Ohio Senate Bill (“SB”) 29, which became effective October 24, 2024, modified several statutes affecting Ohio public school districts, and created three new statutes, including Ohio Revised Code Sections (“RC”) 3319.325, 3319.326, and 3319.327 addressing school district obligations related to technology contracts, monitoring limitations and parent and student notifications. To address the challenges associated with the SB 29 language, the Legislature passed Substitute House Bill (“HB”) 432, which was signed by Governor DeWine on December 9, 2024. Due to an emergency clause in HB 432, the changes to SB 29 became effective immediately upon the Governor’s signature.
The relevant changes include: an adjustment to references to “educational record” so it now refers back to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) definition of “education record”; an added definition for “information technology center”; revisions to the definition of “school-issued device”; the addition of exclusions from the definition of “technology provider”; revisions to the definition of “student” to limit that definition to individuals currently enrolled in a school district in grades kindergarten through twelve; and a requirement that a contract entered into between a school district and county board of developmental disabilities, ESC, JVSD, another school district, or an ITC for services, including the general monitoring or access of school-issued devices, must indicate which entity is responsible for providing notices required under RC 3319.327.
The most notable of the changes, however, relate to access, monitoring, and the required 72-hour notices that have been causing school districts particular concern since SB 29 became effective. More specifically, RC 3319.327 has been revised to remove the required advance notice for electronic access and monitoring for noncommercial educational purposes under RC 3319.327(B)(1), and to expand the exception for electronic access and monitoring under RC 3319.327(B)(2) to also include circumstances when the activity is permitted under a subpoena unless otherwise prohibited by state or federal law.
The circumstances within which a 72-hour notice is required have been significantly limited, as well. The new language limits the need for a 72-hour notice only to circumstances under (B)(2) [i.e. “The activity is permitted under a judicial warrant or subpoena unless otherwise prohibited by state or federal law”]; (B)(3) [i.e. “The school district or technology provider is notified or becomes aware that the device is missing or stolen”]; and (B)(4) [i.e. “The activity is necessary to prevent or respond to a threat of life or safety and the access is limited to that purpose”]. When one of those three circumstances trigger access and the District either initiates responsive action [(B)(2) or (B)(3)] or initiates action in response [(B)(4)], then a 72-hour notice would be required. If, in any of the three circumstances, providing a 72-hour notice would pose a threat to life or safety, a 72-hour notice is no longer required.
While the general monitoring notice still is required for any of items (B)(1) through (B)(6), the modified language significantly reduces the circumstance in which a subsequent 72-hour access notice is triggered/required.
For Further Information: Please feel free to reach out to any of the attorneys in Weston Hurd’s Education Law Group with any questions regarding these standards, related contract review, and/or required notices.
