by Pamela Leist | Feb 10, 2014 | General, Legislation
The Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate are both considering bills to ease the burden on Ohio school districts that have taken an unusual number of calamity days this school year due to harsh winter conditions.
One of the pending bills, House Bill 416, was proposed on January 28th. It would grant four additional calamity days to schools for the 2013-2014 school year. Districts would therefore be excused for a total of nine calamity days. HB 416 passed the House Education Committee on January 30th, and currently awaits a vote in the full House before it heads to the Senate floor.
Senate Bill 269 was also proposed on January 28th. The senate bill would likewise grant districts three additional calamity days, for a total of eight excused days. The bill currently remains in the Senate Education Committee. Governor Kasich has encouraged the Senate and House to pass legislation to extend calamity days for this school year, and is expected to sign whichever bill is voted through the legislature.
In addition to possible extension of calamity days under HB 416 and SB 269, Senator Randy Gardner recently introduced Senate Bill 273 on February 6th. If passed, the bill would excuse graduating seniors from any calamity make-up days that a district would schedule to take place after graduation. Seniors would still be required to make up days that occur prior to graduation, however.
All the proposed bills are considered emergency measures, and will take effect immediately if passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor.
UPDATE: On February 19th, 2014 the Ohio House passed a revised version of HB 416. If the bill passes in the Senate and is signed by the governor, it would grant schools two additional calamity days for this school year. In addition, the bill would permit schools to schedule two additional staff in-service days for both teachers and nonteaching employees. Finally, HB 416 would re-codify a school district’s ability to make up missed time by increasing the length of one or more school days by half hour increments. Districts used to have the authority to make up time under certain circumstances by extending the school day pursuant to ORC 3313.482, but that statute was repealed effective September 29th, 2013 along with the requirement that schools adopt a yearly contingency plan.
A new bill was also introduced in the Senate on February 19th that would grant additional calamity waivers under certain conditions. Specifically SB 284 provides four additional calamity days to schools, but only after each district satisfies both of the following:
- The reason the school was not open for the required number of days was, pursuant to ORC 3317.01 (version in effect prior to July 1, 2014), due to “disease epidemic, hazardous weather conditions, law enforcement emergencies, inoperability of school buses or other equipment necessary to the school’s operation, damage to a school building, or other temporary circumstances due to utility failure rendering the school building unfit for school use”; and
- The district has first completed make-up days or hours specified in the district’s contingency plan.
Under prior law, a district’s contingency plan accounted for make-up of at least five additional calamity days. Boards were required to approve this year’s contingency plan before the statute was repealed. Because of the inconsistency with current law, SB 284 also includes a provision that recognizes a board’s authority to modify the district contingency plan. In addition, SB 284 again grants schools the authority to make up days by half hour increments. Finally, the bill would excuse graduating seniors from make-up days scheduled to take place after graduation.
by Pamela Leist | Apr 8, 2013 | Legislation
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati recently ruled that administrators at a Kentucky school district conducted an unlawful search of a student’s cell phone. The student, who was enrolled as an out-of-district student in the Owensboro Public School District, was using his cell phone during class in violation of school rules. His teacher saw the phone, confiscated it, and turned the phone over to the school’s assistant principal.
While the student was enrolled in the district, there had been numerous incidents of bad behavior. In addition, the student had communicated to school officials on several occasions that he was a frequent drug user and that he was contemplating suicide. Concerned about the student’s troubled past, the assistant principal decided to conduct a limited search of the student’s phone in order to determine whether the student was breaking any other rules or whether he might be contemplating suicide. The assistant principal found no evidence of wrongdoing or any indication that the student was a threat to himself or others. Nevertheless as a result of the incident, the district revoked the student’s out-of-district enrollment status.
The student sued the school district for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that the assistant principal had no reasonable suspicion to justify a search of the student’s cell phone text messages. The district responded that reasonable suspicion did exist based on the student’s documented drug abuse, his threats of suicide, and his numerous prior disciplinary infractions. It argued that the search was limited and “aimed at uncovering any evidence of illegal activity” or any indication that the student might hurt himself.
The Court ruled in favor of the student and stated that the use of a cell phone on school grounds “does not automatically trigger an essentially unlimited right enabling a school official to search any content stored on the phone that is not related either substantively or temporally to the infraction.” The Court went on to state that general knowledge of illegal drug use or depressive tendencies does not enable a school official to search a student’s phone when a search would otherwise not be warranted. In this case, there was no indication that the student was engaging in any illegal activity or that he was contemplating injury to himself or anyone else at the school. Therefore, the search of the phone was improper and illegal.
The Court reiterated that the standard for search of a cell phone is the same as the standard for any search by school officials. The main question that must be answered during any search by school officials at school is whether, under the circumstances, the search is reasonable. There are two parts to the reasonableness test: (1) the search must be justified at its inception; and (2) the manner in which the search is conducted must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the search.
The case discussed above failed on the first prong. In order to search a student’s cell phone, district administrators should have a reasonable suspicion that the search will turn up evidence the student is breaking other school rules or laws, or that the student plans to harm himself or others. General knowledge that the student might be engaged in such activities is not enough. Without reasonable suspicion, district administrators cannot read any of the student’s texts or otherwise looking into the content of the student’s phone.
Administrators should also remember that when a search is justified at its inception, it must also be limited in scope. Therefore, if an administrator reasonably believes he or she will find evidence of wrongdoing, the administrator may only look at the data on the phone that will contain that information. For example, if an administrator sees a student texting in class and has reasonable suspicion to believe that the student is engaging in a drug deal, the administrator can look through the recent text messages. However, absent any additional information, the administrator most likely is not justified in searching the student’s photo album. In any case, if you have questions about whether a search is reasonable, you should contact your district’s legal counsel to discuss the situation.
Case Citation: G.C. v. Owensboro Public Schools, No. 11-6476 (6th Cir. March 28, 2013)
by Jeremy Neff | Feb 25, 2013 | Legislation
Earlier this month spreadsheets were released that showed anticipated funding for each school district under Governor Kasich’s budget proposal. These revealed that a majority of districts will not experience any increase in funding. Questions have arisen regarding how the districts were chosen that will receive increases. Representatives of the Governor defended his plan in General Assembly hearings, and a group of senators introduced a competing school funding reform plan. It has been a busy month for school funding, and realistically the issue will likely remain in flux at least through the end of June and the adoption of a state budget.
The Governor and his staff caution that what appears to be “wealthy” districts receiving increases and “impoverished” districts being flat-funded is simply a reflection of rural property values increasing in recent years, while suburban values have decreased. Moreover, they point to guarantee funding as something that has artificially inflated funding in some impoverished districts that have lost student population. They argue that by effectively leveling up each district’s per pupil property valuation the Governor’s plan helps close the gaps between “rich” and “poor” districts. The Governor’s staff has testified that there was no intention in his plan to determine what is required for a quality education, or what a quality education would actually cost.
Critics of the Governor’s plan are concerned that most districts do not see increased funding, and some of those that receive increases are not the impoverished districts that initially were thought to benefit most from the plan. They further argue that the economy is turning around but the Governor’s plan fails to bring funding back up to the level maintained before Governor Kasich took office – this despite a sizeable budget surplus. They also point to a reduction in the state “foundation amount” to only $5,000. They argue that by reducing the foundation amount, and remarking that the guarantee is unsustainable, the Governor is opening the door to significant funding cuts in the future.
An alternative school funding plan – Senate Bill 15 – was introduced in the Senate on February 12. This plan is similar to the reforms endorsed several years ago by all of the major education organizations (e.g. OSBA, OASBO, BASA, OESCA, PTA, OEA, OFT, OAPSE). SB 15 requires the General Assembly to identify the components of a Constitutional education system and to cost them out. Every 6 years the components would be reevaluated, and in between the costs would be adjusted for inflation. Every district would be funded at the level required to provide these components. The local share, or charge off, for this funding level would be decreased over a span of several years. The major concepts of SB 15 would be placed before Ohio voters for approval in the November 2013 general election. No spreadsheets are available for SB 15 because it describes a concept for determining funding, but does not specify funding levels.
Because Governor Kasich’s proposal is part of the state budget it will be thoroughly considered by the General Assembly. In all likelihood the budget will not be finalized until late June. Nonetheless, many important votes will take place well in advance of June so school officials should provide input to their legislators sooner rather than later. SB 15, on the other hand, is unlikely to receive serious consideration unless legislators hear from their constituents that a different plan from the Governors must be considered.
