cohabiting with the public official. In this context, “cohabitate” means a romantic/intimate relationship. Following this expansion, the Commission’s definition of a “member of a public official’s family” includes but is not limited to: (1) grandparents; (2) parents and step-parents; (3) spouses; (4) children and step-children; (5) grandchildren; (6) siblings; (7) any person related by blood or marriage that resides in the same household as the public official; (8) and domestic partners.

Ohio’s Public Contract Law prohibits public officials from using their authority or influence to secure a contract in which they, a member of their family, or any of their business associates has an interest. Additionally, conflict of interest laws prohibit public officials from using their authority to secure anything of value for family members who are seeking employment with, or are employed by, the same public agency, and from soliciting or accepting anything of value that may manifest in a substantial and improper influence upon the public official.

These laws create several general family hiring restrictions. Notably, public officials cannot:

  • Directly hire members of their family or vote to authorize the employment of a family member;
  • Recommend, nominate, or use their position in any way to secure a job for a family member;
  • Participate in a decision to give a family member a raise, promotion, job advancement, overtime pay or assignments, favorable performance evaluations, or other things of value related to employment; or
  • Use their official position, formally or informally, to impact the decisions or actions of other officials or employees in matters that could affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment.

The Ohio Ethics Commission has advised that this does not amount to a “no-relatives” policy. Provided the school official is sufficiently detached from all employment decisions involving their family member, Ohio’s Ethics laws do not absolutely bar family members from working for the same school district. However, their obligation to remain impartial goes beyond the initial hiring process.

Even if the decision does not directly affect the public official’s family member, they may be prohibited from weighing in on certain actions involving lay-offs or terminations. For example, if a district needed to reduce their staff and one of the official’s family members worked in a department targeted for lay-offs, the public official should refrain from weighing in on those decisions. Even if they are not directly advocating for their family member to keep their position, the official’s actions could still “affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment” as the decision to lay off a different employee indirectly decreases the chances the family member will be affected by the lay-off.

The prohibitions of O.R.C. 102.03 serve the public interest in impartial government by preventing the creation of a situation which may impair the objectivity and impartiality of a public official in a matter affecting themself or a related party. Even if the public official is acting in good faith, the nature of the family relationship alone is enough to call into question the impartiality of their decision, and has the potential to undermine the public’s faith in the district. Prior to taking any employment-related action, district officials who have family members working in the same district need to consider whether the particular decision, even if it relates to another employee, could indirectly improve their family member’s own employment prospects.

 

 

2024 Wage Settlement Report: A Look at Schools Wage Increases

2024 Wage Settlement Report: A Look at Schools Wage Increases

by | Apr 17, 2025 | General, Labor and Employment

School Employee Average Wage Increase Overall:

The Ohio State Employment Relations Board (SERB) released the annual wage settlement report for 2024 on March 1, 2025. The report shows wages increased more in 2024 than in any other year since 2015, nearly across the board. Teacher wages increased an average of 3.17% and non-teacher school employee wages increased an average of 3.07%. This is the first time since 2015 that school employee wage increases were 3% or higher; in 2023 the state saw an increase of 2.96% for teachers and 2.86% for non-teachers. However, put into context, of the categories of employees reported on (Police (Safety/Security), Fire, Blue-Collar, Other), school employees saw the smallest percentage of wage increase and the statewide average wage increase was 3.42%.

The report’s predictions for 2025 and 2026 show a slight slowdown in wage growth for school employees but the actual results will not be known until March 2026.

School Employee Average Wage Increase By Region:

The 2024 Wage Settlement Report also breaks down the average wage increases by state regions. Below are the average wage increases by region:

  1. Akron/Canton: 3.14%
  2. Cincinnati: 3.64%
  3. Cleveland: 3.29%
  4. Columbus: 3.66%
  5. Dayton: 3.34%
  6. Southeast Ohio: 3.67%
  7. Toledo: 3.59%
  8. Warren/Youngstown: 3.03%

Of the state regions, two regions saw wages increase at a slower rate in 2024 than in 2023. Akron/Canton 2023 average increase was 3.24% and Warren/Youngstown 2023 average increase was 3.07%.

Districts statewide are also carefully watching the state biennium budget bill. Initial projections on revenue from both the Governor’s proposal as well as the version of the budget bill adopted by the Ohio House show concerning numbers for many schools. The budget bill will also likely influence wages moving forward.

What does this mean for your school district?

With 2024 seeing the largest school employee wage increases since 2015, your school is likely feeling that as well and may feel it more if you’re in the process of, or about to begin bargaining for a new agreement. Going into bargaining, consider the region of your school as well to consider what other schools around you are potentially doing or considering doing for wage increases. Talk to your attorney if you have any specific questions regarding the 2024 wage settlement report and what it means for your school.

 

 

U.S. Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter Regarding Ending Racial Preferences, Demands that States and Public Schools Certify Compliance

U.S. Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter Regarding Ending Racial Preferences, Demands that States and Public Schools Certify Compliance

by | Apr 17, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, General

The U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) has mandated that all Local Education Agencies (LEAs), which include public school districts, provide certification of their compliance with certain legal obligations described in an April 3rd document titled “Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard.” The certifications are due by April 24, 2025, and must be submitted to applicable State Educational Agencies (SEA). ODEW, as Ohio’s SEA is requesting that certifications be submitted by April 18 even though they are not due until April 24th. This order came from the federal government via executive orders issued on January 20 and January 21, 2025, and was clarified to schools via the Department’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter (“Letter”).

Failure to provide certification of compliance may result in a loss of school funding from the federal government. The original deadline was extended to April 24th pursuant to an agreement between the ACLU, National Education Association-New Hampshire (NEA-NH”), and the Department. This agreement came in response to an emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in a New Hampshire lawsuit by the ACLU and NEA-NH against the Department based on the February 14 Letter and request that the court find the Letter and the requirement to end DEI to be unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs in the New Hampshire lawsuit are seeking a nationwide injunction. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for April 17th over the certification requirement. It is certainly possible that the court issues a ruling on the preliminary injunction by the April 24th deadline for certification. As a result, school districts may wish to wait until after April 17th to learn whether the New Hampshire court issues a nationwide injunction preventing the certification requirement.

On February 28, 2025, the Department Provided Some Clarification of the Letter

On February 28, 2025, the Department published frequently asked questions and answers (“Q&A”) in relation to the Letter. The Q&A provides some clarification on the Letter and the potential consequences schools may face if they fail to comply with the Letter.

The Letter stated that schools found out of compliance on February 28, 2025, would face a loss of funding. However, in the Q&A the Department clarifies that the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) will follow its normal process for determining if a school is out of compliance and at risk of a loss of funding.

Clarification Regarding DEI Programs:

As for DEI, the Department clarifies that OCR’s assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, the Department states that “whether a policy or program [fails to comply] does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’ Schools may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races.”

Finally, in terms of “covert discrimination” which is neutral on its face but discriminatory in purpose, the Department clarified how OCR will make this determination. OCR may analyze different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken together, raise an inference of discriminatory intent. The Department outlined a simple test that OCR may utilize:
1. Did the school treat a student or group of students of a particular race differently from a similarly situated student or group of students of other races?
2. Can the school provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the different treatment that isn’t pretextual?

Clarification Regarding What is Deemed Racial Preferencing:

The Q&A also outlines more specifics on the Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”) upon which the Letter states that the Department is relying for the standard of compliance. The Court held that admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by considering students’ race when making admissions decisions. With that, the Court found that the admissions programs were unlawful because they employed racial stereotypes, disadvantaged members of particular races, were not sufficiently measurable, and lacked a logical endpoint.
The Department states that the Court’s decision in SFFA has broad implications regarding racial preferences with students. The first of these implications being that schools cannot, in any competitive admissions process, or other competitive process for a benefit at an educational institution, legally treat membership in any racial group as a plus factor, because a plus factor for one racial group is necessarily a negative factor for those not in that racial group. Second, even when racial classifications or distinctions do not necessarily involve making conscious stereotypes about members of a particular race or placing members of a particular race at a disadvantage in a zero-sum process, they still raise constitutional concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Department mentions that this applies both for admissions and hiring.

The Department also reiterates in multiple answers that schools are responsible for ensuring they are not partnering with third parties in race-based discrimination. They state that “schools may not administer or advertise scholarships, prizes, or other opportunities offered by third parties based on race” and that “[a] school may not engage in racial preferences by laundering those preferences through third parties.”

Clarification Regarding What is Considered Unlawful DEI:

The Department states that “schools must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races, or by creating hostile environments based on race for students who do participate.” The Department also clarifies that First Amendment rights are not being restricted and control over curricula is not being exercised but “the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, and staff, and the curricular prerogatives of states and local school agencies do not relieve schools of their Title VI obligations not to create hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes; nor does it relieve them of their duty to respond to racial harassment that creates a hostile environment.”

The Department further states that “[i]n determining whether a racially hostile environment exists, OCR will examine the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the educational institution, the age of the students, and the relationships of the individuals involved.” The Department provides examples of programs that would amount to creating a hostile environment such as ones that would act to bring shame or intrinsic guilt upon members of certain races or ethnicities. Finally, within this section, the Department warns that schools must not discriminate based on race with “how they discipline in response to complaints or allegations of harassment, or in response to speech that would be protected under the First Amendment, whether through use of bias response teams, mandatory trainings, or compelled statements.”

How This Affects Your District

Unless a court issues an injunction applying to Ohio, all districts have been directed to submit the certification of compliance by April 24, 2025.
However, for Ohio Districts, ODEW is requesting certification by April 18, 2025. This request does not appear to be a legal mandate since the Department has clearly given public school districts until April 24th to submit their certifications. Prior to providing your certification, consider the clarification the Q&A document provides.

Since this Q&A also provides more insight into what the DEI programs are, this gives your District a chance to ensure a “racially hostile environment” is not occurring via school programming or in disciplinary measures for harassment. As for racial preferencing in enrollment or employment decisions, the Department is asking your District to ensure that there is nothing in your practices or policies (or those of a third-party that your District utilizes) that takes race into consideration on its face or under the surface.

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] Frequently-asked-questions-about-racial-preferences-and-stereotypes-under-title-vi-of-civil-rights-act-109530.pdf

[1] See our article on the February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter: https://ennisbritton.com/blog/2025/u-s-department-of-education-gives-until-february-28-to-comply-with-new-federal-anti-discrimination-orders-of-risk-loss-of-funding

Career Tech Corner: Private Business Partnerships and Their Potential Impact on Students

Career Tech Corner: Private Business Partnerships and Their Potential Impact on Students

by | Feb 24, 2025 | General

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.