by Gary Stedronsky | Aug 29, 2014 | General
As students pack their book-bags and return to school, it’s important to keep in mind the law governing their entrance through your doors. In order to accommodate the registration process, schools much comply with the legal requirements of Ohio Revised Code 3313.64.
Ohio law requires that districts allow school age children to attend their district of residence free of charge. In general, residence for school purposes is determined using the residence of the child’s parent. Parent can mean either natural or adoptive parents, unless the parents are separated, divorced, or their marriage has been dissolved or annulled. Due to the complex nature of the family structure, there are several general guidelines to use when determining whether a child’s parent resides in the district.
Determining Residency when parents are separated and living in difference school districts:
- When parents are divorced, the term parent means either the parent who is the residential parent or the parent awarded custody in the action for divorce.
- In the case of shared parenting, unless a court specifically orders otherwise, both parents are considered parents for residential purposes; therefore, the child can attend either school district tuition free.
- If a child’s parents were never married, there is conflicting law, but it is generally best to consider the natural mother the parent for residency purposes.
Determining Residency when a child lives with persons other than the child’s parents:
- Under the Grandparent Caretaker law, grandparents may also acquire the legal status of parent for residency purposes when the child’s parents cannot be located or have lost parental rights and the grandparent provides a power of attorney signed by a parent, or a caretaker authorization affidavit (in such cases where parents cannot be located).
- When a child is in the legal custody of a governmental agency, the term parent means the parent who has residual parental rights or who has been divested of residual parental rights.
Determining Residency with Property Issues:
- If a child resides on property that straddles two school districts along a boundary line, residency is determined based on the location of the house of residence.
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction serves as the decision maker in any case of dispute and is given the task of analyzing the following: (1) where the parent sleeps the majority of the time, (2) where mail is received, (3) where meals are eaten, (4) the address of voter registration, (5) the address for bills or credit card statements, (6) the address of lease agreements, and (7) information in affidavits from the landlord, neighbors, or parent (to prove fraud).
Mandatory Exceptions to Residency Requirements, which allows a student to attend school in a district other than where the student’s parent resides:
- Student is between age 18-22, lives in the district apart from his parents, supports himself by his own labor, and has not successfully completed high school or the IEP developed for him.
- Student is under 18, married, and resides in the district.
- Student has been placed with a resident of the district for adoption and his parents reside outside Ohio.
- Student has a medical condition which may require emergency medical treatment and one of his parents is employed at a location within the school district.
- Student is residing in the district with a person other than his parent while his parent is serving in the armed forces outside of Ohio—Limited to a 12-month period.
- Student’s parent is having a “new” house built in the district—Limited to 90 days.
- Student’s parent is purchasing a house in the district—Limited to 90 days.
- Student is living in the district with a parent and is under the care of a shelter for victims of domestic violence.
- A power of attorney has been properly executed by a parent, guardian or other legal custodian under the provisions of the Grandparent Caretaker Law, the child resides within the district, and hardship is established. (discussed above)
- Child’s parent is a member of National Guard or reserve unit of armed forces and has been called to active duty or the child’s parent is a member of the armed forces and has been ordered to a temporary duty assignment outside the district.
- Child is living with a person who has been appointed to be the child’s caretaker under a military power of attorney or other comparable document in conformity with federal law while the parent is on active duty or a duty assignment outside the district.
- The district has adopted an inter-district open enrollment policy.
Residency decisions can be difficult because every situation is slightly different. To help resolve ambiguity, the law requires any parent awarded custody in an action for divorce, annulment, or dissolution to notify the child’s school of the custody arrangements by providing the school with a certified copy of the custody order at the time of enrollment or upon issuance of an arrangement. Thus, schools do not have a duty to investigate the details of court orders concerning parental rights.
When concerns about residency occur, a school district can use an SRO (or any other employee) to investigate residency or confirm residence. When completing an investigation into residency, school districts should be able to show that they have conducted a reasonable investigation to justify their decision. However, be careful with how this interacts with homelessness rules — you don’t want to appear to be intimidating the homeless from exercising their rights.
The mandatory exceptions to residency requirements listed above may allow the district to request documentation or limit duration. In addition to these mandatory exceptions, the law permits certain optional exceptions to residency requirements. For more information about a specific residency requirement or exception, please contact your attorney.
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Jun 30, 2014 | General, Legislation
House Bill 487, the mid-biennium education bill, reviewed in last month’s ERF School Law Review newsletter, was signed into law on June 16, 2014. Except as indicated otherwise in the statute, HB 487 becomes effective September 15, 2014. Some of the upcoming changes in the law include the following:
- College and Work-Ready Assessment System-
- For students entering the 9th grade on or after July 1, 2014, the OGT requirement will be replaced by the College and Work-Ready Assessments System, which is comprised of two assessments:
- (1) Nationally standardized assessment measuring college and career readiness and
- (2) End-of-Course Exams.
- High School Graduation Requirements-
- For students entering the 9th grade on or after July 1, 2014, the OGT is no longer a requirement for graduation.
- Instead, students must meet one of the following options:
- (1) Score at “remediation-free” levels in English, math, and reading on the nationally standardized assessment;
- (2) Obtain a minimum cumulative performance score on end-of-course exams; or
- (3) Obtain a passing score on a nationally recognized job skills assessment andobtain either an industry-recognized credential or a state agency- or board-issued license for practice in a specific vocation.
- Statewide Curriculum Requirements-
- Extends exemption from the Ohio core curriculum requirements for graduation (now referred to solely as “requirements for graduation”) until July 1, 2016
- For students entering 9th grade for the first time on or after July 1, 2014 (Class of 2018), in addition to the current requirements, the following changes must be satisfied for the exemption to apply:
- The student has a Student Success Plan (previously called “individual career plan”) and
- The student meets the other graduation requirements, including the following curricular changes:
- 4 units of math (instead of 3 under current law),
- One must be probability and statistics, computer programming, applied mathematics, quantitative reasoning, or any other course approved by ODE before October 1, 2014;
- 5 elective units (instead of 6 under current law); and
- 3 units of science which are inquiry-based laboratory experience that engage students in asking valid scientific questions and gathering and analyzing information.
- Third-Grade Reading Guarantee-
- Allows school districts to submit an alternative staffing plan for the 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 school years if the school district is unable to provide the number of teachers who meet the criteria needed to teach 3rd grade students below grade level.
- Establishes the English-language arts assessment to be administered to 3rd graders during the 2014-2015 school year:
- Fall- Same assessment administered during the 2013-2014 school year;
- Spring-
- For students who failed to obtain the minimum score on the assessment and would be subject to retention—same assessment administered during the 2013-2014 school year; and
- For students who have obtained the needed minimum score and would not be subject to retention—the PARCC assessment.
- Online Administration of Assessments-
- For the 2014-2015 school year, school districts are not required to administer assessments through an online format.
- School districts have the option to administer the assessments in any combination of online and paper format.
- Safe Harbor for the 2014-2015 School Year-
- School districts may enter into an MOU with the teachers’ union stating that the value-added progress dimension score from the 2014-2015 school year will not be used to make decisions about teacher dismissal, retention, tenure, or compensation.
- Prohibits various penalties and sanctions due to a school district’s report card rating.
- Prohibits from assigning an overall letter grade to schools and school districts.
- Emergency Management Plan-
- Changes the name of School Safety Plan to Emergency Management Plan.
- Requires the administrator of a school district to develop and adopt a comprehensive Emergency Management Plan including a floor plan, site plan, and emergency contact information, as well as protocols for threats and emergency events.
- “Administrator” means superintendent, principal, chief administrative officer, or other person having supervisory authority over the school district.
- Requires the administrator to review and certify the accuracy of the plan to ODE by July 1st of each year.
- In addition to current requirements, the plan must be updated whenever the emergency contact information changes.
- Requires the administrator to schedule an annual emergency management test.
- “Emergency management test” means a regularly scheduled drill, exercise, or activity designed to assess and evaluate the Emergency Management Plan.
- The State Board must adopt standardized rules and standardized forms for Emergency Management Plans.
- Because it is unlikely that the State Board will have adopted rules and standardized forms prior to the effective date of September 15, 2014, the expectations for the 2014-2015 school year are unclear at this time.
- Career-Technical Education-
- Expands requirement to provide career-technical education to students in grades 7-12.
- If a Board of Education decides not to provide career-technical education for students enrolled in grades 7-8 in a particular school year, the Board must adopt a resolution and submit it to ODE by September 30th of that school year.
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Jun 30, 2014 | General, Labor and Employment
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that partial-public employees could not be required to pay fair-share fees when the only reason the partial-public employees were deemed to be “public” employees was solely for union formation and collection of dues. The case arose out of Illinois, where lawmakers classified home health care workers, paid by federal Medicaid dollars, as State employees. The home health care workers were then required to pay dues/fair-share fees to the Service Employees International Union. SEIU was the exclusive union to bargain with Illinois over wages, hours, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of employment.
However, and key to the Court’s decision in this case, the home health care workers were controlled by the customers they served, not the State of Illinois. The job duties of the home health care workers were set by customers and the customers’ physicians. Customers have complete discretion in hiring any home health care worker meeting the State’s criteria and qualifications. Customers control all supervision and evaluation(s) of the home health care workers, and the State has no power to enter a customer’s home to evaluate job performance. The customer had the sole authority of discharge of the home health care workers; the State could not discharge a home health care worker from a customer’s home for substandard performance.
In relying on the terms of their employment, the Court found the home health care workers to be partial-public employees, and therefore, different than public-school teachers or police officers who work directly for the government or a political subdivision. Because states often set wages for partial-public employees, like home health care workers, and because unions often do not conduct collective bargaining for them, the Court determined that the home health care workers could not be required to pay union fees.
The Court found that, except in the exceptional circumstances, “no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
For the full opinion click here.
by Pamela Leist | Jun 10, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, School Management
Ohio legislators have once again modified the Ohio teacher evaluation system this month through passage of House Bill 362. The bill, which still awaits the Governor’s signature, reduces the frequency of evaluations for certain teachers and also creates an optional alternative evaluation framework that districts may elect to use as early as the 2014-2015 school year. Changes from the bill include the following.
First, HB 362 modified ORC 3319.111 by granting a board of education the discretionary authority to evaluate teachers who receive a rating of “Accomplished” on their most recent evaluations every three years. Likewise, Boards may also choose to evaluate “Skilled” teachers every two years. The law further specifies that in order to qualify for either of the above, a teacher must receive a student growth measure score of average or higher on the most recent evaluation (note that under the state-approved rubric, a teacher cannot receive a summative rating score of “Skilled” or “Accomplished” unless he or she received a SGM score that was average or higher). If a board elects either option, a credentialed evaluator must conduct at least one observation and hold at least one conference in each year that a teacher is not formally evaluated. The new law is silent as to whether a district must also gather student growth measure data in off years.
Additionally, the bill permits a board of education to elect not to evaluate teachers who have been on leave for at least fifty percent (50%) of the school year, and/or who have submitted a notice of retirement which has been accepted by the board no later than December 1st.
Finally, HB 362 establishes an alternative teacher evaluation framework under a new statute, ORC 3319.114. The alternative framework reduces the value of the teacher performance and student growth measure scores, and incorporates an additional measure derived from one of the following: student surveys, teacher self-evaluations, peer review evaluations, or student portfolios. The statute specifies that should a board elect to use the alternative framework for 2014-2015, a teacher’s final summative rating must be based on the following:
- 42.5% teacher performance rating;
- 42.5% student growth measure; and
- 15% from one of the additional measures listed above
For 2015-2016 and beyond, a school board has some discretion to determine the value of the three components. However, the teacher performance and student growth measures must each count for at least 42.5% of the score. And, the new law requires that an equal percentage of the final summative rating be allocated to teacher performance and student growth. The remaining percentage of the summative rating will be derived from the chosen alternative tool.
Under the new statute, the Ohio Department of Education must compile a list of approved instruments for districts to use with the alternative framework. School districts are required to select evaluation instruments from amongst that list.
As with previous OTES and OPES modifications, a number of questions remain about whether the changes will actually improve the process and ease the burden of evaluations for school administrators and teachers, or whether they will merely create additional traps that snare the unwary. One of the primary concerns is the fact that the bill will not become effective until mid-September, nearly one month after most districts begin the 2014-2015 school year. And, in order to roll out the new system by 2014-2015, the Department has only a few months to select alternative evaluation tools, and even less time to determine the validity of the data each tool captures. Finally, while the prospect of reducing the frequency of evaluations is enticing, this practice may weaken the validity of future evaluation results for teachers, which will ultimately impact a board of education’s ability to make solid employment decisions. For these reasons, districts should be cautious to embrace the new changes until additional analysis is conducted. In the least, districts should contact legal council before adopting evaluation policy changes for this upcoming school year.
To review HB 362 in its entirety, click here.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Apr 25, 2014 | General
State ex rel. Jacobs v. Indus. Comm.
This month, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a denial of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for an employee based on job abandonment. TTD benefits serve as wage replacement for employees who have suffered a workplace injury which causes the employee not to be able to return to work. Generally, an employee cannot be terminated for absenteeism while receiving TTD benefits.
Here, the employee was released to work with restrictions which the employer accommodated with a light duty assignment that met the restrictions in place. The employee accepted the light duty assignment, reported to work for one hour, and then left complaining of pain and indicating that she was going to visit her doctor. The employee did not return to work and the employer confirmed that the employee did not visit her doctor. The employer sent two letters to the employee over a 15 day period indicating that the employee was AWOL and in jeopardy of termination. The employee was then terminated for job abandonment after failing to respond to the letters.
Subsequent to the termination, the employee sought TTD benefits which were denied based on her termination for job abandonment. The employee argued that she was unable to return to work due the industrial injury (the basic standard for awarding TTD), that she had not abandoned her job because reporting her inability to continue her light duty work constituted a rejection of the employer’s light duty offer, and that because the employer terminated her while she was disabled, the employer could not argue that she voluntarily abandoned her job. The Industrial Commission as well as the lower courts rejected these arguments.
The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the employee’s arguments as well, holding that by accepting the employer’s light duty offer, she was subject to the employer’s absenteeism policy. Further, the employee failed to provide any medical certification that the light duty work was beyond her capabilities, let alone providing any explanation at all for her failure to return to work. The Court concluded; “When a claimant is discharged because of actions that were initiated by the claimant and that were not related to the industrial injury, a voluntary separation from employment has occurred that breaks the causal relationship between the industrial injury and the loss of earnings.”
Accordingly, employers should be aware that employees serving in light duty assignments can be treated just like any other employee with regard to workplace rules and regulations.
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Feb 11, 2014 | General, Labor and Employment
On February 10, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service gave businesses an extra year to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. Click for U.S. Treasury Press Release.
Effective immediately, businesses with 50-99 employees will not face penalties for failing to provide health care coverage until 2016. However, these businesses will have to provide the government with information regarding their employees’ health insurance plans.
Previously, businesses with 100+ employees needed to provide health care coverage by January 1, 2015 for at least 95% of full-time workers or face a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee (minus the first 30 employees). Now, the administration has amended this requirement so that on January 1, 2015, businesses with 100+ employees must offer health care coverage to at least 70% of their full-time workers, or face a penalty. This percentage jumps back up to 95% on January 1, 2016.
