by Ryan LaFlamme | May 1, 2019 | General, Student Education and Discipline
A Federal District Judge recently ruled that a charter school dress code policy which required girls to wear skirts and prohibited girls from wearing pants or shorts, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Many challenges in the past have rested on First Amendment grounds regarding freedom of expression. However, this case was brought on a theory of gender discrimination.
The Plaintiffs argued that the girls suffered tangible disadvantages due to the policy. The court found that the Plaintiffs established that “the girls are subject to a specific clothing requirement that renders them unable to play as freely during recess, requires them to sit in an uncomfortable manner in the classroom, causes them to be overly focused on how they are sitting, distracts them from learning, and subjects them to cold temperatures on their legs.”
The Defendant, the Charter Day School, argued the dress code was designed to garner mutual respect between the boys and the girls, particularly in that the skirts represented visual cues to promote respect between the two sexes. Striking down the policy, the school argued, would remove those visual cues and hinder a sense of respect for the opposite sex. The Court noted that even if these were legitimate interests of the state, the school failed to show how the policy advanced such interests.
The Court further noted that school dress code policies have been upheld by numerous courts and that the state does have legitimate interests in the grooming and dress of students attending schools supported by the state. However, these interests must be addressed in a uniform, gender-neutral way that does not penalize a student simply for being one sex or the other.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Apr 25, 2019 | General, School Management
The Ohio Attorney General has released a formal opinion finding that the board of education of a joint vocational school district (JVS) has no authority to establish a sick leave donation program for non-teaching employees of the district who are not members of a collective bargaining unit.
The JVS explained its donation program to the Attorney General thusly:
“The sick leave donation program would allow non-teaching employees to donate unused sick leave accrued by those employees into a bank for the use of eligible employees. Upon application and approval, unused sick leave in the bank would be accessible to an eligible employee, meaning that an employee with a serious illness could exhaust his or her accrued sick leave and then access the donated sick leave in the bank, all accrued by other joint vocational school non-teaching employees. The board of education itself would not provide any additional sick leave. The donation program would consist only of donated leave accrued by other non-teaching employees. Nor would there be any cash payment or any other incentive to any employee to compensate them for donating the sick time to the donation program.”
The Attorney General reasoned that as political subdivisions of the state, school districts are creatures of statute and can only act as expressly authorized or as may be necessarily implied to carry out such express grants of authority. Sick leave is a benefit school boards are permitted to provide their employees by statute (R.C. 3319.141). That statute provides that employees may use sick leave for their own personal illness or for illness of a family member. Because the statute limits the purposes for which sick leave can be used, a school board has no authority to permit sick leave to be used for another purpose, i.e., for the illness of another person who is not a family member.
The opinion, of course, does not apply to employees who are members of a collective bargaining unit who have negotiated the establishment of a sick leave donation program through collective bargaining. This is because, generally, collective bargaining agreements can supersede the requirements of statute, except where prohibited by law.
Districts should be cautious in permitting sick leave donation outside of the confines of a collective bargaining agreement. This opinion could be used as a basis for a finding for recovery for sick leave that is improperly paid to an employee under an unlawful donation program.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Oct 25, 2018 | Board Policy & Representation, School Management
“Crowdfunding” is the practice of funding a project by raising relatively small amounts of money from a large number of people, usually via the internet. In schools, crowdfunding helps teachers and schools to obtain funding and supplies.
Online Crowdfunding and How It Works
Crowdfunding websites vary in how they raise funds. Some well-known crowdfunding websites include GoFundMe, Adopt-A-Classroom, Kickstarter, Incited, and Donors Choose. Some of these websites will raise money and transfer it directly to the teacher or the school district. Other websites will raise money toward the desired products, which will be shipped to the school when the items are funded. This way, the teacher or school never receives any cash at all. Websites further differ in the amount of support and advice they will give teachers or school districts in securing these donations.
Ohio Auditor of State
In July 2018, the Ohio state auditor released a report titled Crowdfunding Classrooms, which was the outcome of a widespread survey of Ohio’s schools. One-fifth of Ohio districts responded to the survey. Among the districts that reported, the auditor found the following statistics related to crowdfunding policies and use of funds:
- 55.4 percent prohibit crowdfunding
- 59.0 percent have no crowdfunding policy
- 26.2 percent don’t know if teachers are using crowdfunding
- 56.2 percent of those who permit crowdfunding don’t know the amount raised in the last 12 months
Auditor’s Recommended Best Practices
The auditor suggests in its report that schools work with legal counsel and adopt a policy that incorporates as many of the following safeguards as possible:
- Require that all campaigns be reviewed and approved by administration
- Direct administrator to ensure proposal does not violate any federal/state law
- Designate permissible crowdfunding websites
- Require donations to be used for the stated purpose
- Prohibit donations without board approval
- Establish all donations as property of the school
- Enter donations promptly into district inventory
- Deposit into district bank accounts
Furthermore, the auditor recommended that every policy include the following financial controls:
- Require that all crowdfunding campaigns be listed under the school’s name
- Specify that donations are the property of the school district and paid directly to the district and not to the teacher
- Require documentation of donations in financial ledgers for monetary donations or inventory for items
General Policy Guidelines
Districts should have a policy that dictates who may raise funds and which crowdfunding platforms may be used. A policy to ban crowdfunding minimizes risk to school districts, but it would also force districts to forego many of the potential benefits. Such a ban on crowdfunding may also be difficult for school districts to enforce. A ban on crowdfunding would require policing all of the crowdfunding platforms to ensure that the policy is being followed.
A policy that allows crowdfunding creates risk, but this risk can be minimized with the right safeguards in place so that schools can reap the benefits of crowdfunding. This policy should ensure that the school is not violating any state or federal laws, the money is properly accounted for, and the donations and materials are appropriate for the district.
A district’s policy should include a prohibition against any funds going directly to teachers. All funds raised should be in the name of the board of education and should be treated like any other funds of the board – accounted for and deposited in accordance with policy and state law. Donated funds should be used only for the purpose for which they were donated. Additionally, no student or teacher should receive a benefit from crowdfunding that is proportional to the level of participation by the teacher or student in raising the funds.
A centralized approval process for crowdfunding campaigns is recommended. Requiring an administrative review and approval of all proposed crowdfunding campaigns will provide safeguards against accidental violations of student privacy laws and will ensure the content and goals of the crowdfunding proposal are appropriate. For example, crowdfunding campaign materials that include a photo of a classroom with the students could violate privacy laws. Descriptions or narratives that reveal personally identifiable information also violate confidentiality. Additionally, administrators will want to ensure that the crowdfunding proposal does not imply that the district is falling short of its state and federal obligations, which may prompt inquiry by a regulating body.
Considerations
Some existing sources of law are implicated by crowdfunding performed by public school districts in Ohio. The Ohio Revised Code mandates that all money be deposited with the treasurer within a specified time (R.C. 9.38). Specifically for public schools, R.C. 3313.51 establishes that the treasurer of the board of education is the treasurer of all school funds. This is important because the treasurer could be held liable through a finding for recovery for any unaccounted funds. For this reason, the treasurer’s office should be part of the crowdfunding process.
The Ohio attorney general has issued an opinion (OAG Opinion 85-085) that donations must be used for the purposes stated in a crowdfunding campaign. Ohio ethics law (R.C. 2921.43) includes some important considerations. Employees are not permitted to accept additional compensation for performing their duties. (OEC 2008-01). Teachers should not divert any amount of the funds raised for personal gain, as an administrative fee or for any other reason. Remember that any funds and items donated are school district property.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Oct 17, 2018 | Board Policy & Representation, School Management
On September 13, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issued a public service alert to raise awareness of cybersecurity concerns for K–12 students. While education technologies have helped to engage community involvement and improve the educational environment, security risks lurk beneath the surface. Large amounts of student data are collected and stored online, and this data is at risk of compromise or exploitation if not stored securely enough to escape hackers.
Education technologies include software programs and online apps used in classrooms, mobile apps to enhance the learning experience, administrative platforms that assist educators and administrators with class and school management, and others. At-risk data collected by ed-tech can include students’ personally identifiable information, behavioral and disciplinary information, academic records, biometric data, geolocation, and more. The FBI warned that malicious use of this data can lead to social engineering – using deception to manipulate people into disclosing confidential or personal information – identity theft, bullying, tracking, and other means of targeting children.
School Security Hacks in 2017
The FBI’s alert included reports of two serious security breaches in 2017. In the first, multiple school districts’ servers across the country were hacked, giving the hackers access to student contact information, education plans, medical records, and counselor reports. This information was then used to contact, extort, and threaten students with physical violence and release of their information. Parents received text messages, and students’ private information was publicized and posted on social media, giving child predators access to new targets.
Additionally, two large ed-tech companies were breached in 2017, resulting in public access to the data of millions of students. One of the companies had stored their data on public-facing servers, and breached data from the other company was posted for sale on the dark web.
FBI Recommendations
The FBI recommends that parents be aware of student privacy requirements, discuss ed-tech with their local school districts, conduct research for support and additional resources, research security breaches to inform of vulnerabilities, consider monitoring credit for identity theft, and conduct regular internet searches on their children.
Issues for Schools
Always at the bottom line, additional security costs additional money. Schools that face budget decisions and scarce resources for internet security may prioritize value-added expenditures over those with no visible benefit, such as cyber security.
School District Legal Requirements
School districts should know and consider legal requirements when adopting ed-tech resources and considering the importance of cyber security.
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232(g); 34 CFR Part 99) as well as state law (R.C. § 3319.321) and board policy place stringent restrictions on how “student records” must be maintained and protected. Board records retention schedules require districts to maintain certain types of records for years, if not permanently. Staff should be trained to understand what constitutes an education record as well as state and federal laws and board policy that limit release and maintenance of student records.
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 6501–6506; 16 CFR Part 312) imposes requirements on operators of websites, internet services, and apps directed to children under age 13 and on operators that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information online from a child under age 13. The purpose is to give parents control over their children’s information that is collected online by seeking parental consent. Schools that contract with third-party websites or apps solely for the benefit of students can consent to data collection and the use or disclosure of students’ personal information by acting as an agent on the parents’ behalf. Such consent is restricted to educational purposes only. Additionally, at the school’s request, the operator must provide a description of the types of personal information collected, the opportunity to review the child’s personal information and/or have the information deleted, and the opportunity to prevent further use or online collection of a student’s personal information.
Tasked with enforcing COPPA, the Federal Trade Commission recommends that schools or districts – not teachers – decide whether a provider’s information practices are appropriate. Districts should have a centralized process to assess these practices. The FTC cautions that schools should know how student information is collected, used, and disclosed. Districts should also ensure that these operators appropriately protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of student information and should understand the operator’s data retention and deletion policies.
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 U.S.C. § 1232h; 34 CFR Part 98) requires that districts adopt policies and provide direct notification to parents at least annually regarding the specific or approximate dates of activities involving the collection, disclosure, or use of students’ personal information for the purpose of marketing or selling that information (or otherwise providing the information to others for that purpose), as well as the parents’ right to opt out of these measures.
by Ryan LaFlamme | May 30, 2018 | Board Policy & Representation
Ohio’s Sixth District Court of Appeals, in a case arising in Erie County, Ohio, upheld the denial of public records requests for all emails from certain elected county officials to other county employees over the span of a month. The requester asked for the following:
all emails sent and received by Wilson and one of her employees from September 3 to October 3, 2017; all emails sent and received by Sigsworth and one of his employees from September 3 to October 3, 2017; all emails sent and received by Binette from September 3 to October 3, 2017; the personnel files for Baxter and two of his employees; all emails sent and received by Tone from September 3 to October 3, 2017; and all emails sent and received by Baxter and 12 of his employees from October 13 to November 13, 2017.
The court addressed each of the requests in turn. The court found that all of the requests for emails were overly broad because the Public Records Act does not entitle anyone to a complete duplication of the files of a public office. Even though the Public Records Act is to be construed liberally and in favor of the person making the request, the duty of the person requesting records is to clearly identify the particular records they are seeking. This is so even when, as in this case, the time period for the records (one month) is relatively short.
People who are seeking public records often take an approach that is similar to litigation discovery – broadly requesting “any and all” documents related to a topic or “all communications” with a person or group of people. This is the wrong approach, as the Public Records Act requires identification of the specific records being sought with “reasonable clarity.”
The request for the personnel files was ultimately fulfilled and was noted by the court as a moot issue.
While this case certainly advances one’s understanding of an overly broad request, keep in mind that no bright-line rule exists. The content and context of each request must be considered. A request is not automatically invalid because it seeks an entire month’s worth of records or even records going back several years. Here the requester was denied based on not the time period of the records but rather the broadness of the request, which made it difficult for the public office to identify with reasonable clarity the records that were being sought. The personnel file, on the other hand, is a specific, identified item and in most cases would not be considered an overly broad request.
– State ex rel. Bristow v. Wilson, 2018-Ohio-1973.
