Budget Bill Overview: Impacts on Education in Ohio

by | Jul 7, 2017 | Board Policy & Representation, Legislation

Every two years, Ohio legislators and the governor are tasked with passing a biannual budget for the state. Ohio’s budget bill always has a direct effect on public education, from both a financial and an operational perspective. On June 30, Gov. Kasich signed a final version of House Bill 49. However, the governor vetoed 44 separate provisions, a number of which directly impact public schools.

As a final step, the House and Senate may vote to override any of the governor’s vetoes. The House has already voted on 11 veto overrides (none of them related to education), and the Senate is expected to do so very soon. Both houses of the General Assembly must override gubernatorial vetoes by a three-fifths margin prior to the end of the legislative session, which is December 31, 2018.

Title 33 Provisions

Below are some of the education-related provisions in Title 33 of the Revised Code. These will be effective late September.

  • Social studies has been removed from the required statewide achievement tests for the fourth and sixth grades. Instead, school districts will be required to teach and assess social studies in at least fourth and sixth grades, and may select any assessment tools for the subject. Results will not be reported to the Ohio Department of Education. Social studies has been removed from the list of subjects for which each district must provide prevention/intervention services to students who score below the proficient level established by the state.
  • Beginning in July 2018, districts will be required to identify victims of any student who is disciplined for violent behavior in EMIS. Victims will be identified by classification (student, teacher, nonteacher, etc.) but not by name.
  • Districts may administer certain portions of the kindergarten diagnostic assessment up to two weeks prior to the first day of school.
  • Beginning on the effective date of the bill until October 1, 2021, no school district that is party to an annexation agreement shall transfer territory that is or will be used for nonresidential purposes to another school district that is party to the annexation agreement without the approval of both boards unless the territory of one of those boards overlaps with a new community authority created prior to January 1, 1993.
  • As of January 1, 2018, the SERS board may increase each allowance, pension, or benefit payable to its members by the percentage increase (if any) of the consumer price index, which cannot exceed 2.5 percent.
  • The deadline for students to apply for the Jon Peterson special needs scholarship has been eliminated. Students may apply anytime.
  • A financial provision was added to help schools recover some of the property tax losses incurred because of the devaluation of power plants.
  • STEM schools have been added to the list of entities that a public board of education must first offer an unused school facility for sale or lease. STEM schools will now have the same rights to such property that start-up community schools and college-preparatory boarding schools currently have.
  • HB 49 modifies the recently enacted Lindsay’s Law to state that students are required to annually submit a form that acknowledges they have received information about sudden cardiac arrest. Prior law required students to submit the form for each athletic activity each school year.
  • Students who have an F-1 visa and attend an elementary or secondary school that operates a dormitory on its campus must now be permitted to participate in interscholastic athletics to the same extent resident students may participate.
  • School districts may integrate academic content in a subject area for which the state board has adopted standards into a course in a different subject area including a career-technical education course in accordance with guidance that will be issued by ODE. The student may receive credit for both subject areas upon successful completion of the course. If an end-of-course examination is required for the subject area delivered through integrated instruction, the school may administer the related subject area exam upon completion of the integrated course.
  • By December 31, 2017, ODE must develop a framework for school districts to use in granting units of high school credit to students who demonstrate subject area competencies through work-based learning experiences, internships, or cooperative education experiences. Districts must comply with the framework and adopt changes to any of their policies regarding demonstration of subject area competencies by the start of the 2018–2019 school year.
  • Schools are no longer required to train substitutes, adult education instructors who work the full-time equivalent of less than 120 days, or seasonal workers on operation of an AED as long as these individuals do not serve as a coach or supervisor for athletic programs.
  • Students will be able to earn an OhioMeansJobs-readiness seal on their diplomas.
  • The superintendent of public instruction is tasked to work with the governor’s office and business officials to establish a committee that will develop a list of industry-recognized credentials and licenses that may be used to qualify for a high school diploma. The credentials must align with the in-demand jobs list published by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The credentials will be used on state report cards.
  • School districts that provide educational services to certain special education students who reside in a home or facility now have two options to receive tuition payments: directly from the district of residence or from ODE. If the school district opts to receive the tuition from the district of residence, it shall not receive a tuition payment for that student from ODE.
  • School districts must now permit students to carry and self-apply sunscreen, and further are prohibited from requiring authorization from a health care provider to apply sunscreen (districts may still require parent authorization).
  • Students are prohibited from using or possessing any substance that contains betel nut on school premises. Betel nuts are harvested from the Areca palm, which originates in Asia, and are considered a powerful stimulant when chewed. The nuts are believed to be a carcinogen and are linked to high rates of oral cancer.
  • School districts which determine that for financial reasons they cannot establish state-mandated summer food service programs must permit an approved summer food service program sponsor to use the school facilities located in areas where at least half of the students are eligible for free lunches. The districts may charge the service program sponsor a reasonable fee and shall require the sponsor to indemnify the district for any liability that arises from the sponsor’s food service operations.
  • The superintendent of public instruction must develop standards for the operation of business advisory councils established by a board of education. These standards will, at a minimum, require the council to meet at least quarterly with the board and to develop a plan on how and about which matters it will advise the board. Current law requires that each school district board of education and ESC governing board appoint a business advisory council to advise and provide recommendations to the board regarding industry employment and skills needs.
  • ODE will establish an option for career-technical education students to participate in pre-apprenticeship training programs that develop skills and knowledge needed for successful participation in a registered apprenticeship occupation course.
  • HB 49 permits a school district to hire and pay a substitute educational aide who does not currently hold an aide permit and who fills in during an emergency or employee leave of absence. This provision creates an exception to the requirement that an educational aide/paraprofessional hold an aide permit from ODE before he/she may be paid to serve in that capacity. An individual may now serve as a “substitute educational aide” for up to 60 days provided that the school district superintendent believes that he/she has the qualifications to obtain an aide permit, the individual passes a criminal background check, and the individual has already submitted an application for the permit. The individual must stop working as a substitute when one of three things occurs: (1) ODE approves the application and grants a permit, (2) the application is denied, or (3) the application has not been approved after 60 days of work.
  • ODE has express authority to reject or inactivate an educator license if the individual fails to submit fingerprints and written permission for a criminal background check.
  • State law now recognizes creation of a STEAM community or nonpublic school, which stands for science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics. STEAM schools must meet certain requirements, including involvement of arts organizations.
  • Bid bonds are no longer required for purchase of school buses unless the board of education or governing board requests that bid bonds be a part of the bidding process.
  • The state board’s rules for staffing ratios must now include two specific provisions for preschool programs that serve children with disabilities. First, the rules must require at a minimum that a school provide a full-time staff member when eight full-day or sixteen half-day preschool children eligible for special education are enrolled in a center-based preschool special education program. Second, the state board rules must also mandate a staff ratio of one teacher for every eight children at all times for a program with a center-based teacher, and a second adult must be present when nine or more children, including nondisabled children, are enrolled in a class session.
  • State colleges must provide students enrolled in education preparation programs with instruction in opioid and other substance abuse prevention.
  • A number of changes have been made to the College Credit Plus (CCP) program. The bill modifies the appeal process for students when a principal refuses to provide written consent for participation. The final appeal will now be heard within 30 days by the district superintendent rather than the state board of education. Also, to be eligible to participate in CCP, participants must now be remediation free for college entrance exams in one of the following: mathematics, science, reading, or writing. The college is required to pay for one assessment. Several funding provisions of CCP have been modified as well. Finally, the chancellor of higher education in consultation with the superintendent of public instruction must adopt rules that specify the conditions under which an underperforming student may continue to participate in CCP.
  • Advisory group of school districts and other stakeholders to make recommendations for changes to EMIS to format standards and data definitions. Districts not using uniform data definitions and data format standards will have all EMIS funding withheld until the district comes into compliance.
  • The court of claims received more than $500,000 in each fiscal year to fund public records adjudications.
  • Career-technical education enhancements:
    • New “Agricultural Fifth-Quarter Project” program funded at $600,000 each fiscal year for work-based learning through supervised agricultural experience anytime outside of the school day. ODE will develop eligibility criteria and will fund as many programs as possible.
    • CTC programs (along with STEM, community schools, and city/local/exempted village districts) could pay the cost of earning an industry credential or journeyman certification recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor for economically disadvantaged students and be reimbursed by ODE pursuant to a $750,000 appropriation.

Vetoed Provisions

The governor vetoed a number of education-related provisions adopted in the enrolled version of HB 49. Some of the vetoed provisions include the following:

  • A provision to permit districts to administer a paper version of state assessments.
  • A provision to grant additional authority to the Joint Education Oversight Committee to invalidate a manual adopted by ODE that it develops to audit full-time equivalency student enrollment reporting by school districts. ODE is still required to develop the manual and submit it to the Joint Education Oversight Committee for review.
  • A provision to permit an ESC with a rating of effective or higher to sponsor a community school regardless of whether the school is located in the ESC’s service territory or a contiguous county.
  • A number of provisions to eliminate the resident educator program, which new teachers must complete during their first four years in the profession. As a result, the resident educator and resident educator professional teaching license will continue at least for the upcoming school year.
  • A provision to require College Credit Plus students to earn a grade of C or higher to continue participation in the program.

Upcoming Presentation

The budget bill will be discussed in detail at the upcoming Administrator’s Academy webinar on July 13. Click here to register for the event.

New State Law Expands Use and Possession of Weapons on School Grounds

by | Mar 24, 2017 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Legislation, School Management

Senate Bill 199, which was passed during the lame duck session and signed by the governor in December, significantly expands the rights of certain individuals to possess weapons on public school grounds.
State law generally prohibits an individual from conveying or possessing a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone (R.C. 2923.122). R.C. 2901.01 defines a school safety zone to include a school, school building, school premises, school activity, and school bus. Violators may be charged with misdemeanor or felony criminal offenses.

There are a few exceptions to this prohibition, including one that grants a school district board of education the authority to issue written permission for an individual to possess a weapon on school grounds. Additional, narrowly tailored exceptions apply for police officers, security personnel, school employees, and students under certain circumstances. The new law further expands these exceptions in three key areas.

First, the bill specifically authorizes an individual to possess a concealed handgun in a school safety zone as long as the individual either remains in a motor vehicle with the gun or leaves the gun behind in the locked vehicle. For this exception to apply, the individual must have an active concealed-carry permit or must be an active-duty member of the armed forces who is carrying a valid military identification card and documentation of successful completion of firearms training (the training must meet or exceed requirements for concealed permit holder training).

Next, the new law expands the right of law enforcement officers to carry a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone at any time regardless of whether the officer is on active duty. The prior version of the law limited such rights to law enforcement officers who were on active duty only.

Finally, the new law now permits the possession and use of an object indistinguishable from a firearm during a school safety training.

The law became effective March 21, 2017. School districts should review board policies that regulate use and possession of weapons on school grounds and should contact legal counsel with questions about how the law will impact district operations.

Ohio’s New Truancy Laws

by | Feb 14, 2017 | Legislation

Ohio House Bill 410 was signed by the governor on January 4, 2017, and takes effect on April 6, 2017. Despite its effective date, school districts are not required to implement many of the truancy provisions until the start of the 2017–2018 school year, the majority of which are codified in section 3321.191 of the Revised Code. To assist school districts in the implementation of the new truancy laws, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is expected to develop a model truancy policy to be completed in early July.

In response to this legislation, several school districts have asked for additional information on the details of the bill in order to comply with R.C. § 3321.191, including a timeline to implement absence intervention plans. As such, the following is a summary of the bill that organizes the new truancy provisions into categories to be more useful to districts.

Definitions

Chronic truant will no longer be used.

Habitual truant refers to a child of compulsory school age who is absent from school without legitimate excuse for the following number of hours (RC 2151.011):

  • 30 or more consecutive hours or
  • 42 or more hours in one school month or
  • 72 or more hours in a school year

Unruly child refers to a habitual truant who has not previously been adjudicated for being a habitual truant (RC 2151.022), but if based solely on being a habitual truant, court shall consider alternatives to adjudication to divert the child from the juvenile court system

Delinquent child applies to a child who violates a court order regarding the child’s prior adjudication as an unruly child for habitual truancy, but no longer includes habitual (or chronic) truant (RC 2152.02)

Suspensions

Beginning July 1, 2017, districts may not suspend, expel, or remove a student solely on the basis of absence without legitimate excuse. (RC 3313.668)

Districts may not carry over suspensions from one year to the next for any type of student misconduct. However, for an out-of-school suspension, participation in a community service program or an alternative consequence may be imposed during summer break for a number of hours equal to the remaining suspension. The community service or other consequence must begin during the first full weekday of summer break. Each district has the discretion to develop “an appropriate list of alternative consequences.” If the student fails to complete the community service or alternative consequence, the district may determine the next course of action; however, it may not include imposing out-of-school suspension when the next school year begins. (RC 3313.66)

Districts have discretion to allow make-up homework during suspensions. (RC 3313.66)

Excessive absences may not be punished by suspension, expulsion, or other means of prohibiting a student from attending school. (RC 3313.668, RC 3321.191)

Attendance Officers

Attendance officers shall file a complaint in juvenile court on the 61st day after implementation of an absence intervention plan if all of the following apply:

  • The student has unexcused absences of 30+ consecutive hours, 42+ hours in one month, or 72+ hours in a school year
  • The district has made meaningful attempts to reengage the student through the absence intervention plan or other intervention strategies and alternatives to adjudication
  • The student has refused to participate in or failed to make satisfactory progress on the plan, strategies, or alternatives

If the student has absences as noted above, but the absence intervention team determines that the student has made “substantial progress” according to the plan, the attendance officer shall not file a complaint in juvenile court.

If the 61st day after implementation of an absence intervention plan falls during the summer months, the district has the discretion to allow the absence intervention team or attendance officer to extend the implementation of the plan and delay the filing of the complaint for an additional 30 days from the first day of school the next year. (RC 3321.16)

Juvenile Courts

Extensive changes were made to juvenile court procedures (RC 2151, 2152), including notifying the school district and the school of attendance within 10 days if a student is adjudicated an unruly child for habitual truancy (RC 2151.354, 2152.19). This is important to school districts because districts will be required to notify ODE when a child has violated a court order regarding prior adjudication as an unruly child for habitual truancy.

Student Travel

Absences for a student who travels out of state for enrichment activities or extracurricular activities may be excused up to 24 hours maximum for the school year. If the student will be absent for 24 or more consecutive hours for these activities, a classroom teacher employed by the district shall accompany the student for instructional assistance. (RC 3321.041)

Driver’s Licenses

For purposes of driver’s license suspension, a board of education may notify a superintendent of a student’s unexcused absence of 60 or more consecutive hours or 90 or more hours in a school year. (RC 3321.13)

If a board of education has adopted a resolution stating such, the superintendent shall notify the registrar of motor vehicles and the county juvenile judge of a student’s unexcused absences of more than 60 consecutive hours in a single month or at least 90 hours in a school year. The superintendent shall also provide the parents with written notice that the student’s driver’s license, temporary permit, or opportunity to obtain such permit has been suspended and that the student and parents may have a hearing with the superintendent as scheduled. (RC 3321.13)

Absence Intervention Teams

Schools may establish their own absence intervention teams. District superintendents shall establish an absence intervention team for the district to be used by any schools that do not establish their own absence intervention teams. Membership of the absence intervention team may vary based on the needs of each student but shall include:

  • a district or school representative,
  • another district or school representative who knows the student, and
  • the child’s parent (or guardian, custodian, etc.), and may include
  • a school psychologist, counselor, social worker, or public agency representative. (RC 3321.191)

If a student becomes habitually truant within 21 days of the end of the school year, a district may assign one school official to work with the child’s parent to develop an absence intervention plan during the summer, which shall be implemented no later than 7 days before the next school year begins. Alternatively, the district may toll the summer time period and reconvene the absence intervention process on the first day of the next school year. (RC 3321.191)

ODE will develop a format for parental permission regarding absence intervention teams to ensure compliance with FERPA. (RC 3321.191)

Districts with a truancy rate of less than 5 percent are exempt from assigning habitually absent students to absence intervention teams and may develop their own district strategies; however, if their strategies fail, the attendance officer shall file a complaint within 61 days of implementation. (RC 3321.19)

Absence Intervention Plans

Each plan shall vary based on the needs of the student, but all plans shall notify the student of the attendance officer’s obligation to file a complaint 61 days after implementation of the plan if the student has refused to participate in or failed to make satisfactory progress on the plan or other alternative to adjudication. (RC 3321.191)

As part of the absence intervention plan, the district may contact juvenile court and ask to have the student informally enrolled in an alternative to adjudication. If a district chooses to do this, the district must develop a policy regarding use of and selection process for offering alternatives to adjudication. (RC 3321.191)

Districts or schools may consult or partner with public and nonprofit agencies for assistance to students and families to reduce absences. (RC 3321.191)

Timeline for Absence Intervention Teams

  1. Triggering event – Student surpasses the threshold for unexcused absences for habitual truancy. Districts are required to report to ODE when a student has exceeded this threshold.
  2. Within 7 days of the triggering event – The school or district shall select the members of an absence intervention team and shall make at least three good-faith attempts to secure parent participation on the team. (RC 3321.191) If the parent responds but is unable to participate, the district shall inform the parent of the right to appear by designee. If the parent fails to respond, the district shall (1) investigate whether the failure to respond triggers mandatory reporting to children’s services and (2) instruct the absence intervention team to develop a plan notwithstanding the absence of the parent.
  3. Within 10 days of the triggering event ­– The board of education shall assign a student who is considered a habitual truant to an absence intervention team. (RC 3321.19)
  4. Within 14 days after assigning a student to an absence intervention team – The team shall develop an intervention plan. (RC 3321.191)
  5. Within 7 days after development of the intervention plan – the district shall notify the student’s parents of the plan. (RC 3321.191)

Note: Districts are required to notify ODE when an absence intervention plan has been implemented.

Board Policy

Beginning 2017–2018, board policy shall include notifying parents of absences with or without legitimate excuse of 38+ hours in a month or 65+ hours in a year, within 7 days of the absence that triggered the notice (RC 3321.191). Districts are required to report this to ODE as well.

Zero-tolerance policies should no longer include “excessive truancy.”

Excessive truancy is no longer a reason for Big 8 schools to send students to alternative schools. (RC 3313.534)

Reporting to ODE

Beginning 2017–2018, districts shall report the following occurrences to ODE. (RC 3321.191)

  • When notification is provided to a parent of student’s absences with or without excuse of 38+ hours in one school month or 65+ hours in a school year
  • When a student is designated as a habitual truant
  • When a student who has been adjudicated unruly for habitual truancy violates a court order regarding that adjudication
  • When an absence intervention plan has been implemented

Supreme Court to Decide Level of Educational Benefit for Students with Disabilities

by | Feb 3, 2017 | Special Education

On January 11, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most significant special education cases in past three decades. In the 1982 case Board of Education v. Rowley, the Supreme Court determined that an individualized education program (IEP) must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Since then, federal courts have weighed in on educational benefits, some determining that a minimum standard, de minimis, is enough, while others, including the Sixth Circuit (Deal v. Hamilton Bd. of Ed., No. 03-5396, 6th Cir. 2004), have held that a meaningful educational benefit is needed. With federal circuits divided on this federal issue, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case at hand. The question before the Court is as follows:

What level of educational benefit must school districts confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?

Endrew F., who goes by the name Drew, is a student with autism in Colorado. He was placed on an IEP from preschool through fourth grade. His proposed IEP for fifth grade contained goals that his parents say too closely resembled the goals from previous years. Dissatisfied with the progress Drew was making in public school, his parents withdrew him and enrolled him in private school.

Drew’s parents filed a complaint with Colorado’s Department of Education, claiming that Drew had been deprived of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The parents also claimed that Drew had made academic, social, and behavioral progress in private school. They asked to be reimbursed for the cost of his private schooling, per IDEA, which provides for reimbursement of private school tuition and related expenses if a public school cannot meet the educational needs of a student with a disability. Drew’s parents and the school district argued their case in an administrative hearing, then in a federal district court, and finally on appeal in the Tenth Circuit Court. All of the rulings were in favor of the school district, finding that the public school had provided Drew with FAPE, that he had made “some academic progress” which was “more than de minimis,” and that his IEP was “substantively adequate.”

IDEA grants students with disabilities with the right to receive “appropriate” special education and related services at public expense. The IEP must be designed to provide for this “appropriate public education” under IDEA. However, IDEA does not define the term “appropriate,” nor does it define the required level of educational benefit.

Clearly, the law requires that special education be designed to each child’s individual needs and that schools provide services to benefit special education students. How far schools must go to benefit students, however, remains unclear.

The 1982 Rowley case involved a deaf student who was an excellent lip reader. Her parents asked for an interpreter, but the school said she was doing well enough that she didn’t need one. Her parents contended that she was not reaching her full potential, but the Supreme Court held that a school is not required to maximize each student’s potential. After the Rowley decision in 1982, many federal courts used the analogy that schools provide the educational equivalent of “a serviceable Chevrolet” but not a “Cadillac.”

The level of educational benefit therefore remains unclear and undefined, which results in inconsistent federal court decisions. The standards in federal court range from merely more than a minimum benefit, to some benefit, to a meaningful benefit. The Endrew v. Douglas case currently in the Supreme Court goes beyond the two extremes of minimum benefit and maximum potential and focuses specifically on the level of educational benefit required of schools under IDEA.

The Supreme Court requested input from the federal government, which urged the Court to reverse the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, noting that it “is not consistent with the text, structure, or purpose of the IDEA … and it has the effect of depriving children with disabilities of the benefits Congress has granted them by law.”

A report summarizing the January 11 Supreme Court arguments notes that one thing was relatively clear: “The justices were dissatisfied with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s ruling that school districts can satisfy federal education law as long as they offer a student with a disability an educational program that provides him or her with a benefit that is more than merely de minimis, or non-trivial.” The justices were also concerned with imposing additional costs on school districts by requiring them to provide increased services and creating educational standards without being educational experts. They considered the idea of flexibility in IDEA, possibly tailoring special education to the student rather than to the grade level.

Counsel for the U.S. Solicitor General argued that IDEA requires a program “aimed at significant educational progress in light of the child’s circumstances,” which led to discussion among the justices about the right words and adjectives to describe the standard. While Justice Sotomayer thought that IDEA “provides enough to set a clear standard,” Justice Roberts concluded the law has “really nothing concrete” for courts to review.

Neal Katyal, the attorney for the school district, argued that the level of “some benefit” is the same as “more than merely de minimis,” and this is the level he was advocating. Justice Breyer noted that IDEA has been amended so that an IEP is designed for students to “make progress in general education” and concluded that “some benefit” along with “make progress” equals more than a minimum standard. Katyal noted that the more-than-minimum standard has worked for many years, and Justice Ginsburg hinted that this standard had no precedent for the Court and could be replaced with something more stringent.

The U.S. Department of Education proposed a standard that school districts offer a program “aimed at significant educational progress in light of the child’s circumstances,” which the justices seemed to regard as most consistent with existing law.

Drew has garnered support from organizations such as the National Center for Learning Disabilities and the Parents Education Network in addition to more than a hundred members of Congress. Without taking sides, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education filed a legal brief saying that schools already provide a “meaningful benefit”through IEPs.

Although a decision is not expected until this spring or summer, this case is likely to have significant impact on special education programs throughout the country.

OCR Says Websites Lack 504/ADA Accommodations

by | Oct 24, 2016 | Special Education

Over the past year, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has shown an increased focus on public school district websites. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require that public school district websites be accessible to individuals with disabilities. After investigating a number of complaints, OCR ultimately concluded that school website content is often inaccessible to individuals with disabilities, particularly blind and visually impaired users, deaf or hard-of-hearing users, and users with disabilities that affect motor control and their ability to use a mouse.

In February and March of 2016, OCR reviewed complaints filed against 11 different educational organizations in the United States and in one U.S. territory, raising website accessibility issues under Section 504 and the ADA. Section 504 and the ADA require public school districts to provide individuals who have qualified disabilities with equal access to programs, services, and activities unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the programs. OCR has indicated on numerous occasions that accommodations must be made to district websites and other online resources in accordance with Section 504 and the ADA.

The most common problems OCR identified with websites are as follows:

  • Images with no accompanying text descriptions, or “alt tags”
  • Navigation that requires the use of a mouse
  • Videos that lack accompanying audio, transcript, or closed captioning
  • Color combinations that make text difficult to read

On June 29, 2016, OCR announced that it had reached voluntary agreements with all 11 organizations, which now have 18 months to resolve the issues under the terms of the agreements. The agreements contained mandates such as development of corrective action plans, completion of a thorough audit to ensure access and functionality, adoption of policies and procedures to ensure accessibility to all content added in the future, and posting notices to disabled individuals that contain information on how an individual can request access to online information or inaccessible content, among other things.

Interestingly, the University of Montana conducted a student survey after receiving an OCR complaint in 2012 about web accessibility from students enrolled in online coursework. The survey results indicated that many of the complaints were caused by a misunderstanding or lack of awareness about available accessibility options. So, along with other ameliorative measures, the university invested resources to educate its student body about web accessibility. The university reached a formal resolution with OCR in 2014.

Catherine E. Lhamon, OCR’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, weighed in on the matter when she stated, “As schools, school districts, states, and territories turn to the Internet as a way to provide relevant and up-to-date information to their audiences in a cost-effective manner, they must make sure they are not inadvertently excluding people with disabilities from their online programs, services, and activities.”

OCR’s recent action on this important accommodations issue highlights the need for public school districts to conduct a formal review of website and social media programs to determine whether content is indeed accessible to individuals who suffer from disabilities. Along the same line, districts should regularly assess all types of technology use during school and extracurricular activities to further consider whether the chosen technologies interfere in any way with a disabled individual’s ability to access programs or participate in school activities. Board policies should be reviewed as part of this process. School districts are encouraged to consult with legal counsel to discuss the implications of this important topic and obtain resources that may further assist with compliance under Section 504 and the ADA.