Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: Ensuring Proper Diploma Requirements Are Met

Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: Ensuring Proper Diploma Requirements Are Met

by | Nov 18, 2024 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management

 

It may only be November, but it is never too early to start planning for graduation. As we begin looking ahead to the big day, let us revisit a law that impacts our obligation to our students as they reach this major milestone in their academic journey. 

O.R.C. 3313.61 lays out the graduation requirements for high school students and guidance for districts when issuing diplomas. Under the statute, the board of education of any city, exempted village, or local school district that operates a high school shall grant a diploma to any student who successfully meets the minimum academic standards, credit requirements, and assessments necessary for graduation. Ohio law expects districts to maintain accurate and verifiable records of each student’s progress toward graduation, and based on these records, schools must proactively notify students and parents of requirements, assessment deadlines, and available pathways to meet the criteria to graduate on time. Proper record-keeping and communication is essential. It makes it easier to identify if a student may need additional academic support services, and it can help districts determine if a student may be a better fit for an alternative pathway to graduation, such as dual enrollment in a CCP program or exploring work-based learning opportunities.

The often-overlooked signature provision in O.R.C. 3313.61(D) requires that each diploma awarded under this section be signed by the following individuals:

  • the president and treasurer of the issuing board;
  • the superintendent of schools; and
  • the principal of the high school.

Additionally, each diploma shall bear the date of its issue, be in such form as the district board prescribes, and be paid for out of the district’s general fund. Districts may fail to comply with the statute in a variety of ways. Maybe a district routinely only requires the principal to sign the diploma instead of including the Board of Education President and Treasurer, or vice versa.

Forgetting a signature or two may seem trivial, but compliance ensures that we protect the integrity of the diploma. Issuing a diploma should be meaningful. The diploma is supposed to signify that a student has the skills, knowledge, and credentials necessary for the next step in their lives – not to mention that the signatures are a legal requirement. Although it may seem unlikely, failure to adhere to this law could have potential legal consequences for the district if an action is brought by students, their parents, or advocacy groups.

What does this mean for your district? The bottom line is that districts must comply with O.R.C. 3313.61 to ensure that all students meet the necessary requirements for graduation and are equipped for future success. This includes specific signature requirements for issuing diplomas. High school graduation is an important milestone for our students that requires over a decade of focus and dedication. They have spent countless hours preparing for this moment that symbolizes their transition to adulthood. We must work together to support all students in meeting their graduation goals, and we owe it to them to get it right when they walk across that stage.  

 

Special Education Update: Is Average Enough? Fourth Circuit Rules That a Student with ADHD and Dyslexia is not Eligible for Special Education Under the IDEA Based on Academic Performance

Special Education Update: Is Average Enough? Fourth Circuit Rules That a Student with ADHD and Dyslexia is not Eligible for Special Education Under the IDEA Based on Academic Performance

by | Nov 18, 2024 | Special Education

G.M. v. Barnes, 114 F.4th 323 (4th Cir. 2024).

On September 4, 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that a second-grade student with dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). After his parents noticed a decline in his standardized test scores compared to the previous year, an IEP team was convened to determine the student’s eligibility. The Maryland school district determined that the student was ineligible based on his performance. His parents then removed him to a private school, and filed a due process complaint against the district for denying their son a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).

To qualify for special education under the IDEA, a student needs to demonstrate they have a qualifying disability and “by reason thereof” require special education and related services. In this case, the parents argued that the student had two qualifying disabilities:

  1. A specific learning disability (SLD) arising from his dyslexia; and
  2. An other health impairment (OHI) arising from his ADHD.

Despite the student’s decline in his reading and writing standardized test scores, the district argued that the student’s test scores still indicated that he had average achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics compared to his peers. Additionally, his teacher, who had previously expressed concerns with his reading and writing ability, indicated on his final report card that he was “independently or with assistance meeting all of the criteria that are listed” for second grade, including reading and writing requirements. Based on his academic performance, the due process case came out in favor of the district with a conclusion that the student did not need special education services.

On appeal, the 4th Circuit concluded that the student did not have a SLD. While dyslexia can be an SLD under the IDEA, Maryland regulations instruct IEP teams to determine a student has an SLD if they do not achieve adequately for their age or meet state approved grade level standards when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the student’s age and ability levels. The student’s achievement is inadequate if the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development. Because his test scores and evidence presented by the parties indicated that his reading and writing ability were within the expected range for his grade level, his parents failed to demonstrate that he had a cognizable weakness.

The Court did agree with the parents that the student’s ADHD qualified as an OHI, but they concluded that he did not require specially designed instruction because of his ADHD. Under the IDEA, “a student does not ‘need’ such services if the student is already getting what would qualify as a FAPE without them.” The 4th Circuit reminded the parties that progress through the system is what is generally meant by an “education” and for most children, FAPE means a program “reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

While the 4th Circuit recognizes that no parent wants to see their child fail to reach their academic potential, they cautioned that the IDEA should not be used as “a vehicle for securing a potential-maximizing education.” (Quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21). This student was fully integrated in the regular classroom setting; he received passing marks and was independently or with assistance meeting all the listed criteria; and he was advancing from grade to grade. This was enough for FAPE. His parents’ concerns about the drop in his standardized test scores, even if legitimate, were not enough to change that.

What does this mean for your district? While this case is not controlling in Ohio, it is informative and highlights the focus for evaluation teams in a post-Endrew F. world: not only does a student have an identified disability, but also, because of that identified disability, do they require specially designed instruction and / or related services? Districts should consider the unique needs of the child when calculating what is necessary to enable appropriate progress, and academic progress can be a strong indicator that a student is receiving FAPE. If a student is already receiving what would qualify as FAPE, they may not be eligible under the IDEA because they do not require special education and related services. This is true even if the student appears to have a qualifying disability.