Ohio’s Office for Exceptional Children (“OEC”) found that a district did not meet its child find obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) when it neglected to evaluate a student receiving poor grades and displaying difficulties paying attention. In Shelby City Schools, 124 LRP 2694 (2024), the parent of a student emailed a district indicating that their student was struggling with test scores and that they wanted an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) evaluation. The district failed to respond to the email and never conducted the IEP.

As the year progressed, the student’s grade reports indicated that they were struggling significantly in the 2023-2024 school year when compared to the 2022-2023 school year. In its finding, the OEC noted that the student’s grades showed a significant decline in performance to which the district “had knowledge of the Student’s academic struggles.” Additionally, the OEC found that even though some interventions were in place, it was clear that the interventions were not working, and the student continued to make no progress. Therefore, because of the failure to implement interventions to help the student make progress and to conduct an evaluation when the parent requested, the OEC found that the district violated the IDEA’s child find requirement.

What does this mean for your district? As the school year comes to a close and summer is right around the corner, be sure to watch for students’ grades and look for students whose grades or test scores may be declining. As the OEC noted in this case, the fact that the student’s grades were gradually worsening and they were having an increasingly difficult time paying attention should have caused the Ohio district to take notice and evaluate the student. These possible red flags, which may be highlighted in end-of-the-year grade reports, could be a flag to districts that a child might be IDEA-eligible.

A teacher brought an action against a board seeking to be placed at the appropriate step level on its teacher salary schedule. The teacher was initially placed at the pay grade of “Masters” and “Step 10.” However, she received notice that the HR director improperly authorized the ten years of service credit and was offered a new contract reflecting six years of service credit. The teacher alleged that she felt compelled to accept the offer due to the proximity to the school year; however, she never filed a grievance.

 The teacher argued that she could not invoke the grievance procedure because she was not a union member when she signed the contract. The court rejected this argument, holding that she could have filed her grievance when she received her official contract and became a member of the union, as well as up to 25 days after. This finding was supported by the fact that the teacher had admitted that she was aware of the problem when she signed the contract, as she had stated that she felt “compelled” to do so. Her awareness of the issue further supported that she could have filed a grievance when she became a union member, which would have provided her with an adequate remedy.

 The teacher also alleged that even if she were to file a grievance, it would not provide her a remedy for the past five years that she worked without pursuing it. The court rejected this argument on policy grounds, noting that if a party to an arbitration could use their own delay to exempt themselves from arbitration, then no arbitration agreement would be enforceable because “a party could simply wait it out until the right to arbitrate expired and pursue a claim in court.”

 The court ultimately dismissed the teacher’s complaint, holding that because claims of improper placement on the salary schedule come within the definition of a grievance, the teacher should have filed her grievance as soon as she received her official contract and became a union member. 

State ex rel. Johnston v. N. Olmsted City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. | 2024-Ohio-677 | 8th Appellate District