New Law on Youth Membership Organization Presentations Q&A

New Law on Youth Membership Organization Presentations Q&A

by | Nov 11, 2026 | General, Legislation

What is changing with youth organizations presenting in schools?

SB 19 enacted a new section of the law, R.C. 3313.476.  On September 23, 2026, the new law took effect that outlines the opportunities that youth member organizations have to access students in school.  

What is a youth membership organization?

The definition is limited.  It does not say any organization that offers youth membership options, but references only those listed in the Federal statutes.  The statute defines a “youth membership organization” as any of the following:

Civil Air Patrol

Future Farmers of America

Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America

Boys and Girls Clubs of America

Little League Baseball of America, Inc.,

Naval Sea Cadet Corps

 Boy Scouts of America

Girl Scouts of the United States of America

Therefore, you may limit the opportunity to only those organizations listed. 

May the listed organizations tell the school district when and how it wishes to present to students?

No.  The statute provides that upon a request by one of the listed organizations, the school district must provide at least one opportunity to “…at least one opportunity per school year for the representatives of the youth organization to provide displays on school property within the district for student recruitment, including informational flyers and the use of other existing digital communication channels.

When may the school district host the youth organization for its presentation?

The statute requires that any presentations occur during a time outside of instruction for a core curriculum subject. The school district retains the discretion of when in the school day it will provide the opportunity.

 How long does the youth organization have to present to students?

The statute limits the presentation to “up to ten consecutive minutes.” There is nothing in the statute that allows the youth organization to dictate when and how long it will speak, so the school district has discretion to determine how best to incorporate this new law into its current calendar and schedule for students.

Should the youth organizers on campus go through our visitor background checks?

Every school district should consider its policies on how visitors are allowed in buildings, if an ID check is required, if supervised access to students occurs, etc. Treatment similar to other supervised visitors in school buildings may be appropriate.

What else must the school district offer to the youth membership organization?

Once a year, school districts must allow the youth organization to provide flyers.  The timing and method of distribution is subject to the determination of the school.  The “use of other existing digital communication channels” would likely include a once a year email or software communication platforms for students.  School districts need not provide multiple access points, nor must they do a coordinated marketing campaign if suggested by the qualifying youth member organization. 

In the event a school district wishes to offer additional opportunities such as more than one communication avenue, that is permissible.

The minimum for communications required by statute is to ability have a display, provide flyers and an email is once per school year. School districts are not required to promote or recruit for the organizations.

What are some options for planning for the implementation of the new law?

First, there was no need to provide any access before the law went into effect. 

Second, school districts might consider adding these opportunities (which again, must be requested by the named organizations) into other existing planned programming, such as a wellness day, or other student assembly or lunchtime opportunities. 

Do we have to notify parents and may parents opt out?

Yes.  The law contains a parental notification requirement.  Parents must be notified of each group’s expected presentation, which means that the school district needs to obtain a summary of the expected speech content and the flyers or other digital communications that will be offered to students in advance.  Then, parents must have the opportunity to opt out of their student attending or listening to the expected presentation and materials.

Instead of keeping track of each individual organization, school districts might consider opting out of all youth membership organizations or opting in to all youth membership organization presentations. 

Should we update our policies?

Yes. The policy services have updated the relevant policies, and your district should adopt them as effective on September 23, 2026. You may wish to incorporate your district’s specific plans on these offerings, so some revision of the template policies or administrative guidelines may be in order.  Other policies will also remain in effect that should be followed governing other communications, displays on public property, visitors on campus, etc. Contact us if we can assist.

Ohio Appeal Court Holds Executive Session Is Not a “Blanket Shield” From Discovery

Ohio Appeal Court Holds Executive Session Is Not a “Blanket Shield” From Discovery

by | Nov 11, 2026 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Legislation

School board members and administrators often assume that discussions held in executive session are completely insulated from later disclosure. An August 2026 decision from Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals serves as an important reminder that the confidentiality of executive session discussions has limits, particularly when a public body is accused of violating Ohio’s Open Meetings Act. In Rosenhoffer v. Batavia, the court held that Ohio law does not create an absolute executive session privilege that automatically bars discovery regarding topics discussed during a closed session.

The case arose after Village of Batavia residents filed suit alleging that village council members entered executive session but then discussed topics that were not covered by the statutory exceptions permitting closed-door meetings. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought testimony regarding what occurred during the executive sessions. The village argued that executive-session discussions were protected from disclosure and sought a protective order. The trial court rejected that argument and ordered discovery to proceed, resulting in an appeal.

The Twelfth District affirmed the trial court’s central conclusion that Ohio law does not recognize a blanket executive session privilege. The court reasoned that if all executive-session discussions were categorically immune from discovery, litigants could never effectively challenge whether a public body had complied with the Open Meetings Act in the first place. As the court observed, such an interpretation would make it virtually impossible to determine whether officials discussed matters outside the topics authorized by statute.

The court also rejected the argument that Ohio ethics laws automatically prohibit current or former public officials from testifying about executive-session discussions. Instead, the court found that courts may compel testimony when necessary to evaluate Open Meetings Act claims as long as the testimony is limited to determining whether discussions strayed beyond the subjects authorized by the Open Meetings Act.

What does this means for your district?

While the case arose in a municipal context, the decision has significant implications for Ohio school boards. Boards frequently rely on executive session to discuss topics expressly authorized by the Open Meetings Act. If your Board’s compliance with the Open Meetings Act is challenged, a court may permit limited inquiry into what conversation occurred behind closed doors to determine whether the discussion stayed within the narrow statutory exceptions. School boards should continue to exercise discipline in executive session, ensuring that discussions remain closely tied to the purpose identified in the motion and authorized by Ohio law.

Changes to Ohio Law on Truancy, Chronic Absenteeism, and Absence Intervention in the 2026-2027 Operating Budget

Changes to Ohio Law on Truancy, Chronic Absenteeism, and Absence Intervention in the 2026-2027 Operating Budget

by | Nov 11, 2026 | General, Legislation, Student Education and Discipline

The Operating Budget enacted several changes to Ohio laws governing school policy on truancy, chronic absenteeism, and absence intervention. The likely fiscal effect of these reforms is that school spending will shift from compliance activities to prevention and intervention.

Grade Level Promotion

H.B. 96 removed the requirement that a school district not promote a student to the next grade level if the student has been truant for more than 10% of the required school days.

Filing a Truancy Complaint in Juvenile Court

The budget eliminated the timeline for school district attendance officers to file a complaint in juvenile court against a truant student. This includes a removal of the requirement that when a student’s absences persist after the school has made meaningful attempts to reengage the student, a school must file a complaint to juvenile court not later than 61 days after a plan was implemented by the absence intervention team.

The filing is now solely based on whether the student’s progress in improving attendance is satisfactory. Now, the Act requires a truancy complaint in juvenile court only if the school district makes a determination that the student’s progress in improving attendance is unsatisfactory. If the school determines that satisfactory progress has been made in this area, the attendance officer shall not file a complaint.

A complaint filed in juvenile court must allege that the child is an “unruly child for being a habitual truant” and that the parent or guardian has violated their duty to cause the child to be in school. The meaning of “habitual truant” remains unchanged, and still refers to a “student of compulsory school age who is absent without legitimate excuse . . . for 30 or more consecutive hours, 42 or more hours in one school month, or 72 or more hours in a school year.”

Driver Education Excused Absences

The Act allows for up to 8 hours of excused absence for a student if they are “absent from school for the sole purpose of attending a driver education course.” The student can be absent for up to two hours a day for no more than four days. These days may be consecutive or nonconsecutive. The student may not be released from a core curriculum subject to attend such a course. The district must require that a student who utilizes this time complete any missed classroom assignments.

Under the Act, a “driver education course” refers to a private driver training approved by the director of public safety in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4508, which governs Driver Training Schools.

Court of Appeals Unanimously Rules “EdChoice” Voucher Program Unconstitutional

Court of Appeals Unanimously Rules “EdChoice” Voucher Program Unconstitutional

by | Oct 19, 2026 | General, Legislation

Columbus City School District et al. v. State of Ohio et al.

A panel of three judges from the 10th District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the Educational Choice Scholarship Program (“EdChoice”) violated Article VI, section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. The decision affirmed a lower court ruling that also declared EdChoice unconstitutional for the first time in June 2025. The Court of Appeals decision allows EdChoice to continue pending an anticipated appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

A link to the Court of Appeals’ full decision has been provided above.

This case is the first significant challenge to the state’s private school voucher programs in roughly thirty years. In Simmons-Harris v. Goff, 1999-Ohio-77, the Supreme Court upheld the Cleveland Pilot Program on the grounds that it was a narrow and experimental program to address the unique needs of a single school district, but cautioned that an “expanded school voucher program or similar program could damage public education” and therefore “be subject to a renewed constitutional challenge.” The pilot program has since evolved into the EdChoice voucher program we have today, expanding from an initial appropriation of roughly $5.25 million annually to over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2025 alone.

The Ohio Constitution requires the General Assembly to “secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools” while prohibiting “religious or other sects” from having “any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.” The Court of Appeals declared  that the current scope and funding level of EdChoice secures a separate system of non-public schools contrary to the mandates of the Ohio Constitution and laid out several additional concerns with EdChoice that violate the State’s requirement for a “common” school system:

  1. EdChoice gives broad discretion to private schools to admit or deny students and the lack of meaningful constraints imposed by the state. For example, ODEW acknowledged that a private school may discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability while receiving EdChoice funds.
  2. EdChoice provides little to no access to rural students. ODEW provided a list of 154 private schools where 75% or more of their students received vouchers. 44% of those schools are located in Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton County. That number expands to 89% when accounting for Ohio’s 16 “urban counties.” Despite being funded from statewide tax revenue, large portions of the State, particularly in the southeast and northeast, have little to no access to the program due to the lack of private schools in these areas.
  3. EdChoice lacks meaningful oversight regarding fiscal supervision, ratings and compliance, teacher evaluations, and public transparency. When questioned about how ODEW ensures that private schools comply with the few requirements that do exist, ODEW’s Director of Non-Public Educational Options testified that “there is no monitoring system.”

The Court went a step further to declare that EdChoice undermined the financial integrity of the public school system. By simultaneously diverting taxpayer funds to private schools and encouraging the departure of students from public schools, the judges opined that EdChoice effectively increased the per-pupil cost of educating students who remain in public schools while giving voters less reason to approve local school levies.

The judges concluded that the structure and funding level of the EdChoice voucher program “operates at the expense and detriment of Ohio’s public schools, and, consequently, the children who depend on those public schools for instruction, support, and opportunities that shape their future.”

Andy Wilson, Ohio’s Interim Attorney General, has already announced his intent to appeal the decision.

Legislature on Summer Recess Passes Bills Before Leaving

Legislature on Summer Recess Passes Bills Before Leaving

by | Jun 20, 2026 | Legislation

Bills with last-minute impacts on education were passed as the Legislature ended its session and left for summer break.  No data center legislation was passed, but this topic will likely resurface in the lame-duck session in the fall.

The bills passed included many last-minute amendments, and some proposals did not make it to the next round, such as math intervention plans.

HB 455 and SB 19 were the vehicles for many additions and became a repository of miscellaneous education provisions.

Following is a summary of highlights of HB 455.  This bill has not yet been signed by the Governor, and therefore, it is possible there could be some vetoes.

It is not a comprehensive review of the contents or potential impacts of the bill’s provisions due to the newsletter format. If you have questions about any provisions, please contact an Ennis Britton attorney for further information.

Finance

Investment of interim funds:  School district treasurers will no longer need to submit a report to the ODEW or the state auditor the August 31 investment report listing the investments made in the preceding fiscal year, income from those investments and fees and commissions paid. It must still be submitted to the board of education.

School district opening for financial reasons: The entirety of existing sections of law regarding schools being unable to open for financial emergency has been removed, including applying for a loan from the state or commercial bank, issuing notes in anticipation of collection of voted levies.  Other references throughout the Code have been removed.

Levies: Under 5705.212, incremental/renewal levy, a section of the law allowing anticipation notes to be sold remains, but the section requiring a reasonable competitive bidding opportunity before the notes may be sold if the auditor has certified a deficit pursuant to the now-rescinded debt section of the law discussed above has been removed from the law. For R.C. 5705.213 current expense renewal levies, that same section has been removed.

Students

Habitual truants: Students adjudicated unruly due to habitual truancy may see court supervision of their cases for an additional school year to monitor their attendance.  On that subject, parents may now be convicted of the offense of contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a student for habitual truancy (a misdemeanor of the first degree) without an adjudication of the student as unruly or delinquent.

Graduation tests: Ohio’s graduation tests in the form of the five high school achievement assessments have been eliminated from the law along with all references throughout the Code. There will still be achievement assessments as outlined below.  Related language on practice tests has been removed. College and work ready assessments are still in place.

Graduation intervention: Districts with 3-year average graduation rates of 75% or less will no longer have to provide intervention services to 9th graders who do not pass the graduation tests (removed from the law, see above).

Waiver of end of course exams: Students who previously were able to avoid end of course exams if they met certain criteria will no longer be able to do that, as the exemption language has been removed from the law.

Scholarship: For purposes of obtaining the scholarship, any student entering K-12 is eligible without being enrolled in the resident district or a community school.

Attendance and tuition:  Ohio law has finally recognized that for purposes of attendance and tuition, many parents are unmarried.  The new law adds to the definition of “parent” for attendance and tuition purposes that for parents never married to each other, parent means the parent who is the residential parent and legal custodian of the child.  This change will reduce flexibility regarding enrollment for fathers who are unmarried but are caring for their children in a different district.

Internet or computer based community schools: Students enrolled in these schools may take state assessments remotely with a remote proctor upon meeting certain conditions. These schools will now be required to meet with parents in the first two weeks to discuss available testing options and describe the preferred method.  If parents do not attend the meeting the school may administer its preferred testing option. If an IEP provides for in person testing, it shall be provided.    ODEW will produce a public report by Sept. 15 of the results to review discrepancies.

Age and schooling certificates:  Added to the list of things the superintendent must have and review prior to issuing an age and schooling certificate now includes a minor work hours notification form signed by the student’s parent or guardian.  This form will be created by the Department of Commerce and provided.

Student work hours: Adds a provision that a student may be employed between 7-9pm on a day before school is not in session and the parents approve. The will need to sign the minor work hours form mentioned above. (Note, this provision may conflict with of 29 C.F.R. § 570.35).

Preschool: Students will be eligible to participate in the early childhood education grant program if a slot is available, if the child has exited Part C early childhood intervention services as documented by an Individual Support Plan, the child is a Medicaid recipient or  part of a family group that participated in Ohio Works First or receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Families may choose to use this grant program rather than other sources for state funding for child care.  If the early learning program used EMIS to track attendance prior to the amendment it will continue to do so.  Funds distributed for the program will be used to provide early learning and development services and any remaining funds may be awarded in high need areas to allow more children to participate in the program or support expansion, innovation, or other enumerated initiatives.

State-level changes

Composition of State Board of Education: The State Board of Education will have seven members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The additional members will have their term begin January 1, 2027 for four years. Changes to the language on appointing the members requires that at least one appointed member have experience as a representative of rural, urban, suburban, community and nonpublic schools.  The additional members on the State Board opens the possibility that two members will be from nonpublic or community school or any of the other categories, or none of those categories.

ODEW annual school report: The  Director of ODEW will no longer be required to submit an annual report to the Governor and General Assembly on the status, needs and problems of Ohio schools with a ten-year enrollment projection for public and nonpublic schools by grade level.

ODEW employees: ODEW will no longer need to employ a full time physical education coordinator to assist districts in implementing the physical education standards.

Report cards:

ODEW will no longer be required to provide preliminary report card data by July 31 of each year.

Letter grades were removed.

Students with IEP’s who have satisfied the requirements for a diploma but have deferred graduation will be included as graduates on the 4 and five year adjusted graduation cohort.

Changes to the report card’s calculation of post-secondary readiness measures will now include attaining remediation free scores in ELA and math by either achieving accomplished or advanced on the end of course exams in ELA and Algebra II and geometry or on a nationally standardized test.

Calculation of this measure also includes changes to earning twelve (12) college credits through advanced standing CCP programs and a score of 3 or more AP and 4 or more IB course equals 3 college credits.

The requirement that JCARR approve the college, career, workforce and military readiness rules each year was removed.

Waiver of requirements based on ratings: ODEW now may remove districts from specified state mandates only for districts that receive five star ratings.

District ranking and report cards: The ranking of public schools calculation has removed the value added performance growth and other student growth measure from the calculation.

Innovative pilot programs: Community schools and STEM schools were added to the list of school types that may submit innovative pilot program plans to ODEW  requiring exemptions from state statutes or rules. On a similar note, ODEW now is required to promote innovative educational programs and provide support for developing them, publicize other projects, and promote the availability of waivers of state statutes and rules for those programs.

The law removed a section on schools being required to restructure under an academic distress commission.

Board member vacancy:  The board member vacancy statute has been amended to ensure that a board of education may not declare a seat vacant for nonattendance if the reason for that nonattendance at meetings is that the board member is deployed outside the district or ESC territory as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or National Guard.  It adds educational service centers as entities that may declare a vacancy on the board for nonattendance pursuant to the statute.

Teachers

Licensure: Expansion of alternative resident educator licensure to any grade level if conditions are met. The employing board must inform the State Board it plans to hire the employee in a grade level outside their licensure, the educator is teaching an area aligned to their bachelor or graduate degrees or their  professional experience, or if they passed a subject matter competency exam, and they complete any required pedagogical training, and certain other requirements.

Licensure revocation or denial of license renewal:  Strangulation, grooming, domestic violence added to the list of revocation offenses.

STRS teacher defined: The definition of “teacher” was revised to remove an employee of an ESC acting as a tutor with registration under R.C. 3301.28 for STRS purposes.

Conduct unbecoming reports to State Board: Previously, districts could request misconduct referral information from the State Board’s Office of Professional Conduct, including reports submitted under R.C. 3319.313, when evaluating a candidate for employment. House Bill 455 amends both R.C. 3319.313 and R.C. 3319.393, which together governed the reporting and disclosure of that information. As a result of those changes, the prior framework allowing districts to obtain referral information from the State Board appears to be narrowed or altered, and districts may no longer have the same ability to access that information prior to hiring.

Miscellaneous

The definition of “challenged school district” has been removed from the law.

All references to college preparatory boarding schools have been removed from the law.

Community school ratings and closure standards were extensively revised.

Certain school district fiscal emergency designations were removed from the law.

DPIA funding and expenditures reports: ODEW will develop a way for districts to report DPIA funding and expenditures and will by Oct. 31 of each year produce a report detailing the same.  The current reports due from each district at the end of the fiscal year will no longer be due; however, the information still will be required to be reported in the manner selected by ODEW.

Science of reading training options: ODEW will select training courses more rigorous than the science of reading basic courses that may be taken in place of that course.

City school districts: Section 124.011 added language that a city and a city school district may by agreement determine that the civil service commission does not apply in whole or in part to the city school district, regardless of any other language in the Ohio Revised Code.

Suspension and expulsion policy, truancy policy, cell phone policy, suspension from school bus riding privileges:  Districts may now post their suspension and expulsion policy, truancy policy, cell phone policy, and school bus suspension policy on their website in lieu of posting it in a central location.

Diabetes data collection and reporting:  Districts will no longer need to collect information and report to ODE about the number of students with diabetes and incidents of administration of medication.

Nutrition annual report:  This annual report will no longer need to be sent to the ODEW regarding the district’s compliance with nutrition standards; it still must be produced, however.

Criminal background checks for all school employees: School districts may not employ a person who has been convicted of or pled guilty to with a long list of offenses, but the offenses of strangulation, grooming, and engaging in prostitution (unless the offender was coerced into that offense) have been added to the list.

 

Court of Appeals Unanimously Rules “EdChoice” Voucher Program Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Blocks FLSA Final Rule

by | Nov 22, 2024 | General, Legislation, School Management

A new Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Rule took effect July 1, 2024, which significantly increased the salary minimum that non-teaching, salaried supervisors and administrators must make to be considered exempt from overtime pay.   

On November 15, 2024, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Department of Labor from implementing the new rule in its entirety.  The court reasoned that the Department of Labor exceeded its authority and effectively displaced the “duties test” in the law.  As a result of the ruling, the entire new rule, including the July 1 salary increase is no longer in effect, and the upcoming January 1 increase to the salary minimum will not take effect. 

The court stated, “… the Department’s 2024 Rule contemplates sweeping changes to the … regulatory framework, designed on their face to effectively displace the FLSA’s duties test with a predominate – if not exclusive – salary-level test,”  Continuing, the court concluded, The Department simply does not have the authority to effectively displace the duties test with such a predominant salary-level test.” (State of Texas v. Dept. of Labor, E.D. Tex. No.4:24-CV-499)

The Department of Justice could appeal the ruling, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court could lift the injunction and reinstate the rule.  Due to the changing administration, it is likely that even if an appeal were filed, it could be withdrawn. 

It is interesting to note that very similar circumstances occurred in 2016 when the same federal district court in Texas blocked another DOL rule raising the minimum salary for the executive, administrative professional (EAP) exemption.

 What this means for your district:

The ruling means the minimum salary threshold for meeting the executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) exemption will remain as it was prior to the new rule taking effect: $684 a week (or $35,568 annually) for the EAP exemption and $107,732 for the highly compensated employee exemption.

If districts were planning to raise the salaries for nonteaching, salaried supervisors and administrators to ensure the salary basis test was met for purposes of the EAP exemption, there is currently no need to implement those changes.  If salary increases had already been given, if reductions were contemplated, they would need to be part of a uniform plan affecting the entire district.  If you have specific questions about how the EAP exemptions might apply or how the ruling affects a specific situation, please contact counsel.