by Jeremy Neff | Aug 5, 2013 | General
A month after Governor Kasich signed HB 59, Ohio’s two-year budget, the dust is starting to settle and certain issues are standing out as of particular concern to our clients. Over the coming days and weeks we will continue to address these issues in our blog posts and tweets, our School Law Review monthly newsletter, and in our presentations and advice to clients. Today we will start with an issue that is particularly time-sensitive: home school and private school student participation in extracurricular activities.
HB 59 created new law that allows home school and private school students who are not even partially-enrolled in a public school to participate in a public school’s extracurricular activities. There are numerous restrictions on this new right. For example, only a home school student’s district of residence is required to allow such participation, and the district may impose whatever normal requirements it does for its own students (e.g. pay to participate fee, academic eligibility, enforcement of prior expulsion periods, etc.). Granted, these normal requirements can be almost meaningless as applied to a home school student: Minimum g.p.a. requirements are the most frequently cited standards that will be impossible to impose for longer-term home school students.
Lost in much of the discussion about these new requirements is the fact that they are substantive law (e.g. not mere spending measures). Because of this, the new extracurricular requirements cannot take effect until 90 days after the Governor signed HB 59. That pushes the effective date to September 29. Why is this important? Because this means there is no law allowing strictly home schooled students to participate in extracurricular activities at this time, and there will not be until well into the fall sports season. It should be noted that prior law allows partial enrollment of home school students at the option of each school district, and OHSAA allows partially enrolled students to participate in extracurricular activities.
Because the law is not yet effective, districts should not allow home school students to participate in fall sports as they get under way in the coming days and weeks. Adding to the confusion is the fact that OHSAA has indicated by a press release that they are treating the law as effective retroactively to July 1. They acknowledge that this decision is not in line with the law, which unquestionably does not exist until September 29.
Regardless, districts should follow the requirements of the law, and until September 29 there is no law allowing strictly home schooled students to participate in extracurricular activities. Because many sports either have try-outs prior to September 29, or even if they do not have try-outs they do not allow students to begin participating halfway through the season, it is quite possible that no home school students will be eligible to participate in sports until the winter season. Please note that the new law applies to extracurricular activities other than sports, as well, and for other types of activities it may be appropriate to allow home school student participation starting on September 29.
by Gary Stedronsky | May 21, 2013 | General
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver recently upheld a school district’s use of a “timeout room” to discipline and briefly restrain a developmentally disabled student with disruptive behavioral issues. The student, J.M., was five years old and was known to throw tantrums, yell, spit, and kick in class. As a result, he was often placed in the timeout room, described as large enough for a student and teacher to fit comfortably and equipped with a light and window. The district stated that he was placed in the room around 30 times over a span of two school years and was never kept in the room longer than four minutes.
The student’s parents sued individual school officials, including teachers and the principal, and the school district, claiming that use of the timeout room was a violation of their child’s constitutional rights under a 14th Amendment due process “shocks the conscience” analysis. To succeed on this type of claim, the challenged behavior must amount to a “brutal and inhumane” abuse of official power literally shocking the conscience. This standard is applied in all school discipline cases, not just cases involving school-inflicted corporal punishment.
The parents’ claim was based upon the district’s use of the timeout room in general, as well as a specific incident in which the school principal forced J.M. into the room and placed a chair in front of the door. While the Court acknowledged these particular details surrounding use of the timeout room were “a careless or unwise excess of zeal,” it nonetheless held that no conscience-shocking events had occurred. Therefore, the Court found no constitutional violation.
Because the Court found that no individual officials had violated J.M.’s constitutional rights, it stated that the principal also could not be liable under a theory of supervisory liability and the district could not be liable because the challenged conduct was not pursuant to official policy or custom.
The parents also attempted to raise a Fourth Amendment claim that the timeout room was a “seizure” that should have been analyzed under a reasonableness standard. Analyzing a school discipline case under this standard is more favorable to plaintiffs because it is easier to prove than the “shocks the conscience” standard. While the parents did not properly raise the claim and thus were barred procedurally, the Court stated that it is not well settled law that a court has any obligation in a school discipline case of this nature to evaluate a Fourth Amendment claim. Thus, even if the parents had properly raised the claim, the Court would have declined to consider it.
Although in this case the Tenth Circuit remained faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment shocks-the-conscience standard and declined to even additionally consider the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, in recent years other circuits have begun to allow such claims in analyzing various types of school discipline. Cases from the Ninth and Third circuits have involved excessive force or detention by school officials. In the Seventh Circuit, the Fourth Amendment standard was applied when a teacher “seized” a student by attempting to drag her out of the classroom by her elbow. In these cases, courts will often allow both standards to be applied to the conduct at issue. Because a Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard is arguably more lenient and plaintiff-friendly, school districts should be aware of the potential consequences of discipline if analyzed under both the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Jan 10, 2013 | General
Governor John Kasich signed HB 543, also known as the “Jason Flatt Act,” into law on December 20, 2012. The bill, originally sponsored by the mother of a suicide victim, requires school districts to provide in service training in youth suicide awareness and prevention to all teachers, nurses, counselors, school psychologists and administrators. Districts may also provide training to any other personnel deemed appropriate.
Each district is required to either adopt or adapt the curriculum developed by the Department of Education or develop its own curriculum in consultation with public or private agencies or persons involved in youth suicide awareness and prevention programs. The training will count toward professional development required by districts and may be accomplished through self-review of suitable prevention materials approved by the board.
The bill is named for a Tennessee student who committed suicide in 1997. His father has championed the Jason Foundation, Inc. since his son’s death and numerous other states have adopted similar versions of HB 543 as a result of the foundation’s lobbying efforts. The law goes into effect on March 22, 2013.
The full text of the law can be viewd at: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_543
by Ryan LaFlamme | Jan 4, 2013 | General
We have recently reported on House Bill 555 which was signed into law by Governor Kasich on December 20, 2012. Certain provisions of the Bill modify the method in which the value-added progress dimension or student academic growth measure must be used to evaluate teachers.
Under continuing law, the State Board must adopt a framework for teacher evaluations which provide for multiple evaluation factors. One such factor addressed by the Bill is student academic growth. Student academic growth should for fifty percent of each evaluation. The Bill provides that when applicable to the grade level or subject area taught by a teacher, the value-added progress dimension or an alternative student academic progress measure, if adopted, shall be used in the student academic growth portion of an evaluation in proportion to the part of a teacher’s schedule of courses or subjects for which the value-added progress dimension is applicable.
The Bill further provides that if a teacher’s schedule is comprised only of courses or subjects for which the value-added progress dimension is applicable, one of the following applies:
- Beginning with the effective date of this Bill (90 days from passage) until June 30, 2014, the majority of the student academic growth factor of the evaluation shall be based on the value-added progress dimension.
- On or after July 1, 2014, the entire student academic growth factor of the evaluation shall be based on the value-added progress dimension. (In calculating student academic growth for an evaluation, a student shall not be included if the student has sixty or more unexcused absences for the school year).
The Bill also exempts substitutes and adult education instructors from the requirements of the evaluation law. We will keep you posted with any further developments. The text of the bill can be viewed at:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_555
by Gary Stedronsky | Dec 21, 2012 | General
Yesterday Governor John Kasich signed into law House Bill 555, which replaces the current academic performance rating system for school districts and individual buildings of districts. The new rating system will assign letter grades of “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” or “F” for overall academic performance, a change from the current ratings of “excellent,” “effective,” “continuous improvement,” “academic watch,” and “academic emergency.” The grade for overall academic performance will be calculated based upon specified components and performance measures that will also be assigned individual letter grades.
The bill requires the State Board of Education to establish a method to assign an overall grade for the 2014-15 school year and each following year. The method must grade each individual performance measure, which will then be grouped into one of the following larger components: gap closing, achievement, progress, graduation, kindergarten through third-grade literacy and prepared for success (the performance measures in the “prepared for success” component do not receive separate grades.) Each component will then be individually graded based upon the performance measures in its group. Only the resulting component grades will be used by the State Board to determine the overall grade.
The following meanings are attributed to each of the letter grades:
A- Making excellent progress
B- Making above average progress
C- Making average progress
D- Making below average progress
F- Failing to meet minimum progress
The bill incrementally increases the number of graded and reported separate performance measures in each of the 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 school years. For 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, letter grades will be assigned only to specified individual performance measures. An overall letter grade will be assigned beginning with the 2014-2015 school year. The bill also applies to community schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory boarding schools.
ERF will continue to update its clients on this legislation and the State Board of Education’s eventual establishment of a method to assign an overall grade for the 2014-15 school year.
