CTC Corner: New Legislation Authorizes Payment for Student Teaching

CTC Corner: New Legislation Authorizes Payment for Student Teaching

by | Aug 18, 2024 | General

On July 24, 2024, Governor DeWine signed S.B. 168 which seeks to relax burdensome regulations for schools. The law which becomes effective on October 21, 2024, contains a provision that should be of particular interest to career-technical centers. After that date, such programs must permit students in early childhood preparation programs to receive pay for hours worked completing their required training or field experience hours.

Specifically, new RC 3345.205 covers “early childhood teacher preparation programs,” including those based in career-technical centers, joint vocational school districts, comprehensive career-technical centers, and compact career-technical centers. The act provides that early childhood teacher preparation programs that result in credentials such as a child development associate certification or college degrees shall permit a student of that program to complete required student training as paid employees. The provision mandates that such programs may not prohibit students from being paid.

What this means for CTCs: As the school year begins and before the legislation becomes effective, career-technical centers should review their policies to make certain that they are compliant.

Special Education Update: 1st Ten Days of Suspension Without IEP Services Does Not Deny FAPE….Right?

Special Education Update: 1st Ten Days of Suspension Without IEP Services Does Not Deny FAPE….Right?

by | Aug 18, 2024 | Special Education, Student Education and Discipline

Student discipline for students with disabilities on an IEP is generally understood to allow ten days of suspension without a need to provide services.  In a recent case, a state level review officer in Ohio considered whether a failure to provide services within that ten day period might constitute a denial of FAPE.

In the case, a parent had filed for due process alleging that the student required a one on one aide for the student, the student had been bullied, the IEP was not being followed, the student was not being allowed to attend specials, was being graded unfairly, and that the school was denying the parent access to ClassDojo.  Additionally, the parent alleged that the student was not provided with services during a recent  six-day suspension.  The parent requested compensatory education, home instruction or tutoring.  The parent was pro se; i.e., representing themself.

 The impartial hearing officer considered three issues: whether the parent was provided with procedural safeguards, whether the IEP was implemented appropriately, and whether bullying prevented the student from receiving a FAPE. 

The hearing officer found the district did develop and implement an IEP appropriate for the student to receive a FAPE and that bullying had not prevented the student from receiving a FAPE (in fact, there was no evidence presented about bullying in the hearing.). However, the IHO found that the student was denied FAPE and entitled to six hours of compensatory education in the form of home instruction or tutoring for the six days the student was suspended and did not receive services in the IEP. 

Both the district and the parent appealed the IHO’s decision.  The school district argued that the law does not require provision of compensatory education during the first ten days of suspension, relying on the IDEA provision requiring that a student who is suspended for more than ten days in a school year receive services (20 USC Sec. 1415(k)(1)(B), 35 CFR 300.530-300). The district also argued that it did offer services for the six days of suspension and the parent refused those services.

The SLRO considered the issues, including the length of the suspension.  In doing so, the  SLRO, found this, “…does not necessarily mean that there cannot be circumstances in which a student who is suspended less than ten (10) days is denied a FAPE. I do not find the statute to mean that a FAPE is never denied unless the suspension is at least ten (10) days.”

In applying this interpretation to the facts, however, the SLRO reversed the IHO determination, finding that because the district had offered services during the suspension and the parent refused, he would not order them to provide it now.  Additionally, parent had offered no evidence that the suspension denied FAPE on the facts of the case.  The SLRO also affirmed on the other issues, including that the IEP was appropriate and enabling him to make progress in the least restrictive environment and denied the parent’s appeal. 

 What this means for schools:  While this decision may be fact specific, Districts and IEP teams should carefully consider the full impact of a denial of services even for short- term removals.

The Power of Punctuation: Debate Over Grammar Leads Ohio Supreme Court to Limit Executive Sessions for the Purchase of Property

The Power of Punctuation: Debate Over Grammar Leads Ohio Supreme Court to Limit Executive Sessions for the Purchase of Property

by | Aug 18, 2024 | Board Policy & Representation, General

Look Ahead Am. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2691.

On July 18, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the Stark County Board of Elections misused executive sessions to discuss and plan the purchase of new property, specifically voting equipment. A company filed a complaint based on the Board’s decision to enter executive sessions on four separate occasions to discuss and plan for the purchasing of new voting systems. Both lower courts upheld the Board’s decisions after concluding that executive sessions were permitted for any purchase of property, but the Ohio Supreme Court disagreed. Reversing the decision, the Court clarified that executive sessions are permitted to discuss the purchase of property only to consider information “which would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.”

Ohio’s Open Meetings Act permits a public body to enter executive session for the following reasons:

To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, the sale of property at competitive bidding, or the sale or other disposition of unneeded, obsolete, or unfit-for-use property in accordance with R.C. 505.10, if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.

The courts agreed that the statute had a plain meaning, but they disagreed over what, exactly, that plain meaning was. According to the Supreme Court, the difference is based on punctuation and the rules of grammar. The lower courts both relied on the “rule of the last antecedent,” which applies a limiting clause or phrase to the noun or phrase that it immediately follows. Using that rule, the courts argued that the premature-disclosure clause only applied to the sale of unneeded, obsolete, or unfit-for-use property.

However, the statute’s use of commas modifies the rule of the last antecedent. Relying on several leading treatises on statutory interpretation, the Ohio Supreme Court argued that separating the antecedents and the qualifying phrase by a comma is evidence that the qualifier is supposed to apply to all antecedents. Under this interpretation, the premature-disclosure clause applies to every listed reason to start an executive session involving property, including the purchase of property, and not just the last reason as the lower courts suggested.

What this means for your district? This is yet another reminder that Districts must review and understand the public meeting exceptions rather than rely on memory and past practice. While Districts often recess into executive session to discuss property purchases, Districts cannot call executive sessions to discuss such purchases unless they can show that the premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.

Supreme Court Reminds Districts to Triple-Check Their Evaluation Procedures

Supreme Court Reminds Districts to Triple-Check Their Evaluation Procedures

by | Aug 18, 2024 | General, Labor and Employment

Jones v. Kent City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2844.

On July 31st, 2024 the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the Kent City School District to reinstate a teacher after determining that the Board of Education failed to complete three formal observations as is required by the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (“OTES”), and therefore was not able to non-renew his employment.

Jones had been employed by the district for roughly twenty years and began having disciplinary issues during the 2019-2020 school year. He repeatedly left early from work and failed to complete assigned tasks during teacher workdays. Following an absence where Jones failed to notify the administrators of his absence and failed to schedule a substitute pursuant to district procedures, the Board notified Jones that he would be placed on a “full cycle” evaluation and that he was being considered by the Board for nonrenewal.

Under state law, specifically R.C. 3319.111(E), school boards are required to complete at least three formal observations of any teacher employed under a limited contract if the school board is considering nonrenewal of that contract. While school boards and teachers’ unions are free to establish local standards for following the evaluation procedures, boards are still required to follow the mandatory procedures established by the General Assembly, and those statutory requirements prevail over any conflicting terms of a collective-bargaining agreement.

The evaluator in this case finished the first evaluation without any difficulties, but the COVID-19 pandemic shut down schools and shifted classes online before the second evaluation could be carried out. In response to the pandemic, the General Assembly allowed districts to drop evaluation requirements provided they agree to renew the teacher’s contract. Not wanting to reemploy Jones, the district decided to proceed with the evaluation process after they reached an agreement with the teachers’ union to allow observations to be completed virtually through distance learning. Following the agreement, a second observation took place virtually and a third was scheduled. Jones was unavailable for the third observation due to a medical emergency. He was later excused for the rest of the year by his doctor. Rather than reschedule, the evaluator moved forward with the observation in Jones’s absence by sitting in on a virtual learning session with Jones’s class.

The board unanimously approved Jones’s nonrenewal following the evaluation process, and Jones appealed the decision. Because he was not present for the final observation, Jones argued that the process violated R.C. 3319.111(E). The Ohio Supreme Court agreed. According to the Court, the plain language of the statute requires three observations of the teacher who is under consideration for nonrenewal, regardless of any agreement between the Board and the teachers’ union. It was undisputed that Jones was not present for that final evaluation. Therefore, the Court concluded that the board could not rely on Jones’s excused medical absence to justify their noncompliance with the statute.

What this means for your district? It is critical that school districts plan ahead if a teacher is up for non-renewal. As this case demonstrates, and as previous cases have held, even pandemics and doctors’ notes do not excuse a district’s evaluation requirements for non-renewals. This includes the completion of at least three observations of the teacher while they are actually engaged in teaching.

Back to School Reminders For School Transportation Administrators

Back to School Reminders For School Transportation Administrators

by | Aug 18, 2024 | General, Transportation

Deadlines and timelines:
1. All school bus and van driver physicals must be renewed and submitted to the DEW before August 31. DEW will send out “inactive” notices for any driver without a new physical on Sept. 1. Inactive drivers will not be able to legally operate a school bus or van.
2. T-2 reports are due on or before August 31. These are fiscal summaries of the transportation you provided during the previous school year and are an important part of your school transportation funding.
3. ORC and OAC require that school boards approve bus stops and a routing time schedule within 10 days of the start of school. Boards may take this action up to 30 days in advance of the school year.
4. School bus rider safety training for all students in grades K-3 that ride must be provided within the first 14 days of your school year.
5. If you receive late enrollment information (anything after July 1) for students attending nonpublic or community schools, ORC requires the district to provide a transportation plan (if eligible) within 14 days of receiving notification.

FMCSA announces compliance audits for 2024: DEW sent out a notice this spring that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is initiating a school bus transportation safety initiative during 2024. Field agents for FMSCA (or PUCO) will focus on auditing compliance with federally-applicable school bus driver regulations. The audits will include checking for compliance with:
• Pre-employment testing requirements including Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse queries
• Annual query requirements for Clearinghouse information
• Random drug and alcohol testing administration
• Evaluation of return to duty processes when applicable
• Post accident testing procedures and administration when applicable
• Reasonable suspicion training and testing administration
• Driver qualifications associated with CDL compliance standards
If you are contacted by someone claiming to represent FMCSA, you may verify the validity of any contact by contacting the Ohio Division by email at MCOHOFF@dot.gov or at (614) 280-5657.

If you have questions about any of these areas or are not certain if you are following the requirements, now is the time to resolve those issues. Contact Transportation Consultant Pete Japikse at schoolbus@ebconsultinggroup.com.