Your school district may be getting public records requests, and/or requests for health information concerning students, and you may have questions about how your school district may share information with parents, with public health authorities, and the media.
The Student Privacy Policy Office of U.S. Department of Education has recently (March 2020) issued guidance in the form of a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) that provides some answers about student records disclosures during the pandemic.
Let’s break it down in understandable bytes. The federal law on the confidentiality of student records is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Ohio’s student confidentiality law is found at Ohio Revised Code 3319.321. The issues that may come up during this pandemic are what records may be shared, with whom, when you may have students, staff, and their family members who may be affected by the COVID-19 virus.
FERPA generally protects the confidentiality of personally identifiable student information. That means schools must not release personally identifiable information about students without the consent of the parents of students under 18 years of age, and of students themselves who are over 18 and a legal adult. Directory information may be released if the student/parent has not opted out of such disclosures.
There are exceptions to FERPA. One of these is the “health and safety emergency” exception, which allows certain disclosures of personally identifiable information under certain circumstances to certain individuals or entities that are relevant during this pandemic.
If a school district determines there is a health and safety emergency; that is, an emergency in which it is necessary to protect the health or safety of students or other individuals, that requires the release of personally identifiable student information without consent, it may make disclosures of the personally-identifiable information of those students to address the emergency on a case-specific basis. The district must evaluate the need for such disclosures and to whom such disclosures should be made.
There are some important considerations in the guidance. The first thing to remember is that the health and safety exception to FERPA is a limited exception and when using it, schools need to decide whether a release of normally-confidential information is warranted on a case-by-case basis.
Another way of saying this is that if there is a health and safety emergency (which the school district may determine in its reasonable discretion), FERPA allows disclosures to persons or entities that need that information for the purpose of protecting health and safety of a student or another individual. It is not, however, a blanket release of information to all entities or persons equally. The guidance also states that these disclosures are “…limited in time to the period of the emergency and generally does not allow for a blanket release of PII from student education records.”
To whom may we disclose information during a health and safety emergency?
There are some different ways this may come up. The first and probably easiest issue is the public health authority asking the school district for disclosures of personally identifiable information of students to track exposure and possibly for the purpose of notifying people who need to self-quarantine or who may have been exposed.
May the District disclose personally-identifiable information if the health department asks for it?
The guidance says generally, yes. The guidance states “Public health officials may be considered ‘appropriate parties’ by an educational agency or institution under FERPA’s health or safety emergency exception, even in the absence of a formally declared health emergency. Typically, public health officials and trained medical personnel are among the types of appropriate parties to whom PII from education records, may be non-consensually disclosed under FERPA’s health or safety emergency exception.”
May the District release contact information for students and their parents to the public health department if asked by the health department to do so?
Yes, if that information is needed and the district has made a determination that there is a health and safety emergency that requires such disclosure.
What about the media requesting lists of how many students are affected by the illness or the numbers of absences the district may have been seeing prior to schools being closed?
The guidance generally says no. Disclosures to the media of personally-identifiable information of students affected by COVID-19 are not appropriate under this limited exception. It describes the media as not generally an “appropriate party” under FERPA’s health and safety exception. “Appropriate parties” are those who provide “…specific medical or safety attention, such as public health or law enforcement officials.” If all identifying information has been removed (and disclosure would not allow a person to determine individual students affected) and the district has such a record, it may be able to comply with some requests for information. Consult counsel if you receive such requests.
If students are affected by COVID-19 and are out sick, may the District disclose information to parents of other students?
The Department answered that some information could be disclosed only if the information was not personally identifiable. Consent would not be needed to disclose information that is not personally identifiable (although the district should make a case-by-case determination that disclosing the information will not allow people to identify the student who is absent due to COVID-19.)
The Department does state in the FAQ that in “rare situations during a health and safety emergency” that disclosure of the identifiable information about a specific student may be warranted. The FAQ uses an example of a wrestler who had close contact with other students, school officials might determine it was necessary to disclose the student’s identity to the parents of other students. This determination of whether the disclosure is “absolutely necessary” is made on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the situation.
The Department suggests making consent forms available to parents that specifically allow such disclosures to obtain consent to release personally-identifiable information in these circumstances. In a health and safety emergency as determined by the District, the exception would allow non-consensual disclosures of personally identifiable information. During these times, obtaining such consent may not be a priority crisis response. These consent forms could be implemented as part of emergency planning in the future, however. A sample form is available with the guidance should districts choose to attempt to obtain consent from parents.
If a school employee has the illness, could the district notify parents and students or the media?
The Department notes that FERPA applies only to student records. Other state privacy laws may impact this issue, however, so a release of a school official or employee’s name to the public or the media should be made only in consultation with board counsel. Please note that the health department is not releasing personal information about people affected in its reports, only their general geographic area and sometimes their age.
However, disclosures of the identity of school employees affected to the health department would generally be authorized so that the health department may track contacts and notify those who may need to self-quarantine or be tested. The district itself also may communicate with parents and students about possible exposure to an individual affected by COVID-19, but should protect the privacy of the individual’s identity to the extent possible.
Does the District need to document when these disclosures are made and to whom?
Yes. School districts that make such disclosures of personally identifiable information are required to make and maintain records of the disclosures that are made and the reasons for such disclosures. Schools must record the reason for the basis of the disclosure (i.e., “the articulable and significant threat to the health or safety of a student or other individual that formed the basis for the disclosure and the parties to whom the agency or institution disclosed the information”) and to whom the disclosures were made in the student’s record, for each student for whom information was disclosed.
These disclosures must be retained in the education record as long as the records are maintained. Parents and eligible students (over 18) may view the educational records so they would see if such disclosures were documented.
Public records requests will need to be handled generally in the same way as would be ordinary for your office. You will still need to respond to records requests within a reasonable time, but what is reasonable under these circumstances may vary based on the ability of the district to have adequate staff available during this crisis to respond. Please call to discuss these issues with our office. All of our attorneys are well-versed in public records law.
If it seems like there are more food allergies today, there are. Today, about 8% of all children have food allergies, an increase of 50% in ten years. This translates into 1 in 13 children, or about 2 per classroom. Individualized plans for the safety of each student with an allergy should be made to avoid exposure and reactions.
Students with food allergies may be eligible for special education supports and protections. For instance, a student could be IDEA- eligible as “other health impaired” if the allergies adversely affect learning or the student needs special education/related services due to the allergies. More commonly, students with food allergies may be eligible for a 504 plan if they have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. In the case of allergies, this could include breathing, immune system function, respiratory function, or learning. Districts may not discriminate against a student with a disability or deny them participation in school programs or activities. Schools IEP and 504 teams should discuss how allergies will be handled for students according to their particular allergy and its severity.
Individualized plans for the safety of each student should be developed to avoid exposure and reactions. The chosen accommodations must be implemented during all aspects of the school district’s activities and operations.
To determine if a student is eligible under 504 for a food allergy, district must screen out the use of medications or other measures to control the allergy. It is important to note that schools do not have to provide a risk-free environment, only a reasonably safe environment.
It is probably not surprising to you that the issue of accommodation of children with food allergies in schools has been the subject of special education hearings and litigation. Districts sometimes have to contend with diverse perspectives and demands, which they must reconcile on a daily basis. Here is a short summary of some 504 cases that may sound familiar to you.
In one case, a high school denied a student participation in a culinary arts program due to concerns about the student’s severe allergies to peanuts, dairy, egg, kiwi and crab. The student did not have a 504 plan at the time, but did have an emergency health plan to address exposure and response to a reaction. The student’s allergist had filed a letter stating the student could participate as long as he did not eat any of the foods prepared with ingredients to which he was allergic, and that he wore gloves when handling peanuts. The District attempted to contact the allergist one time, and did not contact him after that prior to making the decision to exclude the student. The student filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, alleging disability discrimination. OCR found that the district had treated the student as a student with a disability even though it had not qualified him as one by excluding him from the program. They went on to find that the district had violated Section 504 procedurally, as it did not make a decision about the student’s exclusion with persons knowledgeable about the issues. (Bethlehem (NY) Central Sch. Dist. Office for Civil Rights, Eastern Division, NY, 52 IDELR 169, 109 LRP 30964)
Another case dealt with a student on an IEP whose allergy to peanuts and tree nuts was a life-threatening, airborne allergy. Initially, the District agreed that the student should be educated at a smaller private school that put into place significant protocols and regulations to ensure the student’s safety. The District proposed in a new IEP to change his placement to a public school on the basis that the student could be safely accommodated. This student also had autism with communication deficits, such that he would be unable to communicate his physical distress if he were having an allergic reaction. The parents rejected the proposed IEP and filed for due process. In a detailed decision concerning the peanut-free accommodations provided by the private school and the proposed peanut-restricted accommodations of the public school, the hearing officer found that the proposed IEP met the requirements of the law, which require only a reasonably safe environment, and plans in the IEP to ensure the student’s safety were adequate to prevent exposure and deal with a reaction if it did occur. (In Re: Student with a Disability Kentucky State Educational Agency 1213-16, 114 LRP 19510)
Finally, there was the Michigan case of a mother who refused to comply with the peanut free school building to accommodate another child who had a life-threatening, airborne peanut allergy. She wrote to the school, stating “I will not be cooperating not participating in the School’s 504 plan to another student. My child and I are not subject to, nor bound by, the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act….to meet my child’s needs, I will provide my child with the proper nutrition in her school lunch that I, in my sole discretion, deem appropriate.”
She filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the district from implementing the school-wide ban on nut products and requested money damages. She also alleged that her rights to equal protection and due process under the state and federal constitution were violated, and her child experienced unlawful search and seizure because her lunches were checked and when peanut items were found, replaced with appropriate alternatives.
The court of appeals rejected all her claims, finding that she lacked standing to challenge the 504 plan, that the school district’s peanut-free school policy was rationally related to a legitimate government interest, defeating the equal protection and due process claims. As to the unlawful search and seizure, the court stated that the school only looked for and removed banned items based on the parent’s notice to the school that they would not comply with the reasonable restrictions. (61 IDELR 231)
Practical takeaways
The most common food allergies are peanut and tree nuts, shellfish, milk, eggs, fish, wheat and soy. Some allergies are very severe, such as students who could have a life-threatening reaction to airborne particles of peanuts.
There are good resources for school professionals on ensuring a reasonably safe environment for students who have these allergies, and developing plans and emergency plans to accommodate the allergy to prevent a reaction, and to deal with a reaction if it occurs. The Centers for Disease Control has some great resources all gathered on one page, at https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/foodallergies/index.htm, including Food Allergy Guidelines FAQ and Voluntary Guidelines for Managing Allergies. Both of these resources and many others, including information for school nurses and more, may be found on the CDC page.
Food allergy management is increasingly a common issue. Staff training on preventing exposure, recognizing signs of a reaction, responding with medication or the use of an Epi-pen, including environmental management in terms of cleaning surfaces and other items used in instruction, transportation staff and substitute teacher/aide training are all aspects of food allergy management that require ongoing attention. School staff, including IEP and 504 teams, should discuss food allergies and take appropriate steps to ensure students with allergies are properly accommodated.
Parent, staff and community education is likewise an ongoing effort in the management of food allergies in schools, involving education on watching ingredients in school snacks, lunches and the cafeteria, providing ingredient lists, and more. If you have an IDEA or 504 plan issue involving a food allergy, the EB special education team can assist in ensuring your team’s compliance with procedural and substantive requirements.
Now that marijuana is being sold in dispensaries in Ohio, with more to open in the coming weeks, we can expect to see more people applying for a medical marijuana card, which is obtained by having a physician’s recommendation for one of the approved qualifying conditions. As the dispensaries opened, news outlets reported that approximately 3,500 Ohioans had medical marijuana cards (a person with a physician’s recommendation must register on a state website, then get a card that authorizes them to purchase from a dispensary). The number of people applying for and receiving cards is expected to “explode” now that dispensaries are open.
Ohio is the 26th state in the U.S. to adopt some type of legalized marijuana scheme with each state has its own laws and regulations governing its programs. Some states have recreational marijuana while others have authorized medical marijuana As Ohio implements its program, public school districts can prepare for what will inevitably create employment and student related issues along with federal funding concerns by looking to the experience of other states that have already passed laws permitting the use of marijuana.
Employment issues The law authorizing medical marijuana in Ohio does not require an Ohio employer to change their drug-free workplace policies and does not prevent an employer from disciplining an employee, up to and including termination, for possessing or using drugs. Even if marijuana possession and use is legal for qualifying conditions in Ohio, Ohio employers do not have to permit it for their employees or accommodate those who have cards. In addition, marijuana remains an illegal Schedule I drug at the federal level. The federal law on this impacts schools as we discuss federal grants, below.
Student issues We expect that issues concerning student and medical marijuana will come up in the context of a child with special needs who has a qualifying condition for whom the child’s parents have obtained medical marijuana. For example, a seizure disorder for which a medical marijuana tincture is recommended for management of the condition, which the parents would then request to be administered to their student either by the parents or by a school district employee pursuant to a health care plan or a 504 plan.
In fact, a lawsuit was filed in Illinois on these same general facts in 2018. The parents had requested that the student, who received services for multiple disabilities as outlined in her IEP, be allowed to receive medical marijuana during the school day under the Illinois Medical Cannabis Pilot Program. The student had leukemia, and chemotherapy treatments had resulted in epilepsy and seizures. The student wore a cannabis patch on her foot and sometimes used cannabis drops on her tongue or wrists to regulate her epilepsy and seizures.
The Illinois law allowing cannabis to be present in various locations excluded schools, school buses and school grounds. Their statute specifically stated that school personnel are not required to be qualified care givers who can administer medical cannabis. The school district was willing to administer the medical cannabis, but it ultimately denied the request for accommodations due to the issues of state and federal liability and criminal prosecution for violating the Illinois law. The parents sued in federal court, alleging violations of the ADA and Section 504 as well as denial of FAPE pursuant to the IDEA.
The district eventually filed a motion asking for a temporary restraining order, indicating it was willing and able to administer the medical cannabis to the student during the school day, but asked the federal court to issue an order allowing the District to possess and administer the medical cannabis, and to protect it from state or federal prosecution from doing so pursuant to the order. The court did not issue the order, and the matter settled in April of 2018, so we have no public resolution or legal precedent. However, this case illustrates the potential claims and the difficulties school districts face as medical marijuana use expands.
Medical marijuana and federal grant funds Given the federal position that marijuana remains an illegal drug, is the issue of medical marijuana and its impact on federal grants to schools. Ohio as a state educational agency and many Ohio local educational agencies (school districts) receive federal grants in the form of Title I and U.S. Department of Agriculture school nutrition programs for low income students.
As a condition of receiving and maintaining these grants, grantees and sub-grantees are required to make “a good faith effort” to maintain a drug-free workplace. This includes school buildings where work is done in connection with a grant award.
The federal agencies have discretion in determining whether a grantee or sub-grantee is in compliance with the conditions of the grant and have a range of options to compel compliance. However, suspension of grant payments and termination of awards are compliance options available to the agencies, and while it would ordinarily be considered a last resort or extreme action, it is a possible consequence that districts should consider as this issue continues to unfold in Ohio.
The federal agencies that award these grants have as yet declined to address the issue of medical marijuana or provide any exception for medical marijuana in as it relates to the drug free requirement of the workplaces where grant activities are carried out.
While each state’s scheme of authorizing the use of medical marijuana is different, we can look to their laws and the experience of other states’ school districts in addressing employment and student issues. Ennis Britton will continue to monitor and report on the issues and legal developments in this area of the law on behalf of our clients.
Senate Bill 216, introduced on October 10 by Ohio Sen. Matt Huffman, is the culmination of a collaboration of legislators and school superintendents, including a working group of a BASA committee and more than 40 superintendents from Senate District 12. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Education Committee and is scheduled for its first hearing on Wednesday, October 18. SB 216 was drafted specifically to eliminate many unnecessary regulations and to simplify many areas – such as substitute and aide licensure – that have become overly burdensome from a regulatory standpoint. Following is a summary of the provisions in SB 216.
State assessments
Adds language that would force the American Institutes for Research to explain how questions on all prescribed state assessments for all grade levels relate to the academic content standards starting with 2018–19. Also requires AIR to provide districts with practice tests, study guides, and other prep materials.
R.C. § 3301.78
State assessments
Eliminates kindergarten diagnostic assessments for reading, writing, and math.
R.C. § 3301.079
State assessments
Adds language that prohibits requiring districts to administer assessments for grades 3, 4, and 5 online, and permits districts to choose paper format for the assessments or any combination of online and paper assessments on a student-by-student basis. Adds language defining “other public school” as a community school, STEM school, or college prep boarding school.
R.C. § 3301.0711
EMIS
Eliminates the need to report kindergarten assessments in EMIS after the effective date of the statute amendments (since the kindergarten assessment will be eliminated).
R.C. § 3301.0714
Kindergarten readiness assessment
Eliminates the ODE-provided kindergarten readiness assessment. Eliminates the ability of ODE to use the kindergarten readiness assessment data to calculate the district’s letter grade for improving literacy in K–3. Adds a new requirement for this school year (2017–18) for any district in which less than 80% of students score proficient or higher on the third-grade English language arts assessment to establish a reading improvement plan supported by reading specialists. The district board of education shall approve it before it is implemented.
R.C. § 3301.0715
Kindergarten diagnostic assessment
Eliminates requirement for chartered nonpublic schools to administer kindergarten diagnostic assessments.
R.C. § 3301.163
Compliance checklist
Requires ODE to establish, distribute, and monitor a “school mandate report” for districts, which would complete and file the report annually. Districts would note compliance with mandates by checking “yes” or “no”. If not in compliance, a district will provide an explanation to its board of education within 30 days as to why the item is not completed along with a written action plan to address the problem. The checklist will include whether the district is in compliance with
Ø training on use of physical restraint or seclusion,
Ø training on harassment, bullying, and intimidation,
Ø CPR and AED training,
Ø crisis prevention training,
Ø establishing wellness committees,
Ø establishment and review of school emergency management plan, and
Ø compliance with nutritional standards.
R.C. § 3301.68
State report card
Eliminates requirement that districts where less than 5% of students have scored below grade level on the kindergarten assessment receive no letter grade in K–3 literacy.
R.C. § 3301.02
Educational choice scholarship program
Changes eligibility for scholarship to students in buildings where a D or F on was received on improving K–3 literacy in the last 2 of 3 years to grade 1–3 improving literacy.
R.C. § 3310.03
Third-grade reading guarantee
Eliminates kindergarten reading assessment for purposes of third-grade reading guarantee.
R.C. § 3313.608
Professional development standards
Adds language as to what professional development standards are to be used to guide development of professional growth plans and improvement plans resulting from teacher evaluations.
R.C. § 3319.075
Nonteaching employee continuing contract
Modifies the contract sequence for nonteaching employees and delays eligibility for a continuing contract. A new hire first receives a 1-year contract, followed by three 2-year contracts. At the end of the third 2-year contract, if the contract is renewed, the nonteaching employee would receive a continuing contract.
R.C. § 3319.081
Educational assistant and educational paraprofessional license/permits
Changes to educational assistant and educational paraprofessional license/permits:
Ø Adds language to the definition of “educational assistants”: nonteaching employees working in a federally funded program that directly assist a teacher.
Ø Requires ODE to issue educational aide permits and educational paraprofessional licenses for educational assistants who undergo a criminal background check without any of the offenses listed in current law (3319.31(B) and (C)).
Ø Removes language that allowed ODE to prescribe minimum qualifications including special training of education courses and qualifications for education, health, and character. Retains the language that the ODE rules may provide for licenses of several types.
Ø Provides that nonteaching employees that substitute as educational assistants are not required to hold an educational aide permit or educational paraprofessional license.
R.C. § 3319.088
Teacher evaluations
Changes to teacher evaluations:
Ø Provides that boards must update their standards-based teacher evaluation policy by July 1, 2018, to conform to the framework adopted under 3319.112, which will become operative when the collective bargaining agreement in effect on the effective date of the amendment expires (and must be included in renewal or extension of such agreements).
Ø Eliminates requirement to use value-added data and provides that student performance data used as evidence in a teacher’s evaluation must be considered “high quality student data.”
Ø Teachers rated “accomplished” on their most recent evaluation may still be evaluated once every 3 years as long as they submit a self-directed professional growth plan which focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluations AND the evaluator determines that progress is being made on the plan. Removes language that states that the student academic growth measure must be average or higher for the most recent year that data is available for the teacher to remain eligible for the evaluation exemption.
Ø Skilled teachers may still be evaluated once every 2 years as long as the teacher and evaluator jointly develop a professional growth plan which focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluations AND the evaluator determines that progress is being made on the plan. Removes language that states that the student academic growth measure must be average or higher for the most recent year that data is available for the teacher to remain eligible for the evaluation exemption.
Ø For accomplished or skilled teachers, in any year the teacher is not formally evaluated, the teacher will receive one observation and one conference with a qualified evaluator. Adds language that the conference must include discussion on progress on the teacher’s professional growth plan.
Ø Removes language that allows a board by resolution to require only one formal observation of accomplished teachers as long as the teacher completes a project to demonstrate continued growth and practice at the accomplished level.
R.C. § 3319.111
Standards-based evaluation framework
Changes to standards-based evaluation framework:
Ø Requires ODE to revise the state framework based on the ESB recommendations, and the state board to adopt an updated framework by May 1, 2018.
Removes from the framework:
Ø The student growth measure as a component of the final evaluation rating
Ø The requirement to use the value-added progress dimension as a component of the final evaluation rating for teachers who teach value-added courses
Ø ODE’s list of student assessments that measure mastery of course content for grade levels and subject for which the value-added progress dimension or alternative student academic progress measure do not apply
Adds to what the framework must include:
Ø Use of student assessment instruments approved by the board of education
Ø A prohibition on use of shared attribution of student performance data among all teachers in a district, building, grade, content area, or other group
Ø A professional growth or improvement plan for a teacher that is based on the results of the evaluation and is aligned to the district or building improvement plan created in accordance with ESSA
Adds to what ODE must do to assist districts with the evaluation framework:
Ø Provide guidance on how high-quality student data may be used to attribute student learning to a particular teacher with examples of appropriate use of the data under the framework
Ø Provide guidance on how student surveys, peer review evaluations, teacher self-evaluation, and other components “determined appropriate by the district” may be used as part of the evaluation process
Ø Requires ODE to update the framework by July 1, 2018
R.C. § 3319.112
Teacher licensure
Adds language that the resident educator license, professional educator license, senior professional educator license, and lead professional educator license shall state whether the license is K–8 or 6–12.
R.C. § 3319.22
Substitute teaching educator licenses
Requires ODE to issue substitute educator licenses only under new section of the Revised Code. ODE is to adopt rules on the standards and requirements for issuing a substitute license and renewing the license, but the rules for obtaining a substitute license may not require an applicant to hold a post-secondary degree in any specified subject area and may not restrict the number of school days a substitute teacher may work. Existing substitute licenses would remain in effect until expiration, after which they would be subject to the terms of this new section.
This means that short- and long-term substitute licenses would no longer be used.
R.C. § 3319.226
Licensure and employment
Superintendents may employ a licensed teacher to teach a subject area and/or grade level for which the person is not licensed.
R.C. § 3319.361
Truancy law
Change to new truancy law (HB 410)
Ø Only unexcused absences would count toward requirement to provide parental notification of excessive absence (38 hours in one school month, 65 or more in one school year). Removes excused absences from being counted toward the threshold level for parental notification.
R.C. § 3321.191
Preschool staffing ratios for children with disabilities
Reduces the staffing ratio requiring a full-time staff member from 16 to 12 for half-day preschool children with disabilities (retains the ratio of 8 full-day preschool children with disabilities to one full-time staff member).
Adds new language that a minimum of 10 hours of services per week will be provided for each child served by a center-based teacher unless an IEP specifies otherwise.
R.C. § 3323.022
Gifted education
Prohibits ODE, in a new section of the Revised Code, from adopting any rule that would require a person with an educator license who is designated as a provider of gifted services but does not have a license or endorsement for gifted education from having to complete professional development related to gifted education.
R.C. § 3324.12
College Credit Plus
If a course is available on the secondary school campus that a student attends, the student would not be able to enroll in a comparable course on the college campus at another location or online. If the course on the high school campus exceeds maximum capacity for enrollment, the school superintendent may approve the student to attend the course on the college campus, at another location operated by the college, or online.
R.C. § 3365.03
College Credit Plus
Changes for the provision and arrangements for the payment of textbooks begin in 2018–19.
Removes the requirement that the school district must pay for textbooks, and removes textbooks from the list of items that school districts and colleges may enter into an agreement for an alternative fee structure.
New Revised Code Section 3365.072: Requires students from public, nonpublic, or nonchartered nonpublic schools to pay for 50% of the cost of all required textbooks, and requires the student’s secondary school to pay for 50% of the cost of all required textbooks.
Requires ODE to adopt rules that define economically disadvantaged students, and provides that for students defined as such, the secondary school will pay 100% of the cost of the required textbooks.
Requires that home-instructed students participating in CCP be responsible for 100% of the costs of the required textbooks.
R.C. § 3365.07
Uncodified section
Section 3 requires ODE to conduct a study of the results and cost-effectiveness of the College Credit Plus program and to present a report to all school districts, ESCs, the governor, the Chancellor of Higher Education, and every member of the General Assembly.
The study must include information on whether participants save money on college tuition and reduce the time to complete a degree and whether it is cost-effective for school districts.
To continue our review of the education-related provisions of the state budget, we will look at the temporary law, or uncodified sections, of the budget. If you scroll toward the end of the five thousand-plus pages of the budget, you will find some odd numbering. You have found what is called temporary law or uncodified law.
This is separated as temporary or uncodified law for several reasons. Appropriations are uncodified because they cannot (per the Ohio Constitution) be made for more than two years. Other things found in temporary law may describe how the appropriations will be used (for the establishment and function of committees, task forces, stakeholder groups, preparation of a report, etc.). This temporary law expires at the end of the biennium (in two years).
Several provisions in this somewhat-obscure section of the budget affect Ohio schools, and below is a short summary of those provisions.
The graduation changes applicable only to the class of 2018 are found in the uncodified law because they are intended to apply only to that class. These changes establish additional ways for these students to demonstrate eligibility for a high school diploma. These additional options are presented for both academic and career-technical students. Stay tuned for an upcoming blog post with specifics on these graduation options.
A new state workgroup on related services will be tasked with the goal of “improving coordination of state, school and provider efforts to address the related services needs of students with disabilities.” This group and its study will sunset on June 30, 2019.
Expanding the SNAP program and drawing down federal match dollars for the employment and training of low-income individuals will be the subject of a planning committee, which will be established by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and the chancellor of higher education.
There will be changes to tuition payments for students in private residential treatment centers who are placed by a court or other state agency order (not parental placements). Additional provisions set out who is responsible for providing the educational program when a child is placed in one of those facilities, which include private facilities for the treatment of juvenile sex offenders, mental health and drug addiction, and other, severe behavior issues.
ODE was directed to study the appropriate funding for each category of gifted students and propose a method for funding gifted education courses and programs; a report is due May 1, 2018.
Under a new “flexible funding” program, school districts, including educational service centers and career-technical districts, may transfer foundation and special education enhancement funding to a new funding pool called the Family and Children First Funding Pool.
The “Straight A” governing board and committee will cease to exist and records will be transferred to ODE. Straight A grant recipients that received funds in FY 2016 and 2017 and will have remaining funds to spend in FY 2018 may do so in accord with the grant agreement; however, even if grant provisions specify additional funds, these funds will not be paid in future fiscal years. ODE will not pay any additional Straight A grant funds, and ODE’s function will be limited to ensuring districts spend remaining funds in accordance with the agreement. ODE was directed to report to the legislature on the grants awarded, recipients, effectiveness, and recommendations for Straight A grant projects that might warrant repeating in the future.
An appropriation was made to ODE for a policy analysis service, whose purpose is to develop reports, briefings, and analyses to inform education policymakers of current trends in education practice, efficient and effective use of resources, and evaluation of programs to improve education results.
An early childhood education program appropriation will fund and monitor existing and new early childhood education programs provided by city, local, exempted village, joint vocational, and educational service centers, community schools sponsored by an exemplary sponsor, chartered nonpublic schools, and other licensed early childhood education providers. The appropriation requires these providers to meet “Step Up to Quality” program standards.
An Early Childhood Education Pilot Program in Appalachia in two counties of the Appalachian region of the state will be established, with funding given to existing or new providers of early childhood education to serve 125 children in each fiscal year. The data from the pilot program will be studied.
In addition, a parental choice early childhood education pilot program will be funded, to implement “one or more parent choice models to deliver early childhood education to eligible children.”
The appropriations section of the education department begins in the budget on page 4,523. You can see all the appropriations for FY 2018 and 2019, as well as all the uncodified law applicable to the Department of Education. Or you can call your friendly Ennis Britton attorney for more information on provisions that interest you.
