Under Kentucky's Senate Bill 181, how can public school teachers and volunteers text or message students, and what are the limits?

Plain-English summary

During the 2025 session, Kentucky enacted Senate Bill 181 (now KRS 160.145), which requires every public school district to pick a "traceable communication system" and make it the only channel through which district employees and volunteers may communicate electronically with students. The point, as the bill's sponsor explained, is to re-establish clear boundaries between adults and students and to cut off the private electronic channels that bad actors have used to harm children. Representative Kimberly Holloway asked the Attorney General 14 questions about exactly how far the law reaches and how districts should carry it out.

The opinion works through them. SB 181 applies to public schools only, not private schools. It covers substitute teachers (they are certified, paid employees). It reaches all students regardless of whether they have turned 18. It makes no distinction between "school-related" and personal messages, so even a coach texting players about a non-school summer league, or a teacher who is also a pastor messaging students about church, must use the approved system unless a parent waives that. "Parent" means someone with legal responsibility for the student (which can include an adoptive or foster parent or a responsible agency), not extended relatives like grandparents or step-siblings. On implementation, boards get wide latitude to choose the system; public social media posts are fine, but direct messages to individual students are not; schools must accept and track parental waivers; and there is no requirement to buy employees a phone.

On the constitutional question, the opinion says SB 181 "on its face does not appear to" violate free-speech or religious-liberty rights because it regulates the channel of communication, not the content, but it expressly declines to opine further, noting it is not aware of any actual infringement.

What this means for you

Public school teachers, coaches, and volunteers

Under the opinion, electronic communication with a student in your district must go through the district's designated traceable system, unless the student is your own family member or a parent has filed a written waiver. This applies even to messages that have nothing to do with school. Public social media posts are not barred; direct/private messages to individual students are. Other channels, like printed materials and in-person conversation, are not regulated by SB 181.

School administrators and boards

The opinion reads SB 181 as giving boards broad discretion to choose the traceable system that fits the district (KRS 160.145(2)), including whether a given social-media product qualifies. Boards must implement and track the parental-waiver process (the opinion notes "shall" is mandatory under KRS 446.010(39)), and they are not required to provide phones to employees. The opinion also lays out the due-process tracks for alleged violations by certified employees, classified employees, principals/superintendents, and volunteers.

Parents

The opinion explains that you may file a written waiver allowing a specific employee or volunteer to communicate with your child outside the traceable system, and that those waivers must be accepted and kept at the school. "Parent" is read to mean someone with legal responsibility for the student.

Education attorneys

The opinion addresses cross-district communication (SB 181 keys to "each" board's own system and employees, so messaging a student outside your district appears unaffected, though interlocal agreements are possible), student employees/volunteers (likely not restricted in peer communication), and emergencies (no specific exception, but parent-to-employee communication is not traceable-restricted and waivers can cover emergencies).

Common questions

Q: Does SB 181 apply to private schools?
A: No. The opinion reads the terms "local board of education" and "school district" as limiting SB 181 to public school districts and public school employees.

Q: Do substitute teachers have to follow it?
A: Yes. The opinion concludes substitutes are certified, paid employees and are therefore covered as "certified employees."

Q: Can a teacher who coaches a non-school sport, or who is also a pastor, text students about that?
A: Only through the district's traceable system, unless a parent waives it. The opinion stresses SB 181 draws no line between school-related and personal communications, so all electronic messages to students in the district go through the approved channel.

Q: Who counts as a "parent" who can sign a waiver?
A: Someone with legal responsibility for the student, which the opinion says can include an adoptive or foster parent or a responsible agency, but not grandparents, great aunts or uncles, step-siblings, and similar relatives who lack legal responsibility.

Q: Can teachers still post on social media?
A: Yes. The opinion says public posts are fine (a student happening to see a public Facebook post does not violate SB 181); the restriction kicks in for direct, private messages to individual students.

Q: Does the law violate the First Amendment?
A: The opinion says SB 181 "on its face does not appear to" violate free-speech or religious-liberty rights because it regulates channels rather than content, but the Attorney General expressly declined to opine further, stating the office is not aware of any actual infringement. Treat the broader constitutional question as one the opinion did not resolve.

Background and statutory framework

SB 181, codified primarily at KRS 160.145 (2025 Ky. Acts ch. 149), passed both chambers unanimously and was signed April 1, 2025. It requires each board to designate a traceable communication system as the "exclusive means" for employees and volunteers to communicate electronically with students (KRS 160.145(2)), defines the people and communications covered, and creates a parental-waiver mechanism (KRS 160.145(4)). The opinion uses standard interpretive tools, for example presuming the legislature knows existing law (Pearce v. Univ. of Louisville, 448 S.W.3d 746 (Ky. 2014)) and treating "shall" as mandatory (KRS 446.010(39)). On the constitutional discussion, it cites the line of cases recognizing that students and teachers do not shed First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate (Tinker v. Des Moines; Barnette) alongside cases recognizing schools' authority to impose reasonable, content-neutral restrictions and parents' interest in the care and control of their children (Tennessee v. Cardona; Troxel v. Granville), before declining to opine further.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- KRS 160.145 (Senate Bill 181; traceable communication system)
- KRS 160.145(2), (1)(c), (4), (1)(b) (designation, covered persons, waivers, definition of parent)
- KRS 446.010(39) ("shall" is mandatory)
- 2025 Ky. Acts ch. 149

Cases:
- Pearce v. Univ. of Louisville, 448 S.W.3d 746 (Ky. 2014), legislature presumed aware of existing law
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), and W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), First Amendment in schools
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), parental rights over care and control of children

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Opinions/Pages/default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG%2025-09.pdf

Original opinion text

The full opinion as issued by the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General:

August 1, 2025
OAG 25-09
Subject: What is the proper scope of Senate Bill 181?
Requested by: Representative Kimberly Holloway
Kentucky House of Representatives, District 2
Written by: Larisa Plecha
Assistant Attorney General
Syllabus: The text of Senate Bill 181 answers many of the questions about
the proper scope of the bill’s requirement that school district
employees and volunteers use only a traceable communication
system to communicate with students. School Boards do have
some discretion as to implementation.
Opinion of the Attorney General
During the 2025 Regular Session, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted
Senate Bill 181 (“SB 181”), which is titled “AN ACT relating to children.”1 The final
version of the bill passed both chambers unanimously on March 28, 2025, and the
Governor signed the bill on April 1, 2025. State Representative Kimberly Holloway
now requests an Opinion to answer 14 questions related to the scope of SB 181, which
have been grouped and consolidated as follows:
A. To whom does SB 181’s prohibition apply?
1. Does it apply to private schools?
2. Does it apply to substitute teachers?
3. Does the requirement for volunteers and employees to use only
traceable communications extend to students who work or volunteer
for the school district?
4. Does it apply to all students regardless of whether they have
reached the age of majority?
1 2025 Ky. Acts ch. 149. Section 1 of the bill created a new section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes,
which is now codified as KRS 160.145. Sections 2 through 8 of the bill amended various other sections
of KRS Chapters 158, 161, 600, 605, and 620.
5. Does it apply to students who are outside the employee or
volunteer’s school district?
6. Who is included in “parent,” and does that term encompass
stepparents, great aunts, step-siblings, great nephews, other
individuals, and/or agencies?
7. What constitutes “school-related communication”?
B. How should school districts effectuate SB 181?
8. How may a school district employee communicate with
students?
9. Are schools required to accept waivers?
10. If a school district employee is required to download an
application in order to communicate with a student, must the
school provide a phone to that employee?
11. Is there any exception in the event of an emergency?
12. If there is a violation of SB 181, what due process is afforded to
an alleged offender?
C. Does SB 181 violate free speech or religious liberty rights protected by
the First Amendment?
In addition to the above inquiries from Representative Holloway, the Office
received an inquiry from a public-school teacher who also serves as a pastor to a
church that is within the boundaries of the school district that employs him. This
teacher has written to seek clarification whether he, as pastor, is able to communicate
with public school students from his school district who are also members of the
church. Along the same lines, the Office also received an inquiry from an attorney
representing several school districts who had concerns about the non-school related
communications between teachers and students, the appropriate use of social media
in the context of SB 181, and the applicability of waivers. In answering
Representative Holloway’s questions, the Office also attempts to answer these other
related inquiries. And to inform the drafting of this Opinion, the Office also reached
out to the Kentucky School Boards Association (KSBA) for input.
Background
On March 4 and 27, 2025, SB 181 was discussed in hearings of the Senate
Standing Committee on Families and Children Services2 and the House Standing
2 See March 4, 2025, Senate Standing Committee on Families and Children meeting video, available
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BD0Z48zitY (last visited July 7, 2025) (hereinafter “March 4
Hearing”).
Committee on Families and Children Services,3 respectively. At both hearings, the
sponsor of SB 181, Senator Lindsey Tichenor, explained that SB 181 aims to re-
establish appropriate boundaries4 between children and adults in public school
districts in a world that has become highly digitized and communication is essentially
possible 24/7.5 Senator Tichenor also explained the bill would help protect the
integrity of the teaching profession6 and stop bad actors who use electronic
communications to cause harm.7 As KSBA says, the “spirit of the bill is . . . protecting
students, encouraging more parental involvement and safeguarding school
communications.”8 This background helps inform the answers to the questions about
the bill’s scope.
To whom does SB 181’s prohibition apply?
Does SB 181 apply to private schools?
No. SB 181 requires “[e]ach local school board of education [to] designate a
traceable communication system [as] the exclusive means for a school district
employee or volunteer to communicate electronically with students.” KRS 160.145(2).
The terms “local school board of education” and “school district” indicate that SB 181
applies only to public school districts. See KRS 160.010 (defining county school
3 See March 27, 2025, House Standing Committee on Families and Children meeting video,
available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy6gLdtHdcc (last visited July 7, 2025) (hereinafter
“March 27 Hearing”).
4 Id. at 10:56–11:02, Representative Tina Bojanowski said, “I do think this is good legislation and I
think there should be professional boundaries such as this.”
5 March 4 Hearing, supra note 2, at 1:27–1:53, Senator Tichenor said, “This is a bill relating to
school employee and volunteer misconduct” and it “will put in place standards that protect the
education profession and the proper relationships between students and those in authority.” See also
March 27 Hearing, supra note 3, at 26:22–26:47, Senator Mays Bledsoe said, “[Phones and devices]
follow our kids home and what communications used to be in the . . . classroom about homework . . .
comes home with them and they continue on those platforms and . . . now they have access to you all
the time.”
6 Id. at 4:34–4:43, Senator Tichenor said that SB 181 “will put into place standards that protect the
integrity of the education profession, the proper relationships between students and those in authority,
[and] . . . return previous safeguards that protect children and their families.”
7 Id. at 12:36–12:59, Senator Tichenor explained the compelling government interest of SB 181,
stating, “Kentucky Youth Advocates had a really interesting study that they put out with information
they gathered from KDE. Seventy percent of the inappropriate communications cases . . . were from
electronic communications. So I think we’re going to grab up a lot of the improper relationships that
might be happening through electronic communications.” At the same hearing, at 21:31,
Representative Deneen said, “The intent of the bill is spot on—it’s to protect our children from these
predatory practices.”
8 KSBA, “Understanding Senate Bill 181 – Traceable Communications – Frequently Asked
Questions (June 2025),” available at https://filecabinet7.eschoolview.com/1365B58C-F95F-4E75-
94BB-A29D9A94F1C7/6647366c-0288-4eed-8b64-6edf175d1f68.pdf (last visited August 1, 2025).
district); KRS 160.020 (defining independent school district); KRS 160.160(1)
(requiring each school district to be under the management and control of an elected
board of education, and declaring each board of education to be “a body politic and
corporate”). Therefore, SB 181 applies only to the public schools and public school
teachers; it does not apply to private schools or private school teachers.
Does SB 181 apply to substitute teachers?
Yes. Within each public school district, the school district employees subject to
SB 181 include “a school administrator, classified or certified employee of a school
district, school volunteer, nonfaculty coach or assistant coach, student teacher, or
sponsor of an extracurricular program or activity.” KRS 160.145(1)(c). Substitute
teachers are certified, KRS 161.102,9 and paid; therefore, they are subject to SB 181
as “certified employee[s].”
Does SB 181’s requirement for volunteers and employees to use only traceable
communications extend to students who work or volunteer for the school
district?
Students who volunteer for the school district and are not yet 18 years old are
likely not required to limit their communication with other students to traceable
communication. While SB 181 does not discuss this topic directly, KRS 161.148(1)
defines “volunteers” to mean “adults who assist teachers, administrators, or other
staff in public school classrooms, schools, or school district programs, and who do not
receive compensation for their work” (emphasis added).10 “The legislature is
presumed to be aware of existing laws when enacting a new statute.” Pearce v. Univ.
of Louisville, 448 S.W.3d 746, 760 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted). And where there is
no facial conflict, the courts will “presume the legislature did not intend to create a
conflict.” Id. Therefore, this Office assumes the requirement for volunteers to use only
traceable communication systems to communicate with students does not extend to
student volunteers under age 18.
While there does not appear to be a definition limiting the term “employee” to
adults, such that student employees are excluded from the statute’s requirements, it
is the opinion of this Office that students who work for the school district and attend
a school in the district are likely not required to use only a traceable communication
system when conversing with their peers. As Senator Tichenor explained in the
9 See also Kentucky Department of Education, Certification Procedure Updates (July 2024),
https://www.education.ky.gov/districts/LegislativeGuidance/Documents/Certification%20Guidance%2
02024_508.pdf (last visited August 1, 2025).
10 See KRS 2.015 (establishing age 18 as the “age of majority for all purposes in this Commonwealth
except for the purchase of alcoholic beverages and for purposes of care and treatment of children with
disabilities”). Thus, an “adult” is someone who has reached 18 years of age.
hearing, SB 181 aims to re-establish appropriate boundaries between children and
adults. SB 181 does not restrict communication between student peers.
Does SB 181 apply to all students regardless of whether they have reached the
age of majority?
Yes. SB 181 restricts communication with students. KRS 160.145(1)(e)1.
(defining “unauthorized electronic communication” to mean “electronic
communication with a student”). Therefore, if the person is a student in the school
district—regardless of age—a school district employee or volunteer may not engage
in unauthorized electronic communication with him or her, except as permitted by
SB 181.
Does SB 181 apply to students who are outside the employee or volunteer’s
school district?
It appears from the language of the bill that communication with a student
who is outside the school district employee or volunteer’s school district is not subject
to SB 181. As written, KRS 160.145(2) states, “Each local board of education shall
designate a traceable communication system to be the exclusive means for a school
district employee or volunteer to communicate electronically with students”
(emphasis added). The use of the word “each” implies that every local school board
will have its own traceable communication system designation. While school boards
may end up having very similar designations, it remains that each school board only
has its own jurisdiction and its own employees and volunteers under its control. This
does not mean that school boards cannot cooperate or allow for some sort of interlocal
agreement that would establish the use of a shared traceable communication system,
particularly if there are activities of mutual local interest, such as a sporting or
academic team.
Who is included in the term “parent,” and does it include stepparents, great
aunts, step-siblings, great nephews, other individuals, or agencies?
SB 181 allows a “parent” to submit written consent to allow an employee or
volunteer to communicate with his or her child outside of the authorized
communication system. KRS 160.145(4). It defines parent as “a parent, legal
guardian, or other person or agency responsible for a student.” KRS 160.145(1)(b).
Note that this definition is different from “family member,” which is a broader term
that means “a parent, brother, sister, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, or grandparent.”
KRS 160.145(1)(a). Therefore, the term “parent” only includes those persons who
have legal authority over the student. This could be someone other than a biological
parent, such as an adoptive or foster parent, and it could be a state or private
agency—such as the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, in the case of a student
who is in the care and custody of the Cabinet—so long as legal responsibility for the
student can be shown. But without having legal responsibility for the student, the
term “parent” would not apply to grandparents or great aunts or uncles, step-siblings,
great nephews and nieces, and the like.
What constitutes “school-related communication”?
The Office is construing this question as asking whether there is any exception
for non-school related communication. The answer is no. SB 181 defines “traceable
communication system” as a communication program or application that “[t]race[s]
all communications sent to or by a student,” KRS 160.145(1)(d) (emphasis added),
and then says that school district employees and volunteers “shall not communicate
electronically with a student . . . [o]utside of the traceable communication system.”
KRS 160.145(3)(a)1. Under KRS 160.145(1)(d)1., the traceable communication
system is to be designated by the local board of education. An “[u]nauthorized
electronic communication” is “an electronic communication with a student by a school
district employee or volunteer who is not the student’s family member that occurs
outside of a designated traceable communication system and without prior written
parental consent” (emphasis added). KRS 160.145(1)(e)1. Because the focus of SB 181
is on the traceable nature of communication between students and school district
employees and volunteers, the statute makes no distinction between communications
that are “school-related” and those that are “non-school related.”
It is conceivable, for example, that a coach may want to text his student-
athletes about a summer league (not school-sponsored), or perhaps a pastor is also a
public-school teacher and wants to text congregants, including students from his
school district, about Sunday school classes. These would be communications between
school district employees and students, and because the law makes no distinction
between school-related and non-school related communications, all such
communications can only be conducted via the approved traceable communication
system, unless there is a valid parental waiver.
How should school districts effectuate SB181?
How may a school district employee communicate with students?
SB 181 affords great leeway to local school boards to adopt the traceable
communication system(s) that works best for their districts. See KRS 160.145(2). The
only requirement imposed by SB 181 is that, unless an exception applies, all
electronic communications with students by school district employees and volunteers
must be traceable.
The Office understands that some employees and volunteers regularly use
social media to share information about school district activities. There are varying
levels of communication within social media products, such as public comments,
private groups, and direct messages. Under KRS 160.145(2), each school board must
determine for itself whether such social media products satisfy the needs of the school
district and the demands of SB 181 for using “traceable communications systems.”
But merely using social media to publicly disseminate information—akin to posting
information on a bulletin board that all can see as they walk by—would not be
prohibited by SB 181. The requirements of SB 181 would only kick in if a school
district employee or volunteer uses a social media platform’s direct messaging feature
to communicate directly with an individual or small group of students in the district.
SB 181 requires all such direct electronic communications to be via the school
district’s designated traceable communication system. Thus, social media should not
be the primary method of such communications with students, especially when more
reasonable alternatives, such as the kyschools.gov email systems exist.
This does not mean school district employees and volunteers cannot use social
media. A teacher exercising his or her First Amendment speech rights is free to post
publicly on Facebook, and if a student happens to see that post, the teacher would
not violate SB 181. Such a post is an expression by the teacher—and possibly a
communication to the community at large—but it is not a direct, private
communication with a student.
It is worth noting that SB 181 regulates only electronic communications with
students. See KRS 160.145(2) (making the designated traceable communication
system the “exclusive means for a school district employee or volunteer to
communicate electronically with students” (emphasis added)). It leaves other means
of communications available to employees and volunteers, such as printed materials
or oral communications.
Are schools required to accept waivers?
Yes. School districts must plan to implement a process for parental waivers,
which are permitted by KRS 160.145(4). SB 181 states that the waivers “[s]hall be
filed in the administrative office of the student’s school,” KRS 160.145(4)(a) (emphasis
added), which means that they must be accepted and tracked by the schools. See KRS
446.010(39) (“‘Shall’ is mandatory”).
If a school district employee is required to download an application to
communicate with a student, must the school district provide a phone to that
employee?
There is nothing in SB 181 that requires a school district to provide a phone to
a school district employee. School districts have flexibility to decide what traceable
communication system(s) its employees must use, see KRS 160.145(2), and so the
school district may consider the cost and convenience to its employees when making
that designation.
Is there any exception in the event of an emergency?
While SB 181 does not specifically provide for an exception in case of
emergencies, there is no traceable communication requirement for communication
between a parent and a school district employee. Thus, it is permissible for a school
district employee to engage in non-traceable communications with parents under
emergency circumstances or otherwise. Additionally, schools may use the waiver
process permitted by KRS 160.145(4) to seek parental consent for employees and
volunteers to use non-traceable communications with students in emergency
situations.
If there is a violation of SB 181, what due process is afforded to an alleged
offender?
The due process afforded to certified and classified employees and volunteers
is set forth in KRS 160.145(6) and (7). For certified employees, an alleged violation of
SB 181 would be investigated by both the Education Professional Standards Board
and the school district. KRS 160.145(7)(a)2.a. Certified employees are subject to
disciplinary actions under KRS 161.790, see KRS 160.145(6)(b)1., which provides for
notice and a KRS Chapter 13B hearing. Principals and superintendents who allegedly
violate SB 181 are subject to disciplinary action under KRS 156.132, which also
affords them notice and a hearing. KRS 160.145(7)(b). The due process afforded to
classified employees accused of violating SB 181 involves an investigation and then
disciplinary action, if appropriate, under KRS 161.011(7). KRS 160.145(6)(b)2.,
(7)(a)2.b. Finally, if an investigation substantiates that a volunteer violated SB 181,
he or she is subject to a permanent prohibition on future school and district volunteer
opportunities. KRS 160.145(7)(a)2.c.
Does SB 181 violate free speech or religious liberty rights protected
by the First Amendment?
It is well-established that “the right to free exercise, like other First
Amendment rights, is not ‘shed . . . at the schoolhouse gate.’” Mahmoud v. Taylor, No.
24-297, 606 U.S. ___, 145 S.Ct. 2332, 2350 (2025) (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep.
Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506–07 (1969)). “Government schools, like all
government institutions, may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious
exercise.” Id. “That restriction applies equally to the States by way of the Fourteenth
Amendment.” Id. (citing Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940)). “The
Fourteenth Amendment . . . protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its
creatures—Boards of Education not excepted.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943).
But all of this does not mean that schools are prohibited from imposing
reasonable restrictions. See, e.g., Tennessee v. Cardona, 737 F. Supp. 3d 510, 541
(E.D. Ky. 2024) (discussing schools’ compelling interest in protecting children may
permit them to impose certain restrictions on speech); see id. (explaining that even
though “teachers possess certain First Amendment protections over their in-class
speech, their ‘right to academic freedom is not absolute’ and may be subject to
limitations that ensure the effectiveness of their educational duties and the
institution’s mission”). At first blush, SB 181 does not prohibit any speech by an
employee or volunteer of a school district; it merely directs that such speech when
directed at students comply with reasonable restrictions on the channels that may be
used. This sort of regulation on its face does not appear to violate the First
Amendment speech or religious liberty rights of any school district employee or
volunteer; rather, it recognizes the parent’s interest in making decisions regarding
the care, custody, and control of his or her child. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57,
66 (2000).
The Office is not aware of any alleged infringements on free speech or religious
freedom caused by SB 181. Therefore, the Office declines to opine further at this time.
Russell Coleman
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Larisa Plecha
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Civil and Environmental Law